Sitting of 13 May 2003

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

  MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Tuesday 20 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT
  The Secretary of State was asked—

  Crossrail
  Mr. Edward Davey: If he will make a statement on plans for Crossrail. [112567]
  Mike Gapes: If he will make a statement on the future of Crossrail. [112579]
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): The Government continue to support the development of Crossrail. We are now evaluating proposals from the Strategic Rail Authority and Transport for London to see whether they are financeable and deliverable.
  Mr. Davey: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but does he not recognise that that amounts to yet more delay and indecision? If the Government really cannot make a decision on this essential investment for London and the country, will the right hon. Gentleman use the intervening period profitably by asking the valuation office to assess the value of the property and land either side of the Crossrail corridor? Armed with that information, we could find new options for the future using American financing models, for example, and tax-incremental financing. Will the Secretary of State ask the valuation office to do that?
  Mr. Darling: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, sadly, Crossrail has a long history. Many hon. Members will recall that it was severely damaged when it could not get parliamentary approval in 1991, and that it was effectively killed off by rail privatisation a couple of years later. We need a proposition that is financeable and deliverable before we can consider how it should be funded. I have not the slightest doubt that it will need to
  150
  be funded with a combination of support from the Government and the private sector, but the first thing is to get a proposition on which we can proceed. The time spent on getting that right now will be time well spent. Not nearly enough preparatory work was done in the early 1990s, with the result that the whole scheme was cut to bits under scrutiny in the House.
  Mike Gapes: Does the Secretary of State recognise that there is increasing concern in a wide number of areas across London, including my constituency, that important regeneration and development plans such as "Progressive Ilford", which will involve a massive regeneration of our town centre, could be badly damaged by further delay to the Crossrail programme? Will he ensure that the economic benefits that will result from Crossrail will be taken into consideration, particularly the improvement in cross-London east-west journey times, which have been made worse for those driving into London by the impact of the congestion charge in the centre? Will he therefore improve the public transport links from east to west London—
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Darling: I will stick to Crossrail, for the time being at least. As I have said on many occasions, I have not the slightest doubt that we need to improve capacity on the railways running between the east and west of London. Never mind any development that might happen in the future, the development that we know about now, and that is likely to take place over the next years, means that we must increase our rail capacity. That is why I believe that Crossrail is so important. What went wrong in the past was that not nearly enough attention was paid to the detail and specification of the project. One of the reasons why I asked the Strategic Rail Authority and Transport for London last autumn to come up with a workable proposition was that, until that time, Crossrail had been a very vague concept. As I have just said to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), we need to have a workable, deliverable, financeable proposition. We are working on that at the moment, and if we can get one, we shall have to see how we can finance it and press on with it. But let us be in no doubt that the east-west link is extremely important to the development not only of London but of the surrounding areas that will see substantial development in the years to come.
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: In Chesham and Amersham, two railway schemes affect us: Crossrail, which would be of great benefit to my constituents; and the Central Railway project, a poorly presented, poorly financed and ill-thought-through scheme that is causing great concern to my constituents who have houses near the railway. I urge the Secretary of State to support the former, which is urgently required, and to rule out the latter once and for all.
  Mr. Darling: I have made my position, and that of the Government, clear in relation to Crossrail. In relation to Central Railway, there is a proposition there, and Central Railway has been speaking to my Department. Before we can do anything further, however, I would like to be sure that there is actually someone standing

  151
  behind that proposition who has the money to develop it. Until I am satisfied about that, the question of any building of the Central Railway project remains theoretical.
  Ms Oona King: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the immense support in my constituency for Crossrail, which would link Whitechapel to Heathrow. Will he, however, tell the House a bit more about the cost of the project? If it is to be approximately £10 billion, £5 billion of which would come from fares or the usual channels, where would the other £5 billion come from? Are there any proposals that he can rule in or out regarding business rates?
  Mr. Darling: The final costing will depend on the final shape of the proposal, but we should all realise that the cost of building Crossrail will be substantial, probably in excess of £10 billion. As I have said in reply to other Members, we are now ensuring that the project is financeable and deliverable. The question that follows from that is how it should be funded, which will be a matter for discussion not just within Government but with the private sector. I am encouraged by the number of people in that sector who have expressed interest in joining the project, but the test is whether we can persuade them to sign up rather than merely sending a general message of support. In my experience it is easy to secure such messages, but securing cash is sometimes more troublesome.
  Mr. Tim Collins: May I press the Secretary of State on two matters? The first is cost. The Mayor says he thinks the project will cost about £10 billion, the chief executive of Crossrail says it will cost between £7 billion and £11 billion depending on routes, and the Secretary of State has been quoted as saying that he thinks it might cost £15 billion. Can the Secretary of State explain why his estimate is so much higher than the others?
  The second matter is timing. We expected an announcement in February, and were then told that it would be delayed by a fortnight and would be made in March. It is now the middle of May. May we at least have an assurance that a final decision will be made before the House rises in July?
  Mr. Darling: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman got his timetable. I do not recall our expecting an announcement in February. What I said last time, I think, was that I had asked Transport for London and the Strategic Rail Authority to come up with proposals for me to receive in spring. The Department has indeed received them, and we are looking at them now.
  The cost depends largely on the nature of Crossrail. The London Regional Metro scheme, for instance, is also called Crossrail, but is very different from the SRATFL scheme. I am very cautious about costs. My experience over the past 12 months has been that costs relating to railways, in particular, usually turn out to be rather more than was originally anticipated.
  As I have told the House, I think that Crossrail is very important to London's future development, but it is also important for us to get it right, and we should be realistic
  152
  about the costs. It would be foolish and misleading to suggest that a scheme of such magnitude could be done on the cheap.
  Linda Perham: I am glad that the Secretary of State supports Crossrail, which has received support throughout London and in other areas. This is not just a question of people in London wanting investment in London; the project is important to the business community, and to London's status as an international centre. As for the costing, has the Secretary of State had any discussions recently with the London business forum and others about private finance?
  Mr. Darling: I have had a number of meetings, and, as I said earlier, there is no shortage of expressions of support for Crossrail and its funding. Nevertheless, we should all be cautious about saying "That is fine, let's go ahead". We need people to sign up to the proposition before we can proceed.
  As I have said on a number of occasions, Crossrail is important not just to London but to areas around the city, especially in the east. It is also important, however, that we learn from mistakes made over the past 10 to 15 years. Once we have a project that is workable and financeable, we will see how we can deliver it. No one should underestimate the task we face: the project has a long history, and has fallen at a number of hurdles in the past because not enough preparatory work has been done. I understand people's frustration, but it is important that we get this right.

  Air Travel Security
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: If he will make a statement on plans to improve security (a) at airports and (b) on board aircraft. [112568]
  The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. John Spellar): The UK has a mature national aviation security programme. None the less, security measures both at airports and aboard aircraft are kept under review at all times, and are adjusted as necessary in the light of changing circumstances. Longer-term studies and research are also in hand. We do not, of course, discuss the specifics of security measures.
  The Department is in regular contact with its overseas counterparts to share best practice in aviation security.
  Mr. Stunell: Does the Minister share the concern felt by a constituent of mine who, having arrived at Manchester airport on a late-night international flight the other week, discovered that no Customs or immigration officers were on duty? He was told by a member of the airport staff that they "did not bother after midnight." Does the Minister agree that it is a great shame when there is a difference between what is said at the Dispatch Box and the reality? Does this not constitute a major loophole in the security system operating on flights?
  Mr. Spellar: We will certainly look into the matter, but it would have been helpful if the hon. Gentleman had drawn it to my attention before, in which case I

  153
  could have given a more detailed response. We undoubtedly have among the best aviation security policies and security practice in the world, but there are of course lapses. We follow them up to improve on that practice, and to ensure the safety of passengers and of those who work for the airlines.
  Jim Sheridan: My right hon. Friend will be aware that BAA has made a strong representation that the consultation report considerably overstates the cost of developing Glasgow airport, and has prejudiced the case re developing Edinburgh airport. Will he therefore give us an assurance that the cost of developing both Glasgow and Edinburgh will be fully reviewed in the light of the representations made, and that the findings will be published to enable a proper assessment of this matter to be made.
  Mr. Spellar: We are taking this consultation extremely seriously, and we welcome representations about general policy, and from those who believe that there are problems or difficulties with, or inaccuracies in, the underlying assumptions. So if such representations are being made by Glasgow—and by local authorities in, and parliamentary representatives from, the Glasgow area—we will certainly look into the matter. And of course, when we publish the aviation White Paper we will respond in detail to many of those issues.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Mindful of my interests in this field, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that what airline passengers want is not just a fair deal for everyone, but safe travel? Can he tell us about the progress that has been made since he made the following comment in the Standing Committee on the Railways and Transport Safety Bill? He said:
  "We are considering proposals that would ensure that pass holders for restricted zones are required to have criminal records checks."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 11 March 2003; c. 567.]
  Can he also clarify where responsibility for coordination and strategic direction lies outside of the Department for Transport—an issue identified by the Wheeler report?
  Mr. Spellar: The requirement for criminal records checks for working airside will come into effect in July. Obviously, the outcome of such checks should be proportionate and relevant to aviation safety, and such a requirement has existed for some time. As a result of discussions with work force representatives, the necessity for them has been agreed to in principle, and the details worked out to general satisfaction, although one or two final issues will need to be resolved. That indicates the seriousness with which we are taking this issue—a seriousness that is part of our incremental progress throughout aviation security. For unfortunate historical reasons, we have had to be well in advance of the rest of the world in this field, and we intend to maintain our position.
  Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: May I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the safety of passengers at Heathrow airport is in great danger, given the length of time that they have to stand at
  154
  security? I have made representations about that fact, and it is clear that many vacancies have yet to be filled; indeed, Heathrow security is more than 300 people short. This is a scandal of the first order and it requires the Minister's attention. What does he intend to do to improve the situation at BAA? I understand that it is a private company, but it is the public who are having the greatest difficulty in putting up with the current situation. I understand and appreciate that there are new security rules, but BAA is not addressing them as it should.
  Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is particularly frustrating for passengers waiting in queues to see many scanning machines not in operation because of staff shortages. As my hon. Friend may imagine, the Secretary of State has already vigorously drawn this issue to the attention of BAA. He is awaiting a report from BAA on how it intends to remedy this situation in the short term, and in respect of the longer-term deficiencies, in order to ensure that passengers get the service that they require. Of course, this situation is also detrimental to the airline industry and to punctuality. It is a matter of concern to us, and we are pursuing it with considerable vigour.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Paul Tyler: If he will make a statement on the (a) objectives and (b) management of the communications strategy of the Strategic Rail Authority. [112569]
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): The Strategic Rail Authority is set up to provide strategic direction for the railways. Its communications strategy is a matter for the SRA.
  Mr. Tyler: Will the Secretary of State explain why the Strategic Rail Authority and the train operating companies have adopted a communications strategy that relies on the Jo Moore school of spinning—burying bad news—similar to the one that his Department previously pursued? Does his Department share the SRA media director's view of the noble Lord Berkeley as "a dilettante"? I cannot supply the full quote because the adjective began with an "F".
  Mr. Darling: That is very tasteful of the hon. Gentleman. The chairman of the SRA, Richard Bowker, has already made it clear that he disapproves of what the director of communications said about Lord Berkeley. The director has apologised to Lord Berkeley and I have spoken to Lord Berkeley, who now regards the matter as closed. Rest assured that what was said was wrong and should not have been said. I hope that we shall not hear any more of it.
  On more general matters, if there has been a policy of attempting to bury bad news on the railways, it has been singularly unsuccessful. I am more aware than anyone else in the Chamber of how much still has to be done to improve the railways. I hear it in the House, I hear it when I am travelling on the train, and I hear it at parties. On Saturday night I attended a wedding at which people appeared to speak of little else. If my strategy had been to bury bad news, it would have failed—but it is not our

  155
  strategy. I believe that the hon. Gentleman, as well as Labour Members, has the good of the railways at heart. Despite the undeniable difficulties on the railways, performance is beginning to improve and the £73 million a week now invested in the railways will make a difference. It will result in improved performance, which is long overdue. The key is to sustain the investment and then let the facts speak for themselves.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is precisely because of the large sums of money that the Government are investing in the railways that we need clear and plain speaking from the Strategic Rail Authority? We must know the SRA's position with respect to companies that are not only failing but taking home large amounts of taxpayers' money. Over the next two years, the last thing that we want is a railway system in which it is too expensive for the ordinary traveller to buy a ticket. We are clearly not producing high-quality services, and taxpayers are still funding a failing system.
  Mr. Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend that continued investment in the railways must be justified by results. Frankly, not enough attention was paid in the past to the two essential ingredients for improving the railways—money, which is now going in, and management. The Strategic Rail Authority, the Department and I are all giving a clear message to train companies: they must look to their faults and weaknesses, ensure that their trains run on time and achieve far better performance. It can be done. The latest performance figures demonstrate about 80 per cent. reliability overall, with some services in the 90s, but others down in the 60s, which is quite unacceptable. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) is right that we are entitled to expect increased performance for the money that we are investing. There are some encouraging signs, but, frankly, some companies have a long way to go.
  Mr. Don Foster: The Secretary of State has expressed delight at the failure to bury bad news about our railways, so does he agree that it would be right and proper for the media to attend the annual general meeting of Network Rail?
  Mr. Darling: Yes, I do. Network Rail should ensure that its annual general meeting is open and I have made that clear to the chairman. Although I accept that, in the last analysis, it is up to the company to decide, I strongly hope that the meeting will be open because the company has nothing to hide and might have some positive things—perhaps some good news—to tell the world.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Without complicating my right hon. Friend's Saturday nights, may I draw his attention to a subject that he knows a great deal about—the ongoing problems of the Forth rail bridge? Will he give an assurance that his Department is inquisitive about the future funding of the bridge?
  Mr. Darling: I would be happy to discuss that over a drink with my hon. Friend. The Forth rail bridge is having substantial sums spent on it, because it is an
  156
  important part of the rail infrastructure. I see it regularly, for obvious reasons, so my hon. Friend may rest assured that it is never far from my thoughts.
  Mr. James Clappison: Does the Secretary of State agree that safety should be the most important priority of any rail authority? As he is no doubt aware, last Saturday saw the first anniversary of the Potters Bar rail crash, but we are still waiting for a full report on how that accident came about. The families are still waiting for an acceptance of responsibility—on the same basis as in previous accidents—by any of the relevant bodies. Will he do all he can to ensure that the report is published as soon as possible?
  Mr. Darling: There are two aspects to the report on the accident at Potters Bar. The first is in relation to the cause of the accident, and we are now clear that it was caused by the failure of the points. The Health and Safety Executive has published two reports and a final report is due at the end of May. The second aspect, about which the victims feel especially strongly, is who was responsible for the accident. That is the subject of a criminal investigation by the police and Ministers cannot properly interfere. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to have those matters concluded as quickly as possible—for the sake of those who died and their relatives, and for all of us. We will have the Health and Safety Executive's report, but I cannot properly influence the criminal investigation. I hope, for obvious reasons, that it is concluded as soon as possible.

  Mersey Tunnels
  Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on the policing of Mersey Tunnels. [112570]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): Responsibility—including the funding—for the policing of the Mersey tunnels rests with the Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority, Merseytravel, under provisions in the County of Merseyside Act 1980.
  As Merseytravel is primarily responsible for the safe operation of the Mersey tunnels, it falls on it to ensure that the law enforcement officers it appoints are trained to a standard that protects both the officers involved and users of the tunnels and to provide such facilities necessary for the officers to carry out their duties in a safe and proper manner.
  Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend reflects the situation as it is, not as it should be. Does he recall that the Liverpool coroner recently said that Mersey Tunnels police were not operating in a way that the general public would recognise as the behaviour of a normal police force? While I welcome the review that the Department and the Home Office are undertaking in relation to the role of the Mersey Tunnels police, a review of the separate police fiefdoms more generally is long overdue. Many of them are in the transport sector and all of them are of dubious accountability. Will he consider the situation with a view to bringing those

  157
  forces into mainstream policing arrangements, with all that that implies for accountability, funding, standards, benchmarks and practices?
  Mr. Jamieson: Addressing the issue of the capability of the Mersey Tunnels police is, in the first instance, the responsibility of the Merseyside passenger transport authority and the democratically elected bodies that make up its constituent parts. My hon. Friend referred to the dreadful and tragic accident in March last year, and we all regret the circumstances in which two young teenagers lost their lives. I cannot comment on what the coroner said, because it is open to legal challenge. At the moment, the Police Complaints Authority has no remit for the Mersey Tunnels police, but under section 78 of the Police Act 1996 the Home Secretary can direct that such a relationship be affirmed. Perhaps my hon. Friend should take that point up with the Home Secretary. I appreciate the concerns that have arisen from that particular incident and we and the Home Office will consider carefully the reports of the investigations and decide what further action needs to be taken.

  Airports
  Andrew Mackinlay: If he will make a statement on the progress of the consultation on airport provision for south-east England. [112571]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): The national consultation ends on 30 June. We have already received tens of thousands of responses from across the UK, and we expect to receive many more. All responses will be considered carefully before decisions are set out in the White Paper, which we intend to publish later this year.
  Andrew Mackinlay: Does my hon. Friend sense that there is a growing irritation among hon. Members at BAA's disproportionate clout and influence on aviation policy and airport capacity? My hon. Friend was in the House when I said in prophetic terms, in relation to terminal 5, that BAA would perform its usual stunt and say, once it had got a runway, that it now needed a terminal. I was wrong in one sense, however: now that BAA has got terminal 5, it wants not one more runway, but three. Is it not time to blow the whistle on BAA, and say that enough is enough? We want all the regional airports that can serve London to be expanded, and there must be a more sensible policy to decide how we meet our aviation capacity shortfall—in the interests of
  the UK, not of BAA.
  Mr. Jamieson: I thank my hon. Friend for those views, which were expressed, as ever, in an understated way. Of course, BAA is a big player in the provision of air services; that it should make a contribution to the consultation is totally to be expected, but its contribution to the consultation is no more than that. Other views will be expressed, in both agreement and disagreement, and it will be up to the Government to weigh those matters very carefully at the end of the consultation period. It is probably fortuitous that BAA
  158
  should have published its views now, as it allows people the opportunity to form possibly contrary views during the consultation process.
  Mr. Peter Lilley: I welcome the downgrading of the proposals for expansion of Luton airport from an assumption to an option, but will the Minister confirm that he is not now considering different options, such as the building of taxiways? Such options have not been included in the consultation document, and my constituents have not been asked to give their views on them.
  Mr. Jamieson: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that no decisions have been made, and that none will be made until the end of the consultation period. He will appreciate that it is not only the options put forward by the Government in the consultation document that have been commented on, and that many contributors to the consultation produced ideas that did not appear in the consultation document. Those ideas will have to be considered very carefully, and weighed against each other. There are very wide-ranging views on all these matters, and we must consider them all very carefully after the end of June.
  Jonathan Shaw: I want to say, in support of BAA, that its rejection of a proposed airport at Cliffe is absolutely correct. That proposal should be ruled out, on both commercial and environmental grounds. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to support BAA in this instance, and announce that Cliffe will not be an option in the White Paper?
  Mr. Jamieson: Tempting though it may be to preempt the consultation, I am unfortunately unable to give my hon. Friend that undertaking today. The Cliffe option is still very much part of the consultation. Some very strong views have been expressed against it, not least by my hon. Friend's constituents, and by people in neighbouring constituencies. However, other views very much in favour of the Cliffe option have also been expressed. We have to weigh those up very carefully at the end of the month. I am sure that the comments that my hon. Friend has made, very robustly, on behalf of his constituents will be taken into consideration at that time.

  Roads (North-West)
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on investment in the trunk road infrastructure in the north-west of England. [112572]
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): The Highways Agency is planning to spend around £135 million this year on maintaining the motorway and trunk road infrastructure in the north-west. A further £30 million will be spent on small schemes aimed at tackling safety and congestion. In addition to that, the Highways Agency's programme

  159
  includes seven major capital schemes to the value of around £400 million, which will be delivered over the next 5 years.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: I thank the Secretary of State for that detailed response. Does he accept that adequate roads are vital to a successful transport infrastructure? I am concerned that the proposals of the south-east Manchester multi-modal study are totally inadequate in respect of the roads going from Macclesfield to the north. We have a wonderful silk road that sweeps out of the centre of Macclesfield to the north, but it turns into a very inadequate single-carriageway road. Will the Secretary of State look at the provision of a dual carriageway road from the end of the silk road to connect with the Poynton bypass? We need a dual-carriageway road so that large companies such as Astra Zeneca, which employs more than 7,000 people, can adequately connect to the motorway network and Manchester international airport?
  Mr. Darling: I agree that a transport policy must be balanced and that we need adequate road and rail infrastructure. I am aware of the problem that the hon. Gentleman raises, particularly as regards the connection with the A523, which was the subject of the multi-modal study on which my predecessor announced his conclusions in March 2002. As I understand it, the consultants recommended, and the study concluded, that there ought to be a single-carriageway road. That proposal is being worked up by Cheshire county council, in consultation with Macclesfield borough council.
  I know the hon. Gentleman's views on the matter. I had a brief opportunity this morning to look into its history, and I can see that there are differences of opinion at various levels. It is for Cheshire county council to decide what is appropriate for the road, and its view at the moment, as I understand it, is that a single carriageway, perhaps realigned, would be the right thing. The hon. Gentleman's representations ought, in the first instance, to be made to Cheshire county council.
  Mr. Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend will recognise that investment in motorways and trunk roads is essential for securing jobs and investment in Burnley and east Lancashire. He will know that the M65 going east ends in Colne, in the Pendle constituency. I have always wanted it to go east into Yorkshire, but since that is not going to happen, will he ensure that the necessary bypasses are built on A and trunk roads from Pendle into Yorkshire to ensure that communications are better on that side of the country? The M62 is too far south and makes a long diversion for much of our industrial traffic.
  Mr. Darling: I understand the problem. We shall spend something like £13 billion over 10 years on new construction that is necessary to improve access and help industry, as my hon. Friend said, in various parts of the country. Choices must be made, however, and it is not possible to do all the things that everybody wants. I am aware of the general problem because my honourable friend has talked to me about it before. I
  160
  cannot give any particular undertaking, but if he wants to come to me with specific proposals, I shall be happy to speak to him.
  Mr. Tim Collins: Given that the Secretary of State has performed a welcome U-turn in dropping the Government's original presumption against new road building, will he review, and if necessary reverse, the decision to de-trunk many roads in the north-west, including the A595 in Cumbria, the A570 in Lancashire and the A500 in Cheshire?
  Mr. Darling: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the 10-yeas plan envisaged substantial new construction, where necessary, to tackle congestion, involving widening roads and so on. My announcement before Christmas simply implemented what the Government had said we would do. However, I am grateful for his welcome, such as it was.
  De-trunking has taken place in the north-west and other areas with the agreement of local authorities. It makes sense for the Government to be responsible, through the Highways Agency, for the strategic road network, but where roads are an integral part of local transport, it makes sense for local authorities to be responsible for them. That policy is right, and I am not aware of any great clamour to reverse it.

  National Rail Academy
  Mr. Eric Martlew: What progress is being made towards the establishment of a National Rail Academy. [112573]
  The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. John Spellar): I am pleased to report that the National Rail Academy was formally established on 1 April. Its aim is to provide a cost-effective means of ensuring that the rail industry has the right people with the right skills at the right time.
  Mr. Martlew: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the announcement, having pushed for the National Rail Academy for more than five years. My worry is that it will be a virtual academy and that virtually no training will take place. We need a chief executive, and we need a headquarters. What progress has been made?
  Mr. Spellar: As my hon. Friend probably expects, the Strategic Rail Authority has, since the announcement, been approached by a large number of organisations about where the academy should be located and what it should do. The SRA will consider those views to establish what the industry needs and is prepared to support before it chooses the route forward. The idea is that the academy will be not a single, bricks-and-mortar establishment, but a strategic co-ordinating facility that is able to develop new and existing training facilities around the country as it works with the industry. I take the point, which my hon. Friend has made to me personally, that when it is decided where to locate the

  161
  core centre, we should seriously consider the claims of Carlisle, which he and others have advanced, given its long record of service to the railway industry.
  Mr. John Bercow: Given that it is now 14 months since the then Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), talked about the allocation of funds to the academy, can the Minister at least tell the House what he expects the public expenditure cost of the academy to be in this financial year?
  Mr. Spellar: That is a matter for the Strategic Rail Authority, which will be working with the industry—the train operating companies, Network Rail—and the contracting companies that work with the industry. As I said, the key role of the rail academy is to act as a coordinating organisation. That role may develop, especially in identifying skills shortages in the industry. The concept of the academy is to work with the industry, co-ordinating training that is already being undertaken, and also to look at the skills shortages. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as a result of his party's privatisation programme and the way in which it was implemented by the train operators, we had substantial redundancies among a number of skills, not least in signalling and train driving, which led to the shortage that has created considerable problems for the industry. The rail academy will be addressing that.

  Road Litter
  Mr. Chris Mullin: If he will review the arrangements for the removal of litter from the side of trunk roads; and if he will make a statement. [112574]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): Since the Environmental Protection Act 1990 code of practice came into force, responsibility for clearing litter on all-purpose trunk roads, with the exception of design, build, finance and operate managed roads, has rested with local authorities. Responsibility for clearing litter on motorways lies with the Highways Agency.
  Mr. Mullin: Has my hon. Friend noticed the shocking state of the verges along many of our motorways and trunk roads, and that the same plastic bags often appear to be hanging from the same shrubs week in and week out? Is it not obvious that the existing arrangements are not satisfactory? What can he do to help the Highways Agency and those to whom it subcontracts to take the issue more seriously?
  Mr. Jamieson: I share my hon. Friend's concern about litter on some of our major roads. At best it is unsightly, and at worst it is dangerous to people and to wildlife, and of course it puts off visitors to areas where there might be a considerable number of tourists. The picture across the country is variable: some local authorities take their responsibilities seriously, but others do not. The Highways Agency inspects trunk roads on a basis of between seven and 28 days, and where appropriate will bring things to the attention of
  162
  the local authority or, in the case of the A19, which leads to my hon. Friend's constituency and is operated by a contractor, to the attention of the contractor who is contractually obliged to keep the road clear. I can assure my hon. Friend that another Department, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is currently reviewing the code of practice and holding consultations to see how it can be tightened.
  Chris Grayling: The Minister will be aware that land adjoining roads and railways can be an important refuge for wildlife. He will also be aware of the slash and burn clearances undertaken by transport authorities in many parts of the country. Does he share my concern about that approach, and what representations will he be making about it, especially to Network Rail?
  Mr. Jamieson: The Highways Agency and Network Rail have to take appropriate action because, as the hon. Gentleman will know, trees blow on to railway lines or roads. However, I accept his general concern about the state of the verges although, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), it is variable. In extreme cases, if people have a complaint, they can go to the magistrates court and obtain a litter abatement order to oblige the authority to act.

  M6
  Mr. Michael Jack: What the estimated value was of the time lost due to congestion on the M6 in 2002. [112575]
  The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. John Spellar): The Highways Agency does not currently collect sufficient information on traffic speeds to answer that question. However, the installation of new technology and the opening of the traffic control centre next year should enable such data to be provided in the future.
  Mr. Jack: If ever an answer illustrated complacency about the real need to get something moving on the M6 to convert it from its current car park status, that was it. The Minister knows that thousands of hours are wasted by businesses and individuals stuck in congestion on the M6. We welcome the publication of the multi-modal study and we look forward to the opening of the Birmingham relief road, but will he tell us when there will be some concerted action to speed up the labyrinthine processes that must be gone through to determine what is self-evident—that the M6 capacity needs expanding now? When will that happen?
  Mr. Spellar: In no way did I suggest that we were not aware of the considerable problems of congestion on the M6 and on a number of Britain's highways. That is precisely why we, like the right hon. Gentleman, welcome the opening shortly of the M6 toll road and why, fairly shortly, improvement work will be undertaken on the A500 south of Stoke. That is also why, as he drives up the M6, he will see the considerable number of message boards going up that will enable real-time running and management of the network.

  163
  Those are real pluses. The point that he ought to address is why, during the Conservatives' considerable period in government, including two years during which he was Financial Secretary, no action was taken.
  Mr. George Stevenson: My right hon. Friend just mentioned the south of Stoke, which, of course, is consistent with the name of my constituency. Will he agree, however, that any consideration of measures to relieve congestion on the M6, particularly in relation to the MidMan study, would be conditional, in an important way, on the Strategic Rail Authority having the funds to ensure that any rail developments as a result of that study are undertaken? In relation to extending the M6 to four lanes, it is essential that road pricing is also considered because of its effect on traffic movements, as part of those important projects.
  Mr. Spellar: Probably the biggest expenditure in the railway sector is taking place in precisely that corridor in relation to the west coast main line. A huge amount of work is being undertaken, and a lot of work is being done by the Strategic Rail Authority to compress the time scales for improving the service on that line and to bring about the refurbishment of the line and substantial improvements in times and reliability.
  Mr. Christopher Chope: If the Government are really so concerned about congestion, why did they sign up to the extension of the working time directive to heavy goods vehicle drivers and to the ludicrous restrictions in that directive, which will result in lorry drivers having to work during the day rather than at night, with lorries being transferred from travelling overnight to using the motorways during the day? Why have the Government not produced a regulatory impact assessment on this ludicrous measure? When that assessment is conducted, will it include the impact on congestion on the M6?
  Mr. Spellar: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is speaking in favour of lorry drivers working excessive hours, given the impact that that can have on their safety and the safety of others. Beyond the rhetoric, if he looks at the details of both the working time directive, and of course the amending directive, what he must consider is the real impact on the road haulage industry, particularly with regard to times of availability or non-driving hours. He will find that that impact is much less than he claims, as a number of people in the industry are now saying. He must say whether he wants people working excessive hours driving heavy goods vehicles on our roads.

  Railways (Skipton)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: What recent assessment he has made of the viability and desirability of reopening the (a) Skipton to Colne and (b) Skipton to Grassington railways. [112576]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): The Strategic Rail Authority has set out its current plans for the development of the rail network in its strategic plan,
  164
  which was published in January. Those do not include reopening the Skipton to Colne line or opening the Skipton to Grassington line for passenger services.
  Mr. Prentice: That is very disappointing. Why does calling for the reopening of an old railway line appear eccentric, while calling for a new road, as my misguided hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has done, is okay? Will the Minister accept that now that the Countryside Agency is calling for the reopening of those two lines we ought to press ahead and get trains running on them? The Yorkshire Dales national park is out of bounds to thousands of people without access to a car. If these railways were reopened, that would introduce the countryside to the thousands of my constituents who have never been there.
  Mr. Jamieson: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern, and the Government recognise that there is great value in reopening railway lines when that is appropriate. However, he will appreciate that for both these lines—in particular, the Skipton to Colne line that is currently not in use—it is a matter for those locally, and for the local authority in particular, to formulate a plan and make it known to the SRA, so that we can implement it. As he knows, the SRA is currently holding discussions to gauge interest in reopening the line in the longer term, but it has no plans at present to do so. If local authorities come up with a plan for the Skipton to Grassington line, it can be looked at carefully to meet the ambitions of my hon. Friend and his constituents.
  Mr. Speaker: The House will note that I have only managed to get to question 10 on the Order Paper. That was because questions and answers were far too long. We have an obligation to get through the Order Paper, as that is only fair to those who have taken the bother to table questions. I look forward to shorter questions, and of course shorter answers, at the next Transport questions.

  CABINET OFFICE
  The Minister of State was asked—

  Online Services
  Mr. David Crausby: If he will make a statement on progress made towards the Government's target of getting all services online by 2005. [112587]
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): We are committed to ensuring that central Government services are made available electronically by 2005 and that key services achieve high levels of use. The latest figures obtained during quarter four of 2002 show that 63 per cent. of services were e-enabled. Departments continue to work to meet the 2005 target.
  Mr. Crausby: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but is he confident that the general public will have sufficient access to the internet by 2005 to ensure that online services are available to those who need them most?
  Mr. Alexander: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the important challenge of the digital divide. We now have 6,000 UK Online centres that operate right across the country. They provide exactly the kind of internet access of which he spoke. We have identified one of the principal barriers as being skills and confidence among the population, and the campaign that the Government announced only yesterday is a significant initiative in helping to bridge that divide.
  Mr. George Osborne: In a recent written answer, the Government were unable to tell me how much they had spent on websites in the past four years, yet the National Audit Office estimates the figure to be something like £1 billion. Does the Minister agree that the Government appear to be the last organisation still living in the dotcom boom?
  Mr. Alexander: I simply do not recognise that description. To take a single example, about 500,000 visits to NHS Direct Online took place last month. That is a perfect of example of how the Government are modernising public services and using new technology to find challenging new solutions to the needs of the British public. We are serious about investing in schools and hospitals, and one has only to look towards the initiatives for broadband to see how we are taking forward that work.
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Does my hon. Friend agree that effective online services must be simple to use, uncluttered and written in plain language? Does he share my concern that, in our excellent haste to get services online, we are not taking advantage of the opportunity to simplify some of the services at the same time?
  Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend raises an important point. One of the key challenges in getting services online is that we do not simply automate the past. That is why it is important both to develop new services and for the Government to enhance their 2005 target. That means not only demanding that services go online but driving up levels of use in the key services that serve the public.
  Mr. Philip Hammond: Will the Minister confirm that, as part of the fallout from the loss of financial control and the budget overspends in the Cabinet Office, the office of e-envoy is being shrunk by a quarter? Can he tell the House how that will affect progress towards the target of getting all services online by 2005? If it does not affect those targets, what does a 25 per cent. cut with no impact on output tell us about the waste, inefficiency and bureaucracy in the Cabinet Office?
  Mr. Alexander: I am rather intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's line of questioning. If we manage public resources prudently, the Opposition criticise us by
  166
  saying that the services were vital, but if we are not prudent, they suggest that there is waste and excess. We have undertaken an effective budgetary exercise in the Cabinet Office during recent months that has not only secured resources for new online work—a new campaign is being launched only this week—but allowed us to continue to pursue our target of ensuring that Government services are online by 2005. The e-envoy's office has a central role in that endeavour.
  Mr. Richard Allan: Does the Minister agree that online services are only of use to citizens if they can easily find them? In that context, will he tell us when we can expect a replacement for the poor UK Online Government portal that is currently available? Will he look at the excellent Canadian Government site, canada.gc.ca, to see an example of how we should do things?
  Mr. Alexander: I assure the House that I have already looked at the Canadian example and that I am undertaking such work here. I also commend to the House the Massachusetts government's site, which is similar to that of the Canadian Government. We can learn important lessons from those two transatlantic examples.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: Will my hon. Friend congratulate UK Online and ITV companies, especially Granada, on their work to promote the "IT's for Life" campaign and surrounding work? The fact that the storyline of "Coronation Street" included the need to expand access to information technology is of great benefit to the public. Such programmes must be expanded and I seek a commitment that that will happen.
  Mr. Alexander: I am delighted that a national institution such as "Coronation Street" has carried a storyline that exemplifies the kind of outreach work that we want throughout the country to ensure that every community gets online. Perhaps in the future we will move from the Rover's Return to the Surfer's Return.

  Civil Contingencies
  Miss Anne McIntosh: What representations he has received on the proposed civil contingencies Bill. [112588]
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): I regularly receive representations on the proposed civil contingencies Bill. The Bill has been developed through a consultative process, beginning with the emergency planning review in 2001 during which we received many replies on proposed legislation. Since then, the Government have engaged closely with the emergency planning community and key external groups, which have made written and oral representations that have informed our work.
  Miss McIntosh: How do the Government intend that local councils should pay for their emergency planning provisions in the event that the Government proceed with their plans to stop the ring-fencing of that budget under the Bill?
  Mr. Alexander: The hon. Lady raises an important point. It will help the House if I make it clear that in addition to the Government's direct contribution of £90 million, local authorities contribute extra money from their general funds. The Local Government Association estimated in 2001 that the local authority contribution for England to that work amounted to an additional £9.9 million. Consultation on the specifics of the Bill will, of course, continue in the weeks and months to come.
  Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the Minister give some reassurance to local authorities that are worried about the long-term imposition of any powers that might come from a civil contingencies Bill? If it becomes necessary to use such powers not only in the short term but for a prolonged period, what additional resources might be made available?
  Mr. Alexander: The Government spend hundreds of millions of pounds on emergency planning and civil protection in the UK. There is central Government funding for organisations that are involved in the provision of responses to emergencies, which of course include local authorities. Additionally, the Government have increased the direct grant aid paid to local authorities for such work. We shall continue to discuss with local authorities their responsibilities under the proposals that we aim to introduce this summer.

  Central Office of Information
  Simon Hughes: What recent discussions his office has had with other Departments about statistics published by the Central Office of Information. [112589]
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): None. Part of the Central Office of Information's remit is to arrange for the publication of some departmental information and statistics, for which individual Departments are responsible.
  Simon Hughes: May I can encourage the Minister to talk to his colleagues in the Office for National Statistics and, especially, the Home Office, so that when the COI or the Government Information and Communication Service produce publications, we have clear statistical information? The last crime statistics consisted of three sets of statistics, which left everyone confused, and the general view is that we must do much better if we are to have credible statistics that the public believe and that thus serve their intended purpose.
  Mr. Alexander: We are keen not only for crime levels to fall but for confidence in the police service and law enforcement agencies to continue to rise. In that regard, I am happy to pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to Home Office Ministers.

  Digital Services
  Mr. Bob Laxton: What steps the Government have taken towards improving access to public digital services. [112590]
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The Government are committed to providing internet access for all who want it by 2005. Yesterday we launched a national campaign called "Get Started" to increase awareness of the benefits of the internet. During the campaign, people will be encouraged to visit one of those 6,000 UK Online centres, which I mentioned earlier, offering 7 million hours of free internet access.
  Mr. Laxton: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but why do the Government not just provide every household with a computer if they do not have access to one?
  Mr. Alexander: As I said, one of the principal challenges that we face in getting people online is a lack of confidence and skills. That is why we believe that the UK Online centres are uniquely equipped to meet that challenge. People in higher education institutions should have access to mentoring and support. We need to ensure that that is available at every income level and in every community across the country.

  Ministerial Conduct
  Mr. Andrew Turner: When the code of practice on ministerial conduct was last reviewed. [112591]
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): A revised ministerial code was published in July 2001. Since then, the Government have agreed to two amendments to the code.
  Mr. Turner: I thank the Minister for that answer, but in view of what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) said, is it not time for another review? She said that "errors" flow
  "from the style and organisation of our Government";
  that there is
  "centralisation of power into the hands of the Prime Minister";
  that there are "diktats" and
  "policy initiatives being rammed through Parliament".—[Official Report, 12 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 38.]
  If we do not need a change in the code of conduct, do we need a bigger change in the Ministers?
  Mr. Alexander: There is little that I can usefully add to the comments of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood yesterday. I fail to see that they have a direct bearing on the ministerial code, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Points of Order
12.31 pm
David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that in the past two or three weeks a deadline has been set for posting letters to our constituents. If they are not posted by 6 o'clock, they will not be delivered the following day. I was involved in last night's debate and signed letters at about 9.30 pm. It used to be the case that the service would deliver letters that were sent at 8 or 9 pm to all parts of the United Kingdom. I see no reason why the new ruling has been introduced.
I make no criticism of the Post Office authorities here. Like all Members, I have always found them to be supportive in every possible way. The national organisation set the deadline, which should be unacceptable to the House. I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, and the Leader of the House can use whatever influence possible to reverse that decision.
Mr. Speaker: I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. For that reason, I have decided that the Administration Committee will look into the matter. I am awaiting advice from it.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. That information is most helpful to the House, but should not the Administration Committee also bear it in mind that when we changed to the new supposedly modern hours, the Leader of the House assured us that the facilities available to Members would remain available? As the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) said, one of the facilities that is most valued is that of being able to communicate with our constituents.
Mr. Speaker: I will not be drawn into that argument. I am sure that the Chairman of the Administration Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), will note the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Street Furniture (Graffiti)
12.34 pm
Siobhain McDonagh: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for local authorities to remove graffiti from street furniture owned by statutory undertakers; to enable local authorities to recover costs from the statutory undertakers; and for connected purposes.
I have come to the House on numerous occasions to talk about graffiti. Yesterday, I searched the parliamentary intranet and found that 272 parliamentary documents listed under my name contained the word "graffiti". I am beginning to feel a bit like an anorak or obsessive or, to put it more elegantly, the parliamentary queen of graffiti. There is a reason for that—however much I detest graffiti, my constituents detest it far more. I have lost count of the number of surgery visits, letters, telephone calls and e-mails that I have received from people whose homes, streets and local surroundings are persistently blighted by graffiti vandals. Not only does graffiti visibly drag a community down and corrode the morale of local people, it increases tangibly the fear of crime in a community.
My constituents want tougher measures against the people who commit antisocial crimes. They will welcome the new Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, which will introduce fixed penalties for people who spray graffiti, but they also want more done to clear up the mess left behind. It is vital to punish the perpetrators of these antisocial crimes and to be seen to being doing so. However, my Bill is designed to tackle the second part of the dual approach to graffiti—removing the eyesore from the streets.
Local authorities are working fantastically hard to remove graffiti. In my borough of Merton, dealing with incidents of graffiti has become increasingly challenging over the past few years. According to a report last year by the Greater London Assembly's graffiti investigative committee, local authorities in London spend about £7 million a year removing graffiti. Despite all that expenditure, paid for by council tax payers, survey after survey shows that people are still not satisfied. According to the Association of London Government, more than three quarters of Londoners list graffiti as a quality of life concern. Indeed, it is among the top three concerns of the residents of St. Helier and Cricket Green, two wards in my constituency that are part of a nationwide pilot on police reassurance.
Last year, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs undertook a consultation on measures that could help to improve the environment called "Living Places—Powers, Rights, Responsibilities". Launching it, the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life said:
"we want to ensure that those who are responsible for ensuring that our public spaces are clean and safe have the powers that they need … We need everyone from businesses to community groups and individuals to share a common sense of pride and respect for our shared spaces."
That is precisely what I am attempting to do in the Bill. Indeed, one of the proposals in "Living Places" is the creation of a new duty on the owners of street furniture to keep their property clear of graffiti, and extend the

171
powers of local authorities to intervene and deal with graffiti. At present, some of the biggest eyesores appear on street furniture, including cable TV boxes, phone boxes, railway bridges and electricity substations belonging to telecommunications companies, the utilities, or other large multi-million pound companies—the so-called statutory undertakers.
However, local councils often find that they cannot remove such graffiti without the agreement of those companies or recover the cost of removing it.
My Bill is designed to overcome those difficulties and ensure that the proposals in "Living Places" are realised. It is relatively simple, but I shall briefly run through it. Clause 1 deals with removal notices for graffiti. Local authorities will be able to serve notice on statutory undertakers and telecoms companies to remove graffiti from street furniture within 14 days. If they fail to do so, the Bill gives local authorities the right to remove the graffiti themselves and claim "expenses reasonably incurred" from the owners. Clause 2 is concerned with an owner's right to appeal against the notice. I am not sure about the extent of that right, but I do not want to appear unreasonable. I do not want to penalise firms that are already victims of crime, but the multi-million pound businesses referred to in the Bill, like most people, do not want graffiti on their property. It undermines their image and makes them look unattractive to their customers, which is why clause 3 gives statutory undertakers the opportunity to have graffiti removed by local authorities as long as they cover the expenses involved.
For many companies, their standing within the community is a key aspect of their corporate social responsibility or CSR, which has now become a massive industry, with major corporations using it to demonstrate their commitment to the world that they live in. Companies understand the public relations value of contributing to the world around them, as it improves their reputation. It is therefore surprising that some companies with big PR budgets for lobbying are still unwilling to do something that would have a massive positive impact on local communities—removing graffiti from street furniture.
Telewest, for instance, is only too happy to invite people like me to receptions at party conferences, but when Merton council wanted to remove some graffiti from Telewest's cable boxes, the company threatened to sue. Indeed, so bad has Telewest been at tackling the issue that the 11 London boroughs that make up South West London against Graffiti have agreed a joint campaign to demand attendance from Telewest at their next meeting to explain their policies. I hope that I get an invitation.
Railtrack, whose PR budget extended to advertising in The House Magazine, which is aimed at people like us, was recently named and shamed by Merton council for not removing graffiti from its property, even though graffiti is so dispiriting for people who live in the area or
172
use the train. I understand that, as a result of that pressure Railtrack, or Network Rail as it is now, has improved its approach. However, those two massive companies are not alone. The Bill will ensure that they will no longer be able to get away with turning a blind eye to their obligations to the communities in which they operate. They will have to clean up their property or pay for local authorities to do it for them, without hard-pressed council tax payers having to foot the bill.
I do not want people to think that all is doom and gloom. There are many examples of progress being made in tackling graffiti. Many local councils have made a major impact. In my area, for instance, Merton council is making great strides. The innovative FLAG project, which covers fly tipping, abandoned cars and graffiti, and has involved publicity campaigns about these issues, has led to reductions in the incidence of graffiti and improvements in its removal. The Anti-Social Behaviour Bill will introduce fixed penalties for people who vandalise their communities with their graffiti.
That Bill will also make it an offence to sell spray paint to under-18s, which is an extremely positive step. With much fanfare, 26 shops in Merton recently launched a voluntary scheme, promising not to sell spray paint to under-18s. However, when council officers went back to the shops a few weeks later, they found that nine of the shops were still selling cans of spray paint to people as young as 13, so it is clear that. even when the intentions are good, the law needs toughening to prevent access to the materials used for tagging or other graffiti, and to punish the perpetrators.
My Bill will tackle the other side of the equation: removing the culprits' handiwork from our streets. It will make it easier for good businesses to seek the help of councils to remove graffiti from their property, and make it easier for local people to have graffiti removed from furniture that is owned by companies that do not really care about their corporate social responsibilities. For the sake of my constituents in Mitcham, Morden and Colliers Wood who want something done about antisocial crimes such as graffiti, which blight the streets and open spaces around their homes, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Siobhain McDonagh, Laura Moffatt, Barbara Follett, Mr. Barry Gardiner, Jeff Ennis, Mr. Bob Blizzard, Mr. Tom Watson, Jonathan Shaw, John Mann, Geraint Davies, Mr. Gareth Thomas and Shona Mclsaac.

STREET FURNITURE (GRAFFITI)
Siobhain McDonagh accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for local authorities to remove graffiti from street furniture owned by statutory undertakers; to enable local authorities to recover costs from the statutory undertakers; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed [Bill 106].

Finance Bill (Programme) (No. 3)
12.44 pm
The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I beg to move,
That in accordance with the Resolution of the Programming Committee of 12th May and pursuant to the Programme Order of 6th May relating to the Finance Bill (proceedings in Committee), as amended by the Order of 8th May.

(1) proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be taken on each of the two days allowed by the Order as shown in the second column of the following Table, and shall be taken in the order so shown;

(2) proceedings on the first day shall be brought to a conclusion six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order or, if earlier, at the conclusion of the proceedings set down for that day; and

(3) proceedings on the second day shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill.

TABLE

Day

Proceedings

First day

Clauses 1, 4, 5, 9, 14, 22, 42 and 56, Schedule 5, Clause 57, Schedule 6, Clause 124, Schedule 19

Second day

Clauses 130 to 135, 138, 139 and 148, Schedule 25, Clause 184, new Clauses tabled by Friday 9th May 2003 relating to excise duty on spirits or R&D tax credits for oil exploration

The programme motion sets out the clauses and schedules to be considered in the Committee of the whole House, the days to be spent on consideration, and the day on which the Bill will be reported from Standing Committee. Two days have been allocated for debate. All the measures tabled for consideration in the Committee of the whole House have been selected by the Opposition parties. Six debates have been selected by the minority parties and 14 by Her Majesty's Opposition, the Conservative party. The Government have not added any new topics for discussion. As you will see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the proceedings also include two new clauses specifically requested by one of the minority parties; unfortunately, none of its representatives is yet present in the Chamber.
To ensure that the time for debate is not curtailed by other business of the House in the two days allocated, the motion guarantees six and a half hours of business each day even if the start of the debate is delayed. Without such provision, the debate would usually finish at 7 pm each day. That facilitates the discussion of topics requested by all the Opposition parties in the days agreed through the usual channels for the Committee of the whole House.
12.45 pm
Mr. Howard Flight: It has been my privilege over the past three years to participate in the consideration of Finance Bills. While the Opposition did not agree with a number of the measures previously introduced, they were properly considered and proper opportunity and sufficient time were given for the Opposition to express the views and criticisms raised by various outside professional bodies. Furthermore, on more than one occasion, I have
174
complimented the Paymaster General as having been, during the time in which I have been interested in politics, more on top of the Revenue and tax law than any of her predecessors.
I am therefore extremely disappointed about what seems to have happened this year. The Bill seems poorly drafted and a number of crucial changes have been made without proper consultation and by an unacceptable and authoritarian railroading through Parliament. The major tax changes self-evidently relate to the stamp duty land tax, employee securities and options, approved share schemes and a considerable number of VAT and other anti-avoidance measures.
This is the fourth longest Finance Bill on record. It has 447 pages and there are 659 pages of explanatory notes, at least one of which was so badly drafted that it contained the wrong figure for the basic rate of income tax. Seven days and 14 sittings in Standing Committee are wholly inadequate to consider a Bill of such complexity and volume. As to the Floor of the House, the Conservative Opposition requested that we discuss a number of key introductory clauses in order to debate the principles that they involve, and not the accompanying schedules, after checking with the Public Bill Office that that was constitutionally appropriate. The Government agreed to withdraw schedules 21 and 22—some 80 pages of legislation—and I understand that they now realise that they will have to rewrite part of schedule 21, but we are left with schedules 5, 6 and 25. Together with the other items to be taken on the Floor of the House, they are too much to allow a proper debate and a full airing of the issues raised.
The Government's growing disregard—nay, contempt—for Parliament is widely recognised. Many people will have heard the comments made on the radio this morning by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who criticised the Government's abuse of Parliament and expressed alarm about the state of Parliament.
The Government's decision to cut short debate on the Finance Bill means that there is a danger that shortcomings in the Bill as it stands will pass into law. The Bill includes 180 pages of provisions rewriting and completely changing the nature of stamp duty land tax, including the new tax on leases, without any proper calculation or estimate of the additional tax that is likely to be raised. The extent of the changes was not made clear in the Budget speech. Clauses 1, 3, 8 and 9, with their accompanying schedules, introduce, again without warning, badly drafted rewrites of tax law relating to employee securities and options and approved share schemes, that, as the comments submitted by the professionals show, are full of mistakes and unintended consequences and will leave many genuine share schemes in a complete mess. Such a total overhaul of complex legislation that has not been subject to thorough consultation merits detailed debate and consideration in Parliament.
Mr. George Osborne: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government are already amending the Bill just days after its Second Reading? That amply illustrates his point.
Mr. Flight: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I referred to just one aspect of the Government amendments of which I am aware, but I expect many more.

175
The legal and accounting professions contribute to the proper scrutiny of such legislation by considering the detailed drafting and passing on their proposals for improvements and the correction of mistakes, and those representations are considered in Committee. If that process is curtailed, the chance of mistakes increases, and they will surface only when it is too late and the Bill has passed into law. Of crucial importance, of course, is the fact that a Finance Bill does not receive the secondary scrutiny of the other place. In our view, a quite insufficient and unacceptable amount of time is being given to the Committee stage, which will result in bad law, damage to business and damage to jobs.
There has been widespread professional criticism both of the Bill and of the lack of adequate consultation. The Law Society produced comment running to 130 pages, with 90 pages of draft amendments. The Chartered Institute of Taxation provided 44 pages of detailed problem issues that the Bill raises. The tax faculty of the Institute of Chartered Accountants produced 31 closely printed pages of critical issues. If I may, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall quote a few of the comments that were made by those professional bodies. The Law Society notes:
"In 2002 we welcomed the fact that much of the Finance Bill had been circulated in draft prior to publication. This year a very significant proportion of the bill consists of complex legislation which had not been previously published. This might not have been a concern, had agreed policy intentions been translated into clearly worded statutory drafting. Regrettably, this appears not to be the case in many areas. These failings are compounded by the extremely limited time available for consideration, both by professionals and by Parliament and the poor quality of many of the Explanatory Notes."
The institute—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I have been generous in allowing him the general remarks that he has made until now, but I have to remind him that the motion relates only to the content of the two days' debate in Committee of the whole House.
Mr. Flight: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We have of course selected clauses from the whole Bill for the two days' debate on the Floor of the House. The key point that I made at the beginning is that we will end up with three key schedules being debated on the Floor of the House. If I may crave your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the programme motion gives rise to a grave problem in that the most important item that we will discuss on the Floor of the House is our amendment to schedule 19, which proposes a further year for full consultation and consideration of the changes to stamp duty and the new stamp duty land tax. There is a risk that we may not reach that important amendment today, and if we do not, we will have little chance to debate it later on in the course of our very limited timetable. That issue arises again in the context of the first tranche of Standing Committee proceedings, where the two most important amendments, Nos. 21 and 22, are to be debated at the end, so we will face a major problem if there is insufficient time.
In short, we see no good reason why the Bill has been given insufficient time overall. We selected clauses for debate on the Floor of the House with the intent that
176
there would be sufficient time to do so, but the adding of the schedules renders that impossible. If there is a means of doing so, we ask the Government seriously to consider giving schedules 5, 6 and 25 sufficient time for debate, if not on the Floor of the House, in Standing Committee.
My main point is that the process of debate on the Floor of the House and in Committee affords consideration of the comments, criticisms and proposed changes of the professionals and of those who act for the businesses who will have to work with the new legislation. If that process is not given sufficient time, we will end up with bad legislation that is bad for individuals, bad for business and bad for jobs.
12.56 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I wish to follow my hon. Friend's comments with a couple of short points.
Yesterday, we heard an important announcement—that is the only way to describe it—from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who told us that one reason why the House of Commons could have only one day to debate a Bill was that the House of Lords needed two days to debate it, and the elected Chamber had to take second place in preference to the other place. The Finance Bill does not face that hurdle because it does not have to be reviewed in another place. That is why it is so essential that it receive proper and adequate scrutiny in the House of Commons.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) said, we are embarked upon debating over a very short period one of the largest Finance Bills to have passed through the House. I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you said that we must only refer to the debates that will take place today and tomorrow, but in so doing, we will consider only the parts of the Bill that have been selected for debate on the Floor of the House, and we have been able to select for consideration only a very small proportion of a hugely complicated and complex Bill. It is unacceptable that we should not get adequate time to scrutinise the Bill in its entirety.
One has only to look at the programme motion, which says that on the second day we will debate
"new Clauses tabled by Friday 9th May".
How is it possible to get the right kind of consultation when the Government table amendments so late in the day? Such matters naturally have to be considered by many people outside who have to add detail to the facts of those late amendments. It is unacceptable for the Government to table amendments as late as Friday 9 May for consideration some four days later. It is yet another example of the sheer and utter contempt—
Dawn Primarolo: If the hon. Gentleman would cast his mind back—I know that it is a long way—to the time when his party was in government, he may recall how many Government amendments they tabled to the Finance Bill.
Mr. McLoughlin: I seem to remember that the 1997 election slogan was, "Things can only get better". Perhaps we should add, "apart from in the House of Commons," where they get more contemptible. The

177
Paymaster General referred to Conservative Finance Bills, which were not subject to the rigorous guillotining that happens nowadays. I cannot remember another Finance Bill that had 14 sittings in Committee. That is ridiculous, as is the programme motion, which clearly shows the absolute contempt for this place of which we heard yesterday in the resignation speech of the former Secretary of State for International Development.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. For the assistance of hon. Members who seek to catch my eye, I must clarify that we are discussing the motion on the Order Paper. I do not wish to hear comments that go beyond that.
1 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: I shall confine myself to the motion because I believe that it is wrong. When discussions take place between the usual channels about the number of days for discussion on the Floor of the House, an agreement is reached that is usually inadequate for the Opposition and excessive for the Government. The Opposition parties are asked to submit what they want to tackle on the Floor of the House. That process was followed on this occasion. Business was proposed to and accepted by the Government. I am content with that; indeed. I am grateful to them because I was involved in the process.
The trouble started immediately afterwards because the Order Paper contained not only the items for which we asked but additional items. The Government argued that if we requested clause x, whatever they believed appropriate should be tagged on, but that is technically unnecessary. I shall say thank you again to the Government because when we protested, a couple of items were removed for consideration in Standing Committee. However, the trouble centres on some items that were not removed.
We had an understanding that there would be two days on the Floor of the House. We presented our proposals and the Government added to them. Today and tomorrow, we shall therefore consider more business than we requested, more than can be justified and more than we can tackle in the time. That is the nub of the problem. I have a simple question for the Paymaster General. If we do not have time to deal with the extra items that the Government have included and refused to remove, will she give hon. Members an absolute undertaking that a motion will be tabled to enable us to deal with the business Upstairs in Standing Committee? It would be helpful if the Paymaster General listened rather than holding a conversation.
Will the right hon. Lady give us a simple, clear undertaking now that any business that is not concluded today and tomorrow, especially business that the Government tabled and for which we did not ask, will go Upstairs to allow scrutiny? That is essential, especially given that the other place has no opportunity to consider the measure. If she agrees to the request, I shall say thank you for a third time. If not, it is a disgraceful abuse of a Government's power to try to railroad through this place unconsidered legislation that could have dire consequences for the country's economy.
The question is simple. Will the Paymaster General ensure that, whatever happens today and tomorrow, scrutiny takes place?
1.4 pm
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I do not wish to detain the House for too long. I draw hon. Members' attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. In perusing the motion, I wonder whether the Paymaster General, who has a good reputation for listening both inside and outside the House, can be proud of it. I served on Committees that considered Finance Bills from 1988 to 1992, and I remember no precedent for behaving in such a cavalier way. Nor do I remember the Government whom I supported tabling such motions.
Dawn Primarolo: How many days were allocated for a Committee of the whole House to consider the Finance Bills to which the hon. Gentleman refers? Does he recollect that the answer is two days?
Mr. Mitchell: With great respect to the Paymaster General, she is missing the point. In those four years when I served on Finance Bill Committees, there was agreement between both sides. There is no such agreement today. The right hon. Lady should pay greater heed to tradition, whereby such motions were tabled with agreement and did not cause debates. If she looks back at the record, she will find that no debate such as today's took place in those years. I am worried by the operation of the motion and the way in which it will facilitate railroading an enormous Bill through in a short time.
The Paymaster General will be acutely conscious that serious professionals outside the House, who are engaged in the City or the financial service industry, have reservations about the way in which we conduct our scrutiny of the Finance Bill. She will be familiar with the tax rewrite committee and the work of Lord Howe's committee on more effective scrutiny of such legislation, of which the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) and I are members. I hope that the Paymaster General accepts that serious professionals outside this place are worried about the quality and extent of our scrutiny. The motion will not assuage their doubts about the proper scrutiny by the House of Commons. The Paymaster General fully understands that some of the subjects that are tabled for debate today may not set pulses racing, but they are vital to industry, business and commerce and they deserve proper scrutiny.
It will not have escaped the right hon. Lady's notice that, apart from the Front-Bench spokesman, the two other Conservative Members who have spoken are the deputy Chief Whip and the Whip responsible for the Finance Bill. Both made cogent points about why the motion allows too short a time and is excessively hard on the House of Commons. I hope the right hon. Lady will take cognisance of that.
The Paymaster General should bear in mind the important point that there is no scrutiny in the Lords. She will have witnessed the great anxiety, which was expressed recently in another place, about timetabling the Communications Bill. She knows about the trouble that the Government are experiencing. If they had listened to representations from Conservative Members about making more time available, they would not have got into such difficulties with the Communications Bill.

179
Parliamentary scrutiny and the effectiveness with which we discharge such duties are under intense outside observation. Such oppressive timetabling will have the opposite effect from what the Government hope. It will not mean that their measures receive greater acceptance or go through more quickly. We need a legislators' revolt against the Executive—a modern-day peasants' revolt. I hope that one of its first victories will be the prevention of unfair timetabling such as we have today.
1.9 pm
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: It is a pleasure to speak in my first Finance Bill Committee and I declare my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
Rob Marris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is my understanding from the guidance that has been issued to Members of Parliament that it is not sufficient for a Member simply to say, "I declare my interest as registered."
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for a Chair. It is for the hon. Member to be sure that he or she satisfies the requirements of the House.
Mr. Djanogly: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
When I first had sight of this draft legislation, I was shocked at the two days that had been allocated for the discussion of this stage of the Bill. I know that I am not allowed to talk about the other 14 measly days, but even in these two days, we are being asked to review some 20 clauses that deal with an enormous raft of legislation and, indeed, a whole new tax—and an extremely complicated one, at that. I fully support my hon. Friends in saying that we have not been given enough time to debate these issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) mentioned, we are not the only people saying that. In the last few days, my hon. Friends and I have received a host of letters from professionals, business people, retailers and property business people, complaining about the lack of consultation and their inability to get their heads round what is going on here, in terms of the time being allowed for discussion of these matters.
To my mind, less consultation means that more time is required at this stage, rather than less. The worst example of that relates to the stamp duty land tax, which will be discussed over the next two days. I have received an enormous number of complaints about the clause dealing with that provision, and a flood of articles has appeared in the press over recent days. I shall mention one that came in this morning—it was probably written last night—from the tax law committee of the Law Society, which states:
"significant amounts of the draft legislation included in the Finance Bill have not been reviewed as part of that process".
The committee goes on to say:
"Whatever date is chosen, we recommend that detailed guidance is made available"
and that
180
"A new tax should not be introduced in such an incomplete form".
There are very serious issues involved here. This stamp duty involves some £8 billion of revenue. Surely that deserves more time for discussion.
1.12 pm
Dawn Primarolo: It has been the practice to allocate two days for the discussion of Finance Bills by the Committee of the whole House for a very long time. I have checked the record as far back as I could while in the Chamber, and two days has been the allocated period for at least the last eight Finance Bills, if not more. The Committee of the whole House sits on a Finance Bill for two days. That was agreed through the usual channels. The next procedure is that the Opposition parties are invited to propose the issues that they wish to debate in those two days. The Government have no control over that. As the House will see, the Opposition parties have picked a rather large range of issues, but that is entirely up to them. The internal record shows that the sitting of the Committee that discussed this programme motion for the Committee of the whole House lasted for only two minutes, and that there was no Division on the matter.
As some hon. Members have said in this short debate, it has always been my practice to ensure that there is ample time and thorough debate within the proceedings of the House for the discussion of the Finance Bill. Indeed, the Opposition approached me as a Minister and explained that there were two particular schedules to which they wished to table a large number of amendments. Those schedules were then moved back into Committee. I am therefore rather at a loss. When in government, the Conservatives allowed two days for the debates involving the Committee of the whole House. This Government also allow two days, as is the practice of the House. The Opposition parties were fully aware that two days were to be allocated, and they are fully aware of the decision of the House on programme motions. None the less, they advanced a very large number of subjects for debate during these two days. It seems to me that they are actually complaining about their own judgment at having proposed so many subjects for discussion, or perhaps they were trying to use up time so as to give their Members time to get from their luncheon clubs for the vote.
Mr. Wilshire: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Dawn Primarolo: No, I will not.
The fact of the matter is that this was done with agreement, in discussion—
Mr. Wilshire: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Dawn Primarolo: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The programme motion is before the House. The record is clear. The discussions have been held, and the two days—
Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to say that something was done with agreement when it patently was not done with agreement?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for debate, not a point of order.
Dawn Primarolo: I said, with regard to the internal record, that there was no Division on this matter. The agreement was that there would be two days, and that was my understanding in all the discussions that I have had with the Opposition parties.
Mr. Wilshire: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Dawn Primarolo: No, I will not give way.
The programme motion has been discussed, and the two days have been allocated. The Opposition parties themselves—not the Government—chose the debates. Of course, they are absolutely right to say that it is the Government's responsibility—and my responsibility as a Minister on this Bill—to ensure that, within the procedures of the House, there is proper time to discuss the Finance Bill. I intend to ensure that that happens, and I therefore move the programme motion only for the two days' debate on the Floor of the House. The programme motion for other business will be discussed elsewhere at the appropriate time.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 137.

Division No. 188]

[1:17 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Coffey, Ms Ann

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Coleman, lain

Alexander, Douglas

Colman, Tony

Allen, Graham

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Cooper, Yvette

Atkins, Charlotte

Corbyn, Jeremy

Austin, John

Corston, Jean

Bailey, Adrian

Cousins, Jim

Barnes, Harry

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Battle, John

Cranston, Ross

Bayley, Hugh

Crausby, David

Beard, Nigel

Cruddas, Jon

Benn, Hilary

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Blackman, Liz

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Blizzard, Bob

Dalyell, Tarn

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Darling, rh Alistair

Bradshaw, Ben

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Brennan, Kevin

David, Wayne

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Davidson, Ian

Browne, Desmond

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Bryant, Chris

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Burden, Richard

Dawson, Hilton

Burgon, Colin

Dean, Mrs Janet

Burnham, Andy

Dhanda, Parmjit

Cairns, David

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Caplin, Ivor

Drew, David (Stroud)

Casale, Roger

Drown, Ms Julia

Caton, Martin

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Edwards, Huw

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Efford, Clive

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Farrelly, Paul

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Clelland, David

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

182

Foulkes, rh George

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Gardiner, Barry

Martlew, Eric

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Milburn, rh Alan

Goggins, Paul

Miliband, David

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Miller, Andrew

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Moffatt, Laura

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Morgan, Julie

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Morley, Elliot

Hanson, David

Morris, rh Estelle

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Mountford, Kali

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Mudie, George

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Mullin, Chris

Munn, Ms Meg

Healey, John

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hendrick, Mark

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Hepburn, Stephen

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Norrls Dan (Wansdyke)

Heyes, David

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Olner, Bill

Hinchliffe, David

O'Neill, Martin

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Organ, Diana

Hoon, rh Geoffrey

Owen Albert

Hopkins Kelvin

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

perham Linda

Picking, Anne

Howells, Dr. Kim

Pickthall, Colin

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Pike, Peter(Burnley)

Hutton, rh John

Plaskitt, James

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Pond, Chris (Gravesnam)

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Pound, Stephen

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Jamieson, David

Jenkins, Brian

Prentlce, Gordon (Pendle)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Prosser, Gwyn

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Purchase, Ken

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Quinn, Lawrie

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Kemp, Fraser

Rooney, Terry

Khabra, Piara S.

Ross- Ernie (Dundee W)

Kidney, David

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Ruane, Chris

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Ruddock, Joan

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Salter, Martin

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Sarwar, Mohammad

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Savidge, Malcolm

Lammy, David

Sawford, Phil

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Snaw, Jonathan

Lazarowicz, Mark

Sheerman, Barry

Lepper, David

Sheridan, Jim

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Shipley, Ms Debra

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Singh, Marsha

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Linton, Martin

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Love, Andrew

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Soley, Clive

Luke, lain (Dundee E)

Southworth, Helen

McAvoy, Thomas

Squire, Rachel

McCabe, Stephen

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

McDonagh, Siobhain

Steinberg, Gerry

MacDonald, Calum

Stevenson, George

MacDougall, John

Stinchcombe, Paul

McFall, John

Stuart, Ms Gisela

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Mclsaac, Shona

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

McKechin, Ann

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

McKenna, Rosemary

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

McNamara, Kevin

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Trickett, Jon

Mallaber, Judy

Truswell, Paul

Mandelson, rh Peter

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

183

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Winnick, David

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Woodward, Shaun

Vis Dr Rudi

Worthington, Tony

Wright, David (Telford)

Waremg, Robert N.

Wright,Tony (Cannock)

Watts, David

Wyatt Derek

White, Brian

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Tellers for the Ayes:

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Gillian Merron and

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Mr. Phil Woolas

NOES

Allan, Richard

Heath, David

Amess, David

Hendry, Charles

Ancram, rh Michael

Hermon, Lady

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Hogg, rh Douglas

Bacon, Richard

Horam, John (Orpington)

Baron, John (Billericay)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Barrett, John

Jack, rh Michael

Bellingham, Henry

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Bercow, John

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Blunt, Crispin

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Brady, Graham

Lamb, Norman

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Lansley, Andrew

Brazier, Julian

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Breed, Colin

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Burns, Simon

Lidington, David

Burstow, Paul

Llwyd, Elfyn

Butterfill, John

Loughton, Tim

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Mackay, rh Andrew

Cameron, David

Maclean, rh David

Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Campbell, rh Menzies (NEFife)

Malins, Humfrey

Cash, William

Mercer, Patrick

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton Coldfield)

Chope, Christopher

Moore, Michael

Clapham, Michael

Moss, Malcolm

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Curry, rh David

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Paice, James

Djanogly, Jonathan

Paterson, Owen

Dodds, Nigel

Pickles, Eric

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Portillo, rh Michael

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Fallon, Michael

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Randall, John

Flight, Howard

Redwood, rh John

Flook, Adrian

Robathan, Andrew

Forth, rh Eric

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Francois, Mark

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Rosindell, Andrew

Gidley, Sandra

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Sanders, Adrian

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Grayling, Chris

Selous, Andrew

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Grieve, Dominic

Shepherd, Richard

Gummer, rh John

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Hague, rh William

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

Hammond, Philip

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Harvey, Nick

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Hawkins, Nick

Spring, Richard

Heald, Oliver

Steen, Anthony

184

Stunell, Andrew

Whittingdale, John

Swayne, Desmond

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Wiggin, Bill

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Willis, Phil

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Wilshire, David

Winterton, Ann (Conaleton)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

wishart, Pete

Thurso, John

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Young, rh Sir George

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Viggers, Peter

Tellers for the Noes:

Watkinson, Angela

Mr. Robert Syms and

Weir, Michael

Mr. Mark Hoban

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Finance Bill
  (Clauses Nos. 1, 4, 5, 9, 14, 22, 42, 56, 57, 124, 130 to 135, 138, 139, 148 and 184 and Schedules Nos. 5, 6, 19 and 25, and any new Clauses and Schedules tabled by Friday 9th May 2003 relating to excise duty on spirits or R&D tax credits for oil exploration)
  Considered in Committee [first day].
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Clause 1

  RATES OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS DUTY
  1.30 pm
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 1.
  The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: Nos. 61, 2 and 3.
  Mr. O'Brien: As we commence the Committee of the whole House on the Finance Bill, may I welcome you to the Chair, Sir Alan, and draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests? We will deal with amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3, standing in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, with the rates applying to tobacco and their implications, and with why the amendments have been proposed.
  In considering these amendments, it is important to recognise the competing interests of the freedom of choice of consumers—people's freedom to be un-oppressed by the Government in the choices that they make in their own lives—and of the health background that has become an increasingly important consideration in recent years in relation to tobacco products. The plan has been to increase rates of excise duty on all tobacco products in line with inflation. The Budget stated that it would increase the rate by 2.8 per cent. with effect from 6 pm on 9 April 2003—the day the Chancellor made his Budget statement to the House. In the four Budgets between 1997 and 2000, the increases were inflation plus 5 per cent., and in Budgets since then the increases were inflation only, so the Government's current proposal is in line with the past three Budgets.
  Although my colleagues and other Members will immediately have spotted that the amendments relate to tobacco products, they will also have noted that they relate not to the rate of duty on cigarettes—to which we do not propose an amendment—but that relating to the other categories of products: cigars, pipe tobacco, hand-rolling tobacco and other smoking and chewing tobacco. I hope that the reason for tabling these amendments will become clear, and that the Government will be persuaded to consider them favourably.
  I began by mentioning the caveat of health issues because the focus tends to be on cigarettes. Because so much importance is attached to the behaviour that the rates of duty applying to tobacco products seek to influence, the message tends to be somewhat more
  186
  emotively concerned with cigarettes. In order to ensure that the argument is as transparent and compelling as possible, those who think as I do on these matters have thought it important not to cloud the issue by dealing directly with cigarette tobacco products at this point, but I hope that the Government can learn some lessons if we are able to pursue the route proposed through the amendments.
  Although the amendments do not deal with cigarette tobacco products, the problem that they identify and deal with is equally valid in terms of cigarette smoking and related tobacco products, and of other tobacco products. The outline of the problem that has informed me, my colleagues and a wide variety of outside bodies can be found in the Government's own document, entitled "Tackling Tobacco Smuggling"—it has become
  known as "TTS"—which was published by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the Treasury in March 2000. Paragraph 1 states:
  "The increased availability of cheap smuggled cigarettes is undermining the Government's health objectives."
  That sentiment is well understood. The amendments would change the rates because a balance must be struck—I believe that the Government also recognise this—between influencing behaviour on health grounds, necessary revenue collection and seeking to ameliorate the situation regarding revenue lost through smuggling and cross-border shopping. These revised rates would have a direct effect on all those factors.
  Smuggling currently accounts for 21 per cent. of cigarette consumption and 52 per cent. of hand-rolling tobacco consumption, and the Treasury has lost a staggering £12 billion in revenue since 1997. The level of cross-border shopping, which must be distinguished from smuggling, continues to rise; it now accounts for 7 per cent. of cigarette consumption and 17 per cent. of hand-rolling tobacco consumption. That constitutes a further revenue loss since 1997 of £3 billion. No UK duty is paid on 28 per cent. of cigarettes, or on 69 per cent. of hand-rolling tobacco. Some 28 per cent. of UK cigarettes sell at £2 to £2.50 for a packet of 20, the remainder selling at full price.
  In looking at the competing factors affecting the judgment that the Treasury must be required to make annually in considering these rates, it is interesting to note that the long-term downward trend in cigarette consumption has been broken. Tax increases since 1997 have resulted in a broadly flat overall level of tobacco consumption, including cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco. I was naturally somewhat sceptical about this, thinking that those who have an interest in tobacco—be they smokers or producers—might be spinning me a line. So I turned to the Office for National Statistics, which in fact bears out these figures. For instance, in 1979—to pluck a year at random—cigarette and hand-rolling tobacco smokers accounted for 39 per cent. of the UK adult population. Between 1979 and 1992, the rate of consumption declined dramatically through the tremendous work of the previous Conservative Administration. In 1992, the rate was approximately 29 per cent.—a full 10 per cent. decrease. In 1997, the
  rate was about the same, and today it remains in the region of 27 to 28 per cent.
  In terms of a percentage of the UK adult population, the graph for the consumption of cigarette and hand-rolling tobacco has therefore flattened, and has

  187
  remained flat since 1992. So the attempt to focus on the behavioural drivers through the Treasury's annual setting of rates, the function of which is to have regard to the health of our citizens, worked dramatically between 1979 and 1992; however, the graph has remained broadly flat ever since, with the percentage remaining at just over a quarter of the adult population.
  It would be fair to say that, on health grounds, much progress has been made, but it has stalled and steadied. However, the amount of cigarettes, hand-rolling tobacco and other tobacco products either smuggled into the country or bought through cross-border shopping has shot up dramatically. The statistics are far more difficult to establish, not least because smuggling is unsurprisingly not officially recorded. The revenue loss through smuggling and cross-border shopping has risen dramatically from between £0.5 billion and £0.75 billion in 1996–97 to about £4.5 billion in 2002, the last year for which records are available.
  Rather than taking the rates as read and viewing them as the natural order of a Chancellor's Budget—the result of people wondering what price he is going to put on a packet of fags—it is better to focus on behavioural success and behavioural opportunities. That applies to health, to revenue and to shopkeepers—particularly the owners of corner shops, examples of which can be found in every constituency and which carry considerable
  overheads—who are suffering significant losses through
  smuggling and cross-border shopping. Constituencies are more affected the closer they are to the south coast of England, but they are not alone because smuggling goes on equally on the east coast and the problem is also prevalent in my own constituency—as I know from talking to owners of what are colloquially known as corner shops—even though Eddisbury has no coastline. A large black market has developed, and at times it has become, frankly, a legitimate industry.
  I recently debated with the Minister secondary legislation through which the Government sought to allow an increased quota of certain products for personal use to be brought into the country. The concern remained that some cross-border shopping had resulted in on-sales, so the Government attempted to deal with the problem through that secondary legislation.
  I have consulted people from a wide range of interests, as well as people in my own party who are focused on these matters, to establish what the solution should be for this year.
  Mr. George Osborne: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Before he moves on, he might like to reflect on the fact that the black market encourages organised crime and has created serious law and order problems, as well as costing the Exchequer, small businesses and others in terms of revenue.
  Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend represents a neighbouring constituency. He recognises that, despite the fact that neither of us has a coastline in our constituencies, smuggling and the black market deeply concern many people who run legitimate, well stocked and provisioned businesses.
  188
  The Government have repeatedly recognised—it is
  not a matter of contention and would be agreed by all parties—that applying a rate to tobacco products is not simply a revenue-raising matter. It carries revenue-raising opportunities, as well established over many decades by Governments of both colours, but over the past 20 years it has become more widely understood—and I have sought to put it on the record with the information that I provided—that the rates provide behavioural opportunities in respect of health and revenue raising. The rates also affect the opportunities to acquire these products—whether brought from across the English channel, from other countries, or smuggled.
  I have viewed health considerations particularly highly, as they are well aired and understood, though people sometimes have different points of emphasis or completely different points of view on the dangers of tobacco. As I say, we have to look at behaviour. I concluded that we should focus on non-cigarette products in order not to be distracted by more emotive health arguments attached to cigarettes, not least because evidence shows that cigarettes are the tobacco products of choice for under-age children and have peer group attractiveness for teenagers. We should therefore reflect on what it would mean behaviourally if we froze tax rates this year on certain products.
  1.45 pm
  Kevin Brennan: I am trying to follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument and I understand where he is going. However, is it logical to include rolling tobacco, but not to include cigarettes? After all, rolling tobacco is one of the commonest ways through which young people on low incomes get into smoking.
  Mr. O'Brien: I take the hon. Gentleman's point seriously and I have given considerable thought to it. Percentage sales of hand-rolling tobacco are small compared with cigarettes. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me as I move through my argument, he may see that another balance has to be struck between the merits of what I am proposing now and the position in a couple of years' time when we can make a genuine comparison between the sales of cigarettes and of another set of tobacco products. We will all be better informed about any difference in the behavioural circumstances with respect to cigarettes and other tobacco products. We will be able to study where the graphs on health and revenue cross with respect to smuggling and cross-border sales and full UK duty-paid sales. 'We will also be able to assess the behaviour of young people. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that children are primarily focused on ready-made cigarettes. Some may be interested in hand-rolling tobacco, but I am told—I do not have established
  evidence to give chapter and verse—that the bulk of such tobacco is sold to adults, defined as 25 years old and over. That is an adult lifestyle choice.
  Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman talks about comparative figures and says that, if his amendment were accepted, we could assess them in a couple of years' time. Is he aware of the position in Canada, where I recollect that the provinces

  189
  of Ontario and Quebec lowered the rate of excise duty on cigarettes because of smuggling from America? The consumption of cigarettes went up, so they are now raising the excise duties again because the earlier policy did not have the desired effect in terms of the behavioural changes that the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
  Mr. O'Brien: That is helpful. It reminds me that I did encounter data of that sort, though I cannot remember it as clearly as the hon. Gentleman does. I recall that it was one of the reasons why I felt that it would be helpful to leave out cigarettes for that purpose. It should also provide a comparative control group to assess the risks and the behavioural differences, partly because purchasing of cigarettes is more widespread and obtaining them is easier than other tobacco products.
  Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: Is it not the case, in Canada as in this country, that one simply does not know how many illegal cigarettes are being consumed? The statistics are effectively meaningless because, without knowledge of how many illegal cigarettes are in circulation, we cannot know whether smoking is increasing or decreasing.
  Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend makes a helpful point. It prevents us from getting hijacked by a sense of unreality in a debate that the amendments are designed to promote. We are dealing with cross-border and, more importantly, smuggling issues, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) mentioned black market operations in the UK. All the figures have to be regarded as estimates, but the Treasury, Customs and Excise, and many other interested groups—health groups and the Tobacco Manufacturers Association—are doing their best to get hold of reliable figures.
  Over a period of years, estimates and approximations have been made. Although there has been some difficulty in ensuring confidence in the numbers, for the reason that my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton outlined, those numbers have become internally consistent. The information that we have makes it look as though that internal consistency has produced comparative data, year on year. The Government and health groups are thus able to refer to them.
  The Government's actions are driven as much by health considerations as by revenue considerations. That was true of the previous Government, whom I supported: they, too, were keen to look at the balance between health, the raising of revenue, and the jobs involved in the very important industry that depends on tobacco manufacturing and the distribution and retailing of tobacco products. Over a long period of years, the figures have achieved at least an internal consistency. The challenge is to produce comparable figures on which the House can rely. That challenge would not be made worse by the amendments. However, some hon. Members may declare that no numbers exist that can be relied on, and that we will never know whether health issues are improving.
  Pete Wishart: I want to clarify the central tenet of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Is he suggesting that we reduce the proposed rate of duty on
  190
  these tobacco products in an attempt to beat smuggling and organised crime? If so, that appears a very blunt instrument.
  Mr. O'Brien: I shall try to make sure that my argument comes to a form of conclusion, so that the hon. Gentleman gets a sense of where the proposal might lead. The amendment has not been tabled simply for the sake of it—far from it. There will inevitably he scepticism among hon. Members from time to time about such matters, but I am seeking to make a genuine argument, as the amount of effort that has gone into it proves.
  My proposed solution would at least allow us to make a proper judgment. The primary argument for freezing tax rates on the specified tobacco product items—that is, excluding cigarettes—is that it would reduce, although not eliminate, the incentive to smuggle and to go cross-border shopping. Even tax rises by the level of inflation increase already very large price differentials. A packet of 20 cigarettes costs roughly £4.29 in the UK, compared with an official price of £2.69 in France, and street prices of between £2 and £2.50. Increases in tax since 1997 have also accompanied a rise in smuggling from just 3 per cent. to 21 per cent. We therefore have to determine what rates of duty have to do with that phenomenon, which is clearly of concern to the Revenue. That is the main business of the Committee as it considers the Finance Bill. However, it is also a concern for all hon. Members, as constituents regularly raise matters to do with health, both here and in other forums.
  I remind the House of the Customs and Excise document published in March 2000. Known as the TTS document, it states that smuggling
  "undermines progress on government health objectives by making cheaper cigarettes available through unregulated sources".
  We can assume that the same applies to other tobacco products. The document adds that
  "there are other undesirable effects. These include the law and order and social problems"—
  noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton—"arising from the concentration of large groups of criminals in certain areas … And it has resulted in a decreasing respect for the law, as the numbers of people involved in the buying and selling of smuggled goods has risen to many thousands, possibly millions. In addition, large scale tobacco smuggling has the potential to create building blocks for organised crime networks run along business lines in a way rarely seen before in the UK, and to finance other serious criminal activity."
  Moreover, it is also argued that, because smuggled cigarettes are sold through unregulated sources, children can buy them easily. The amendment deals with the non-cigarette side, in an attempt to test whether a better result might not be achieved if the price of tobacco were not raised continually, as that creates the enormous differential that has been described. As has been noted, tobacco can be especially attractive to children. However, the amendment is not susceptible to such arguments, as it would not promote tobacco use among children.
  Rob Marris: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the vast majority of tobacco products smuggled into the UK come from countries in the eurozone? The euro has risen 10 per cent. in value in this calendar year. That will

  191
  undercut any comparative figures that the hon. Gentleman is trying to use, and also what he is seeking to achieve with the amendment, because the price of cigarettes in France in sterling terms has effectively gone up 10 per cent.
  Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. At the grave risk of sounding as though I would much prefer to be at the Government Dispatch Box, rather than the Opposition one—although of course I would—I have not seen figures to support the contention that smuggling is primarily from the eurozone countries. I believe that the original source may be the eurozone countries, but the rise in criminal activity means that there are increasing numbers of intermediaries outside the eurozone. There is a fair argument to be had as to whether that exchange rate will make a huge difference. I think that the real concern is the current price differential.
  Mr. George Osborne: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend, as a huge number of smuggled products are manufactured in the UK, and then exported abroad to countries such as Latvia, Moldova and Afghanistan. They are also exported to Kaliningrad. The products are then smuggled back into this country. They do not come from France, so the matter has nothing to do with the euro exchange rate.
  Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who puts the balance of the argument. Some smuggled goods clearly do come from France. I have seen various figures, although I am reluctant to place enormous reliance on them all. The nature of the activities involved makes it difficult for us to be sure about such figures.
  One option that is open to the Government is to alter, in the Finance Bill, the rates on these tobacco products. It is therefore right for us to take a cool, calm look at whether the House is doing the right thing in terms of influencing matters—smuggling, cross-border shopping, and health issues—about which we are so rightly worried.
  Lawrie Quinn: The hon. Gentleman is developing an argument about an experiment. Has he assessed what such an experiment would cost the Exchequer?
  Mr. O'Brien: I have looked at that. I have not had the Treasury model to play with, but I have been fairly persuaded by the evidence that I have seen. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want me to refrain from going through the body of that evidence—much of it is flagged among my notes—but I am convinced that concerns on these matters are shared by all hon. Members. They may approach the matter from a variety of angles, but there is a broad health concern. If the Government had the vision and courage to go down the sort of route proposed by the amendment, I think that there could be a net gain for the Revenue.
  So much hand-rolling tobacco that is non-UK duty paid now comes into the country that reducing the price differential would have a beneficial effect. I do not propose that the Government should be braver, and
  192
  reduce the differential still further. That would not necessarily be a responsible action, but the amendment offers us the opportunity to find out whether the approach would have some effect.
  It is possible that those with whom what I propose might not necessarily find favour will say that it would increase UK tobacco consumption. I suspect that overall tobacco consumption is, in fact, set by other factors. It has to do with the price at which one acquires tobacco, but also the ease with which one acquires it and the incentive of a massive differential. There is becoming almost a culture of cross-border shopping, and there is something quite attractive to young people in acquiring cigarettes and tobacco products in marketplaces in which they are non-UK duty paid. There has been some interesting talk in the pub from time to time about that.
  2 pm
  Lawrie Quinn: Following the line of my argument, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to leave the House in the dark on why he feels there might be a net gain. Approximately how much gain does he think the Revenue and the Exchequer would receive from his experiment?
  Mr. O'Brien: I am tempted to try to satisfy the hon. Gentleman's request, but I do not think that that would be responsible since I would be taking a stab at it. The effect is more likely to be neutral than to be a small net gain, but one need only examine the data to see where the graph lines cross. I cannot be sure; there might be a small net loss. What we should really focus on is the influence that the rates will have on those behaviours that we think are in the best interests of our constituents, as as regards access to products that some people believe have health considerations attached to them.
  There might be some challenge to Treasury receipts; I cannot be 100 per cent. sure about that. The bigger issue is the direction in which we are going. Is it right automatically to assume that there should be an escalator each and every year, or should we reflect on underlying factors such as the massive rise in smuggling? We know that the Government are concerned about that. They have brought forward measures—somewhat late in the day in our view—to try to address it. They know about cross-border shopping, and it seems that nothing will persuade them to see that as something that they would necessarily want to stop.
  It is important to the corner shops in all our constituencies to bear all these points in mind. I dare say that I am not the only Member of Parliament who has had representations from constituents who are doing their best to run those fine-margin businesses as a community service. They are not alone: community post offices and community pharmacies are also under threat, and we should do our best to help our constituents to retain those services.
  I think it wrong to argue that increased UK tobacco consumption or reduced Treasury receipts would result from the amendments. We must accept that tobacco consumption has not changed since roughly 1992, in spite of a 27 per cent. real terms increase in cigarette tax. Smuggling has reduced the average price of cigarettes sold in the UK, and what has changed is from where and how tobacco products are bought, and at what price.

  193
  The impact on Treasury receipts is likely to be broadly neutral, in fact, as more consumption will be captured in the tax net, though that does not necessarily imply more consumption. Catching consumption in the tax net is what rightly concerns the Minister and the Government. That would also give us data containing the right information for health planning.
  To help us test the Government's primary arguments, publication in full of the Taylor report, which I request once more although I know that that the Government have consistently denied us publication, would have been helpful, even if all the arguments have been made in this place and the other place. The Government have always claimed that the report contains operational and sensitive information, but it is appropriate to ask for publication for no other reason than that it is apparently one of the best studies available, on which the Government have, presumably, relied, and which contains data that would allow us not to make experiments in the dark. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) said that we should not take a step in the dark, and the Taylor report would help shed some light on the subject. Once again, therefore, I formally request publication on the basis that the debate is ill served by continued Government secrecy.
  I propose a freeze on duty to encourage UK smokers to revert to UK duty paid products and maintain UK revenue, while not, I believe, increasing total consumption, which is what matters. UK duty paid product is sold at a price to deliver Government health objectives for adults and children. The reason I single out non-cigarette tobacco products for a freeze is that the House could, by accepting the amendments, establish evidence of the differential in consumption and revenue raising between cigarettes and other tobacco products. Placing them on a comparable basis would provide a control group test.
  While there has been legitimate concern about whether that would be a stab in the dark, I think that it would provide a glimmer of understanding about how the House can genuinely influence our constituents for the better by what we do. During the period of the present Government, there has been an enormous expansion in smuggling and the new phenomenon of cross-border shopping, which seems to be set fair, without let. Consumption has flat lined; we are not reducing consumption among the adult population, and it is increasing among children and, particularly, young women.
  What I propose would be appropriate, and I hope that the House will give the amendment a fair wind.
  Jon Trickett: Thank you for calling me, Sir Alan, and welcome to the Chair. When I last sat on a Finance Bill Committee, Labour was in opposition. I do not doubt that you, in your wisdom, will keep me well in order.
  I listened carefully to the lengthy exposition of the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), but I was not convinced by it. His logic appeared to favour tax harmonisation across the European Union: wherever there was a cross-border differential in prices as a result of taxation, the country charging the higher rate of taxation should reduce it to the lower rate on the other
  194
  side of the customs border. That implies tax harmonisation across Europe, so I was surprised to hear Conservatives, who usually pose as the Eurosceptic party, argue for a self-denying ordinance in the Treasury that would require a reduction in taxation wherever such a differential arose. I would not want that, and I am not sure that many of my colleagues would, but it was interesting to hear that case made.
  A contrary argument might have been made—that taxation on the continent should correlate more closely to ours, but the Tories always want to cut taxes, no matter what the implications are, and the tax harmonisation that they want would take us to the lower end of the spectrum.
  We should remind ourselves of why we tax tobacco products. Some 120,000 deaths a year are directly caused by tobacco consumption of one kind or another. There is no real evidence that cigarette smoking is substantially more lethal than other forms of tobacco consumption. The Treasury has increased taxation on tobacco products, under both main parties, not just to safeguard revenue, but to try to bring about a change in behaviour to reduce tobacco consumption. Every study undertaken throughout the world has demonstrated an inverse relationship between price and consumption: the more tobacco products cost, the lower is their consumption. There is also a correlation between consumption and the impact on health of tobacco, so the argument in favour of raising prices, reducing consumption and thus increasing the nation's health is extremely powerful.
  Mr. John Baron: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if taxes are increased to such an extent that smuggling becomes prevalent, thus swamping the domestic market with under-priced cigarettes, consumption could increase? That is Conservative Members' main concern. We believe that the link between tax increases and reducing consumption has finally been broken, and we are greatly concerned about that.
  Jon Trickett: I shall come to that point in a moment or two. I was trying to remind the Committee that we should go back to first principles and establish why the Treasury, for many years and under all Governments, has increased taxation on tobacco products.
  In the past, the Conservatives adopted an inflation-plus policy; each year, revenue would increase beyond inflation. The Labour Government decided to change the rules and, because of smuggling, to increase the amount only by inflation—the issue raised by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron). Like the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which looked into the issue and found that most smuggling is carried out not as a small private enterprise by people in white vans but on a massive scale. Imperial Tobacco was, apparently, systematically exporting tens of millions of cigarettes and other tobacco products each year, which were later smuggled back to the United Kingdom. After careful consideration by Customs and Excise and the PAC, measures are being taken and a memorandum of understanding is about to be signed. That will make a substantial difference.

  195
  Rather than adjusting tax rates and, in effect, abandoning the consensus about taxing tobacco products for health reasons, we should be trying to tighten the activities of Customs and Excise and other enforcement authorities so as to reduce smuggling. That would secure our objectives for both health and revenue.
  With those few points, I conclude my remarks. I await the rest of the debate with interest.
  Mr. David Laws: The debate is extremely important and I am grateful for the opportunity to make some comments on the level of duties on a variety of tobacco products.
  I share some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), although I would not go as far as his proposal that the increase in indexation proposed by the Government should be reduced. The detail of the evidence given by the hon. Gentleman is not sufficient to allow us to make that move.
  The amendment is a probing measure that invites the Government to reflect on their strategy for the taxation of a variety of tobacco products, and to consider whether it is working in the context of both the huge increase since 1996–97 in the share of smuggled tobacco products sold in this country and the changes that the Economic Secretary was forced to make last year to legislation on the single market. The changes reflect the fact that we are in a single market, so we cannot use some of the measures previously adopted by the Government to constrain people from legally importing tobacco products.
  2.15 pm
  The reason why we are focusing particularly on hand-rolled tobacco is that the greatest proportion of smuggling occurs in that market—a point made by the hon. Member for Eddisbury. I promise that I shall not go back over all the figures cited by the hon. Gentleman, but we need to consider the amazing proportion of the hand-rolled tobacco market accounted for by smuggling. The latest figures suggest that about 52 per cent. of that market is smuggled tobacco, which is extraordinary. Throughout British history, one can think of few other products where there was such a high proportion of smuggling. When we add to that the 17 per cent. of tobacco legitimately purchased across borders, we find that no duty is paid on almost 70 per cent. of the hand-rolled tobacco consumed in the UK.
  When we consider changes in duty and the effect of the escalators introduced by the Conservative Government, which were escalated by the Labour Government for a period after 1997, we find that the consumption of hand-rolled tobacco has risen by about 47 per cent. since 1997. It currently accounts for 25 per cent. of UK cigarette consumption. The strategy does not, therefore, seem to have been especially successful.
  We would have thought that the Department responsible for such matters—the Treasury, which is stuffed full of economists—would be cautious about maintaining its present policy, which is based entirely on trying to police the trade, as opposed to trying to deal
  196
  with some of the fundamental underlying problems: in essence, the vast duty differential between the UK and other countries, including those on the continent, which provides a massive incentive for individuals to engage in illegal activity as well as legally to bring across the channel huge amounts of goods on which duty is low or not paid at all.
  Our current policy on this matter reflects a change in the approach that we have taken for many years. I freely acknowledge that, some years ago, our party was in favour of increasing tobacco taxation and hypothecating it to the national health service, a policy picked up by Labour when it came into government. We acknowledge that the huge smuggling activity, across the channel and elsewhere, puts a cap on the extent to which we can increase tobacco duty in the interest not only of health objectives but also of revenue raising.
  Mr. George Osborne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so candid about the mistakes made by the Liberal Democrats in formulating their previous policy. Does he agree that if tobacco revenue was hypothecated to the health service, it would be extremely difficult for him to move an amendment to lower duty because that would be to cut money for the NHS?
  Mr. Laws: I accept that it would not make sense to hypothecate all tobacco revenue, although it certainly could be done at the margin.
  I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring to alterations from previous policies, as I was about to invite Members from other parties to acknowledge that their policies have also changed over time. I hope that brief reference will encourage Members on both sides of the House to reflect that such debate is worth while and that we should all be honest about our history.
  The hon. Gentleman has been involved in politics long enough to know that the significant increases in tobacco taxation in recent times began in 1993, when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), introduced his 3 per cent. escalator, over and above the rate of inflation and the indexation that we are discussing. In true style, the right hon. and learned Gentleman pugnaciously defended his approach in the Budget statement of November 1996, describing it as
  "necessary masochism in the wider public interest.—[Official Report, 26 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 168.]
  That necessary masochism, as he termed it, was continued by the Labour Government in 1997, when they stepped up the escalator to 5 per cent., which they maintained for a number of years before deciding in 1999 that the automatic link should be broken, while implementing the 5 per cent. rise in the March 2000 Budget on the basis that it would encourage existing smokers to smoke less or quit and discourage young people from taking up the habit. All parties, at different times, have therefore supported the strategy of increasing tobacco duty. It has no doubt been a useful revenue raiser for parties in government, and a desire has also existed to increase the price of tobacco products to deter their use, which, as we all know, is extremely damaging to health.

  197
  Other EU countries with high duty rates and prices compared with other countries have similar concerns to those that have been expressed in this country over the past couple of years. Canada and its experiences were mentioned in an intervention, but we should recall that Denmark voted recently to reduce tobacco duties and to bring that measure into effect later this year. I hope that the Treasury will follow the experiences of other countries in the EU closely. I hope that it will look at the evidence on which the decision in Denmark was based, and that it will also follow closely the experiences in Denmark after it reduces duties, to see whether the policy has the effects that the hon. Member for Eddisbury was suggesting.
  We prefer to ask the Government to take seriously the arguments being made now about the huge duty differential between ourselves and other countries. We also ask the Government to consider seriously whether it will ever be possible to reduce significantly the market in smuggled tobacco while we have such duty differentials. We have had similar debates over recent years about the level of duties in the UK, many of which considered the evidence, whereas the hon. Member for Eddisbury appears to want to conduct an experiment without amassing the appropriate amount of evidence. One good example of that evidence-based approach was the previous Government's decision to reduce the taxation of spirits, which has to some extent been followed under this Government.
  We therefore know why successive Governments have decided to maintain high duties on tobacco products. First, it has been as a consequence of medical concerns about the consumption of tobacco. Secondly, it has proved to be an extremely good way of raising money for Governments, which suggests some contradiction in relation to the first motivation. The increases since 1996–97 in the share of our market accounted for by smuggled tobacco and tobacco, on which no duty is paid, should give all of us in the UK reason to wonder whether the existing strategy is working and reasons to take the issue very seriously. I join the hon. Member for Eddisbury in regretting very much that when Martin Taylor considered this issue a few years ago, and produced what we believe was an extremely detailed report, which was rumoured to touch on the issue of duty differentials and whether they were too wide, the Government did not allow his report to be aired in public. They have been criticised for that a number of times in the House, including by the Treasury Committee.
  Pete Wishart: Can the hon. Gentleman help the House by naming any health professional body that agrees that the freezing or reduction of duty on cigarettes would be a good thing in terms of the health issues?
  Mr. Laws: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That is precisely the type of issue that needs to be considered as part of a study into whether the existing duty differentials are working. Although I am sure that no o r very few individuals would suggest that a lower price for tobacco products in this country would have anything other than adverse effects on health, many individuals, even in the health field, would be extremely concerned about a system in which no duty is paid on 28 per cent. of
  198
  cigarettes, and in which smuggled hand-rolled tobacco accounts for 70 per cent. They would also be extremely concerned that a large amount of the Government's health policy in respect of tobacco products was being undermined by the fact that a huge amount of consumption in this country is of products on which no duty was paid.
  That trend is being exacerbated, undoubtedly, by the Government's responsibilities in respect of the single market, as was demonstrated by the decision that the Economic Secretary had to take last October to dismantle some of the Government's draconian steps to stop tobacco and other dutiable goods being brought into this country. It is too early to say what will be the effects of the Government's policy reversal. When we look at the figures in the year ahead, we may find, as some tobacco manufacturers have suggested on the basis of the early data, that the proportion of tobacco consumed in this country that is smuggled or brought in legitimately with no duty paid increases markedly as a consequence of that policy reversal.
  Rob Marris: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that it was not a reversal of Government policy? The Government were turned over in the courts and followed the law.
  Mr. Laws: The hon. Gentleman is playing with words. What he is saying is that the Government's policy was overturned in the courts, so the Government had to change their original policy in a serious way. Some of the major measures suggested by Martin Taylor that the Government implemented were precisely the measures that have now had to be dismantled, whereas some of the proposals in respect of narrowing duty differentials appear to be precisely those that the Government have not been willing to discuss.
  The stage has been reached at which the Government and the Treasury ought to commission a serious and public piece of work that is seen to be independent from all interests, to consider three issues. First, it should consider the economic impact of current duty differentials, and what would be the effect of narrowing them. I know of few economists who at this moment think that a reduction in tobacco duty would be selffunding—that it would increase demand in this country in such a way that it would pay for itself. The Institute for Fiscal Studies certainly did not seem to reach that conclusion when it reviewed the issue a couple of years ago. The increase in smuggling, however, may have changed the dynamics of that calculation. As the hon. Member for Eddisbury also mentioned, we need to consider other costs, such as the effects on small businesses, the economic incentives that we are creating for people to travel backwards and forwards between the United Kingdom and the continent, and the farfrom-negligible policing costs for the Government of having to convert a strategy that could be based on narrowing duty differentials into one based entirely on policing.
  Secondly, clearly, we must understand better the health effects of any reduction of duty levels. As the hon. Member for Eddisbury said, it is notable that recently, when tobacco duty has been increasing rapidly, we seem to have been least successful in reducing consumption. Consumption seems to have levelled out precisely when

  199
  duty has been increasing significantly. That may tell us that the strategy has not been working recently because it has created such incentives for people to bring in nonduty-paid goods that it has undermined the effect of the Government's attempts to increase tobacco prices.
  Thirdly, as the hon. Member for Eddisbury also mentioned, there is the issue of crime, and the fact that the huge illegal smuggling activity is fuelling a significant crime wave, not least in the south-east corner of the country. That and the associated crime, and the causes to which that profit is put, ought to be a great concern for the Government.
  I hope that the Government will not hide behind the concept that the present rate of duty is exactly right. I hope, too, that the Economic Secretary will acknowledge the huge increase in smuggling over recent years and the need to take that into account in Government policy. I also hope that he will acknowledge that the Government's U-turn on the tobacco escalator—the scrapping of the automatic escalator—reflects their understanding that there is a limit to the extent to which tobacco duties can be allowed to rise without introducing such large incentives to smuggling that the basis of the policy is undermined.
  Mr. George Osborne: The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) said that we all had to be honest about our past. Saying that I used to smoke is my contribution to meeting that request. At times, I am in danger of having the zeal of the convert, because I see the damage that smoking does. By instinct, and like many people, I recognise the value of having high duties as a way of discouraging people from smoking. However, as the hon. Gentleman said and as my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) pointed out in his good speech, the issue is much more complicated than that, and it is right for the Committee to explore how the rates of duty that the Government set impact on tobacco smuggling and consumption.
  2.30 pm
  As many people have said, smuggling is a massive problem. A fellow member of the Public Accounts Committee reminded us that it had recently carried out an investigation into tobacco smuggling. It broke with all precedent by summoning before it the representatives
  of a private company—the management of Imperial
  Tobacco—to explain to the Committee what the company's relationship was with the smuggling problem and Customs and Excise.
  I have several concerns that have already been elucidated by other hon. Members, but I will touch on them briefly. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) pointed out the health concern. The Government's legitimate objective of using fiscal measures to discourage consumption is clearly undermined if those same measures lead to a huge increase in smuggling. One of the features not yet touched on in the debate is the fact that between 2 billion and 3 billion of the cigarettes that are smuggled are counterfeit. They are not actually the cigarettes that they claim to be. That could have serious health implications. People might think that they are smoking
  200
  low-tar cigarettes because that is the way that they are packaged when, in fact, they are smoking counterfeit cigarettes that are not low tar. There are serious health concerns which should be addressed.
  I touched on law and order when I intervened on my h on. 'Friend the Member for Eddisbury. Tobacco smuggling is a huge boon to organised crime in this country and it goes hand in hand with other activities such as drug smuggling and the trafficking of human beings for prostitution and immigration purposes. It is striking that many of the smuggled cigarettes that we consume come from places such as Latvia, Moldova, Afghanistan and Kaliningrad. Such places are associated with many of the other serious crime problems that we face.
  There is another aspect to my concern about law and order. Because one in five cigarettes are smuggled in, because one in five smokers use illegal products and because they are purchased off the back of a lorry by the owners of pubs, clubs and corner shops, many otherwise law-abiding people are brought into contact with the criminal fraternity. That can have a corrosive effect.
  As is legitimate in a debate on a Finance Bill, Members have touched on the revenue concern. In one year that the Public Accounts Committee considered, £3.5 billion was lost as a result of tobacco smuggling. That is the equivalent of 1p on the basic rate of income tax, so we are talking about a very large sum of money.
  My next remark is not intended as criticism of the present Government, because all Governments have pursued this policy. The underlying cause of the problem is the variable rates of duty available in this country and in other countries, particularly those near us in Europe. If the price of a packet of cigarettes were very low, there would be a limited incentive to smuggle them into this country. Therefore, it is legitimate to ask about the impact of those rates on smuggling and consumption.
  I have two questions for the Economic Secretary—one is general and the other more specific. First, what sort of work and modelling has been done in the Treasury on the effect on cigarette consumption, smuggling and revenue of freezing or reducing the duty? When Richard Broadbent, who is otherwise a very impressive individual, came before the Public Accounts Committee, he was questioned by its Chairman on this issue. Mr. Broadbent replied:
  "I do not know and I am not sure we are able to calculate with any degree of certainty—and we have not calculated—what the impact might be of such a step downward in rates in the UK".>
  That is very surprising because, when the Chancellor sets his Budget, I should have thought it perfectly reasonable to ask what the effect of reducing duty would be. What modelling has been done? Can the Economic Secretary tell us now or write to me later with detailed evidence of the modelling?
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point. It is quite clear that the absence of any such modelling at official level in the Treasury must reinforce the argument for looking at the proposals in the amendments. There must be some form of ability to test whether the strategies for smuggling and cross-border shopping are having an effect in the way that most of us desire.
  Mr. Osborne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is, of course, normal practice in this place for the Opposition to do the Government's work for them by trying to work out what would actually work. As the debate has gone on, I have watched as the Government Whips and Treasury Ministers have spoken to each other. I am an optimist. Perhaps they will accept the amendment. That would be a good thing.
  It would be interesting to know what work has been done. As the hon. Member for Yeovil said, clearly some thought went into the issue when the Government stopped the escalator effect on cigarette duty. They must have known or guessed what impact that would have had. It would be interesting to hear from the Economic Secretary what the Laffer curve effects—if I can cite another economist—would be on reducing duty. Would that increase revenue?
  Pete Wishart: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously asking the Government to determine their fiscal policy on the basis of trying to deal with smuggling?
  Mr. Osborne: I am asking the Government to tell me whether they would further their objectives for improving the health of the nation, for cracking down on problems of law and order and for raising revenue by reducing the duty. That suggestion may be counterintuitive, but we have shown in other areas of taxation how that can work.
  Mr. John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Osborne: I cannot resist.
  Mr. Bercow: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I fear that his optimism about the Government's reaction to the amendments is positively Panglossian. However, at least his position is not obscurantist or neanderthal, something to which the stance of the Scottish nationalists bears a striking resemblance. Can he tell me what proportion of the cost of a packet of 20 cigarettes is now accounted for by tax and excise duty? When I introduced a ten-minute Bill covering the matter nearly three years ago, the figure was more than 79 per cent.
  Mr. Osborne: I cannot give my hon. Friend a precise figure. but 80 per cent. is the figure that I have seen. That is extremely high and certainly higher than in any other country in the EU and I imagine anywhere else in the world.
  My specific question is about Imperial Tobacco, which was raised earlier in the debate by a fellow member of the Public Accounts Committee. It may
  202
  astonish the Committee to learn that half of all the smuggled cigarettes in this country are Regals or Superkings. A huge proportion of the smuggled products are produced by Imperial Tobacco. When we examined the issue, we found that a third of its exports went to five places: Latvia, Kaliningrad, Afghanistan, Moldova and Andorra. Indeed, when the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), who is also a member of the Committee, asked the chief executive of Imperial Tobacco whether
  "you honestly believe that the 2 billion cigarettes that you exported"—
  to these five places—"were going to be smoked by the people of those countries",
  Mr. Davis, the chief executive of Imperial Tobacco replied, "Yes".
  For all those reasons, Customs and Excise was unable to conclude a memorandum of understanding with Imperial Tobacco even though it had concluded a memorandum with Gallaher and British American Tobacco. It has been reported in the press recently that Customs feels that [imperial Tobacco has made huge progress and is close to signing a memorandum. It would be interesting to hear the Economic Secretary say something about that.
  Mr. Baron: I welcome you to the Chair, Mrs. Heal. I want to focus on the adverse effects of tobacco smuggling in support of one or two previous contributions, most notably that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). Smuggling will increase because of the measures in the Bill, and there are many dire effects of that.
  Clause 1 sets out the new rates of tobacco duty, which increased by 2.8 per cent. from 9 April, in line with inflation. Conservative Members share the Government's desire to reduce tobacco consumption in this country. No one disputes the harmful effects of smoking—it is the single largest cause of preventable
  illness and premature death in the United Kingdom. As we have heard, it kills approximately 120,000 people every year and causes 85 per cent. of deaths from lung cancer. The Government have confirmed that tobacco is the only legal product that kills one in two people who use it.
  I urge the Government to think carefully about how they intend to address one of the main drivers that affects tobacco consumption in Britain, especially among the more vulnerable groups in our society: tobacco smuggling. There is a flourishing trade in black-market tobacco products in the UK and one cannot escape the fact that that is caused, to a large extent, by the substantial price differential between cigarettes sold in the UK and in other European countries. A packet of
  20 cigarettes is about £2 cheaper in France than here. It is little wonder that the National Audit Office has estimated that the number of cigarettes smuggled in 2001 rose from 14 billion to 17 billion and that more than one in five cigarettes consumed in the UK are smuggled. The propc rtion of consumed cigarettes that are smuggled has increased from 3 per cent. in 1997 to
  21 per cent at present. That is a phenomenal increase.
  There are two profound consequences of that. First, there is a tremendous loss of revenue to the Exchequer. As my hon. Friend the Member for

  203
  Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) said, the combined effect of a steep rise in smuggling and cross-border shopping means that about 28 per cent. of cigarettes and 69 per cent. of hand-rolling tobacco do rot attract UK duty. Estimates suggest that the total revenue lost since 1997 is something like £15 billion. Indeed, the NAO recently published a report claiming that Customs and Excise is losing up to £7 billion a year owing to fraud and lost taxes and that half that is lost owing to tobacco smuggling. That sum of money is enormous. How many hospitals could be built and how many extra doctors and nurses could be recruited with that money? That is certainly worth thinking about.
  Secondly, the increase in smuggling has been a major contributor to the fact that the long-term downward trend in cigarette consumption has been broken. Indeed, one could argue that consumption might be on the rise and that the problem is underestimated. For example, a survey published in the British Medical Association's journal "Tobacco Control" at the end of last year revealed that one in five childrer aged under 16 are regular smokers, which is twice the Department of Health's original estimate.
  There is little point increasing taxes and thus creating an ever-larger differential with prices across the channel if we do nothing to stop the smuggling that undoubtedly ensues from that. It is a silly policy that is costing this country many billions of pounds in lost revenue. The policy is contributing to the increase in cigarette consumption, especially among cur young, because cheaper smuggled tobacco products and cigarettes are now so prevalent in the UK. In other words, because smuggled cigarettes are so much cheaper, they are swamping the market and consumption is rising. That is the exact opposite of what we are trying to achieve.
  The Government should take the issue more seriously and re-examine their assumptions. Without a real clampdown on smuggling, the policy of ever-higher taxes will lead to a market that is increasingly supplied with cheaper smuggled cigarettes. That will encourage a long-term increase in consumption, although I believe that that has already started, and a consequential loss of life. I hope that the Government will re-examine their policy.
  2.45 pm
  Mr. Djanogly: Many of my hon. Friends have discussed in detail loss of revenue owing to smuggling and I shall not go over all those arguments again. They made sophisticated arguments, and none more so than my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), and I thought that it would be more appropriate to make a more basic observation.
  The tax increases will hit the poorest members of our society disproportionately. Taxes that are paid on things always attack the poorer members of society but the tobacco tax is especially disproportionate. We must face the essential point that people who cannot afford to go on a booze cruise are likely to be the people who will be induced to buy smuggled goods off a barrel in the street. The impact of the measure is doubly disproportionate toward poorer people.
  The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) said that he was surprised that our patty was talking about
  204
  Europe, but this is not a question of what my colleagues or I say about other countries. The fact of the matter is that this country's policy is to dig its head in the sand. It is no wonder that hundreds of thousands of people go abroad to buy cigarettes from our European neighbours every year because they are less than half the price of those sold in this country. It is a straightforward and unsophisticated argument.
  The amount of revenue lost was mentioned earlier in the debate and I said that I was always dubious about the figures that are bandied around. I have seen a figure of £3.5 billion cited as the amount of lost revenue, although I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) cite a figure of £7 billion. I am not sure which figure is true, but that confirms my view that we do not know how much is being lost, although I am happy to accept the figures that my hon. Friend mentioned. Additionally, when we talk about lost revenue, we do not discuss the hundreds of millions of pounds that we also spend on extra customs officials, special equipment and operations to root out smugglers.
  The Government receive significant revenue from tobacco but by setting the tax rate so high that British people increasingly buy legally from the continent—that has nothing to do with smuggling—they will lose out on the potential tax take while doing nothing to improve public health in this country.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): May I welcome you to the Chair, Mrs. Heal, on my first opportunity to serve under your chairmanship in the Committee of the whole House? We heard a reflective and detailed exposition from the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) that raised genuine concerns and questions about the current policy and although I respect that, I must tell him that his contribution might have been more appropriate in the Standing Committee. However, what is discussed on the Floor of the House is a matter for his and his colleagues' judgment and choice.
  The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) made a somewhat less detailed and reflective contribution, although it was nevertheless considered. He described amendment No. 61 as a probing amendment. It would make a negligible change to the Bill and it does not disguise his interest in tax harmonisation throughout the European Union, which lies behind many of his remarks.
  Mr. Laws: I am happy to confirm that my party believes in tax competition, not tax harmonisation, and that is precisely what the debate is about.
  John Healey: The hon. Gentleman urged us to have a smaller, if not harmonised, differential on excise duties. We will follow closely what other European countries do. The hon. Gentleman is right that Denmark is reducing excise duty on tobacco, but in January France increased the duty and VAT on a packet of cigarettes by 34p and Germany recently increased it by 63p. So the UK is not alone or isolated in its policy of high taxation to reduce smoking.
  The hon. Members for Yeovil and for Eddisbury asked about the publication of the Taylor report. That call is not new and my reasons for refusing its

  205
  publication have not changed. The Taylor report contains internal private advice that was supplied to the Chancellor and we will not publish it.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: It is difficult for Opposition Members to gainsay what a Treasury Minister says about an internal report that was commissioned to provide private information. It would be fair for the Economic Secretary to reflect on the idea that it would be better if internal reports were not publicly announced as great triumphs of consultation. There were high expectations about the report's probity and that encouraged many outside bodies to do a lot of work and make representations. If the report cannot be published, much of that good will has been wasted with only the Government benefiting, not the nation.
  John Healey: The Taylor report was undertaken four years ago. Since then, the Government have published an unprecedented amount of data and analysis. They have made an unprecedented assessment of the amount of revenue lost and the problem posed by smuggling. They have also put in place unprecedented investment to tackle that.
  Mr. Michael Jack: Is the Minister willing to supply a copy of the document to the Information Commissioner and ask whether, in the commissioner's judgment, it contains matters that for security reasons prevent it from going into the public domain? We would all feel happier if we had a proper assessment of the Treasury's need to keep the report to itself.
  John Healey: The Government made their position clear several years ago and we have no intention of altering that now.
  Mr. George Osborne: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister to refer to a document in the House and not place a copy of it in the Library?
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sylvia Heal): The Minister is entirely in order.
  John Healey: Thank you, Mrs. Heal.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Laws rose—
  John Healey: I have a great deal of time for the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) but he only recently arrived in the Chamber, so I shall give way to the hon. Member for Yeovil.
  Mr. Laws: The Economic Secretary says that he will not publish Mr. Taylor's report. Will he confirm the press reports at the time which suggested that Mr. Taylor made recommendations in the report on the duty differentials between this country and the continent?
  John Healey: The hon. Gentleman tempts me into the realm of speculation and I shall not respond.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the Economic Secretary give way?
  John Healey: The hon. Gentleman is so persuasive that I shall give way just this once.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Economic Secretary for giving way and happy to reciprocate his good regard. However, it will not do to say, "This is our position. It is a clear position and therefore I am not going to consider changing it, notwithstanding powerful arguments in support of so doing." Aside from any commitments to his boss, what intellectually is his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) on the idea of putting the issue before the Information Commissioner? What is his intellectual response to that?
  John Healey: The Government have determined their position. I am afraid to say that that has not changed and I do not entertain seriously the suggestion proposed by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack).
  The clause increases excise duty on all tobacco products in line with inflation. Its purpose is to maintain the real cost of smoking by ensuring that the level of duty on all tobacco products keeps pace with inflation in line with recent years, as the hon. Member for Eddisbury said. Our aim is to encourage people to smoke less or quit, and to discourage children and young people from taking up the habit. To that extent, the general approach reflects what this and previous Governments have done to use high prices as part of maintaining the pressure to reduce consumption. Some 35 per cent. of the population smoked 20 years ago. Five years ago that was down to 28 per cent. and there has been a slight fall since then to 27 per cent. in 2001, the latest year for which figures are available. I congratulate the hon. Member far Tatton (Mr. Osborne) on his personal contribution to that statistic.
  Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 would freeze excise duty on all tobacco products other than cigarettes. We cannot accept them as their likely effect would be to increase smoking. Amendment No. 61 would raise excise duty on hand-rolling tobacco by marginally less than inflation. It is hard to understand the purpose of that marginal change proposed to the new duty rate. The tax effect would be an increase of about one quarter of one penny on a typical 25 g packet of hand-rolling tobacco.
  I emphasise that we do not take lightly or without regard to wider considerations the decision to increase tobacco duties in line with inflation across the board. The policy as set out in the 1999 pre-Budget report is to have Budget-by-Budget decisions that take into account a wide range of factors, as hon. Members urged us to do, including the Government's health objectives. When there have been reasons to do so, we have taken a different approach. F'or example, the Chancellor froze duty on hand-rolling tobacco in his first three Budgets in response to a difficult smuggling problem, as hon. Members recognised. However, with £209 million invested in an anti-smuggling strategy, the revenue lost as a result of cross-channel passenger smuggling of hand-rolling tobacco declined from around £700 million three years ago to just £95 million last year. Duty rates policy was adjusted accordingly, precisely the linked decision that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) wanted.
  In two years, Customs and Excise has succeeded in not only halting the growth in cigarette smuggling and keeping the illicit market share to 21 per cent., but

  207
  reducing the volume of cigarettes successfully smuggled into the UK by almost 1 billion. That is a reduction of nearly 5 per cent. and the first time in more than a decade that that has happened. If we had not made the investment and taken that action, the forecast for the illicit market would now be around 31 per cent. That means that 7.5 billion cigarettes were prevented from entering the illicit market in the UK in 2001–02 through the efforts of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to bring the problem under control.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) serves in a distinguished way on the Public Accounts Committee. I pay tribute to his work and to that of the hon. Member for Tatton, especially for their important inquiry into tobacco smuggling and the export activities of Imperial Tobacco. The hon. Member for Tatton asked about a memorandum of understanding. The company has worked closely with Customs and Excise. They have made good progress and there is a reasonable prospixt of its signing a memorandum of understanding shortly. However, as the PAC and hon. Members on both sides of the House acknowledged, internationally organised gangs smuggle the majority of tobacco into the UK. It enters the UK in large volumes through freight, and no duty whatsoever is paid on the product. About 70 per cent. of that smuggled tobacco is unaffected by the duty rates in our neighbouring European Union countries.
  3 pm
  We are concerned about wider issues such as smuggling, but for this Budget, we decided to maintain the real level of duty across all tobacco products in support of the Government's health objectives. That is what the clause seeks to do, and that objective would be undermined by the amendments in two ways. First, they would reduce the cost of the products in question in real terms by preventing the level of duty from keeping pace with inflation. Secondly, they would increase the price differential between cigarettes and other tobacco products. That may encourage cigarette smokers to engage in down-trading—rather than giving up, smokers may respond to the relative increase in price by shifting their consumption from cigarettes to cheaper products. There is already a trend for smokers to down-trade from cigarettes to hand-rolling tobacco in particular, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) pointed out in his intervention. The amendments would only reinforce that trend.
  Indeed, the representations that we received from health and anti-smoking groups such as Action on Smoking and Health, the Royal College of Physicians and Cancer Research UK in the run-up to the Budget made it clear that they believed the tax rate on hand-rolling tobacco should be increased to
  "reduce the incentive to switch from cigarettes".
  Likewise they believed that
  "cigar prices should be kept in line with cigarettes and increase at the same rate".
  208
  They may have wanted us to go further, but that sensible approach coincides with our policy of keeping prices high. A duty freeze would only encourage greater consumption.
  Mr. Laws: I am grateful to the Economic Secretary for giving way again, and accept the argument that he is developing. However, he seems to be suggesting that we have arrived almost by accident at exactly the right rate of duty on tobacco products. He said that the Government have dumped the 5 per cent. escalator. How did they reach the verdict that tobacco duties now are exactly right in real terms, and will he publish the evidence for that?
  John Healey: The hon. Gentleman's assertion that we feel we have got the balance exactly right is absurd. As I have explained, our policy operates Budget by Budget, and was set out in the 1999 pre-Budget report. We have taken a particular decision for this Budget.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) clearly outlined the health consequences of accepting the amendments. Smoking is the largest single cause of preventable illness and premature death in the UK. It kills 120,000 people each year and costs the British taxpayer about £1.5 billion a year in treatment bills alone. The amendment would only add to the smokers' death toll and increase NHS costs for the treatment of smoking-related diseases. On that basis, I urge the House to reject the amendments if the hon. Member for Eddisbury presses them to a vote, and to support clause 1 unamended.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: The Minister's response demonstrates the stubborn approach to the Taylor report that has caused widespread disappointment for a number of years. When he checks the Official Report, he might like to reflect on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), not least because it will be pursued by other people. It would therefore be appropriate for the Government to answer it fully and properly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) asked whether the Government used a model when they looked at the complex interrelation of health policy, revenue raising, smuggling, cross-border retail and wholesale trade and freedom of choice under a civilised and democratic system of Government, which has been challenged in the past day or so. It would be good if that model were publicly aired so that when Members on both sides of the House looked at these difficult and important issues on behalf of their constituents they had a common basis of information and understanding. A lot of arguments and interventions today, including those made in response to my speech, queried the veracity of the evidence base, so it would be of great benefit if the Treasury produced that model so that we could all be better informed when making such arguments in future.
  I hope that the Minister does not resent the fact that we have had this debate in Committee of the whole House, as we have heard a particularly good exposition of pressing issues that affect the health of our constituents and the prosperity of people who run corner shops and other outlets. We have also heard great concern about the loss of revenue properly raised

  209
  on smoking products by all Governments. I am glad that those important points were taken seriously. I am also encouraged by the Minister's decision that the rates applied by the Government were for this Budget alone. He put particular emphasis on the word "this", and we are clutching at that straw. Perhaps some of the serious arguments made in today's debate will find favour in future and, in light of the publication of the Taylor report, it would be particularly helpful if the Treasury model were made available. With those comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

  RATES OF HYDROCARBON OIL DUTIES
  Mr. Jack: I beg to move amendment No. 60.
  The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 4.
  Mr. Jack: I remind the Committee of my business declarations, which have been properly included in the Register of Members' Interests.
  Our debate will focus on important and wide-ranging aspects of the Government's environmental policy against the background of the derogation of duty on diesel produced from oilseed rape, better known as biodiesel. I want to look at whether that derogation is set at the correct level. The farming industry and I do not believe that it is, hence the amendment. I want to examine the arguments that the Treasury have made to back up its position, and I give notice that if the Minister cannot agree with me in substance—either refusing to accept that the matter needs to be re-examined or not accepting my amendment—I will wish to divide the House, as I believe that the matter is of considerable importance.
  The background to the issue is the Government's commitment to sustainability. In a section of the Red Book entitled "Protecting the Environment", paragraph 7.2, which is headed "A strategy for environmental taxes", says:
  "Taxes and other economic instruments can provide incentives for behaviour that protects or improves the environment".
  The former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown), pointed out in the foreword to "Towards Sustainable Agriculture" that that document
  "highlights the role of agriculture in helping to achieve sustainable development."
  It went on to outline how that role might be fulfilled, stating:
  "Agriculture plays an important part in that strategy. It can help society in the quest for a better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come."
  Those are lofty and supportable objectives, but unless agriculture is properly encouraged to play its part, those objectives of the wider Government strategy on sustainability will not be met.
  210
  In their overall approach on energy policy, the Government have made it clear that in the field of electricity generation there are renewables obligations that must be met by those who supply electrical energy. The mechanism for achieving that objective is effectively that all those who are distributors of electricity have to buy a quantity that is renewable and pay a premium for that. The costs of that premium are absorbed in the cost of the electricity. In advocating a lower rate of duty on biodiesel than that which currently applies, the first challenge for a Treasury Minister is to make it clear that there is a cost attached. I wrote to the Economic Secretary following representations on the matter from Mr. Graham Secker, the managing director of Cargill plc, and in his reply the right hon. Gentleman stated that the Government
  "cannot support these fuels at any cost."
  That is almost like saying that the Government cannot afford to give anything, but the Economic Secretary knows that a derogation of 20p per litre has already been given. It is a good first defensive line, so let us deal with it straight away.
  If the Minister genuinely wanted to encourage the use and the growth of biodiesel from the production of oilseed rape, he could have moved from a derogation of 20p per litre to a derogation of just over 28p per litre, as my amendment proposes, and he could have recouped the entire cost, over the total number of litres of diesel sold in the United Kingdom, by a fractional change in the duty rate charged on other forms of diesel fuel. He could, if he had so wished, have made that an even smaller increment if he had imposed it across the whole range of liquid hydrocarbon fuels derived from mineral sources.
  The question is how to pump-prime the exercise to get biodiesel production up to speed. In the same letter, the Minister went on to say that he did not want to
  "over-compensate biodiesel producers for bringing their product to market".
  The Cargill company has done some detailed analysis to show why, in its judgment, 28.2p as opposed to 20p per litre reduction in duty is the right figure. I shall return to that shortly.
  In his interesting letter, the Minister seeks to broaden the logic of the argument in order to justify his position. Instead of staying close to the issue of biodiesel versus other forms of green energy, he states that the reason why a more generous derogation of duty is not possible is that that would interfere with
  "the 'price' of other environmental programmes that could also tackle climate change (for example, better home insulation)."
  I do not disagree that pound for pound, better home insulation delivers a greater CO2 saving than does biodiesel, but I would have extreme difficulty in running my diesel car on home insulation. The Minister's attempt to compare apples and pears fails the first test of whether there is a logical basis for the Treasury's position on the matter.
  Then the Minister goes even wider in his letter. According to him, my proposal
  "could affect our ability to provide essential public services such as schools and hospitals."

  211
  I did not know that the Government's investment in schools and hospitals rested on the differential of 20p to 28p of duty on biodiesel. Perhaps it illustrates the fragility of the current economic situation that the entire investment rests on that argument. With such fragile and inconsistent logic, the Minister triumphantly states in the letter:
  "That is why we decided that a 20 pence per litre duty cut relative to ULSD"
  that is, ultra-low sulphur diesel—
  "is sufficient recognition of the environmental benefits both from biodiesel and bioethanol and provides best value for money."
  The Minister has drawn that from a report commissioned by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from Sheffield Hallam university. I have a copy of that report, which is quite a thick document. I should be grateful if the Minister would cite the page on which the conclusion is reached that 20p, as opposed to 28p, is the right amount to stimulate agriculturally based biodiesel. In the time that I have had the report, I cannot claim to have read every word of the closely argued economic text, but that is not the conclusion that I have reached from my reading of it.
  Although the Minister did not say so in his letter, the document is about comparing different ways of saving CO2. With reference to kilograms of carbon dioxide saved for every pound spent, the Minister would be entirely right in quoting from page ix of the report the figure of 478.5 for loft insulation. One of the other comparators that gives better value for money, electricity from short rotation coppice, saves 19.6 kg of carbon dioxide per pound of public investment. The only problem is that the one power station that burned short rotation coppice has just gone out of business.
  Biodiesel from oilseed rape comes top of the liquefied fuels that have a carbon dioxide-saving property. If we compare like with like, biodiesel has a good basis, but the same report goes on to counsel us:
  "Currently, there is no agreement on these estimates which provides a sound basis of consensus for setting a justified level of derogation for biodiesel".
  In other words, the report admits that there is a flaw in the logic of all this comparative activity. Yet that is the platform on which the Minister bases his argument that his 20p is the right number.
  In the interests of greater illumination of the facts of the matter, I tabled a question last week:
  "To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will publish the calculations which he used to determine that £0.2710 shall be the biodiesel duty rate, as shown in clause 4 of the Finance Bill."
  Given all the hard work, justification, letter writing and consideration of the matter in previous Finance Bills, one would think that by now the Minister would have no difficulty in giving me an answer. What was the reply?
  "I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible."
  It is pathetic that the Economic Secretary was not able to share with the House the logic and calculation on which the rate of duty is based, so we are left to make up our own mind. Being a seeker after truth, I moved to the pre-Budget Report 2002 of the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, HC 167. I thought I
  212
  might find an answer there about the basis for the calculation. In paragraph 10 of the report, on page 9, I discovered that the Committee had questioned the Economic Secretary on the level of biofuel duty. He said:
  "The dynamics for the intervention that we believe we need to make in the case of bioethanol or biodiesel is different from that of the fuel gases"
  —that is, liquid petroleum gas. The Committee made this comment on that arcane and incomprehensible sentence:
  "We found his comments arcane, and requested further information on the extent to which the Treasury had carried out a comparative appraisal of the costs and benefits of different fuels."
  It went on to state:
  "We are concerned not only over the basis of such environmental costings but also at their selective use."
  The more we look at the justification for the Treasury's position, the more we find that there seems to be a great secret. Perhaps this calculation falls into the same category as the points made about the Taylor report in respect of the previous amendment. For some reason, a Committee criticises the Economic Secretary for not coming clean and for selective use of information, and a question to which I wanted an answer was not answered.
  Paragraph 13 of the report states:
  "Promotion of biofuels could provide huge benefits in carbon savings, and indeed a recent report has suggested that a quarter of the UK's agricultural land could in principle provide sufficient biofuel to satisfy total transport demand."
  The Committee concludes its observations thus:
  "We are also concerned, in this context, at a certain tension between the Treasury's traditional desire for secrecy in relation to tax changes, and its new-found zeal for consultation and longterm signals."
  That is a profound finding, as it suggests that there would be potential for an agricultural revolution if the duty rate was right. However, we do not know how the Treasury calculated its figures and some very interesting questions are raised about its conduct in these matters.
  I therefore turned to the National Farmers Union for greater solace. It rightly reminded me—this is built on the back of what the Environmental Audit Committee said—of the following:
  "Crops sequester carbon from the atmosphere as they grow, and recycle carbon when used as fuels, rather than re-introducing locked-up carbon into the atmosphere as fossil fuels do."
  I make that point because it underscores the importance of the carbon cycle and the sustainability of an energy policy that is more strongly founded, certainly in relation to diesel fuel, on the use of biofuel. As I shall demonstrate in a few moments, the economics currently do not add up.
  Let me return to the Sheffield Hallam university report, which goes into considerable detail about whether a good return is available for the expenditure involved. Through the arable area payments scheme, oilseed rape growers effectively receive a subsidy under the common agricultural policy. Those arrangements may change, but the status quo is the arable area payments scheme. The duty derogation that I propose in the amendment would give further encouragement on top of that scheme to induce farmers to move to the

  213
  production of oilseed rape for the purposes of producing biodiesel. The Sheffield Hallam report refers to the oilseed rape contribution in reducing carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases:
  "This demonstrates that biodiesel from OSR is more cost effective as a means of saving net carbon dioxide and GHG emissions than CNG".
  As you, Mrs. Heal, may recall from discussion of previous Finance Bills, compressed natural gas is also a road fuel. The argument in favour of giving that fuel a duty derogation was sustained on health grounds and not CO2 grounds. Given the problems that the Government may have in meeting their international obligations in future, there is a powerful case to suggest that the production of biodiesel from oilseed rape should be encouraged. The report states that biodiesel gives a better return for the public purse on CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions than compressed natural gas as an alternative road fuel. That powerful finding features in a report that the Government prayed in aid in justifying not doing anything about the issue. As I said, the report also counsels us about the validity of the basis of the Government's arguments on their calculations.
  I think that I have undermined the position that the Government have taken in justifying their stance and not doing anything about this matter in terms of the Environmental Audit Committee and Sheffield Hallam university reports. On the duty rate itself, I wish to deal with the effect that the current position would have. In a letter that Cargill sent to me, it gives the following counsel:
  "If the Government were to follow EU guidelines targeting 2% biodiesel by 2005, this 400,000 litres per month"—
  the current rate of production—
  "must be expanded some 80-fold to 32 million litres per month".
  The letter refers to the Motherwell plant, which will make biodiesel, but use waste food and animal products to do so. The Economic Secretary prayed that plant in aid in his letter to me, and implied that, because of what was happening at Motherwell, we did not need to do anything to encourage the production of biodiesel from oilseed rape. However, as I shall show in a moment, that is not the case. Cargill states:
  "It is our understanding that the Motherwell plant is adding some 4.5 million litres per month, leaving a further 27 million litres"
  to meet the European Union target. It goes on to state:
  "This is simply not possible from the available quantities of RVO and tallow. At current market prices of rapeseed oil and crude mineral oil, the 20p per litre derogation for biodiesel is insufficient to stimulate the growth of additional UK rapeseed, nor the investment in biodiesel production facilities capable of producing this 32 million litres … per month required to meet the near-term targets."
  Rob Marris: I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's Cargill figures, but will he repeat them? Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought that he said that Cargill had suggested that an 80-fold increase was needed on 100,000 litres, but that that produced a figure of 32 million litres, which is not an 80-fold increase. Will he go through the figures again?
  Mr. Jack: I apologise if the hon. Gentleman did not hear. Let me read the paragraph again:
  "If the Government were to follow the EU guidelines targeting 2% biodiesel by 2005, this 400,000 litres per month must be expanded 80-fold"
  I apologise if I misquoted the document and referred to 100,000 litres. Let us put the matter down to acoustics, if we may, but I am grateful to him for asking for clarification.
  In further seeking to justify his position, the Economic Secretary said in other remarks to Cargill that the 20p per litre figure for the current derogation was higher than the derogations available in Spain and Austria, but lower than those in Germany, France and Italy. It is interesting to consider the production figures. Cargill kindly sent me a chart showing that Spain effectively does not rate on the same scale in overall production. Austria produced less than 50,000 tonnes of biodiesel in 2002, but the situation is different in areas where there is a better derogation than ours. The figure goes up to 200,000 tonnes in Italy, 350,000 tonnes in France and 450,000 tonnes in Germany. There does genuinely seem to be a correlation between the rate of duty derogation and the amount that is produced.
  3.30 pm
  I turn to an even more detailed analysis of why Cargill feels that the 28.2p per litre derogation that I seek through my amendment is correct. Its calculations show that
  "the derogation has failed to create a level playing field between biodiesel and ULSD"—
  ultra-low sulphur diesel. It continues:
  "A derogation of 28.20 pence per litre would be necessary based on current prices for new-crop 2003 rapeseed oil and on a total production cost of £488.05 a tonne for biodiesel (which equates to an ex-tax price of 42.70 pence per litre). This compares with ULSD wholesale price of 14.5 pence per litre before tax. A rate of 28.20 pence per litre would, therefore, compensate for the difference in the production costs of ULSD and biodiesel. If such a derogation was forthcoming, Cargill would anticipate producing between 150,000 and 200,000 tonnes of biodiesel annually. This would initially represent 1 per cent. of total UK diesel sales".
  There we have it—a comprehensive argument that illustrates the weakness of the Treasury's case for the current derogation of 20p, and highlights the fact that if the Treasury is convinced of its argument, it has refused to share it with this House and with the Environmental Audit Committee.
  My argument is entirely in compliance with the Government's approach to sustainability, both in general terms and in agriculture. I argue it from the point of view of the positive effect that it would have on UK agriculture and on employment in rural Britain. I argue it on the basis of an expert opinion from within grain purchasing—namely, the Cargill company, which has a great deal of knowledge. It is up to the Minister to give the House as much detail as I have given, so that if he intends to stick to 20p, he can justify it. I have suggested to him a way of making a fractional increase in the duty on other forms of liquid hydrocarbon fuels. The policy would cost the Treasury not one penny and is entirely compliant with the approach that has

  215
  been taken to electricity in relation tothe renewables obligation. That is a sound, powerful, well-argued and sustainable economic case, and I look forward to the Economic Secretary's reply.
  Mr. Baron: Clause 5 increases the duties on red diesel and fuel oil by 1p per litre in addition to inflation. The farming industry continues to be in crisis, and that measure does nothing to help. Indeed, it can only add to the costs to an industry that already has many problems. Farmers in my constituency have certainly suffered in recent years. In 1996, the total income from farming stood at around £5 billion; by last year, it had more than halved, to £2.4 billion. The average farmer earns about £3.60 an hour, and more than two-thirds of farmers work for more than 60 hours a week.
  Mr. Bercow: Less than the minimum wage.
  Mr. Baron: As my hon. Friend says, less than the minimum wage.
  Farming incomes rose slightly in 2002, but during the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001 they were at their lowest in real terms since the depression in the 1930s. The agricultural industry accounted for 0.7 per cent. of the total economy in 2001, down from 3 per cent. in 1973—quite a steep decline. Agriculture accounts for 15 per cent. of rural businesses. However, in the two years prior to 2002, more than 3,000 VAT-registered businesses closed, with a net loss of 25,000 agricultural jobs. Meanwhile, agricultural borrowing is rising, with an estimated total debt of £10 billion, yet investment is at its lowest for 30 years. It is riot a pretty picture. Furthermore, despite the fact that food prices for consumers are rising, the share that farmers receive is static or falling. For example, the average price of a pint of milk in the shops is about 35p, but farmers receive an average of only 9p per pint.
  Meanwhile, like most small businesses, farmers have been subjected to regulation after regulation. I shall not go into all the detail, but needless to say, since the beginning of the year there have been numerous regulations on various aspects of the industry. It is important to allow farmers to farm free from too much interference and bureaucracy. The current round of common agricultural policy reform is a case in point. There is little doubt that the current round of the CAP keeps prices to the consumer artificially high. Although reform is imperative, EU enlargement means that midterm review will neither fulfil the need for reform nor allow British farmers the necessary freedom to farm for the market.
  Rob Marris: Would the hon. Gentleman get rid of milk quotas?
  Mr. Baron: That should be considered, but the midterm review is proving a great disappointment to many farmers in my constituency and, I am sure, throughout the country because it does not fundamentally deal with the reforms that are required. That causes consternation, especially about the promises that the Government made or suggested, before the review.
  216
  Farming is struggling, and there is burdensome regulation and little prospect of CAP reform. The Government should do what they reasonably can to help farming through a difficult period. Increasing the duties on red diesel and fuel oil by 1p per litre above inflation makes life more difficult for the farmers in my constituency and throughout the country. That cannot be in the national interest. They should do much more here and in the international marketplace to create better conditions for British farming to thrive, so that we produce more domestically grown goods both for the home market and export.
  Agriculture accounts for more than three quarters of the management of land in rural areas. The Government tend to forget that. Agriculture has a dual purpose of producing food and overseeing environmental management, which is important to the economy, not least because agriculture generates more than £7 billion of the £9 billion a year that rural tourism generates. Farmers and growers are the custodians of our landscape and we would do well to remember that. The countryside is a resource, but everyone should enjoy it. Agriculture plays a key role, which needs to be better recognised.
  The Government should scrap the increase in red diesel and fuel duties and not lumber farming with yet another increase in costs, especially at such a difficult time.
  Mr. Djanogly: My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) is very knowledgeable about this subject. I was amazed to learn that 25 per cent. of farmland could fuel the country. It is a remarkable figure, and I do not know how well it is known.
  Farming should be greatly encouraged. I recently visited a farmer in my constituency—a Mr. Field—who has devoted one of his fields to the production of a biocrop. I had an interesting time learning about that. Its advantage is that it means winners all round. Farmers—who are currently having a hard time, as other hon. Members pointed out—can use it to diversify. Many are desperately searching for ways in which to diversify while maintaining the quality of their land and doing that in an environmentally friendly way, not only for their land but for the energy that they produce.
  The comparatively low duty on biodiesel is still not enough to encourage commercial use of the fuel, which is environmentally friendly but not competitive with fossil diesel under the current tax structure. The British Association for Bio Fuels and Oils wants the rebate to be increased from 20p per litre to 40p per litre. As long as such a rebate was guaranteed over a period of time, it would probably lead to major firms being willing to begin production. However, there are no guarantees over a period of time. I get the feeling that it is a side issue for the Government and they want to get away with paying lip service to the needs of the environmental lobby. We should be more serious about biodiesel. It is environmentally friendly, it provides excellent opportunities for diversification for farmers, and it helps a rural sector that deserves more input than it is receiving from the Government today.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: First, I would like to address the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) on the amendment tabled in his name, which is fully supported by my right hon. and hon. Friends in Her Majesty's official Opposition's shadow Treasury team. At the same time, I should like to speak to the amendment to clause 5, which has, for the House's convenience, been grouped with this amendment. Both amendments relate to the rates of hydrocarbon oil duties, but they none the less employ very different arguments.
  In an attempt to maintain some kind of logic in this discussion on amendments that straddle two clauses which deal with very different sets of circumstances—despite being banded together under a common title—I would like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde. His speech was a lesson to us all in identifying, researching and introducing an original perspective on the deliberations of the House. A Committee of the whole House is one of the few occasions on which we genuinely get the opportunity to consider carefully the effects of measures on which the Government naturally have to take decisions that are all-encompassing, in terms of brackets of categorisation. We discover, however, that those effects can have a direct impact when we drill down into the detail.
  It would be an inefficient use of the House's time, and also less than respectful to the fine arguments that my right hon. Friend has deployed, if I were to try to demonstrate that I have understood them, although I like to think that I have. I would, however, like to place it on record that Her Majesty's official Opposition not only fully endorse my right hon. Friend's remarks but congratulate him on his tremendous exposition of the arguments. It will be very difficult for the Minister to resist them.
  I note the support that the National Farmers Union has given in relation to this issue. Its chairman with responsibility for alternative crop uses has said:
  "The Chancellor recognised in his statement … that bioethanol has a valuable role to play in reducing pollution levels. We will continue to press for the necessary duty cut to get the industry off the ground."
  My right hon. Friend mentioned the manufacturing plant that was in administration or, at any rate, in some form of financial distress. I heard from a radio source—I therefore have no documentary evidence to back this up—that the title to and ownership of the raw material of such a plant remains in the hands of the farmers. We should therefore be in no doubt that what is required is, to coin a phrase, the pump-priming facility that the Treasury is uniquely capable of providing. The raw materials, the initiative and the incentive are all there, and the NFU has stated that it wants to be able to get projects such as this off the ground. Previous efforts have not, however, been sufficient to provide meaningful encouragement to Britain's fledgling bioethanol industry.
  Mr. Jack: I am most grateful for my hon. Friend's generous words. He has mentioned bioethanol. Is he aware that British Sugar is looking closely at the question of substantial investment in this area, particularly in relation to bioethanol and the use of raw materials derived from the sugar production process
  218
  and possibly even from potatoes? Does he agree that such developments would be dependent on a more generous derogation on the duty, to pump-prime what could be some very major investment?
  Mr. O'Brien: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That information, albeit in summary form, has come in my direction as well. These are large and detailed matters, and the Committee of the whole House gives us the opportunity to ensure that they are put on record and that the Treasury Minister has the opportunity to consider them. None of us necessarily expects or even wants an immediate answer relating to some of the detailed points. Sometimes, following a good discussion, a Minister has to go away and consider—but we expect him to return with a reply that is both responsive and responsible.
  3.45 pm
  I have had to look into these matters in my constituency. One of my constituents is an amazing entrepreneur, Stephen Whittaker, who has been studying the conversion of used vegetable fats into what he calls e-diesel. It has been enormously successful. An old calf-rearing shed has been converted into a number of small vats. He now has a lorry, and has secured contracts with some of the country's major retail chains and hauliers. He has had to contend with all sorts of planning issues, and he naturally called on me for assistance and support. I feel that such initiatives should be supported in all their guises, and that the Treasury and local planning authorities should help whenever they can.
  There is a genuine demand for alternative fuels, and they can be provided through incredibly hard graft, dedication and often sacrifice on the part of entrepreneurs and their families. Huge capital risk is needed to get such projects off the ground. We may never hear of the failures: some entrepreneurs, in the cause of what may be the country's best interests over time, and certainly the best interests of the environmental agenda, may well prove to be sacrificial martyrs.
  The real opportunities lie in major capital investments such as those mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde, and the possibilities that he says British Sugar is considering. The main barrier in such instances may be not access to capital, but access to confidence in a resulting cash flow in a competitive context. That is the pump-priming opportunity that will persuade a business to make a decision. At present there is not a sufficient incentive. The proof lies in whether the decisions allowing for investments have yet been made. The Treasury should recognise that what we are discussing is both worthy and highly beneficial, and unlikely to cause consternation or controversy between parties.
  Clause 5 provides for an increase in duties on rebated gas oil, known as red diesel, of 1p per litre, in addition to a rise in line with inflation of 0.09p per litre. Fuel oil use falls into two main categories. The first—with which we need not concern ourselves here—accounts for about two thirds of total use according to the latest estimates. The caveat relating to statistics has already been issued today. That first category covers domestic heating

  219
  boilers. The remainder is used in what are currently known as non-road vehicles, which in the past have been used mostly in agriculture—tractors and other farm vehicles. Nowadays, following the collapse of farming as a share of the rural, let alone the general, economy over the past three or four years, plant that is hired and operated on construction sites constitutes a larger element. I understand that it is right to describe such vehicles as "non-road" because they are not used on public road sites, but JCBs are used as tractors and categorised as such, and the same applies to plant hire vehicles, cement mixers and rollers. They use fuel oil that is marked with a dye and chemical markers, which is why it is known as red diesel.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) ably represented the interests of farmers in and around his constituency. An attempt has been made to justify the additional duty increase on environmental grounds. It has been argued that as red diesel currently has a higher sulphur content than road diesel, it contributes to local air quality problems. That may sound very worthy from a Government who are seeking to put forward yet another of their "green" taxes, but as we have discovered over time, they have always been revenue-raising and highly dubious. That was demonstrated not least in relation to the previous clause and the true vires of a "green" initiative that will deliver the goods.
  An increase in the level of duty should therefore lead to a reduction, it is said, in red diesel use, ameliorating the environmental impact. However, agriculture, for example, is an essential user of fuel, and farmers will use only as much fuel as individual activities demand. The industry's current financial difficulties also mean that farmers will be looking towards the most efficient use of fuel on farm, so it is highly unlikely that the increased duty will lead to a reduction in usage.
  So the environmental arguments for the increase must also be questioned, given that the duty on rebated ultra-low sulphur diesel is also being increased by 1p. The increase in duty will in fact result in an increase in the industry's fuel bill of about £25 million. This increase in duty comes at the same time as the Government's themselves campaigning against the European Parliament's proposal to harmonise fuel qualities for non-road diesel in line with those for ultra-low sulphur road diesel. I pay tribute to the Government for the UK's successfully arguing that the proposed harmonisation—an ever-present danger of the EU's agenda, as we all know—would impose an unacceptable increase in costs of about 2p per litre on the agricultural industry, with marginal environmental benefit.
  I am simply arguing, on exactly the same ground, that red diesel should not face an unacceptable extra 1p per litre increase in such costs. Sulphur levels in red diesel are set to fall over the next five years, from their current level of 2,000 parts per million to 350 parts per million. If the current duty increase reflects the perceived environmental cost of red diesel, the benefits that lower sulphur levels are adjudged to bring should also be reflected by removing the extra 1p per litre, recognising that lower sulphur red diesel is, or is shortly expected to become, available.
  220
  The farming industry continues to be in crisis, and frankly this measure does nothing to help. If the Government are allowed to persist with it instead of accepting this amendment, a further body blow will be struck to the UK's rural economy and to our struggling farmers. Compared with 1995, income from farming in 2002 was down 62 per cent., at £2.36 billion; in 1996, it stood at £5 billion. Britain's rural economy continues to be mired in one of the deepest recessions that it has experienced since the first world war. The Government's inflation-busting increase in fuel duty on red diesel will do nothing to help our struggling farmers, who are still recovering from the Government's mishandling of the foot and mouth crisis and the slump in farm incomes.
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): That is quite unnecessary.
  Mr. O'Brien: Well, the Chief Secretary will be interested to know, particularly given the reward that he receives—I wonder whether everybody in the country feels that it is fully earned—that in the year to December 2002, UK farmers earned, on average, £11,107. They work some of the longest hours of anyone; 75 per cent. work more than 60 hours per week, and on average they earn just £3.60 an hour. Labour's latest sting on rural Britain will see more family farms go bust, and falling incomes will come under intense pressure, forcing even more farmers to quit the industry. My constituency contains many farmers, whom I seek to represent, and there is a real feeling there and across rural Britain that this measure is yet further proof—if proof were needed—that Labour does not understand the countryside or the wider economic contribution that farming makes to Britain's economy. That ignorance is costing Britain dear. So there is a solution—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman some leeway; perhaps he could now relate his remarks to the amendment in question.
  Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful for your comment, Mrs. Heal, and having made the point I am happy to move on. However, this is a very serious issue for that part of the industry.
  It is not just the farming community that is suffering. I have received correspondence from EWS, the rail freight company, which says that it uses rebated gas oil—red diesel—off-road, of course. The cost to EWS alone will be £1.81 million and, when additional costs imposed on other operators are added, the cost to the rail freight industry will be at least £2 million a year. We understand that the increased costs to the passenger rail industry—an industry already in terrible straits—will be more than £10 million, and the Government's measure will make it harder, not easier, to improve an essential public service.
  The correspondence continues:
  "The Government wishes to encourage the transfer of freight from road to rail. This tax will have the opposite effect. The environmental benefit of rail freight is considerable with significantly lower noxious emissions per tonne moved than by road. Therefore the imposition of an environmental tax that will lead to more traffic on the roads will actually have the reverse effect to that intended by the Chancellor."

  221
  The next sentence makes an interesting comparison in the light of the farmer, Mr. Field, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly):
  "The rail freight industry has a good track record of reducing its environmental impact. The Class 66 locomotive, used by most rail freight operators, produces one-tenth of the polluting emissions of older locomotives; this tax imposition fails to recognise our achievements in this area."
  Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the class 66 was developed to be much less polluting? I would suggest that it was because the cost of fuel increased. Vehicles were then made less pollution-emitting and were built to use less fuel per gallon, thereby lessening the amount of carbon dioxide emitted.
  Mr. O'Brien: I certainly salute the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of class 66 locomotives, but I hope that his intervention does not signal his belief that operational efforts to produce more fuel-efficiency should be diminished simply because of the genesis of what drove the need in the first place. The current tax imposition will hardly encourage further improvement in that respect.
  One important aspect of the red diesel imposition is overall environmental benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) put it well when he asked:
  "Is this Government measure not absurd when balanced against the negative environmental impact it may bring about by forcing more farmers, custodians of our landscape, onto the scrap heap?"
  As he rightly says:
  "Agriculture is not just important economically; farmers and growers are the custodians of a landscape that is valued by the people in the cities as well as villages and which is a prime asset for our tourist industry."—[Official Report, 16 October 2002; Vol. 390, c. 391.]
  Some have argued that the Government's proposed inflation-busting increase on red diesel is an attempt to remove proper cost recognition for farmers and, by diminishing the differential, to remove the incentive for fraud and misuse, thus ensuring anti-avoidance. We all want compliance with proper use; otherwise it penalises farmers who need the product. In any event, Governments have introduced new rules to try to stamp out avoidance.
  I shall not take up the Committee's time in reading it out, but a new pamphlet was issued by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise on precisely that point. It is entitled "Buying red diesel, or rebated kerosene/paraffin for your own use" and includes new rules from 1 April 2003. Clearly, the publication of that document is part of the Government's investment in anti-avoidance. In order to buy diesel from 1 April this year, the document insists that people give information on name, address, postcode, phone number, VAT registration and VAT number, vehicle registration number—if the oil is collected—and intended use. That is a serious example of a compliance procedure based on red tape and bureaucracy. To my mind, all red tape is anathema, though it may be necessary for anti-avoidance.
  Any counter-argument that the Treasury may have been advised could add to its potential armoury against our proposals today would be wholly misconceived, because anti-avoidance can be achieved through other
  222
  measures. This is a direct slap in the face of the interests of farmers, who are already suffering enough and are doing their best to bring themselves out of the deepest recession in farming since the 1930s.
  I have one other point that most properly belongs in the stand part debate. I leave it to your discretion, Mrs. Heal, as to whether you prefer me to leave it until then or to make it now.
  The First Deputy Chairman: That is entirely a matter for the hon. Gentleman.
  4 pm
  Mr. O'Brien: I shall leave it to the stand part debate. We hope that we will receive recognition for our arguments on behalf of all current users of red diesel, especially the farming community. However, if we are not satisfied by the response from the Economic Secretary, we will press the matter to a vote.
  John Healey: Clause 4 increases the main excise duty rates on hydrocarbon oils in line with inflation with effect from 1 October. The excise duty rate for biodiesel will also be increased to maintain the differential with ultra-low sulphur diesel in cash terms. I shall address the detailed points made by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) in a moment.
  Last year, the Chancellor described oil prices as high and volatile. In recent months, the military conflict in Iraq has contributed to exceptional volatility in crude oil prices. For example, prices this year have fluctuated from more than $32 a barrel to $24 a barrel, resulting in increases in pump prices for motorists. The oil price has started to fall recently to about $25 a barrel compared with the last few months, but when the Chancellor was making his Budget decisions he saw that there was a risk that international uncertainty could lead to continuing price volatility in oil markets. In those circumstances, instead of increasing fuel duty on Budget day, he deferred the increase until 1 October, by which time the risk of oil price instability should have reduced.
  This is the first increase in fuel duty since 2000. The freezes that we have imposed have meant a cut in real terms, and since 2000 fuel duty has fallen by 5p per litre. Indeed, even delaying the introduction of the duty changes until October, for example, will cost £300 million in revenue forgone.
  Income from fuel duty enables us not only to provide essential public services but to take account of the environment. Fuel duties and the regimes that we have introduced have contributed to the fall in transport-related emissions and play a continuing role in helping us to meet environmental targets such as those set at Kyoto.
  The right hon. Member for Fylde may not agree with my response to his arguments, but I shall attempt to advance the debate in the same spirit in which he introduced it. We introduced the duty incentive for biodiesel of 20p per litre in July 2002, since when the production of biodiesel has increased sevenfold. That is a small beginning, and it is early days, but that sevenfold increase has occurred in only nine months. The incentive was chosen carefully to reflect the environmental benefits offered by the fuel. An incentive above that level—for which the right hon. Gentleman

  223
  argued—would not offer value for money for the taxpayer, and it would not be right for us to seek those environmental benefits at any cost.
  The right hon. Gentleman subjected that point, and others that I have put to him in correspondence, to a forensic examination. I am familiar with the Cargill analysis and I have met the company's representatives personally. Officials have also been in regular contact. The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned British Sugar. I have met representatives of that company and they, too, have had regular contact with officials. British Sugar has been able to supply detailed and high-quality information, evidence and analysis. That has been very valuable to the Government, and the information has helped us to move to a position where we believe that a similar bioethanol duty differential is also justified.
  The principal policy purpose of the duty differentials is to secure a contribution to climate change. I am glad that the right hon. Member for Fylde does not disagree with my contention that home insulation, for example, has a more cost-effective impact on climate change, pound for pound. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the policy purpose that I have outlined. The principal issue when it comes to cost is to set the duty incentive at a rate that reflects the environmental benefits offered by the fuel.
  The right hon. Member for Fylde was right to say that the Sheffield Hallam university report looked at the different ways to secure the saving in carbon dioxide emissions that we seek. It assessed the environmental benefits offered by the different methods of securing that saving. That is why the right hon. Gentleman did not find the precise analysis that he was seeking in the report.
  However, I know that a number of Labour Members have made arguments similar to the right hon. Gentlemen's. I am the Minister responsible for such matters, and I assure the Committee that the Government remain open to new arguments and evidence. We announced in the pre-Budget report in November that we believed that a duty differential to support bioethanol development could bring environmental benefits that justified that differential. Furthermore, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirmed in his Budget that the proposal would come into force in January 2005. That policy development came about because we had new evidence and analysis, and were persuaded of the case.
  The right hon. Member for Fylde also mentioned road fuel gases, and gave the impression that the treatment of those gases was unfair and inconsistent with the treatment of biofuels. I reject those arguments, and I have rejected them in correspondence as well.
  The duty rates for different fuels reflect the different environmental benefits that those fuels might offer. The environmental benefits of road fuel gases are found principally in local air quality benefits, rather than in climate change emissions. I note that there would need to be additional investment in infrastructure to distribute the road fuel gases.
  The wider comments from the right hon. Member for Fylde on the future treatment of road fuel gases, and the benefits that could accrue in terms of carbon dioxide
  224
  emissions, have their place. He might wish to make his comments more fully, but I shall take what he said today as a contribution to the consultation on the future tax treatment of road fuel gases. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that consultation in the Budget, and we will be undertaking it over the summer, jointly with the Department for Transport.
  It was not clear whether the right hon. Member for Fylde was advocating that 25 per cent. of the British countryside should be covered in rapeseed. However, in pressing the case for widespread rapeseed cultivation, he was arguing not just for greater biodiesel production but, in effect, for a production subsidy on non-food crops. Agricultural support is not the principal policy purpose of the biofuels duty differentials. Our reference point for decisions in this policy area are the environmental gains to be achieved through reduced carbon dioxide emissions, at a reasonable cost to the public purse.
  The contributions from Opposition Members were rather confused. On the one hand, the Government are urged to support—more strongly and at greater cost—biodiesel as a cleaner fuel; on the other, we are urged to maintain support for red diesel, which is a relatively dirty fuel. That is rather mixed logic from the Opposition.
  The second amendment is designed to limit the duty increase on rebated gas oil, or red diesel as it is commonly known, to 0.9p a litre. In other words, the increase would be limited to what is needed to revalorise the duty. I am glad to note that the Opposition endorse the principle of revalorising that duty, and I hope that they will therefore support the revalorisation contained in clause 4, but I am puzzled by the rationale behind the amendment. It is limited to rebated gas oil. It does not seek to mitigate increases on fuel oil, light oil used as furnace fuel and ultra-low sulphur gas oil, which are also provided for in clause 5. Since each of those fuels is, to some degree, in competition with others, the purpose of the amendment is confused and obscure. If accepted, it would lead to a larger duty increase being applied to the ultra-low sulphur version of gas oil, which is less polluting and more environmentally friendly than the higher-sulphur forms of gas oil. That would be perverse.
  Let me explain the rationale behind the Government's proposals. In the UK air quality strategy, published in February, we set challenging new targets for local air quality. Rebated fuels can have much higher sulphur levels than the made road fuels, as the hon. Member for Eddisbury recognised, and their use continues to contribute to local air pollution.
  The hon. Gentleman laid special emphasis on the interests of farmers, and it is important to put that into perspective. Red diesel is used in many sectors of the economy, both as a motor fuel and as a heating fuel. The measure is not specific to farmers, and farming groups have welcomed many of the Budget's proposals, including the freeze in lorry excise duty, extension of the capital gains tax business asset taper relief to landowners and the proposal that stamp duty should not be paid on leases where the net present value is less than £150,000.
  There are no fully reliable figures for the amount of red diesel used by farmers, but oil industry estimates, which are probably the best we have, suggest that the

  225
  cost of the duty increase to the farming and food-producing industries should be around £10 million in real terms. That is £10 million out of an additional revenue from the measure of £80 million.
  We understand the value of the rebate to those who depend on it, but we are keen to pursue and meet our environmental objectives. That is why we will consult over the summer, as the Chancellor announced in the Budget statement, to establish whether preferential duty rates for such fuels would offer worthwhile environmental benefits. In doing so, we will consider, as we always do for questions of environmental taxation, the economic impact, social benefits and social redistributive costs.
  At the moment, I see no justification for the amendment. I do not accept it and urge my hon. Friends to vote against it and to support the clause.
  Mr. Jack: Mr. Winterton—
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir Nicholas Wintertoni): Sir Nicholas!
  Mr. Jack: My apologies, Sir Nicholas. Thank you for calling me.
  I appreciate the kind words of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) about my earlier comments. I thank the Minister for his characteristically courteous and careful reply to many of my points. He bent somewhat in the direction of our arguments, and I welcome the fact that he has spoken extensively with industry representatives and that he plans further consultation during the summer. That is encouraging.
  However, although the Minister was critical of some of my logic, I sensed something of a tortured nature to his own remarks. Instead of looking within the transport fuels section to find comparisons on the environmental benefits of biodiesel and ultra-low sulphur diesel, conventional diesel and other road fuels, he chose to deploy the wider argument of value for money in terms of carbon dioxide saving.
  4.15pm
  If I were to follow that thin line of logic to its ultimate conclusion, as the Member of Parliament for the constituency in which nearly all Britain's nuclear fuel is made, I might say that it suggests the interesting thought that the Treasury really wants to spend a great deal of money on enabling us to have more nuclear power stations, thus producing more of our electricity with zero carbon dioxide. I suspect that if I were to advance that argument in too broad terms. Sir Nicholas, I should rightly be ruled out of order and, secondly, that the Economic Secretary would not be persuaded. However, that is the logical intent of what he said.
  There is an incontrovertible argument on vehicle fuels. I remind the Economic Secretary of what the National Farmers Union said about the role of oilseed rape in carbon sequestration. The NFU pointed out:
  "Crops sequester carbon from the atmosphere as they grow, and recycle carbon when used as fuels."
  If we do not encourage the production of more biofuels now, the fuel that will be used will come from mineral sources. By definition, it will not be sustainable and extra carbon dioxide will be emitted.
  226
  If the Minister wants to remain true to the Government's intention to reduce carbon dioxide, he should, even at this late hour, accept our amendment. He is not rising to agree with me, but the arguments put by the Opposition are sustainable and I wish to push the amendment to a Division.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 175, Noes 289.

  Division No. 189]

  [4:17 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Flook, Adrian

  Amess, David

  Forth, rh Eric

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Francois, Mark

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Garnier, Edward

  Bacon, Richard

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Baker, Norman

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Baldry, Tony

  Gidley, Sandra

  Barker, Gregory

  Gillen, Mrs Cheryl

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Barrett, John

  Grayling, Chris

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Grieve, Dominic

  Bercow, John

  Gummer, rh John

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hague, rh William

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Harvey, Nick

  Brady, Graham

  Hawkins, Nick

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Heald, Oliver

  Brazier, Julian

  Heath, David

  Breed, Colin

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Hendry, Charles

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hermon, Lady

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Burnett, John

  Holmes, Paul

  Burns, Simon

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Burstow, Paul

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Butterfill, John

  Jack, rh Michael

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Cameron, David

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Cash, William

  Lamb, Norman

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Chope, Christopher

  Leigh, Edward

  Clappison, James

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lidington, David

  Collins, Tim

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Loughton, Tim

  Cotter, Brian

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Curry, rh David

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Maclean, rh David

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Maude, rh Francis

  Dodds, Nigel

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Doughty, Sue

  Mercer, Patrick

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Moore, Michael

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Flight, Howard

  Norman, Archie

  227

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Steen, Anthony

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Streeter, Gary

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Ottaway, Richard

  Swayne, Desmond

  Page, Richard

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Paice, James

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Paterson, Owen

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Pickles, Eric

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Thurso, John

  Randall, John

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Viggers, Peter

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Watkinson, Angela

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Weir, Michael

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Whittingdale, John

  Sanders, Adrian

  Wiggin, Bill

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Willetts, David

  Selous, Andrew

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Willis, Phil

  Shepherd, Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Simmonds, Mark

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Wishart, Pete

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

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Soames, Nicholas

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Mr. Robert Syms and

  Spring, Richard

  Hugh Robertson

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

Clause 5

  REBATES ON HYDROCARBON OIL DUTIES
  Amendment proposed: No. 4, in page 3, line 27, leave out '£0.0422' and insert '£0.0322'.— [Mr. Stephen O'Brien.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 174, Noes 281.

  Division No. 189]

  [4:17 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Flook, Adrian

  Amess, David

  Forth, rh Eric

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Francois, Mark

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Garnier, Edward

  Bacon, Richard

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Baker, Norman

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Baldry, Tony

  Gidley, Sandra

  Barker, Gregory

  Gillen, Mrs Cheryl

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Barrett, John

  Grayling, Chris

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Grieve, Dominic

  Bercow, John

  Gummer, rh John

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hague, rh William

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Harvey, Nick

  Brady, Graham

  Hawkins, Nick

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Heald, Oliver

  Brazier, Julian

  Heath, David

  Breed, Colin

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Hendry, Charles

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hermon, Lady

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Burnett, John

  Holmes, Paul

  Burns, Simon

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Burstow, Paul

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Butterfill, John

  Jack, rh Michael

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Cameron, David

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Cash, William

  Lamb, Norman

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Chope, Christopher

  Leigh, Edward

  Clappison, James

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lidington, David

  Collins, Tim

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Loughton, Tim

  Cotter, Brian

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Curry, rh David

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Maclean, rh David

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Maude, rh Francis

  Dodds, Nigel

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Doughty, Sue

  Mercer, Patrick

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Moore, Michael

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Flight, Howard

  Norman, Archie

  227

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Steen, Anthony

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Streeter, Gary

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Ottaway, Richard

  Swayne, Desmond

  Page, Richard

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Paice, James

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Paterson, Owen

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Pickles, Eric

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Thurso, John

  Randall, John

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Viggers, Peter

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Watkinson, Angela

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Weir, Michael

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Whittingdale, John

  Sanders, Adrian

  Wiggin, Bill

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Willetts, David

  Selous, Andrew

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Willis, Phil

  Shepherd, Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Simmonds, Mark

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Wishart, Pete

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

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Soames, Nicholas

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Mr. Robert Syms and

  Spring, Richard

  Hugh Robertson

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Caton, Martin

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clapham, Michael

  Allen, Graham

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Austin, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clelland, David

  Baird, Vera

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Banks, Tony

  Coaker, Vernon

  Barnes, Harry

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Coleman, Iain

  Battle, John

  Colman, Tony

  Bayley, Hugh

  Connarty, Michael

  Beard, Nigel

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Benn, Hilary

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Corston, Jean

  Blackman, Liz

  Cousins, Jim

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cranston, Ross

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Crausby, David

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cummings, John

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Browne, Desmond

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Bryant, Chris

  Dalyell, Tam

  Burden, Richard

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Burgon, Colin

  David, Wayne

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Davidson, Ian

  Cairns, David

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Caplin, Ivor

  Denham, rh John

  Casale, Roger

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  228

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Kidney, David

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Doran, Frank

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Lammy, David

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  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

  Farrelly, Paul

  Linton, Martin

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Fisher, Mark

  Love, Andrew

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Follett, Barbara

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, rh Derek

  McCabe, Stephen

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  MacDonald, Calum

  MacDougall, John

  Foulkes, rh George

  McFall, John

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Mclsaac, Shona

  George, rh Bruce (WalsallS)

  McKechin, Ann

  Gerrard, Neil

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Gilroy, Linda

  McNamara, Kevin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McNulty, Tony

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Grogan, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Hanson, David

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Martlew, Eric

  Merron, Gillian

  Healey, John

  Miliband, David

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Heppell, John

  Morgan, Julie

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Morley, Elliot

  Heyes, David

  Mountford, Kali

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mudie, George

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Mullin, Chris

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Olner, Bill

  Hutton, rh John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Organ, Diana

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Owen, Albert

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Perham, Linda

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Picking, Anne

  Jamieson, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kemp, Fraser

  Purnell, James

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Quinn, Lawrie

  229

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

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

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Trickett, Jon

  Truswell, Paul

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Rooney, Terry

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Ruane, Chris

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Salter, Martin

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Sawford, Phil

  Watts, David

  Shaw, Jonathan

  White, Brian

  Sheridan, Jim

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Shipley Ms Debra

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Singh, Marsha

  wills, Michael

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wnnick, David

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Worthington, Tony

  Soley, Clive

  Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Southworth, Helen

  Squire, Rachel

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Stevenson, George

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mr. Nick Ainger and

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Derek Twigg

  Division No. 190]

  [4:30 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Brazier, Julian

  Amess, David

  Breed, Colin

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Bacon, Richard

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Baker, Norman

  Burnett, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Burns, Simon

  Barker, Gregory

  Burstow, Paul

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Burt, Alistair

  Barrett, John

  Butterfill, John

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Bellingham, Henry

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Bercow, John

  Cameron, David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Brady, Graham

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Chope, Christopher

  230

  Clappison, James

  Maude, rh Francis

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Collins, Tim

  Mercer, Patrick

  Conway, Derek

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Cotter, Brian

  Moore, Michael

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Curry, rh David

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Norman, Archie

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  page, Richard

  Dodds, Nigel

  paice, James

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Paterson, Owen

  Doughty, Sue

  Pickles, Eric

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Randall, John

  Flight, Howard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Flook, Adrian

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Francois, Mark

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Garnier, Edward

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Roe Mrs Marion

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Gidley, Sandra

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Sanders Adrian

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Sayeed Jonathan

  Grayling, Chris

  Se|ous Andrew

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Grieve, Dominic

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gummer, rh John

  Simmonds, Mark

  Hague, rh William

  simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Smith Sir Robert (W Ab"d"ns & Kincardine)

  Harvey, Nick

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hawkins, Nick

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Heald, OliVer

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Heath, David

  Spring, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Steen, Anthony

  Hendry, Charles

  Streeter, Gary

  Hermon, Lady

  Stunell, Andrew

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Swayne, Desmons

  Holmes, Paul

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Jack, rh Michael

  TaVlor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Tnurso, Jonn

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lamb, Norman

  Viggers, Peter

  Lansley, Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Leigh, Edward

  Weir, Michael

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Whittingdale, John

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Wiggin, Bill

  Lidington, David

  Willetts, David

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Loughton, Tim

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Luff, Peter (M- Worcs)

  Wishart, Pete

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Young, rh Sir George

  Maclean, rh David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Mr. Robert Syms and

  Malins, Humfrey

  Hugh Robertson

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 5

  REBATES ON HYDROCARBON OIL DUTIES
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Naturally, we are disappointed that the Government did not accept amendment No. 4. However, now that we are debating clause 5, which deals with rebates on hydrocarbon fuels, I wish to flag up a point made by the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs. I am sure that a number of Members are interested in motor vehicles, and I should declare an interest as vice-chairman of the all-party group on classic cars and vehicles, as well as the proud owner of a defunct and yet to be restored 1954 Ford Popular. I am also on the hunt for a 1952 Austin K9 ex-Desert Rats signals lorry. Both those vehicles run on leaded petrol—[Interruption.] The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has prompted me to explain that I want an Austin K9 because I want to revive the memory of travelling across the Sahara and back in one in 1979, and relive my adventures.
  The Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs has been in contact with the Economic Secretary, and I wish to flag up its concerns. We all accept the genuine importance to our country's culture of preserving our classic car heritage, and acknowledge the dedication of car owners and members of historic car clubs. Now that the car is well over 100 years old, it is an accepted part of our history. Two years ago, during the debate on the 2001 Budget, the Chancellor said that he was reducing the duty payable on road fuels by 2p a litre if they met low-sulphur criteria, but the resulting legislation excluded from that benefit the small amount of leaded petrol that continues to be sold in this country. Under EU legislation, up to 0.5 per cent of petrol sold may be leaded. In the UK, leaded petrol is taxed at a significantly higher rate than unleaded because of its lead content, so it is unreasonable that the reduction in duty does not apply to it. The president and executive of the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs represent a large membership and, we believe, on the basis of somewhat dated figures, a historic movement worth a staggering £1.6 billion per annum in this country, employing in excess of 25,000 people. I can vouch for the large numbers in my constituency and in the neighbouring constituency of North Shropshire who are engaged in historic vehicle preservation and use.
  4.45 pm
  Having had a meeting with the Treasury and Customs., and Excise, representatives of the clubs were given great encouragement that their arguments had been understood and accepted. There may also have been an exchange of letters, but those have not been put in the public domain, as far as I am aware. Nevertheless, that is the fount of the confidence that has been represented to me.
  The Government's position is that they do not wish to encourage the use of leaded petrol. The duty differential with other fuels is already significant. Speaking from my own experience, I know that older vehicles are very
  234
  unhappy on anything but leaded fuel, and as testament to my inadequate mechanical practices, are very unhappy generally. With leaded petrol, at least I give my vehicle a slightly greater chance of being able to perform as it should than if it had to use unleaded. The conversion of such vehicle engines is problematic. Many of them are extremely sensitive, having run many miles in the past, and contain metals, especially valve systems, which are easily corroded by the additives necessary to produce unleaded fuel. Anybody who has a side-valve engine knows the difficulty of grinding a side valve. With eight of them for four cylinders, that becomes extremely tedious.
  Apart from wishing for an easier life for those with side-valve engines, I support the representations that have come my way and argue that the duty differential with other fuels is already more than sufficient. The pump price is so great that no one would use leaded fuel unless they had to.
  A further argument against the initiative is that the benefits of low sulphur without the use of modern technology—that is, catalytic converters—are minimal. The historic car clubs dispute that. They say that even if it is true, it is irrelevant, as the tax was reduced on leaded replacement petrol, which was developed specifically for older vehicles without modern technology. Perhaps it was not earlier understood that leaded petrol would automatically become low sulphur when that became the only base fuel available.
  I do not intend to press the matter to a vote, but I raise it in order to give the Minister an opportunity to tell us whether any progress has been made on an issue that affects many people and the hobby that they all enjoy. If the hon. Gentleman wants to take the matter further, we will have an opportunity to consider it again on Report.
  John Healey: I shall respond briefly to the hon. Gentleman's point, and then address clause stand part. We carefully considered the representations on the matter before Budget 2003 and decided against the duty treatment that the hon. Gentleman advocates because we believe that it would send out the wrong environmental signals if we cut the duty on a fuel that was considered to be harmful. I remind him that with respect to historic vehicles, there is a vehicle excise duty exemption for cars registered before 1973.
  Clause 5 increases the effective rates of duty on oils other than the main oils used as road fuels by 1p per litre above inflation. These increases apply to red diesel—that is, diesel that has been marked to show that it must not be used in road vehicles—and to fuel oil and light oil used as furnace oil. The increase came into effect from 6 pm on Budget day.
  The policy rationale for the clause is that rebated fuels typically have much higher sulphur levels than the main road fuels. Their use continues to contribute to particulate emissions.
  Mr. George Osborne: Will the Minister tell us how much such fuels contribute to particulate emissions?
  John Healey: The hon. Gentleman is sharp in mind and sharp to get to his feet. I was about to explain that

  235
  red diesel has a permitted sulphur content of 2,000 parts per million, as opposed to 50 parts per million in the main road fuels. Most of the red diesel in UK vehicles has a sulphur content of about 1,300 parts per million—26 times the permitted level for the main road fuels. That gives him a measure of the differential.
  Duty represents only a small percentage of the price of rebated fuels as compared with road fuel. The deferred increase envisaged for ordinary motorists will be greater with revalorisation than the total paid by users for rebated fuels. The duty on such fuels continues to be more than 40p a litre below that paid by ordinary motorists in respect of main road fuels. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his Budget statement, in addition to the increase and as part of our continuing commitment to improving local air quality, the Government will consult in the summer to establish whether preferential duty rates for rebated oils with a low sulphur content would offer worthwhile environmental benefits.
  Finally, kerosene, a low-sulphur oil that is used mainly for domestic heating, will continue to enjoy exemption from duty.
  I commend the clause to the Committee.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

  BINGO DUTY
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 6.
  The Temporary Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 69 and Government amendments Nos. 70 and 71.
  Mr. O'Brien: It may help the Economic Secretary to note that the aims that the amendments seek to achieve could probably have been most elegantly and simply achieved by other unselected amendments. For understandable reasons, not least including legal drafting, we are not proceeding with those amendments, so I shall not seek to detain the House or debate them, although I should say that I refer to amendments Nos. 5 and 68.
  In any event, amendments Nos. 6 and 69 would achieve what we seek to achieve, and I hope that the Economic Secretary will be minded to accept them after he has heard the arguments, as they would improve the Bill and deliver on the very aims that were flagged up by the Chancellor himself. Indeed, the only point of attempted levity in the Chancellor's hour-long Budget speech, as recorded in the Official Report of 9 April, arose when he said:
  "I turn now to bingo. I will abolish the bingo tax…just as I have abolished direct taxes on the pools and on betting on horse racing."
  The phrase "just as I have" implies a direct equivalence, and that was the expectation given to all those who are interested in bingo, whether they are providers or the millions of people throughout the country who play the
  236
  game. Bingo is a pastime of interest and enjoyment to many communities around the country. I have been privileged to visit my local bingo club in Winsford in my constituency, where I recently had the pleasure of presenting a very large cheque to a young lady who had been going there with her mother for many years and had won the sweep across the country—they are all computer-linked these days. She said that it would not change her life, but she was going to live in Spain.
  The Chancellor went on to say:
  "The tax on bingo players' stakes and the tax on bingo prizes will be replaced in the same way as the tax on betting and the pools."—[Official Report, 9 April 2003; Vol. 403, c. 278.]
  He then went on to make the joke that did not work. I ask the Minister to keep in mind the phrases that the Chancellor used—"just as I have" and
  "will be replaced in the same way".
  The language that he used clearly created an expectation of a direct equivalence.
  Bingo is currently liable to duty at a rate of 10 per cent. on all moneys staked. Betting and football pools have both in the recent past moved on to a gross profits tax basis—in the case of betting, with the active support and encouragement of that industry. A move to gross profits tax for bingo, which the industry has indicated in the past it would not welcome, was announced by the Chancellor in April 2002—just over a year ago—without prior notice to or discussion with the Bingo Association, which represents by far the greatest number of bingo operators and interested groups. At that point, there were no indications of how any new system might work or of what the rate might be. I understand that the Bingo Association has held lengthy and detailed discussions with Customs and Excise, including extensive modelling by the Henley Centre, in order to examine all possible options. The industry favoured a system that made participation fees VAT-exempt and levied GPT—gross profits tax—at a rate of 15 per cent., in line with betting and the pools: "just as" or "in the same way", to keep in line with what the Chancellor was leading the whole industry and all those who play bingo to expect. The Bingo Association voiced objections to any system that maintains VAT.
  The problem, which will come as no surprise to the Government, is that bingo is still liable to VAT on participation fees—or "par fees", as they are knownand will be double-taxed because of the way in which the GPT calculation has been set. The gross profits calculation does not allow VAT to be treated as a cost, thereby implementing double taxation. The system will not deliver even the limited benefits that the Chancellor outlined and could in many circumstances leave clubs worse off. The tax burden on bingo remains significantly higher than on any other gaming product, at 30.7 per cent. The bingo industry rightly considers that that amounts to discrimination against bingo players.
  I do not know whether that is something that the Government are happy to stomach, or whether they intended it, but the Government's promise of a fairer tax regime in relation to bingo rings hollow in the ears of bingo players across the country. The Government's proposed changes to the way in which the bingo industry is taxed leaves it at a serious disadvantage to the rest of the gaming industry. The Chancellor's sleight of hand is evident. The Government's proposed tax

  237
  system will not even deliver the limited benefits that he previously promised. The tax burden on bingo remains significantly higher than on any other gaming product. Britain's bingo players, and the industry, deserve a fair deal, but once again they are being let down.
  5 pm
  Conservative Members, as Her Majesty's official Opposition, will lend support if the Government recognise that, on this occasion, there has been sleight of hand or—let me be generous—an oversight, and that they had intended, as the Chancellor clearly stated, to put bingo on the same footing as the pools and the betting industry. That has not happened, hence we will support Government action in amending to the Bill to ensure that bingo players and the gaming industry have a level playing field. Amendments Nos. 6 and 69 would achieve that.
  We are considering a problem that is simple to solve. Have the Government the will to live up to the Chancellor's words in the Budget statement as recently as 9 April? Conservative Members have not attempted to generate artificial anger, although it is easy to suggest that we have made such attempts. Representation after representation has been made on the issue. It is appropriate to cite the bingo club in my constituency—Top Ten Bingo in Dingle lane in Winsford—from which I received a letter. I did not solicit it, but it happened to arrive in my post this morning after I had prepared my remarks. It is so relevant that I shall quote from it. It is dated 9 May and states:
  "Dear Mr. O'Brien,
  As you know in his budget speech, the Chancellor announced that he was abolishing bingo duty. This follows his statement last year when he made it clear that he wanted to benefit both the players and the industry.
  A consultation paper was issued in which the Minister"—
  the Economic Secretary is named—
  "wrote:-
  'We want to deliver the same (as for bookmakers) successful reform for bingo that should allow bingo companies to invest more in growth of their clubs and increase their prize payout, which in turn should help boost attendances'."
  Mr. Ryder, the club's general manager, continues:
  "These aims cannot be realised because unlike the betting industry VAT will still apply to bingo. This means that the amount available to pay the new tax, invest more in clubs and to give extra meaningful prizes will be totally insufficient. Indeed in the medium term, according to research carried out by the Henley Centre, both stake money and prize levels are likely to decrease by 2007."
  I mentioned the centre earlier, and Mr. Ryder's reference to it suggests that he is a member of the Bingo Association or has heard of its work. The letter goes on:
  "There will therefore not be the growth in the industry for which we had hoped."
  I am sure that the Economic Secretary takes the matter seriously. Mr. Ryder quotes his words in a consultation paper. Top Ten Bingo is a highly reputable club and an attractive venue for all those who enjoy the sport and entertainment.
  Adam Price: The hon. Gentleman referred to the differential tax burden on bingo when compared with other parts of the gaming industry. Does he accept that the new proposals, which
  238
  increase the tax burden, discriminate against smaller clubs in particular? They would especially benefit from the abolition of par fees to which he referred.
  Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman makes an important and telling point. I am sure that his constituency has many typical bingo outlets that are probably similar to those that characterise the sort of constituency that I represent on the English-Welsh border. Club ownership obviously varies from constituency to constituency, but the detailed scrutiny of a Committee allows us to look out for areas that will suffer from genuine cost burdens, new regulatory impacts, and a challenge to all those who run community services and provide the community's lifeblood. People feel that they can come together in such places and be part of the community.
  Mr. Ryder's letter continues:
  "The most disturbing matter for the industry is that the Chancellor has raised false expectations. Our customers are asking where are the price reductions and the bigger prizes they were led to expect."
  That goes to the heart of the point made by the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price). Local bingo halls, perhaps single businesses or those with a very small company base, will have to recover a certain proportion of their overhead costs in order to stay in business. To do that, they need a level playing field, so as to be able to compete against the pools and the betting industry. They also need the incentive to back not only the sustainability of their businesses but their growth, which is what the Minister was seeking to encourage in the quote that I read out, and which he wanted the industry to understand that he was encouraging.
  The absence of the removal of VAT is occurring alongside the unwelcome imposition of the gross profits tax. These businesses have accepted the GPT, but they remain burdened by VAT, unlike those with whom they have to compete and also the smaller businesses. That must also apply to the larger businesses, because they are seeking to attract people with the potential for winning prizes. We know from the extraordinary experience of the lottery that, as soon as there is a rollover from one week to the next, a whole load more tickets are suddenly bought. There is no logic to that, because the odds are always the same, mathematically, whether we choose the same numbers or different ones, from week to week. Mathematically, that is illogical, but from the point of view of encouraging business, it is very real.
  Mr. George Osborne: I do not want to pick my hon. Friend up on his maths, but if the stake is larger in the lottery, the effective odds are better in a rollover week.
  Mr. O'Brien: That depends entirely on individual circumstances, but the mathematical basis remains constant.
  Mr. Osborne: There is a bigger stake.
  Mr. O'Brien: Indeed, there is a bigger stake but, for my hon. Friend's maths to work, one would have to participate in the game to the same proportion. This discussion, however, is stretching the nature of our purpose here today to its limit.

  239
  In addition to what Mr. Ryder says his customers are asking for, he says that they now realise that the expectations that the Chancellor raised are not going to be met. They also realise that, as bingo players, they are being unfairly treated compared with those using betting shops. This will often relate to two halves of a couple living in the same household, so conversations about this take place, however much people might believe that they do not. Mr. Ryder goes on to point out that
  "the majority (75 per cent.) of bingo players are women"—
  I did not know that statistic until I read it here—
  "and the reverse is probably true of betting shops",
  as I have just instinctively pointed out, although I did not have the evidence to do so until I read what Mr. Ryder had written. He goes on to say that
  "this does not represent 'social equality', a phrase much used by the Chancellor on budget day and Tony Blair. I am therefore writing to express my great disappointment and dissatisfaction at what is now being proposed. I will be forced to face customers expecting improvements as a result of previous budget promises, that will be impossible for me to meet. I feel that the Chancellor is totally to blame for this and that the only way to redress matters is for bingo participation fees not to be subject to VAT."
  As I said earlier, I prepared my remarks on this amendment before I read what Mr. Ryder had to say on the matter. He has put it very well, but I am afraid that I am not going to decline the opportunity to give the House some of the remarks that I had prepared earlier. The recommended solution is to make participation fees VAT-exempt. During discussions with Customs and Excise, it was made clear that the discretion to take such a step exists. If that proves impossible, however, it would be possible to get to the same position by reducing the gross profits tax to 4 per cent. The latter option would provide significantly less benefit to the consumer and the industry; it is, however, what has ended up in the amendments.
  I wonder whether the Minister is prepared to give an absolute guarantee at the Dispatch Box today that he likes the look of what were amendments Nos. 5 and 68, to the extent that he will adopt them. Former amendment No. 68 is, of course, a better version of former amendment No. 5, although there might be a small EU law issue as to whether bingo being singled out would qualify under the broad categories applicable under the EU directive governing VAT. On the other hand, the Minister could achieve the same result by accepting our current amendments. Perhaps he will give a guarantee that he is prepared to accept the amendments that we were unable to pursue because of the amendment of the law provision—about which I had some issues, as we were seeking relief from an exemption in relation to bingo, rather than providing for an exemption, to which the terms of the amendment to the law resolution relate. I had to accept what had been decided, however, so I had to adopt this course. It is our duty to do our best to find a solution. Bingo could decline rapidly, in relative terms, unless the Government are prepared to acknowledge the seriousness of the issue.
  The reforms announced on 9 April will not deliver the Government's stated objectives. The VAT element is largely responsible for the significantly larger tax burden
  240
  on bingo. A KPMG study carried out in 2000 showed that it was being taxed at 34.1 per cent. then, but the current differential is still very great, and to make matters worse double taxation is now being introduced.
  If the Government want to move, they can move very fast; if they want to stall, I dare say that they can do that. It is clear that they could remedy the problems inherent in what the Chancellor seems to have been determined to suggest he was delivering—something that is now being discussed by businesses throughout the country, and increasingly, by bingo players: naturally, when they get together the subject will arise, and the conversation is not one that I imagine the Government would wish to take place. I am suggesting a remedy—a way in which the Government might be able to make themselves more popular with bingo players. That may be the right way to bring about a better law, but I must say that it goes against my instincts.
  Our amendment would deliver the Government's stated objectives and implement reform. It was on this basis that the industry accepted the move to GPT. Amendments Nos. 6 and 69 would remove the unfairness in the current system, and would enable the Government to live up to the expectations that they deliberately peddled to bingo players and the industry—while also being open to the charge of having been somewhat economical with their explanations in the Budget speech, and having previously failed to deliver on clearly stated objectives.
  A considered response from the Minister would be helpful, and unless he can give the categorical guarantee and reassurance that I seek, we will press the issue. I could advance further arguments, but I hope that the Government have listened to what I have already said, and I do not want to take up more of the Committee's time.
  Mr. Laws: I have three questions. First, is it Government policy for bingo taxation to be neutral in relation to other forms of gambling? Secondly, following the Budget, is it neutral in that sense? Thirdly, if it is not, what would it cost the Exchequer in an average year to achieve neutrality?
  The Temporary Chairman: The Committee is grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his brevity.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. George Osborne: I shall not be quite so brief, Sir Nicholas; nevertheless, I hope to make a relatively short contribution. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on an excellent speech. I always suspected that he was an expert on the bingo industry—even before he went to Winsford to present the prize. In fact, I have gone one better than him a nd called bingo numbers on several occasions in Cheshire. I discovered that when the number 10 is pulled out, it is called "Tony's den". That is something that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) wants to change, and I would approve of that.
  On a serious note, my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury is right to bring to the House's attention the very real concerns of the bingo industry and of bingo players across the country, and he has done so in a very eloquent way. As he said, the Chancellor's objective was

  241
  to create the right environment for bingo to maintain its role in the community and to reach maximum growth; indeed, the Economic Secretary told us last year that reform will not only benefit bingo players and bingo companies, but strengthen the increasingly important role played by bingo clubs within the wider community and help to ensure that the next 20 years are ones of growth and success. That is what the Economic Secretary set out to achieve, so presumably he was very disappointed when the Bingo Association told him that, as a result of the proposals announced in the Budget, clubs will be no better off, and in some cases will be worse off than before. If that is what the industry is saying, he will presumably want to think again about these proposals extremely carefully.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury referred to KPMG's interesting study on this issue, carried out in 2000. with which Members are doubtless very familiar. It found that the effective tax burden on the bingo industry was 34.1 per cent., which is considerably higher than that on arcades, at 19.9 per cent., on casinos, at 21.7 per cent., on pools, at 15 per cent., or on betting generally. It is true that this reform would reduce somewhat the effective rate of tax on the industry, but only to 30.7 per cent., which is still far above that for all other forms of gambling. Such a rate would continue to discriminate against the bingo industry. Indeed, because of the way in which the reforms are structured, they may lead to an increase in the burden for smaller clubs—a point made by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price).
  The industry feels that the proposals announced in the Budget are a betrayal. Given that they were introduced to help the industry, the Economic Secretary should listen on this occasion. I welcome the fact that the Government have already tabled an amendment to delay the implementation of some of these proposals; that was a particular concern of the industry. Nevertheless, that does little to help smaller bingo clubs in particular.
  I end my contribution by pointing out what the Bingo Association itself had to say:
  "Bingo clubs and players want fair play. They want to be treated in the same way as those who bet and play the pools."
  [Interruption.] I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury wants to intervene and interrupt the Bingo Association.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: In that context, my hon. Friend might find it interesting to note that the Bingo Association wrote to the Economic Secretary on 8 May; indeed, I have a copy of the letter in front of me. It states that in advising him,
  "Customs and Excise have leant very heavily on the Nottingham University Business School's evaluation of CiPT on bookmakers."
  It continues by pointing out that there seems to be an excessive reliance on the assumption that what is true for bookmakers is true for the bingo industry. I hope that that is a helpful reinforcement of the valid points that my hon. Friend is making.
  Mr. Osborne: Indeed it is, and I should hate to think that Customs and Excise—or, indeed, the Treasury—did not have a proper understanding of the bingo
  242
  industry. However, in the light of these proposals and of our knowledge of the industry, that appears to be the case. The Bingo Association makes a very straightforward point: it wants the Chancellor to live up to his promises. It believes that current proposals should be amended to include VAT exemption from participation fees, removing the unfair discrimination against millions of women—and presumably men—who play bingo, and giving bingo clubs across the country, many of whom are struggling to survive, the chance of future success.
  John Healey: The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) urged me to make a considered response to his points, and I shall attempt to do so. I want to deal thoroughly with the issues because millions of bingo players in every constituency across the country are potentially affected and should potentially benefit from our proposals. First, I shall explain the background and purpose of the reforms and explain our decisions. Secondly, I shall respond to Opposition Members' plea to make the reforms more generous and deliver a bigger tax saving to the bingo industry. Thirdly, I shall assure the House that Ministers and our officials have listened to the industry about the changes necessary to make the reforms work as well as possible, and I shall explain the amendments that the Government have tabled to that end.
  The reforms are the latest elements of our wider programme to reform the taxation of gambling in this country by replacing across the board duty regimes that have been in place since the 1960s with simplified systems of taxation that reflect the modern age and support the future competitiveness of the UK's gambling industries. Following our reforms to betting and pools taxation, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the last Budget that he would examine the scope for abolishing the duty on bingo players' stakes and replacing it with a tax on bingo companies' gross profits. What the Chancellor proposed is what we are now doing—abolishing bingo duty and moving from a turnover to a gross profits tax.
  That was the main purpose of our consultation last summer. As a result we have been able to deliver reform in the Budget in a way that both modernises the tax system and gives real financial support to the industry. Although the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) has just taken his place, I will give way to him. [Interruption.]
  Angus Robertson: May I confound the intervention from a sedentary position to the effect that I was just placing a bet? Unfortunately, I have had parliamentary duties elsewhere and I am grateful to the Economic Secretary for allowing me into the debate. What message would he give to the Carlton Clubs in Inverness, which has many bingo establishments, including several in my constituency? The clubs have written to me complaining that they will have to pay an additional £500,000 this year, limiting the company's ability to increase prizes or to reinvest.
  John Healey: I would say to the Carlton Clubs that we would be delighted to see any detailed analysis of evidence that would bear that contention out. It goes against the analysis that we have undertaken, against

  243
  the discussions that we have had with the bingo industry and against the research commissioned by the Bingo Association on behalf of the industry, which was submitted to us as part of the consultation process. I shall touch on that again in my later remarks.
  Mr. George Osborne: Once the Financial Secretary has examined the detailed analysis, which I am sure that the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) will forward to him, and it turns out to be correct, will he reexamine the Government's proposals?
  John Healey: Just as we have done with betting taxation and pools taxation reform, so we shall do with bingo taxation reform—monitor implementation, be prepared to receive fresh evidence and, if a good case can be made, consider further reform and refinement of the regime that we are putting in place. I will return to the point later.
  I shall now deal with the second set of three questions asked by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) this afternoon. Our approach to the reform of bingo taxation is consistent with our approach to betting and pools, but it is not neutral across the gambling regimes because industry-specific factors need to be taken into account. For example, with the challenges faced by the betting and gambling industry, we were mindful of a strong move towards moving betting offshore and on to the web. That consideration clearly applies to that part of the gambling industry, but not to bingo. Introducing a neutral regime across the different gambling industries is not our policy aim. Therefore, we have not calculated the cost to the Exchequer of pursuing that objective.
  Mr. Laws: I thank the Minister for giving way, and for his candid response that he has not achieved tax neutrality across all forms of gambling. Given the special factors that he mentioned in relation to one particular sector of the gambling market, does he see any prospect of moving towards neutrality? Is that his objective in the years to come?
  John Healey: No.
  I turn now to the points raised by the hon. Member for Tatton, and to those raised by the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) in an intervention on the hon. Member for Eddisbury. Those hon. Members were concerned about the apparent position of small bingo clubs.
  There seems to be a claim that some small bingo clubs will be worse off as a result of the reforms confirmed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in last month's Budget. As the reforms cut the tax for all bingo clubs, regardless of size, it is hard to see how that could be the case.
  In discussions since the Budget, the bingo industry raised the point with officials. We have invited industry members to submit evidence to substantiate the fear, but we have not yet received the information. However, we can draw some comparisons with the experience in other regimes. The analysis conducted by Nottingham university of the impact on small bookmakers of changes in the betting regime suggests that modelling a
  244
  gross profits tax in that way on gambling industries would not have the effect of making smaller concerns worse off.
  In addition, the bingo industry has told the Government consistently that small clubs pay a higher effective rate of tax than larger clubs. That is largely because small clubs' profit margins are narrower. Moving to a profits-based tax would mean that their effective rate of tax would be equalised. Therefore, it is once again hard to see how the claim that small clubs are proportionately penalised and worse off can be sustained.
  By abolishing the duty on stakes and on added prize money, the Government are encouraging lower prices and higher prizes for bingo players. Those factors will help attendance and turnover at clubs. By setting GPT at 15 per cent., we are delivering a £25 million tax cut to the bingo industry. The bingo industry itself estimates that that will deliver a £240 million benefit to players, in the shape of lower prices and higher prizes. That was set out in the Bingo Association's press release of 9 April, in response to the Budget.
  Understandably, the bingo industry has argued for the removal of the duty on bingo stakes and prizes, and for the removal of value added tax on participation fees. However, during the consultation the industry also estimated the impact that a GPT at 15 per cent. and the retention of VAT on par fees would have on the industry. The industry drew on the analysis by the Henley Centre, commissioned for the Bingo Association. The evidence was submitted to the Government in December, as part of the consultation process. Based on the work of the Henley Centre, that evidence estimates that setting GPT at 15 per cent. and retaining VAT on par fees would increase prizes by at least £18.75 million, would increase admissions by at least half a million a year, and would increase prizes as a percentage of bingo spend from 67.2 per cent. to 68.7 per cent. It was also stated that the move would increase bingo industry profitability from £117 million a year to £191 million a year.
  All 1 can suggest to the hon. Member for Eddisbury is ghat he encourage his constituent Mr. Ryder to examine the Henley Centre's analysis quite closely, just to check ghat he is not misinterpreting or misquoting the results of the work that it did for the Bingo Association, and which were submitted to the Government.
  I have spoken with representatives of the bingo industry since the Budget, and officials have held detailed discussions. I know that the industry wishes that our reforms had delivered a bigger tax cut. That is not surprising. I know that it wishes that we had altered VAT treatment on par fees. I have discussed those issues with some leading figures in the industry, and I know they appreciate that I understand their concerns. However, all Governments need to make difficult decisions about the scope and size of tax changes in every Budget. That is never more true than in deciding where to draw the line when giving a relief from tax. Many people may appreciate how far we have gone, but many more will usually argue that we should go much further.
  5.30 pm
  Adam Price: Let me return to the disproportionate impact on smaller clubs. One difference between smaller and larger companies, as those of us who have been in

  245
  business know, is that larger companies have better access to professional expertise and advice on perfectly legal tax avoidance.
  On another point, what has the Minister to say about the fear that the changes are being rushed through and the burden that that truncated time period will place on smaller clubs?
  John Healey: I emphasise that we developed our proposals after detailed consultation with and shared analysis from the industry, but if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall explain later, in relation to one of the Government amendments, precisely how we shall continue that consultation and how we are ready to adjust our plans in light of what the industry tells us.
  There will always be those who urge us to go further on any Budget decision that allows a tax relief. Inevitably, there will be criticism of almost every tax relief that we introduce. In the eyes of some people, they do not go far enough, and that is so whether the relief is for small cars, small breweries, film makers, bookmakers or bingo clubs. However, we wanted to support the bingo industry, and we have done so fairly and affordably. We have tried to do that in a spirit of close and ongoing consultation with the industry.
  Mr. Laws: I appreciate that there are many competing priorities in every Budget and that Ministers have to decide between them. Does the Minister understand, however, why the bingo industry is likely to be frustrated with his announcement of a moment ago that he has no intention of trying to move towards any equality between different forms of gambling in the way that they are taxed? What is his estimate of the cost of achieving neutrality for the bingo industry?
  John Healey: The phrase "flogging a dead horse" comes to mind. The point is not revenue neutrality. The bingo industry is understandably disappointed because we have not decided to go as far as the industry urged during consultation. It argued for a formula of tax changes and reliefs that would have cost the Exchequer £80 million a year.
  I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Member for Eddisbury moved the amendment. However, it beggars belief to hear Conservative Members berating us for not doing enough to support the bingo industry. The hon. Gentleman may do well to recall the impact on bingo clubs of tax reforms under Conservative Governments. In 1980, the tax on stakes was 5 per cent. Did the Conservatives cut or abolish it? No: they increased it to 7.5 per cent. In 1981, in a Budget described by the present shadow Chancellor as ground-breaking, they were back for more, increasing the tax on stakes to 10 per cent. In the space of two years, the Conservatives doubled the tax on stakes. In the same period, they doubled the tax on added prize money from 5p in the pound to 11p.
  Mr. Richard Bacon: Ancient history.
  John Healey: It is not ancient history. The hon. Member for Eddisbury professes concern about the decline in bingo clubs, but what happened to the bingo clubs following those taxation changes was that their numbers significantly declined.
  246
  When Lord Howe became Chancellor, there were 1,697 bingo clubs in the UK. By 1982, the number had fallen to 1,556 and at the end of the second Thatcher Government there were only 1,115. By the end of the Major Government, there were just 782. Today, there are only 688–1,000 fewer bingo clubs—so I hope that Conservative Members will understand my reaction when they take up cudgels on behalf of an industry that they taxed too much and ignored for too long when they were in government.
  Mr. George Osborne: The Economic Secretary pointed out the decline in the number of bingo clubs. Could he tell me, first, whether the number has increased or decreased since Labour came into power; and, secondly, whether he will judge the success of the proposals by the number of bingo clubs that open in forthcoming years?
  John Healey: To answer the hon. Gentleman's first question directly, let me repeat what I have just said. By the end of the Major Government, or in other words at the beginning of the Blair Government, there were 782 bingo clubs in the UK; six years later, there are 688. There were 1,000 fewer clubs than in the 1980s.
  It is true that there is pressure on the bingo industry and that there is a long-term decline. However, it is also true that part of the purpose of our reforms is to try to assist the bingo industry to deal with the challenges presented by those problems. As I said, I understand the feelings of those in the industry who wish that we had gone further. I assure them that, first, we shall examine the evidence offered by the industry, as we have done before; secondly, we shall keep the reforms under way, as we have done for the reforms to betting and the pools; and, thirdly, we shall continue to look at the case for further change, as we do every year as part of the Budget process. For this Budget, however, I cannot accept amendment No. 6, which would cost £60 million and would require us either to increase taxes elsewhere or to reduce the money that we are spending elsewhere. We are not prepared to do either.
  Mr. George Howarth: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, although there has been a continued, but less steep, decline in the number of bingo halls since the Labour Government came to power, the number of people attending bingo events has increased, mainly as a result of the liberalisation of advertising in the bingo industry?
  John Healey: My hon. Friend makes an important point: the health of the industry cannot be judged simply by the number of clubs alone. One of the purposes of our reforms is to try to encourage greater participation in bingo. As I mentioned, the evidence submitted to us by the Bingo Association, as part of the consultation process, suggests that, as a result of our reforms, there will be an extra 500,000 players a year.
  In direct response to the point made by the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price), I stress that we are still willing to talk to and listen to the industry. That is why we are introducing two amendments on the implementation and administration arrangements. I shall briefly explain the background to the amendments to exemplify my general point.

  247
  When we held consultations on the abolition of bingo duty, we asked bingo operators how long they would need to introduce the changes necessary to comply with a gross profits tax system. The industry's responses were clear: three months from the date of the announcement would be sufficient. We thus announced in the Budget on 9 April that bingo duty would be abolished and replaced by a tax on bingo companies' gross profits from 4 August this year. However, at a meeting held shortly after the Budget to discuss implementation, the industry told officials that previously unforeseen issues had been identified, which meant that it would not be ready to operate the tax by that date. The industry asked the Government to delay the start of the new tax to allow it sufficient time to amend its systems. We have listened to the industry's concerns and are amending the Bill to delay the tax reform until 27 October—the date that the industry now prefers. In addition, the bingo industry asked whether the start and end of the accounting periods could be amended so that they matched more closely the industry's accounting practices. That would avoid the need for bingo operators to make amendments to their accounting systems. We therefore propose to amend the accounting periods as suggested in the second Government amendment.
  Finally, in our discussions with the bingo industry since the Budget, we have been asked to examine how the calculations of the gross profits tax will interact with the treatment of VAT on par fees, which is the subject of amendment No. 69. I am considering that specific issue further.
  In summary, this clause, with the two minor amendments, will put in place a sensible reform of an outdated duty system. As it stands, the package of reform will deliver a £25 million tax boost to the industry, which should benefit both players and companies. On the detail of implementation and reform, we are undertaking, and we will maintain, a continuing close dialogue with the industry. On that basis, I urge my hon. Friends to support the clause and the two Government amendments but to reject the other amendments.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: For the first time in Committee, I have been disappointed by the Economic Secretary's tone, because we are dealing with today's Finance Bill, this Chancellor and his Budget statement on 9 April this year—today's world, here and now. The Economic Secretary is attempting to engage in some kind of historical record swapping, about which, of course, I have no clue—he is talking about a time decades ago,
  way back in history. What I do know, however, is that I receive representations today about those who enjoy bingo and who want it to be put on a level playing field. The Chancellor deliberately raised their expectations in his Budget statement, and those have been dashed. We have a right and a duty, on behalf of those who make representations to us, to test why those expectations have failed to be met.
  However much the Economic Secretary thinks that it may help his case, it is irrelevant to parrot historical facts: he knows that I will not have come armed with them, and that it would waste the Committee's time to argue about them. He has demeaned what has been a
  248
  good debate to date by scattering around statistics suggesting that bingo has declined more under one party than another, when in fact the whole industry is in crisis because it has declined. More to the point, he scatters those statistics around as if there is no connection with sociological factors, geographical factors, economic factors or the public's preference for television, cinema, the internet or other competing entertainments. He merely chooses to make an assertion.
  What happened, in truth, is that we hit a raw nerve: the Chancellor has been found out to have deliberately led expectations, with crisp phrases such as "as if", "the same as" and "just as in the case of' in relation to pools and gaming. When we look at the detail, however, we find yet again that the Bingo Association, whose representations have been good and well articulated, has been let down. It and the people whom it represents, both the businesses and people who play bingo—millions of women, primarily, up and down the country—are right to feel let down. The Economic Secretary has put up a poor defence.
  Of course, I am happy to note that the Economic Secretary has clarified what was surprisingly unclear in what we have argued is, in places, an ill drafted Finance Bill. I am glad that he took notice of some of the representations made by the Bingo Association, and, of course, we accept those Government amendments—we do not take issue with them. I also noted that the Minister said that he was considering further amendment No. 69, which I tabled with my hon. Friends. That is of some encouragement, but of course the key is amendment No. 6, on which he puts a price. In the overall order of things, given the expectations that the Chancellor raised deliberately in the minds of all those who have a concern about today's world and about moving forwards, rather than about the spurious historical context that the Minister was trying to pray in aid—it did not work, I hasten to add—£60 million is a figure about which this wasteful Treasury can think again, given that it has never sought to justify, although it is about to be put under much more pressure to do so, the significant waste in government. That amount, £60 million, could easily be found, given the enormous 20 per cent. increase, from £13.5 billion to £17 billion, in administrative costs at the centre—the head office of the Government—and I urge the Government to find it.
  Mr. George Osborne: Indeed, that would also encourage the industry to grow. Therefore tax revenues from the industry would actually increase.
  Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend rightly makes the point that we are all trying to aim for that. In the papers that I have seen and in the letter that was copied to me and sent to the Economic Secretary, the Bingo Association also makes that point. It is a patient, well argued and articulate case.
  5.45 pm
  I recognise that any Minister in the position of the Economic Secretary is faced with what inevitably will be carefully scrutinised representations from all sorts of competing interests. Inevitably, the Government will always say, "There will be special pleading on this and

  249
  special pleading on that." The key is that special pleading gets discounted, and anyone making representations to any Government of any colour knows that. What matters is that, when people come forward with suggestions that would help the Government to deliver their objectives, the Government should listen.
  The Government have set objectives and the Chancellor used phraseology in the Budget statement that confirmed those objectives. However, when the detail conies out in the Finance Bill, we find that the objectives have been trimmed. The real nub of our argument, which has quite properly been supported by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, is that there was an expectation of a level playing field. That expectation has not been met. That is why people feel let down. It would be right if the Economic Secretary had acknowledged that we have a fair argument.
  I am disappointed to hear that the Economic Secretary is not prepared to accept amendment No. 6. We shall certainly press it to a vote.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 134, Noes 336.

  Division No. 190]

  [4:30 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Brazier, Julian

  Amess, David

  Breed, Colin

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Bacon, Richard

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Baker, Norman

  Burnett, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Burns, Simon

  Barker, Gregory

  Burstow, Paul

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Burt, Alistair

  Barrett, John

  Butterfill, John

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Bellingham, Henry

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Bercow, John

  Cameron, David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Brady, Graham

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Chope, Christopher

  230

  Clappison, James

  Maude, rh Francis

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Collins, Tim

  Mercer, Patrick

  Conway, Derek

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Cotter, Brian

  Moore, Michael

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Curry, rh David

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Norman, Archie

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  page, Richard

  Dodds, Nigel

  paice, James

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Paterson, Owen

  Doughty, Sue

  Pickles, Eric

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Randall, John

  Flight, Howard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Flook, Adrian

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Francois, Mark

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Garnier, Edward

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Roe Mrs Marion

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Gidley, Sandra

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Sanders Adrian

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Sayeed Jonathan

  Grayling, Chris

  Se|ous Andrew

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Grieve, Dominic

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gummer, rh John

  Simmonds, Mark

  Hague, rh William

  simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Smith Sir Robert (W Ab"d"ns & Kincardine)

  Harvey, Nick

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hawkins, Nick

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Heald, OliVer

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Heath, David

  Spring, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Steen, Anthony

  Hendry, Charles

  Streeter, Gary

  Hermon, Lady

  Stunell, Andrew

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Swayne, Desmons

  Holmes, Paul

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Jack, rh Michael

  TaVlor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Tnurso, Jonn

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lamb, Norman

  Viggers, Peter

  Lansley, Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Leigh, Edward

  Weir, Michael

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Whittingdale, John

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Wiggin, Bill

  Lidington, David

  Willetts, David

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Loughton, Tim

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Luff, Peter (M- Worcs)

  Wishart, Pete

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Young, rh Sir George

  Maclean, rh David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Mr. Robert Syms and

  Malins, Humfrey

  Hugh Robertson

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  231

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Denham, rh John

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Alexander, Douglas

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Allen, Graham

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Doran, Frank

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Austin, John

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Bailey, Adrian

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Baird, Vera

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Banks, Tony

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Barnes, Harry

  Edwards, Huw

  Barren, rh Kevin

  Efford, Clive

  Battle, John

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bayley, Hugh

  Farrelly, Paul

  Beard, Nigel

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Benn, Hilary

  Fisher, Mark

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Blackman, Liz

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Follett, Barbara

  Blizzard, Bob

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foulkes, rh George

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Brennan, Kevin

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Browne, Desmond

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bryant, Chris

  Gilroy, Linda

  Burden, Richard

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Burgon, Colin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Grogan, John

  Cairns, David

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hanson, David

  Caplin, Ivor

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Casale, Roger

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Caton, Martin

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Healey, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Heppell, John

  Heyes, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clelland, David

  Hodge, Margaret

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Coleman, lain

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Colman, Tony

  Connarty, Michael

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Corston, Jean

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hutton, rh John

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Cranston, Ross

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Crausby, David

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jamieson, David

  Cummings, John

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Davidson, Ian

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Khabra, Piara S.

  232

  Kidney, David

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

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

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Lammy, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Laxcton, Bob (Derby N)

  Rooney, Terry

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lepper, David

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ruane, Chris

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Salter, Martin

  Licldell, rh Mrs Helen

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Liriton, Martin

  Sawford, Phil

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Love, Andrew

  Sheridan, Jim

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  MacDonald, Calum

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  MacDougall, John

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McFall, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Soley, Clive

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Southworth, Helen

  McKechin, Ann

  Squire, Rachel

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  McNamara, Kevin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McNulty, Tony

  Stevenson, George

  MacShane, Denis

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  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)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Martlew, Eric

  Trickett, Jon

  Merron, Gillian

  Truswell, Paul

  Miliband, David

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Miller, Andrew

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Mountford, Kali

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Mudie, George

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Mullin, Chris

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Watts, David

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  White, Brian

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Olner, Bill

  Wills, Michael

  O'Neill, Martin

  Winnick, David

  Organ, Diana

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Owen, Albert

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Perham, Linda

  Woodward, Shaun

  Picking, Anne

  Woolas, Phil

  Pickthall, Colin

  Worthington, Tony

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Flaskitt, James

  Pound, Stephen

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Wyatt, Derek

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Purchase, Ken

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Purnell, James

  Mr. Nick Ainger and

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Derek Twigg

  Division No. 191]

  [5.46 pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Francois, Mark

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Gamier, Edward

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Bacon, Richard

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Baldry, Tony

  Grayling, Chris

  Barker, Gregory

  Grieve, Dominic

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Gummer, rh John

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Hague, rh William

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hammond, Philip

  Bercow, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Blunt, Crispin

  Heald, Oliver

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Hendry, Charles

  Hermon, Lady

  Brady, Graham

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Brazier, Julian

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Howard, rh Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

  Burt, Alistair

  Jack, rh Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Cameron, David

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Cash, William

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Lansley, Andrew

  Chope, Christopher

  Leigh, Edward

  Clappison, James

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Collins, Tim

  Lidington, David

  Conway, Derek

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Loughton, Tim

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Luff, Peter (M- Worcs)

  Curry, rh David

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Maclean, rh David

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Maude, rh Francis

  Duncan Smith, rh lain

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Ewing, Annabelle

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Moss, Malcolm

  Flight, Howard

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Flook, Adrian

  Norman, Archie

  Forth, rh Eric

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  250

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Spring, Richard

  Ottaway, Richard

  Steen, Anthony

  Page, Richard

  Streeter, Gary

  Paice, James

  Swayne, Desmond

  Paterson, Owen

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Pickles, Eric

  Syms, Robert

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Randall, John

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Redwood, rh John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Robathan, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Weir, Michael

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Whittingdale, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wiggin, Bill

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wilshire, David

  Selous, Andrew

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Wishart, Pete

  Shepherd, Richard

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Young, rh Sir George

  Soames, Nicholas

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Mr. Mark Hoban and

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Gallon, Mrs Patsy

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Allan, Richard

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Allen, Graham

  Caplin, Ivor

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Casale, Roger

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Caton, Martin

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Austin, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Baird, Vera

  Banks, Tony

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Barnes, Harry

  Barrett, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Clelland, David

  Battle, John

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Coaker, Vernon

  Beard, Nigel

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Benn, Hilary

  Coleman, Iain

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Colman, Tony

  Blackman, Liz

  Connarty, Michael

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cooper, Yvette

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Corston, Jean

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Cotter, Brian

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cousins, Jim

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Cranston, Ross

  Brennan, Kevin

  Crausby, David

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Cruddas, Jon

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cummings, John

  Browne, Desmond

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Bryant, Chris

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Burden, Richard

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Burgon, Colin

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Burnett, John

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Burstow, Paul

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  David, Wayne

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Davidson, Ian

  Cairns, David

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  251

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Dawson, Hilton

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Denham, rh John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Dodds, Nigel

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Doran, Frank

  Jenkins, Brian

  Doughty, Sue

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Edwards, Huw

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Efford, Clive

  Kemp, Fraser

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Farrelly, Paul

  Kidney, David

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Fisher, Mark

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Follett, Barbara

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Foster, rh Derek

  Lamb, Norman

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lammy, David

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Foulkes, rh George

  Lepper, David

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Gidley, Sandra

  Linton, Martin

  Gilroy, Linda

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Love, Andrew

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Grogan, John

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hain, rh Peter

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  MacDougall, John

  Hanson, David

  McFall, John

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McKechin, Ann

  Harvey, Nick

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  McNamara, Kevin

  McNulty, Tony

  Healey, John

  MacShane, Denis

  Heath, David

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Heppell, John

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Heyes, David

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hinchliffe, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Hodge, Margaret

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Merron, Gillian

  Holmes, Paul

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Miliband, David

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Miller, Andrew

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Moffatt, Laura

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Moore, Michael

  252

  Morgan, Julie

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Morley, Elliot

  Mountford, Kali

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mudie, George

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mullin, Chris

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Soley, Clive

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Southworth, Helen

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Spellar, rh John

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Squire, Rachel

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stevenson, George

  Olner, Bill

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stoate' Dr Howard

  Organ, Diana

  Stuart' Ms Gisela

  Owen, Albert

  Stunell, Andrew

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Perham, Linda

  Taylor, Matthew (Trum)

  Picking, Anne

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Thurso John

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Trickett Jon

  Plaskitt, James

  Truswell, Paul

  Pound, Stephen

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Prescott, rh John

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Purchase, Ken

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Purnell, James

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Watts, David

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

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

  Wnife Brian

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Winnlck, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Ruane' Chns

  Woolas, Phil

  Ruddock, Joan

  Worthington, Tony

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wray James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Salter, Martin

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Sawforcl, Phil

  Wyatt, Derek

  Sheridan, Jim

  Sihipley, Ms Debra

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Singh, Marsha

  Mr. Jim Murphy and

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mr. Gerry Suteliffe

  Question accordingly negatived.
  6 pm
  Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 agreed to.
  Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

  VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY: RATES
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Clause 14 amends the general rate of vehicle excise duty and the specific rate for

  253
  private and light goods vehicles with effect from 1 May this year. The Committee need not be detained long on this clause, but there is a point that requires consideration.
  The vehicle excise duty on cars and vans increased by £5, which represents the revalorisation rounded to the nearest £5. The increase impacts lower capacity vehicles and lower emission cars by a larger percentage. For example, a car of less than 1,549 cc has seen general VED increase from £105 to £110, an increase of 4.8 per cent., whereas a car of more than 1,549 cc has seen general VED increase from £160 to £165, an increase of 3.1 per cent. I understand, of course, that the differential is due to the £5 rounding.
  Not only are both increases above inflation—a fact no doubt noted by drivers up and down the land—but the £5 increase penalises cleaner cars to a greater extent. Recognising that the £5 is the normal rounding, the Red Book that accompanied the Budget stated:
  "The Government has reformed vehicle excise duty ('VED) to provide incentives for motorists to choose the least polluting vehicles"
  —a worthy aim for which there is support across the Chamber, as we look to the environmental responsibilities of our generation towards those who come after us. There is a need to provide incentives to buy less polluting cars, but the £5 increase, which I recognise has been accepted practice, runs contrary to that need and has the greatest impact on the least polluting vehicles. It would be possible to specify a precise number instead of rounding up the level to £5, but I understand the efficiency of having a round number in paying VED when one goes to the post office or wherever else for renewal.
  John Dawson, director of the AA Motoring Trust, recently said:
  "The news on road tax is disappointing because we had hoped that he"—
  the Chancellor—
  "would allow these new bands, which he has only recently set, to bed in with drivers."
  While that is a supplementary argument that reflects disappointment on the part of the AA. it reinforces the fact that there is disappointment generally not only that the new bands have not been allowed to bed in with drivers, but that the increase has a discriminatory impact against the least polluting vehicles.
  I invite the Minister to accept that one of the ways in which the problem could most easily be addressed is by deploying the easy and rather more normal mathematical approach of rounding down the figure rather than rounding it up. Such an approach would have produced numbers that helped to secure the differential with which the Government are seeking to incentivise people who wish to use the least-polluting vehicles. It would also have been in line with the objectives that the Government have set. As I said, we do not take issue with those concerns—far from it. As Conservatives, we want the best conservation and it is our approach to take our environmental responsibilities seriously. Incentivisation is being reduced because the figure has been rounded up, but the problem would be simply cured by rounding it down.
  254
  I do not wish to detain the Committee and I do not expect to divide it, but it is important that the Economic Secretary acknowledges the problem. Perhaps he will also take the opportunity to explain how he will address it in future, if not this year.
  Mr. Djanogly: The motor industry is worth some £44 billion a year in this country and it contributes 3.5 per cent. of UK GDP and supports 827,000 jobs. That makes it a pretty important part of our economy. In 1997, the Chancellor took £33.6 billion from motorists. In 2003, he is taking £42.6 billion. We have seen an average annual growth rate of 4 per cent. at a time when inflation is 2.4 per cent.
  Vehicle excise duty in this country is still far higher than in our European neighbour countries. Even with a freeze for British hauliers, they could increasingly relocate to the continent to avoid paying our exorbitant duty. The Chancellor needs to take note of the importance of interaction between the tax system and the single market so as not to lose tax take.
  The duty is not having much effect in encouraging motorists to buy cleaner cars or in discouraging them from buying polluting ones. Some 80 per cent. of best-selling cars are currently in the two middle categories—B and C. The Toyota Prius and the Honda Insight, which are in the AA category, last year managed 291 and 28 sales respectively. As GreenConsumerGuide.com says, vehicle excise duty
  "should be seen as the minor device that it is, not elevated to become the government's flagship green motoring policy".
  The motoring industry needs stability, so the Government must commit to having a stable regime over a long period if cleaner fuel incentives are to have any effect. Currently, only 10 per cent. of cars on sale qualify for the new category. and they are unpopular as they suffer from relatively high prices in respect of the performance of comparable cars. The Chancellor has refused to say what will happen beyond 2004. I suggest that that is inadequate for an industry that is understandably suspicious of this Government. In effect, the Government expect the car industry to respond in line with their changes to the rate of tax every year, but car production has to be phased over many years. That is why, once again, the Government's green credentials are being battered.
  Mr. John Gummer: I declare an interest, in the sense that I try to help a number of companies to improve their environmental performance.
  I merely wish to say to the Minister that my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) made a crucial point about the need for a system that enables the car industry to know where it stands and encourages it to provide more continuously the green answers that are required. In that, as in several other areas, the Government have not provided a sufficiently clear and long-term policy that will encourage people to undertake the necessary investment. If fine-tuning takes place every year, but there is no permanent long-term system, we will not achieve the environmental ends that are desired by hon. Members on both sides of the House—although there are not many of them on one side to join in with the discussion.

  255
  I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking that the Chancellor will take this issue seriously, overcome the demands of the Treasury moguls who always dislike the idea of such long-term planning, and ensure that the industry knows that for a significant number of years we will have a policy that increasingly makes the purchase of vehicles that are least likely to pollute a valuable and continual offering to the public.
  Mr. Baron: I welcome you to the Chair, Sir Michael.
  Clause 14 increases vehicle excise duty by £5 for every car and van, although the rate of duty for lorry and motorcycle drivers has been frozen. The imposition of that tax, which will affect the majority of road users, is very wrong. Coming on the back of the already crippling cost of petrol in this country, this tax rise is symptomatic of the fact that this Government are at war with motorists and are failing in their commitments to invest in our roads. A combination of sky-high taxes and rising crude oil prices means that the car has already become the most expensive item in the household budget, hitting hard-working individuals, families and pensioners in the process.
  Our fuel tax is the highest in Europe. The average UK retail price of diesel is more than 20p per litre higher than any other EU country, and under Labour the price of petrol has increased by nearly £1 a gallon. The combination of those costs has had profound implications for motorists. The total tax take, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon suggested, has gone up by nearly 50 per cent. since 1997, to an estimated £43 billion in 2002. The average annual petrol and diesel bill is about £250 a year higher under this Government.
  While costs soar and the Government continue to treat the road user as a convenient way of imposing taxation by stealth, drivers are not experiencing any benefits in turn. The Government have failed to meet their road-building programmes. They have cut road spending and cancelled vital road improvements. Highways Agency figures show that not one inch of new bypass was built anywhere in the UK during 2001. Certainly, in my constituency of Billericay and the surrounding district we are seeing very little by way of road improvements. The consequence of that failure has been a continued increase in congestion. The statistics are damning. Since 1998, average journey times have risen by 16 per cent. Since 1997, motorway congestion is up by 250 per cent. Those are Government figures. On top of that, the Government recently announced that their pledge to reduce road congestion by 5 per cent. by 2010 is unlikely to be met. Instead, they suggest that the best they are likely to achieve is a situation in which congestion in 2010 is no worse than it is now.
  In short, the Government are abusing the motorist. The highest fuel taxes in the western world pay for the worst maintained roads in the EU. In south Essex, people are experiencing little benefit from all the taxation. Indeed, the reverse is true. The Government should listen to the legitimate anxieties of motorists throughout the country. Costs are unacceptably high and the latest increase will only make matters worse.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. John Norm: I support the points of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), who stressed the need for a long-term strategic approach to taxing motor vehicles. At one stage in the past, we had almost all-party support for the fuel duty escalator. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) instituted that when he was Chancellor and the current Chancellor continued the policy until it was aborted at the time of the famous fuel protests. We all understand why that happened. The policy was pushed too far in an extreme way and the Government undoubtedly learned some lessons.
  However, the downside of the experience is that there has been no subsequent strategy, simply a series of ad hoc adjustments. I accept that many go in the right direction and try to prevent people from buying cars that have higher emissions. That is admirable, but the policy has not been strong enough or clear enough to enable the consumer, let alone the industry, to work out a long-term strategy.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) said, the Government's transport policy is a mess. If anything is worse than the policy on motor cars, it is that on transport in general. The original plans that the Deputy Prime Minister made when he was in charge of such matters have clearly been shot to ribbons, and nothing as coherent has been proposed subsequently. The Government have the opportunity to tackle the matter through taxation. They expressed their aspirations to act on that in their recent document, "Taxation and the Environment". They have done some good things, but they should adopt a much stronger and more strategic approach to the issue.
  John Healey: The clause introduces a new rate of vehicle excise duty for cars and vans from 1 May. Rates for most car and van owners will increase in line with inflation, rounded up to the nearest £5. That follows past practice when increasing VED rates in line with inflation. Consequently, no motorist will pay more than £5 more.
  The clause also introduces a new lower triple-A VED band for the least polluting cars: those with carbon dioxide emissions of 100g per kilometre or less. Motorists with cars in that band will be able to pay up to £110 less than motorists who pay the highest rate of VED. That further improves the incentives to choose less polluting cars.
  I acknowledge the point of the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), although I do not accept that it is a problem in the way he describes. The Government have carefully targeted motorists who use fuel-efficient cars for reductions in car VED. The changes in clause 14 mean that there is a minimum difference of £90 between the top and lower bands in the new system. Since 1997, the average car VED bill has fallen by £24 in real terms and £8 in cash terms. Those are reductions of 16 per cent. and 5 per cent. respectively.
  The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Ciummer) and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), who chairs the Environmental Audit

  257
  Committee, all stressed the need for stability and a long-term approach to trying to influence purchasing decisions and thereby the beneficial impact on the environment that we want to achieve. May I say to all three Members that, in making policy in this area, we are mindful of the need for stability? That is one of the reasons why we announced the levels of company car tax a full three years in advance, so that purchasing decisions, lead times and predictability could be as advantageous as possible.
  The new band demonstrates that, in this area of VED, we are also taking a long-term approach to encourage the use of cleaner vehicles. The hon. Member for Orpington and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal will know that, in the Government's powering future vehicles strategy last year, we set ourselves the target of seeing 10 per cent. of new cars sold having carbon dioxide emissions of 100g per kilometre or less by 2012; that is the very rate that we are now setting in the triple-A band.
  Mr. Djanogly: As I explained in my speech, last year only 350-odd cars in the new band were sold. Clearly, this has not caught on in a massive way. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the Government are now taking the issue of supporting the environmental cause in relation to cars slightly more seriously than he has described so far?
  John Healey: I think the hon. Gentleman is making my point for me. This structure for VED is not designed to reflect current purchasing decisions and choices. It is designed to build incentives for the longer term, and to encourage more people to buy and use more fuel-efficient cars in the longer term.
  We have begun an evaluation of the CO2-based VED system, which is due to be completed by the autumn. It will focus on the impact that the new system is having on consumer choices, as well as on the impact on the environment. It will also take into account the concerns that we have heard from the industry. On that basis, I commend the clause to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

  NON-BUSINESS USE OF BUSINESS PROPERTY
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Clause 22 is the primary legislation element of a matter that we considered under secondary legislation—the draft Value Added Tax (Supply of Services) (Amendment) Order 2003—last week. It was suggested in the debate that we might be putting the cart before the horse. The Minister and I went through the order at some length. I felt that we had some very serious issues to consider, in addition to the extraordinarily complex domestic and EU law implications involved. In the light of that discussion, we have been able to move some issues for ward but, sadly, an awful lot have moved backwards.
  I shall try to set the scene for this complex and important matter, which could have a serious effect on many people. We also need to have anti-avoidance in
  258
  our minds at all times, however, and to decide where the
  legitimate line—the grey line, perhaps, between the
  black and white—is to be drawn. Discussion of clause 22
  might seem like déjà-vu for the Minister and me, but the issues certainly merit the full consideration of the Committee of the whole House.
  The members of the Committee who were present last week—including my hon. Friend the Member for
  Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), who so ably delineated some of the points on that occasion—will know that the background to the measure is that when a business purchases an asset that is to be used for both business and non-business purposes, EU law provides that the input tax incurred on the purchase of that asset is deductible, but that the business must account for an output tax charge arising over the lifetime of that asset. This treatment is known as the Lennartz approach, after the Lennartz case, the details of which I shall ensure are placed on the record. The case is known as Lennartz v. München III, case C-97/90, reported in 1995, STC514. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I am delighted that so many Members immediately recognise the reference. No doubt a series of interventions will demonstrate their detailed knowledge of both the facts and the exceptionally complex and fascinating legal arguments involved in the case, which have ensured that I have not had too many hours' sleep recently.
  There is an alternative approach—to apportion the VAT incurred and treat the part relating to non-business use as not being input tax, and therefore not being deductible. There is then no output tax on the non-business use. There is also no VAT in the event of a sale of the part of the assets allocated to non-business use.
  Customs and Excise has presumably had to take counsel's advice on the view it has had to develop, which in itself presents us with serious issues. Following an earlier discussion about these matters, the Minister was kind enough to write me a letter dated 12 May, which I received last night. I thank him for ensuring that it was faxed to my office.
  Customs and Excise takes the view that because buildings depreciate very slowly—say, over 40 years—and can be disposed of with exemption from VAT, the Lennartz approach provides an opportunity for delay and the avoidance of VAT payment. Clause 22—along with the statutory instrument that we were required to examine last week before considering primary legislation; the Government have yet to secure authority for it through the normal processes of the House—seeks to prevent the use of the Lennartz approach in the case of land and buildings where there is non-business use.
  Non-business use includes private use by an individual; one can well imagine the circumstances in which that might take place. More important, it includes use by a charity. We are not talking just about the highly paid or sophisticated investor, but about charities trying to make good use of good will and the funds they have secured with the help of volunteers and hard work. Those charities now face a challenge.

  259
  Some education and grant-funded research is also regarded as non-business use. Therein lies one of the most telling problems that might affect people who will not expect to be hit—especially in university towns that are experiencing enough pressure as it is, given the Government's policy on tuition fees.
  Mr. Djanogly: For the first time today, my hon. Friend refers to the serious impact on charities. Will not charities, more than many other institutions, want to adapt their premises over a period to change the use of those premises? Could not the Bill have dramatic implications for charities in that regard, and does it not constitute an attack on charities for that reason alone?
  Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and I hope that the Government will listen to it a little more keenly than they did in Committee last week. I know that they will feel that it is inappropriate to attack them for being hostile to charities, but we must measure them by their deeds, not their words. We have advanced our argument on why we consider this provision an attack on charities, educational establishments and grant-funded research establishments. It has been denied, yet the Government persist with the deed that gives rise to the initial complaint, so such an approach is appropriate.
  6.30 pm
  My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, whose point is perfectly valid, is well regarded in his constituency for the work that he does on behalf of charities, not least the Thalidomide Trust. That puts me in mind of the fact that trustees may find themselves in the most desperate conflict in the light of this provision. Trustees have an obligation to deploy the assets entrusted to them for charitable purposes in the best possible service of those objectives, but potentially they will incur higher liabilities for doing so. If they are not allowed to do so because a serious tax consequence may result from the change envisaged under clause 22 in an effort to address the relief sought to overcome the Lennartz case, there is the potential for damage to charities.
  If the Economic Secretary is going to persist in the arguments that he sought to deploy in Committee, let us park the issue of charities. But for the fact that the Government happen to have a majority at the moment, they would have experienced difficulties, given the comments made by certain of his colleagues in Committee. I am glad to say that they found the discussion interesting and persuasive, but I accept that a party system is in place and that their party currently enjoys just a few more votes than ours does; hopefully, that will not last for long.
  Under the terms of the clause, private businesses will be obliged to use the second type of treatment, which I outlined, to deal with non-business use of land and buildings. So the problem is that, as I said, the principal taxpayers hit by this clause will be educational establishments and charities. They will suffer by taking all of the non-deduction for VAT upfront, significantly
  260
  adding to their costs. However, the Economic Secretary said in Committee that in general, we do not have to worry about them because they have the 90 per cent. rule. It was the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) who mentioned the example of a charity that moves from 50:50 use to 75:25 use, for which the 90 per rule does not apply. Through clause 22, the Government are seeking to deploy a remedy to Lennartz, which is applicable and is currently being marketed relatively widely in the City. Indeed, the Economic Secretary has referred to the need to find a remedy, because he was concerned that a legitimate tax-avoidance scheme already existed under the Lennartz precedent.
  As we know, there are certain categories: tax planning, which is a wholly legitimate procedure that one would expect responsible people to adopt; tax avoidance, which is fine so long as it does not stray over the grey line into any form of illegality; and anti-avoidance. According to the Government, the difference between tax avoidance and anti-avoidance is that they are keen that there should be no avoidance of what they intended to raise under certain tax concepts. A further category is tax evasion, which we all revile and abhor. We certainly support the Government's efforts to deal with tax evasion issues, but this is not such an issue. They are seeking to remedy a scheme that is currently out there and being marketed. They want to make it part of their anti-avoidance package, but Lennartz currently already gives that authority. That will be important when we consider the powers that this Government believe they have to legislate to overcome Lennartz. There is severe doubt as to whether they have the authority to do that; they certainly cannot be sure that such authority will not be challenged in the courts. If such a challenge is made, we will be left with uncertainty. The one thing that we should not do is to produce law that we know is going to be challengeable, and which is subject to such uncertainty. The Economic Secretary has yet to answer those points, but because we discussed them in Committee I have the comfort, at least, of knowing that I could not have given him more notice of my argument. I shall therefore carry on with it.
  From a practical perspective, the provisions in the clause will be difficult to implement. If we assume that buildings have a life of 40 years, how can we be sure about the relevant proportions of business use and non-business use throughout the 40 years? Should one use general projections or take the projections for the first five years and then have a review? Or will the provision for immediate use be set in stone? The main problem is how to predict the future. What will the trustees of a charity have to consider? What will be in their interest? In relation to the business element of the shared premises, it is impossible to predict the progress of a business over 40 years. In 1970, there were only six companies left of the 100 that formed the first FTSE list. Broadly speaking, businesses run on a 20-year cycle, so a 40-year provision is totally impractical.
  Mr. Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with property in this country is a degree of inflexibility in its use? The Government should be congratulated on trying to achieve some change to that, but the provisions will make that change more difficult

  261
  to achieve, not easier. Of all countries in Europe, we need most to increase the flexible and imaginative use of the buildings that we have.
  Mr. O'Brien: My right hon. Friend and I had contact when he was a Minister and I was in a business related to building materials, and I am grateful for his remarks. There have always been advantages and disadvantages in the fact that our built environment—albeit much of it is beautiful, with many historic and cultural connections—has the longest demolition rate in the world. On average, it takes 997.6 years to demolish a building in this country. That is an extraordinary statistic, but it is true, because most buildings are remodelled rather than demolished. In contrast, in southern Ireland, most people build a new house next door to the old, which becomes the outbuildings. We have a different approach, and that is why flexibility is the key. My right hon. Friend puts his finger, as ever, on the salient and practical point, from the experience that he has had in government and in business.
  The Bill contains no provisions that allow adjustment to the apportionment originally made. If the percentage of non-business use to business use changes downwards over the useful life of the building, it is conceivable that no deduction would be made for significant taxable use, especially in the event of the sale of a building. As a procedural point, Customs and Excise believes—it would have been helpful to have some advice—that it does not have to apply the reasoning in the Lennartz case, as there is provision to derogate, in local law, from the application of the article in the EU directive under which Lennartz was decided.
  As I said in Committee, many advisers doubt whether that view is correct. The reason is that the UK provision derogates not only from the article under which Lennartz was decided, but from a further article that does not provide for derogation. The derogation can result in consequences that are disproportionate—that is the key word, because that is how the derogation' works—to the aims of the directive. It is understood that Customs and Excise has obtained counsel's advice on whether it can implement clause 22.
  Mr. John Taylor: On that important point, my hon. Friend gives me considerable cause for concern. If there is an absence of adequate clarity in the provisions that will guide the taxpayer and the duty payer in the next 12 months, will not the bravest and the richest face two or three years of litigation with the authorities? Does he agree that it is not as important that the law be fair as it is that it be certain?
  Mr. O'Brien: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, whose legal expertise is well known to his many friends and colleagues in the House, and to a vast range of people outside. I would certainly defer to his insightful expertise. I would not be prepared to hazard an answer from the Dispatch Box to the technical and legal question whether, in a case brought by an individual or enterprise against the tax authorities, a provision could be voided for uncertainty. That is a legal principle, obviously known to the law, but I do not know whether such a case could be brought. My hon. Friend is right, in terms of fairness. We legislate for the people of this country, whether they be rich or people with normal
  262
  income, taking the average of the population. The people involved may be charity trustees, doing good work, but the Bill would mean that they were suddenly caught up by the difficulty that has been described.
  As has been stated, clause 22 seeks to address an opportunity to delay or avoid VAT. The arguments in favour are similar to those raised by the German Government in a case against a taxpayer, Mr Seeling. The Advocate General of the European Court of Justice has opined that the German approach is invalid.
  As it happens, the Fourth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation discussed these very matters on 7 May. Judgment on the Seeling case was due on 8 May. I suggested that it would be useful to adjourn our meeting, in the hope of greater elucidation from the judgment to be given the following day. The Minister declined my request.
  Mr. John Taylor: It is not my intention to interrupt my hon. Friend's flow, but now that he has introduced the German case, will he tell us which jurisdiction was involved? Was it a Lander jurisdiction, a German national jurisdiction, or a European jurisdiction? While my hon. Friend reflects on that question, it is interesting for other hon. Members endeavouring to follow the matter to make a judgment about how persuasive we might find such a case. I suggest that a provincial German jurisdiction would not be persuasive in English courts, that a national one would scarcely be more persuasive, but that a European jurisdiction case may be imperative in our courts.
  Mr. O'Brien: That is the very point. Wolfgang Seeling was involved in a case against Finanzamt Starnberg. The court of first instance was the Bundesfinanzhof in Germany, but the case was referred to the European Court of Justice, and that is why it is on a par with the Lennartz case—the very case that has made the Government so concerned to find a remedy. The Government see a mischief that they want to cure, whereas I believe that they have seriously underestimated the uncertainty involved and the legal necessity to go down a different route.
  I could spend a lot of time pretending to be a barrister. I am not one: I am simply trying to understand why the Government feel that there is such a great mischief to be sorted out. What really concerns me is that they have framed the whole matter in terms of anti-avoidance. It is as though I had some ghastly, guilty purpose in trying to stop the Government proposing what they consider to be an obvious anti-avoidance measure. The provision cannot be framed as anti-avoidance if it is based on an uncertain legal genesis and authority and, above all, if it is disproportionate. It is under that test that the Government are seeking derogation under the relevant EU directive.
  The Seeling case was decided in the European Court of Justice. After the discussion in the Delegated Legislation Committee—in which I had placed much reliance on what I thought would be the outcome—I was delighted to discover that Herr Seeling was vindicated and supported by the court. It is important to recognise that the Lennartz and Seeling cases cast a cloak of uncertainty over what the Government seek to do in clause 22.
  Mr. Gummer: I still do not understand, either from the record of previous debates or from tonight's debate, what case the Government make for saying that those decisions are unsuitable. It is possible to suggest that what the courts have shown in both cases is perfectly reasonable. Some of my colleagues believe that anything that the European Court says is unreasonable, but I do not happen to take that view. If the court has made those decisions, the Government must explain why it is not reasonable to accept that judgment and allow it to work in this country. Secondly, they must explain how they see this as an avoidance measure and how their proposals will defeat avoidance. They seem to me to have done neither of those things.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. O'Brien: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Government say that an anti-avoidance measure is needed and that they suggest that the Customs and Excise arguments are based on article 6(2) of the directive, allowing a derogation. If that is so, we need to see the counsel's opinion received by Customs and Excise in order to satisfy ourselves about the genesis and effectiveness of what is a serious proposal.
  Our concern is that a belief exists—I cannot tell
  whether it is correct, because I have not seen the evidence—that the Government think that there is a
  mischief to be remedied under the precedence of Lennartz, a European Court of Justice decision, which the Government clearly feel carries sufficient authority to make them propose domestic legislation to try to remedy the problem. I question whether they have the authority to do so because of EU law—complicated, not surprisingly—but various schemes are being marketed in this country which the Government believe are encouraging people to buy premises to use partly for business and partly for non-business purposes in order to delay or avoid paying VAT in a way that the Government believe is not genuine.
  If the Government can demonstrate that that is a proper problem, we are with them 100 per cent. of the way. If, however, they cannot satisfy what, from my long ago legal training, I believe to be the Furniss v. Dawson test of substance over form, it is wholly right to examine the substance. The problem is that the Government have got the form wrong, let alone the substance—the evidence of which we have not seen. On the basis of the Seeling case, the position has become interesting.
  Mr. John Taylor: In as much as my hon. Friend refers to the test of substance and form, might there also be some application of the test of dominant use? For example, to reduce the point to street level, in the case of a residence over a shop, would not Customs and Excise—the duty-charging authority—tend to consider dominant use in considering the apportionment? Or does my hon. Friend prefer his own test?
  Mr. O'Brien: To be frank, I care only whether the proposal is right or wrong in terms of process and law. No dominance test has been cited in any argument so far because we are dealing with apportionment. The issue is whether that is taken upfront, over the life period of premises during the course of a business, which will vary, or during the course of non-business use, which
  264
  will also vary. All that is unpredictable, and all of it creates uncertainty. The Government are concerned that the situation is being used in order to be abused, which is why we must address the point.
  Interestingly, the Government's position appears to be based on what they believe is their ability to derogate from article 6(2). It is somewhat disingenuous to dismiss the Seeling case, as they have tried to dismiss it, as an argument made only in the domestic courts of Germany. In fact, it is a decision of the European Court, which seems to confirm that if the ability to derogate is absent, clause 22 will be ultra vires under the article.
  I accept that Seeling does not deal directly with the question of derogation. However, it confirms the following effect of the Community legislation, namely that it is not within a member state's gift to determine whether a taxable person applies article 6(2). That choice is afforded to the taxable person, not the taxing authorities. That is the important point. I refer the Minister to paragraphs 40 to 43.
  We are not necessarily in the business of saying that the Government should be getting less than their due. We may argue about why they are raising the tax and about other aspects of their processes and their promises and further expectations, but we are not arguing that just because the tax authority ends up with less tax than it seeks it is not wholly legitimate in trying to remedy that. However, according to the judgment, that is no reason to apply the provision of the directive and interpret it differently. That is in paragraph 54.
  The key question is whether there is a power of derogation from article 6(2). In that regard, it should be noted that the UK does not appear to have sought specific authority to derogate from article 6. Instead, it relies on the fact that article 6(2) provides sufficient authority for the derogation contemplated.
  As the Minister will understand well, derogations are not unrestricted; they are not a means whereby tax authorities can deny taxable persons the treatment that the Community legislature intended. Furthermore, the derogation in article 6(2) is a simplification, not an anti-avoidance measure. Derogations for anti-avoidance purposes need to be sought specifically under the procedures provided for by article 27 of the sixth VAT directive, but the Government have not done that. They have placed their whole argument on anti-avoidance. They have tried to distinguish article 6(2) from all the arguments that I have made, which are taken from the whole legislative proposal, yet they have not even applied for derogation for anti-avoidance purposes under article 27 of the sixth VAT directive.
  It is thus possible that the derogation power in the article is limited and not as wide as the Government propose. The derogation under article 6(2) that member states may derogate from the provisions of the article provided that such derogation does not lead to distortion of competition—a point that was also made—could be interpreted in two ways.
  The first interpretation is that any derogation is to be construed narrowly; for example, Advocate General Jacob's opinion in Kane at paragraphs 19 and 20. On such a narrow construction, it could be argued that the derogation permitted to member states is not to apply a charge for private use where, by allowing no private-use charge to be made, there was no distortion of

  265
  competition. That means that derogation is not applicable to the recovery by the taxpayer of the input VAT, but only to the recovery by the Government on any private-use element.
  The alternative and perhaps broader view was expressed by the same Advocate General in Lennartz at paragraph 75. That broader view suggests that an input tax restriction could be justified where the goods are to be put to private use in certain circumstances, but that such an input tax restriction cannot prevent input tax deduction on a genuine business expenditure. It follows that even on that wider view there is a need to provide a mechanism whereby increased proportions of business use, after the initial apportionment, could be recognised as giving rise to recoverable VAT.
  Accordingly, one could argue that, whether one takes the stricter or the wider view, the initial deduction would still be required to be allowed by the member state in situations where the relative proportions of taxable and non-business use varied over time, where the private-use charge reflected the variable use over time. It should also be noted that the derogation within article 6(2) is subject to the provision that such derogation does not lead to distortion of competition; whether there is any such distortion should be determined on a case-by-case basis and should refer to an actual distortion of competition rather than a theoretical one.
  As I hope the Minister realises, I have tried not to be too slothful since our discussion on 7 May. What came out on 8 May was a one and a half page synopsis—my best attempt—of a long judgment, but it was a genuine attempt to understand, given that, critically, I asked in the Standing Committee for a copy of the counsel's opinion to Customs and Excise, as that is the whole driving force behind the advice given to Ministers on the clause and the statutory instrument that we debated in the Standing Committee.
  I have had a letter—I am glad to have been accorded such courtesy by the Economic Secretary—which says
  that counsel's opinion is internal advice, and its disclosure is therefore governed by the code of practice on access to Government information. We know that the Attorney-General made legal advice known in advance of the engagement in the Iraqi war. While that was seen as reasonably exceptional, it was by no means breaking with all precedent.
  It is therefore a precedent that, for the greater benefit and understanding of the House, in passing legislation, it is found to be uniquely helpful to have legal advice—I do not think that I am making up precedent as I go along—that that is where the legal precedent for that request comes from. Although we explored at length Upstairs why this loophole, as the Government see it, is being closed, it is similar to, if not precisely the same as, the tax opportunity and—many would argue—loophole in the arrangements for the Labour party headquarters purchase in Old Queen street. My right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, who is in his place, has written to the chairman of the Labour party about that, and I gather that he has only just received a reply; he had certainly not received one when he raised the issue on 7 May. That begs questions as to why we are addressing this issue but not that.
  I dealt with this matter at length Upstairs, and although it is tempting to rehearse it in the Committee of the House, it is more important that I have had a
  266
  response, as I am trying to move the argument on. I have had a response from the Economic Secretary—[Interruption.] It takes time to go through such complicated matters, and I am sorry if the hon. Gentlemen's attention is flagging. We are here to scrutinise legislation and not to put in place bad law that is ill thought through and will not provide a remedy. For once, that is the purpose for which both he and I have been elected: to do our job and to scrutinise the Government's business.
  Mr. John Taylor: Will my hon. Friend reassure his colleagues that he will resist with all his force anyone who has the impertinence to tell him not to do his job properly in scrutinising this legislation with the care that he has been showing? In light of the fairly recent House of Lords case of Pepper v. Hart, which permitted their lordships, on a disputed point about the interpretation of a statute, to call for the Hansard to enable them to see what Members have said in the Chamber and in Committee, is there not an analogy by which we should press for a change in the convention and have access to the legal advice to the Government?
  Mr. O'Brien: I would not want to stray into the highways and byways of Pepper v. Hart, as it may come to a request for the Hansard of the Fourth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation on 7 May to understand what was placed on the record about the extraordinary arrangements that led to the acquisition of the Labour party's new headquarters in Old Queen street. We should move on before we stray down byways on which I would properly expect to be called to order.
  What we were concentrating on is that I have asked for the counsel's opinion that is underpinning the Government's whole approach. I have understood from a clear letter that that will not be forthcoming, and although the Economic Secretary's reaction that he would look into the matter seriously and check the vires was proper, and he was clear about that in Committee, he has refused to provide that counsel's opinion. The real problem is that we have now had the result of the Seeling case, and he has given me no countervailing opinion as to why this issue is distinguishable from the remedy—and the mischief that he is trying to remedy—in the clause, and why Seeling came out in favour of my arguments rather than in support of his.
  Furthermore, the Economic Secretary was quick to suggest, in his defence of what I believe is an ill-considered and ill-thought-out proposal in clause 22—which has a strange alliance with the arrangements that the Labour party employed for its headquarters—that there were not that many advisers. Perhaps I was making them up. However, since the discussion on 7 May, I dare say that he has also had the opportunity—certainly his advisers will have done—to check out the websites. I have been contacted by a number of people who have said that they are glad that the arguments have been raised, because they reflect their concerns. The Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Law Society's tax committee have all given a great deal of thought to the issue, and they are very concerned.

  267
  I do not believe that we have taken a shotgun approach, which is what was expected after the Budget and what the Minister tried to suggest. This is thought-through professional advice, and the grapeshot is turning into rifle and rapid fire.
  7 pm
  Mr. Djanogly: I have also received a copy of the letter, and I thank the Minister for that. I do not have it in front of me, but I seem to recall that the reason why counsel's opinion was not provided had to do with the fact that it discussed tax avoidance schemes. Presumably, those who wish to use them should not see the advice. However, surely the whole purpose of this provision is to review the anti-avoidance scheme. To that extent, in the spirit of co-operation and with the aim of doing what the clause is intended to, we should see that advice.
  Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He served on that Committee and made a valuable contribution. He has clearly been persuaded by the arguments.
  It is important to recognise that the Institute of Chartered Accountants has said:
  "In accordance with the rules laid down in article 17 of the sixth directive, the court further stated that"—
  this relates to the Lennartz case—
  "a rule or administrative practice imposing a general restriction on the right of deductions in cases where there is limited but none the less genuine business use constitutes a derogation from article 17 of the directive and is valid only if the requirements of article 27(1) or article 27(5) of the directive are met. This clause"—
  clause 22—
  "therefore appears contrary to EC law. In our view, the intention of this provision, namely the denial of initial input tax recovery can only be achieved if derogation under article 27(1) is sought and granted. Until such time, this clause may result"—
  as rightly pointed out by my right hon. and hon. Friends—
  "in further litigation, creating uncertainty and costs for both taxpayers and customs, with the end result likely to be that this clause is held to be illegal. Surely we should not be party to such an attempt by the Government. They have not yet put up a sufficient case or defence for it. Unless and until a derogation has been obtained, the clause should be removed from the Finance Bill."
  That is the institute speaking.
  In conclusion—I know that this will be a relief to some—this is an important issue that should be placed on the record. I repeat that we are not anti-avoidance, but anti-uncertainty. We have moved from the serious issue of trying to analyse the mischief and the remedy that the Government proposed to finding that they seem not to want to provide us with the basis upon which they have introduced these provisions. However, we have countervailing legal precedent.
  We are compelled to vote against clause stand part, because it is a matter of authority, proportionality and the absence of the advice to enable proper scrutiny of an argument that has been fully made. We have a duty to prevent uncertainty and to stop legislation appearing in
  268
  a Finance Bill, of all Bills, that could make it void on the ground of illegality. That is the last thing that we should allow. It is our first duty to prevent it.
  Mr. Michael Howard: On a point of order, Sir Michael. My point of order relates to the timetabling of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) set out earlier today why we need proper scrutiny and debate in the Committee considering this Bill. It is now abundantly clear from our proceedings that such scrutiny cannot occur in the time allowed.
  The Order Paper lists 10 clauses and three schedules due for debate today. The Committee has not had an opportunity to debate all those measures, and that state of affairs was caused by the Government's decision to limit debate on one of the longest-ever Finance Bill's to just seven days in Committee and then to guillotine that debate.
  Among the vital issues that we will not have time to scrutinise are many of the details of the new tax on leases, in particular how it is to be implemented. That issue is of huge concern to business, not least because for some small firms it could lead to a 10-fold increase in their tax bill. The manner in which the tax is being introduced, with details still unclear and a consultation process that was curtailed, has been described by the Law Society as "astonishing". It wanted the measure to be deferred to 2004. That is what our amendment would do, but it will not be discussed in Committee.
  Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) warned of
  "increasingly poor policy initiatives being rammed through Parliament".—[Official Report, 12 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 38.]
  That is precisely what is happening with this Finance Bill. Are there any steps at all, Sir Michael, that you can take to secure a real opportunity for the House to consider such important matters?
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Further to that point of order, Sir Michael. May I urge you to consider whether the Procedure Committee should become involved? Perhaps you could advise the Speaker on that. The issues raised go beyond the important events of today and yesterday, and I fully support what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said.
  I am a member of the Joint Committee that is considering the future of the House of Lords. One of the very few matters on which that Committee remains unanimous is that this House should retain sole charge of issues of taxation and finance. Finance Bills have only recently been guillotined or timetabled. There is no tradition of that or of filibustering them. They have usually been handled by agreement. However, it seems that large sections of the Bill will not be debated on the Floor of the House. The Committee is timetabled, so they will almost certainly not be debated Upstairs. So whole sections of the Bill will be passed without a word of debate or scrutiny. People will draw comparisons between what we do in this House and the scrutiny that the House of Lords gives to Bills on non-finance matters. It is time that we reconsidered our procedures and re-established some of the old conventions, which used to give this House some authority in such matters.
  Mr. Jack: Further to that point of order, Sir Michael. May I ask whether you have seen any examples in the

  269
  debate so far of Members who have spoken out of order or of unnecessary time wasting on which the Chair has had to comment?
  Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Sir Michael, and in particular the point of order raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). You will be only too aware, Sir Michael, as I am sure the House is, that even in normal circumstances when the Government arbitrarily restrict the debate on other Bills in this House, voters and the public at large can expect at the very least that the other place might step in and use its latitude to provide proper scrutiny when we have been unable to do so thanks to the Government's actions. However, we cannot rely on that for this Bill.
  Surely it is doubly incumbent on the House, yourself, Sir Michael, and the House authorities to ensure that we discharge our responsibility in giving this Finance Bill—indeed, all Finance Bills—the most thorough scrutiny. We are being denied that opportunity, as today has proved beyond all doubt. What can be done to protect us, the House and, indeed, the taxpayer from this Government tyranny?
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): Further to that point of order, Sir Michael. The House needs to be reminded of a number of things. The two days of debate on the Floor of the House for the Finance Bill were agreed through the usual channels. All the matters for debate today were nominated by Her Majesty's Opposition and the minority parties—15 by the Conservatives and seven by the Liberal Democrats and nationalists. The record shows that when the timetable was discussed earlier, it took precisely two minutes to agree it for today and tomorrow, and there was no Division.
  Opposition Members were in complete control of today's timetable yet, on clause 1, they spoke for one hour, 37 minutes, with no vote. They chose to discuss all the clauses in the Bill. If they knew that they needed to spend a long time on each one, why did they nominate all of them for debate?
  The Bill is still amendable. When I moved the timetable motion earlier, I said that I would use my best endeavours to ensure that there was a proper debate on its provisions. However, I can only act in good faith, and it was in good faith that I made an agreement with the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), and transferred two schedules planned for debate on the Floor of the House into Committee. In good faith, we discussed the two days scheduled for debate through the usual channels. In good faith we agreed that timetable, as the record shows, in two minutes with no Division—that is how the Opposition parties dealt with this matter. What else can I do, Sir Michael, but act in good faith if Opposition Members bring the House into disrepute?
  Mr. Howard rose—
  The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Michael Lord): No, I have heard enough from Members on both sides of the House to deal with the point of order.
  I understand Members' concern about the time allowed for debate today but, given the programme motion, which was agreed by the whole House earlier
  270
  today, the Committee has no alternative but to conclude the proceedings as set out in the Order Paper and I, as the Chair, have no alternative but to obey the wishes of the House. Let us now move on.
  Mr. Gummer: On a different point of order, Sir Michael.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Is it an entirely different point of order?
  Mr. Gummer: It is as different as it could be.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: If it is an entirely different point of order, I would just tell the right hon. Gentleman that we are nearly out of time. This all takes time out of the debate.
  Mr. Gummer: Would it be possible for you, Sir Michael, and the Speaker to prepare a note to be issued by the Speaker's Office so that on occasions when our constituents ask why parts of any Bill have not been discussed we can give them an explanation?
  The Second Deputy Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is returning to the point of order with which we have already dealt.
  Mr. David Wilshire rose—
  The Second Deputy Chairman: No, I am sorry, I am not taking any more points of order.
  Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
  The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 168.

  Division No. 192]

  [7:12 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Burgon, Colin

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Burnham, Andy

  Ainger, Nick

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cairns, David

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Caplin, Ivor

  Austin, John

  Casale, Roger

  Bailey, Adrian

  Caton, Martin

  Baird, Vera

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Banks, Tony

  Chaytor, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Clapham, Michael

  Barren, rh Kevin

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Battle, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Beard, Nigel

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Blackman, Liz

  Clelland, David

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Coaker, Vernon

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Coleman, Iain

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Colman, Tony

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Connarty, Michael

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Browne, Desmond

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bryant, Chris

  Corston, Jean

  Burden, Richard

  Cousins, Jim

  271

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cranston, Ross

  Hodge, Margaret

  Crausby, David

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Cummings, John

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  David, Wayne

  Davidson, Ian

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Denham, rh John

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Kemp, Fraser

  Doran, Frank

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Kidney, David

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Drown, Ms Julia

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Edwards, Huw

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Efford, Clive

  Lammy, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Lepper, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Leslie, Christopher

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Flint, Caroline

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Linton, Martin

  Follett, Barbara

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Foulkes, rh George

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  McCabe, Stephen

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gardiner, Barry

  MacDonald, Calum

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  MacDougall, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  McFall, John

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gilroy, Linda

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McKechin, Ann

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Grogan, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Hain, rh Peter

  MacShane, Denis

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  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

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Martlew, Eric

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Merron, Gillian

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Miliband, David

  Heppell, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Heyes, David

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Moffatt, Laura

  272

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Singh, Marsha

  Morgan, Julie

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mountfotd, Kali

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mudie, George

  Soley, Clive

  Mullin, Chris

  Southworth, Helen

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Spellar, rh John

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Squire, Rachel

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stevenson, George

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Olner, Bill

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  O'Neill, Martin

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Organ, Diana

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Owen, Albert

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Perham, Linda

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Picking, Anne

  Trickett, Jon

  Pickthall, Colin

  Truswell, Paul

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Plaskitt, James

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Pound, Stephen

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Purchase, Ken

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Purnell, James

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Watts, David

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  White, Brian

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

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

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Wills, Michael

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Winnick, David

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Woodward, Shaun

  Rooney, Terry

  Woolas, Phil

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Ruane, Chris

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Salter, Martin

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wyatt, Derek

  Sawford, Phil

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sheridan, Jim

  Dan Norris and

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Charlotte Atkins

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Brazier, Julian

  Amess, David

  Breed, Colin

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Bacon, Richard

  Burnett, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Burns, Simon

  Barker, Gregory

  Burstow, Paul

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Burt, Alistair

  Barrett, John

  Butterfill, John

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Bellingham, Henry

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Bercow, John

  Cameron, David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Boswell, Tim

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Cash, William

  Brady, Graham

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  273

  Chope, Christopher

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Clappison, James

  Mercer, Patrick

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Moore, Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Moss, Malcolm

  Collins, Tim

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Conway, Derek

  Norman, Archie

  Cotter, Brian

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Curry, rh David

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Page, Richard

  Paice, James

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Paterson, Owen

  Dodds, Nigel

  Pickles, Eric

  Doughty, Sue

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Randall, John

  Fallon, Michael

  Redwood, rh John

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Flight, Howard

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Flook, Adrian

  Forth, rh Eric

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Francois, Mark

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Garnier, Edward

  Rosindell, Andrew

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Selous, Andrew

  Grayling, Chris

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Grieve, Dominic

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

  Gummer, rh John

  Hague, rh William

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hammond, Philip

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Harvey, Nick

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Spring, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Steen, Anthony

  Heath, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Stunell, Andrew

  Hendry, Charles

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Holmes, Paul

  Syms, Robert

  Horam John (Orpington)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Howard, rh Michael

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Thurso, John

  Jack, rh Michael

  Turnen Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Tyrie Andrew

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Viggers Peter

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lamb, Norman

  Watkinson, Angela

  Lansley, Andrew

  Webb Steve (Northavon)

  Leigh, Edward

  Weir Michael

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Wiggin, Bill

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Willetts, David

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Lidington, David

  Willis, Phil

  Loughton, Tim

  Wilshire, David

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Wishart, Pete

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Maclean, rh David

  Young, rh Sir George

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Matins, Humfrey

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Maude, rh Francis

  Mr. Mark Hoban and

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Sir Michael. There are now four clauses and three schedules that have not been debated. That leaves this House with only one way to show its disapproval of this action—to vote against the proposals because we have not considered them. Last night, when this happened during Northern Ireland business, there was a programme motion and every clause was voted against. I understand from the Clerks that tonight, by rigging the wording of a programme motion, the Government are going to try to deny us the right to express a view on those four clauses and three schedules by insisting that they be rolled up and voted on en bloc. Is that not an even worse abuse of democracy?
  The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that last night's business was guillotined, which is different from today's business. The matter that we are dealing with is provided for in the Sessional Order relating to Bills that are programmed. The two are dealt with in different ways.
  It being more than six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, THE SECOND DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, pursuant to Order [this day], proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
  Motion made, and Question put, That clauses 42 and 56, schedule 5 and clause 57 stand part of the Bill:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 309, Noes 163.

  Division No. 193]

  [7:28 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Cairns, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Allen, Graham

  Caplin, Ivor

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Casale, Roger

  Caton, Martin

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Austin, John

  Chaytor, David

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clapham, Michael

  Baird, Vera

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Banks, Tony

  Barnes, Harry

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Battle, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clelland, David

  Beard, Nigel

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Betts, Clive

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Blackman, Liz

  Coleman, Iain

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Colman, Tony

  Blizzard, Bob

  Connarty, Michael

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Corston, Jean

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cousins, Jim

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Browne, Desmond

  Cranston, Ross

  Bryant, Chris

  Crausby, David

  Burden, Richard

  Cruddas, Jon

  Burgon, Colin

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Burnham, Andy

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Cummings, John

  275

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stratford & Urmston)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  David, Wayne

  Davidson, Ian

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Denham, rh John

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Kemp, Fraser

  Doran, Frank

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Kidney, David

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Edwards, Huw

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Efford, Clive

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lammy, David

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Lepper, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Leslie, Christopher

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Flint, Caroline

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Linton, Martin

  Follett, Barbara

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Foulkes, rh George

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  McCabe, Stephen

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gardiner, Barry

  MacDonald, Calum

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  MacDougall, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  McFall, John

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gilroy, Linda

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McKechin, Ann

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Grogan, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Hain, rh Peter

  MacShane, Denis

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  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

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Martlew, Eric

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Merron, Gillian

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Miliband, David

  Heppell, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Heyes, David

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hinchliffe, David

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Hodge, Margaret

  Morgan, Julie

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Morley, Elliot

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Mountford, Kali

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Mudie, George

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mullin, Chris

  276

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Soley, Clive

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Southworth, Helen

  Maysmith, Dr. Doug

  Spellar, rh John

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Squire, Rachel

  O'Hara, Edward

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Olner, Bill

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Organ, Diana

  Stevenson, George

  Owen, Albert

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Pearson, Ian

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Perham, Linda

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Picking, Anne

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Plaskitt, James

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Pound, Stephen

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Trickett, Jon

  Truswell, Paul

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Purchase, Ken

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Purnell, James

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Watts, David

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

  Weir, Michael

  White, Brian

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Wills, Michael

  Winnick, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Rooney, Terry

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wishart, Pete

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Ruane, Chris

  Woodward, Shaun

  Rudclock, Joan

  Woolas, Phil

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Worthington, Tony

  Salteir, Martin

  Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sawford, Phil

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wyatt, Derek

  Singh, Marsha

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Dan Norris and

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Charlotte Atkins

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Breed, Colin

  Amess, David

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burnett, John

  Bacon, Richard

  Burns, Simon

  Baldry, Tony

  Burstow, Paul

  Barker, Gregory

  Burt, Alistair

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Butterfill, John

  Barrett, John

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cameron, David

  Bercow, John

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Boswell, Tim

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Cash, William

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Brady, Graham

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Chope, Christopher

  Brazier, Julian

  Clappison, James

  277

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Collins, Tim

  Mercer, Patrick

  Conway, Derek

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Cotter, Brian

  Curry, rh David

  Moore, Michael

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Norman, Archie

  Dodds, Nigel

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Doughty, Sue

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Page, Richard

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Paice, James

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Paterson, Owen

  Fabricant, Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Fallon, Michael

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Flight, Howard

  Randall, John

  Flook, Adrian

  Redwood, rh John

  Forth, rh Eric

  Robathan, Andrew

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Francois, Mark

  Garnier, Edward

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Gidley, Sandra

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Grayling, Chris

  Sanders, Adrian

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Selous, Andrew

  Grieve, Dominic

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Gummer, rh John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hague, rh William

  Simmonds, Mark

  Hammond, Philip

  Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns & Kincardine)

  Harvey, Nick

  Hawkins, Nick

  Soames, Nicholas

  Heald, Oliver

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Heath, David

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Spring, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Steen, Anthony

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Streeter, Gary

  Holmes, Paul

  Stunell, Andrew

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Howard, rh Michael

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Syms, Robert

  Hunter, Andrew

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Jack, rh Michael

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Thurso, John

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lamb, Norman

  Viggers, Peter

  Lansley, Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Leigh, Edward

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Wiggin, Bill

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Willetts, David

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Lidington, David

  Wilshire, David

  Loughton, Tim

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Luff, Peter (M- Worcs)

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Young, rh Sir George

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Maclean, rh David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Malins, Humfrey

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

  Maude, rh Francis

  Mr. Mark Hoban

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Amendment proposed: No. 72.—[Dawn Primarolo.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 305, Noes 163.

  Division No. 194]

  [7:42 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ainger, Nick

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  David, Wayne

  Alexander, Douglas

  Davidson, Ian

  Allen, Graham

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Austin, John

  Denham, rh John

  Bailey, Adrian

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Baird, Vera

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Banks, Tony

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Barnes, Harry

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Doran, Frank

  Battle, John

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Beard, Nigel

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Betts, Clive

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Blackman, Liz

  Edwards, Huw

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Efford, Clive

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Fisher, Mark

  Brennan, Kevin

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Browne, Desmond

  Flint, Caroline

  Bryant, Chris

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Burden, Richard

  Follett, Barbara

  Burgon, Colin

  Foster, rh Derek

  Burnham, Andy

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Cairns, David

  Foulkes, rh George

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Caplin, Ivor

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Casale, Roger

  Gerrard, Neil

  Caton, Martin

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Chaytor, David

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clapham, Michael

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Grogan, John

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clelland, David

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Hanson, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Coleman, Iain

  Colman, Tony

  Healey, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hendrick, Mark

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Corston, Jean

  Heppell, John

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Heyes, David

  Cranston, Ross

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Crausby, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Cummings, John

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  279

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Olner, Bill

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Organ, Diana

  Owen, Albert

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Perham, Linda

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Picking, Anne

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Plaskitt, James

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Pound, Stephen

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kidney, David

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Purchase, Ken

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Purnell, James

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lammy, David

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Lepper, David

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

  Leslie, Christopher

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Linton, Martin

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Love, Andrew

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Rooney, Terry

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruane, Chris

  McCabe, Stephen

  Ruddock, Joan

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Salter, Martin

  MacDougall, John

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McFall, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sawford, Phil

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Sheerman, Barry

  McKechin, Ann

  Sheridan, Jim

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McNamara, Kevin

  Singh, Marsha

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Soley, Clive

  Mallaber, Judy

  Southworth, Helen

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Spellar, rh John

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Squire, Rachel

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Martlew, Eric

  Stevenson, George

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Merron, Gillian

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Miliband, David

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Miller, Andrew

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Morgan, Julie

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Morley, Elliot

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Mountford, Kali

  Trickett, Jon

  Mudie, George

  Truswell, Paul

  Mullin, Chris

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  280

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Woolas, Phil

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Worthington, Tony

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Watts, David

  Weir, Michael

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  White, Brian

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Wills, Michael

  Wyatt, Derek

  Winnick, David

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Dan Norris and

  Wishart, Pete

  Charlotte Atkins

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Amess, David

  Francois, Mark

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Garnier, Edward

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Bacon, Richard

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Baldry, Tony

  Gidley, Sandra

  Barker, Gregory

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Barrett, John

  Grayling, Chris

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Bercow, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Blunt, Crispin

  Gummer, rh John

  Boswell, Tim

  Hague, rh William

  Bottoimley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Hammond, Philip

  Harvey, Nick

  Brady, Graham

  Hawkins, Nick

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Heald, Oliver

  Brazier, Julian

  Heath, David

  Breed, Colin

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Hendry, Charles

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Burnett, John

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Burns, Simon

  Holmes, Paul

  Burstow, Paul

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Burt, Alistair

  Howard, rh Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Hunter, Andrew

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Jack, rh Michael

  Cameron, David

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Cash, William

  Lamb, Norman

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Chope, Christopher

  Leigh, Edward

  Clappison, James

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Collins, Tim

  Lidington, David

  Conway, Derek

  Loughton, Tim

  Cotter, Brian

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Curry, rh David

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Maclean, rh David

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Dodds, Nigel

  Malins, Humfrey

  Doughty, Sue

  Maude, rh Francis

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Mercer, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Fallon, Michael

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Moore, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Flight, Howard

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Flook, Adrian

  Norman, Archie

  Forth, rh Eric

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  281

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Spring, Richard

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Steen, Anthony

  Page, Richard

  Streeter, Gary

  Paice, James

  Stunell, Andrew

  Paterson, Owen

  Swayne, Desmond

  Pickles, Eric

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Thurso, John

  Randall, John

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Viggers, peter

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Warkinson, Angela

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Sanders, Adrian

  Willetts, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Selous, Andrew

  Wilshire, David

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Young, rh Sir George

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

  Yornger-Ross, Richard

  Soames, Nicholas

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Mr. Laurence Robertson and

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Mr. Robert Syms

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put, That schedule 6, as amended, schedule 19, and clause 124 stand part of the Bill.
  The Committee divided: Ayes 300, Noes 158.

  Division No. 195]

  [7:56 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)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Chaytor, David

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Clapham, Michael

  Austin, John

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Baird, Vera

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Banks, Tony

  Barnes, Harry

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Clelland, David

  Battle, John

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Coaker, Vernon

  Beard, Nigel

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Coleman, Iain

  Betts, Clive

  Colman, Tony

  Blackman, Liz

  Connarty, Michael

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cooper, Yvette

  Blizzard, Bob

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Corston, Jean

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cranston, Ross

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Crausby, David

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cruddas, Jon

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Browne, Desmond

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bryant, Chris

  Cummings, John

  Burden, Richard

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Burgon, Colin

  Burnham, Andy

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Cairns, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  282

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  David, Wayne

  Davidson, Ian

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Denham, rh John

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Kemp, Fraser

  Doran, Frank

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Kidney, David

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Edwards, Huw

  Efford Clive

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Ewing,Annabelle

  Lammy, David

  Farrelly, Paul

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Fisher, Mark

  Lepper, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Leslie, Christopher

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Flint, Caroline

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Follett, Barbara

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, rh Derek

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Love, Andrew

  Foster Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Lucas Ign (Wrexham)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Foulkes, rh George

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  McAvoy Thomas

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  McCabe Stephen

  Gardiner, Barry

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Gerrard, Neil

  MacDougall, John

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  McFall, John

  Gilroy, Linda

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Goggins, Paul

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McKechin, Ann

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Grogan, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Hain, rh Peter

  MacShane, Denis

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  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

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Martlew, Eric

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Merron, Gillian

  Heppell, John

  Miliband, David

  Heyes, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hodge, Margaret

  Morgan, Julie

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Morley, Elliot

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Mountford, Kali

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Mullin, Chris

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

  Olner, Bill

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  O'Neill, Martin

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Organ, Diana

  Owen, Albert

  283

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Spellar, rh John

  Pearson, Ian

  Squire, Rachel

  Perham, Linda

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Picking, Anne

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stevenson, George

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Plaskitt, James

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Pound, Stephen

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Trickett, Jon

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Truswell, Paul

  Purchase, Ken

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Purnell, James

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

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

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Watts, David

  Weir, Michael

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  White, Brian

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Rooney, Terry

  Wills, Michael

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Winnick, David

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ruane, Chris

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wishart, Pete

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Salter, Martin

  Woodward, Shaun

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Woolas, Phil

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Worthington, Tony

  Sawford, Phil

  Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Sheridan, Jim

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Singh, Marsha

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Soley, Clive

  Dan Norris and

  Southworth, Helen

  Charlotte Atkins

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Butterfill, John

  Amess, David

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Gallon, Mrs Patsy

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cameron, David

  Bacon, Richard

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Baldry, Tony

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Barker, Gregory

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Cash, William

  Barrett, John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Chope, Christopher

  Bercow, John

  Clappison, James

  Blunt, Crispin

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Boswell, Tim

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Collins, Tim

  Conway, Derek

  Brady, Graham

  Cotter, Brian

  Brazier, Julian

  Curry, rh David

  Breed, Colin

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Burnett, John

  Dodds, Nigel

  Burns, Simon

  Doughty, Sue

  Burstow, Paul

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Burt, Alistair

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  284

  Duncan Smith, rh lain

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Fabricanl, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Moore, Michael

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Flight, Howard

  Norman, Archie

  Flook, Adrian

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Page, Richard

  Francois, Mark

  Paice, James

  Gamier, Edward

  Paterson, Owen

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Pickles, Eric

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Gidley, Sandra

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Randall, John

  Gray, James (N Wrilts)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Grayling, Chris

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Gummer, rh John

  Roe Mrs Marion

  Hague, rh William

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Hammond, Philip

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Harvey, Nick

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hawkins, Nick

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Heald, Oliver

  Selous, Andrew

  Heath, David

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Simmonds, Mark

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

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

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Holmes, Paul

  Soames, Nicholas

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Howard, rh Michael

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Spring, Richard

  Howarth Gerald (Aldershot)

  Steen Anthony

  Hunter, Andrew

  Streeter, Gary

  Jack, rh Michael

  Stunell, Andrew

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Kirkbride. Miss Julie

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Lamb, Norman

  Thurso, John

  Lansley, Andrew

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Leigh, Edward

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Viggers, Peter

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Watkinson, Angela

  Loughton, Tim

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Willetts, David

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Williams Roger (Brecm)

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Wilshire, David

  Maclean, rh David

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Young, rh Sir George

  Malins, Humfrey

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Maude, rh Francis

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Mr. Laurence Robertson and

  Mercer, Patrick

  Mr. Robert Syms

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),
  That this House, at its rising on Thursday 22nd May, do adjourn until Tuesday 3rd June 2003.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made,
That at the sitting on Thursday 22nd May, the Motion for the adjournment of the House in the name of the Prime Minister relating to matters to be considered before the forthcoming adjournment may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, or until Six o'clock, whichever is the later, and shall then lapse.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
Hon. Members: Object.

Student Finances (Cornwall)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
8.8 pm
Matthew Taylor: I very much welcome this opportunity to raise a subject that has, to say the least, been of some controversy on both sides of the House: tuition fees and the Government's plans for top-up fees. I shall say a little more on both in a moment, but I want to focus on the impact that tuition fees have already had on Cornish students and, more specifically, on the impact on Cornish students of top-up fees in future.
I am delighted that my three Liberal Democrat colleagues from the county are in the Chamber, as we think that the matter is of the utmost importance in relation to the Government's wider policies on social inclusion, to give poorer students the opportunity of higher education and to ensure that people with a high level of skills and qualifications can work, set up and expand businesses and make the Cornish economy successful. That, too, forms part of the Government's wider policies, through objective 1 programmes at European level and in other welcome respects, to try to tackle the acknowledged poverty in Cornwall, which is the poorest county in the country.
The existing policy of student tuition fees has already led to typical students amassing a debt, by the time they graduate, of £12,000—a substantial amount for anyone embarking on life and a career. Although the Government argued originally that that was a way of getting extra money into higher education, those extra funds never materialised. Looking at the graph of expenditure, it is clear that it substituted the trend growth from the Treasury in terms of investment in higher education for money from students in the form of tuition fees. Now, however, the Government propose to allow top-up fees of up to £3,000. For a typical student having to meet those top-up fees, the debt that they could expect on graduation would double from the existing £12,000 to £24,000. It is true that the Government say that they will reintroduce a grant system, which has been taking place—grants of £1,000 a year, some £20 a week, which are substantially less than the grants that young people in my constituency currently receive if they go to further education college, which are £30 a week. Again, the Government have said that it is all about getting further money into higher education. Simply put, doubt exists in all our minds about whether that will happen, given that it has not really happened in the past.
In deprived areas such as Cornwall, amassing a debt by the time of graduation of £24,000 gives rise to the question whether students from poor areas such as mine will be able or willing to take up such a debt at the start of their lives. A couple starting a marriage, having children and looking for their first home, if both were graduates, could have a debt of nearly £50,000. Not so long ago—within my time in Parliament—that level of debt would easily have bought a house in Cornwall, yet, now, before such a couple even start to have thoughts of a house, they will be saddled with such debts.
Of course, given rapidly rising house prices and the gap between local wages and house prices in Cornwall—one of the greatest in the country—and the fact that

287
mortgage companies will take into account the debt that students have as a result of getting through university in deciding how much they can extend for a mortgage, the chances of even professionally qualified graduate couples on local incomes in Cornwall affording a house are next to none.
Mr. Paul Tyler: My hon. Friend is too young to have had the same experience as me of getting two children through university. My point is that the disincentive factor in Cornwall is already very strong. The number of contemporaries of my daughter and son who simply could not contemplate higher education, even now, is considerable. I therefore think that the starting point is even worse than he describes. With new increased costs, and therefore increased debt, the situation will deteriorate further.
Matthew Taylor: I am sure my hon. Friend is right.
I want to turn for a moment to what is happening in Cornwall already, because the figures are significant. If we look at educational achievement in the county, at GCSE level, Cornwall has been consistently above the national average. For that part of education that is not optional, through which all young people go, it outperforms substantially the national average. By A-level, as the poorer students start to peel away, trying to earn some money within the family and perhaps contribute to the family home, we start to see that advantage worn away.
At A-level, Cornwall compares almost exactly with England. Therefore, although we know that young people in Cornwall start off doing better, by that stage, fewer of them are taking and getting A-levels or other vocational qualifications. There is an almost exact match between Cornwall and England, however. By the time we get to higher education, when people start to contemplate the debt that they are taking on, Cornwall falls behind the national average.
The key is that, until the introduction of tuition fees, the proportion of Cornwall's young people who went into higher education was gradually increasing. However, at the point at which the fees were introduced, the number fell back and since then there has been no trend upwards. The figure for participation levels has bounced around at about 20 per cent. By 2001, fewer 18year-olds were entering higher education than in 1997. The reason for that appears to be directly linked to income levels.
It is not possible to extract from the data nationally specific figures for Cornwall, but we know what has happened nationally because the Department has commissioned research. Participation in higher education among people from professional backgrounds increased by 21 percentage points in the 10 years between 1991 and 2001. However, the increase in higher education participation by young people from manual and unskilled backgrounds increased by only 7 percentage points. Therefore, the existing system, which already discriminated against the young people from poorer backgrounds who are typical in Cornwall where there are relatively few professional managerial jobs and very low incomes, has widened social divides. The problem is directly linked to the debt situation that has accumulated, and top-up fees can only make it worse.
288
I have asked young people in the county what they think. Over the past few years, I have written to all young people at the age of 18 and asked them about their choices in relation to education and how they are affected by tuition fees. Consistently, year by year, half of them have said that tuition fees make them less likely to go to university. That is even without top-up fees. Of last year's cohort, 46 per cent. specified that tuition fees deterred them from going to university. Near on 60 per cent. also believed that, in five years, they would not return to or work in Cornwall, because they would go elsewhere to earn higher incomes. They would not be able to afford to live in Cornwall because of the high home ownership costs and the low wages. Again, that is even without the threat of top-up fees.
Clearly, the large debts associated with top-up fees will make these problems very much worse. That is a double whammy for the county, because there will be two effects. The fees will deter young people from going to university in the first place and, when they have graduated, they will be deterred from coming back because it is a low-income area where it is harder to repay the debts. The county will be locked into a low-income, low-wage economy that has few graduates. In other words, that is a definition of the problems that we already have, but made worse.
The Government say that students should be expected to pay the high top-up fees because of what they term the "graduate premium". The Department claims that a typical graduate will earn £400,000 more in their lifetime as a result of the opportunities granted by university education. Those figures are, of course, flawed, because they are based on a study of the existing graduates in the work force. Most of them came through when only 12 or 15 per cent. of the population went to university. They are therefore a premium section of the work force and they are understandably and typically in the top 12 to 15 per cent. of earners.
The Government are now aiming for a figure of 50 per cent., and 50 per cent. of the population cannot have a £400,000 lifetime premium in their earnings ability. In fact, if the figure is 50 per cent., many of them are likely to be on average earnings even though they have gone through university and graduated. The Government's justification is certainly flawed.
The position is not necessarily uniform across the country. If one lives and works in the south-east or London, one may get a very high return on the investment involved in going to university. One may get a high return simply because of where one lives. Wages are very much higher in that part of the country. If people choose to live and work in Cornwall, their wage expectations will be substantially lower. Even skilled wages in the county are 20 per cent. below the national average. That has a significant effect on those students who have built up large debts because it takes significantly longer to repay them.
An average male graduate could expect to take 14 years to pay off a debt of £24,000. It could take a woman 17 years to do that because women's earnings are typically lower, something that the Government do not mention when they talk about the graduate premium. In Cornwall, men could take 17 years and women 20 to pay off the same debt. The Government are hanging a mortgage around those young people's necks. Students who return to the county will not only sacrifice income

289
and have to find a way to pay for much higher than average house prices, which are forced up by people moving out of the south-east and buying retirement or holiday homes, but face possibly 20 years of hard labour before they pay off the debts that they have run up as a result of the Government's top-up system.
The Government need to think hard about that. They are about to open the new Cornwall university base at Penryn. That big investment has been made possible by European funding, a great deal of Government commitment, and support from the Liberal Democrats and just about everyone in the county. The justification for that investment is that it will create opportunities for the poorer people in the county to study locally and not to have the same costs that they might encounter if they went away. It would also bring graduates in to the county.
Andrew George: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Conservatives got into power, their proposals announced yesterday would adjust student finance in such a way that student numbers would be slashed and the combined university project and the enhancement of higher education places in Cornwall would be dead in the water?
Matthew Taylor: I do not want to dwell on Conservative policy because I welcome the fact that they oppose tuition fees. They have not done that consistently before and it may help us to defeat the top-up proposals. Some 140 Labour MPs have signed an early-day motion opposing top-up fees. If they have the courage of their convictions and vote with the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats, the Government will either be defeated or have to withdraw their proposals and think again. That is why I hope that the debate will have an impact.
However, I have to acknowledge that the maths of how the Conservatives will pay for their policy does not add up. Telling students that they will not have to pay a tuition fee is not much help if they also tell them that no places are available. It does raise the question of how we will finance those extra student places planned for Cornwall if they are not funded.
Having said that, there is a more immediate problem for the Labour Government. We welcome and support the need to improve the Cornish economy and to give people new opportunities, but the new university might have to introduce top-up fees. It will inevitably find that its finances are stretched and that it can offer courses only if it charges those fees, but that would be counter to the purpose. The first thing that the poorer students who are meant to be welcomed into the university in Cornwall will be told is that they have to pay thousands of pounds in top-up fees and therefore face debts amounting to a large mortgage—probably larger than any mortgage that their parents have ever had—if they walk through its gates.
I hope that the Minister will at least promise to make every effort to ensure that the combined universities in Cornwall have the funding they need so that they do not have to introduce top-up fees in the county. We want the Minister to pledge that there will be no top-up fees for higher education in the county. If there are, it will contradict every reason that the Government have given
290
for backing the Cornwall university. Moreover, Liberal Democrats do not believe that tuition and top-up fees are the right approach. We have explained, most recently in our alternative Budget, that the right thing to do is to ask the growing number of very high earners—people earning over £100,000 a year—to pay a little more tax to fund greater fairness in the tax system. That would allow unfair increases in council tax to be cut, and nearly half of the additional revenue could be used to fund improvements in higher education. At the same time, students would not be asked to pay tuition and top-up fees, so would not have to should an unfair burden at the start of their adult lives.
It is in everyone's interest that students get that educational opportunity and become highly qualified people who will successfully lead the country through their innovation, skill and business investment. It is of fundamental importance that Cornwall encourages its young people to take advantage of the basic skills that I have described and develop them all the way through university. It is important for the future of Cornwall that we attract those people back so that they can invest in the local community and use their skills to build a thriving and successful county. I believe that the Government believe in all those things too, but if they pause for a moment, they will realise that none of them will be possible if they go down the appalling route of top-up fees for students.
8.26 pm
The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education (Margaret Hodge): I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) on securing this debate on an important issue that we have been debating widely outside Parliament today in response to the ill-thought-out proposals finally submitted by the Conservative party.
I had the pleasure of visiting Cornwall recently to discuss with various institutions their proposals for the combined universities in Cornwall. I had the pleasure of visiting Truro college, a further education college which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, recently gained beacon status and is an excellent college. I congratulate everyone associated with it on providing terrific opportunities of a very high standard for a large population in Cornwall. I am excited and interested in the emerging partnership between universities in Exeter and Plymouth, the Open university, the college of St. Mark and St. John, Falmouth college of arts and the FE colleges, which is extremely positive. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that we have demonstrated our confidence in it by saying that we will invest nearly £100 million of Government and EU money to provide the campus and other facilities. I shall certainly do all that I can to encourage that important local provision.
The hon. Gentleman will be interested to learn that since we published our White Paper on higher education I have been approached by six or seven regions, all seeking to establish a university, both because they want to provide higher education for a wider group of people in the locality and because they believe that universities

291
play an important role in regenerating the local economy. That demonstrates a change in the past 10 years in people's view of the role of universities, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that that is an important part of the White Paper proposals currently out for consultation.
Participation in higher education among young people in Cornwall is equal to the national average. The hon. Gentleman's figures demonstrated a slight fall-off in post-16 education, which is worrying. I shall consider whether the Department can do anything more to support local initiatives to try to encourage more students to stay on, but I hope that he will welcome the introduction of the educational maintenance allowances, which will be available nationally by 2004, as a financial incentive in support of that aim. I am a bit suspicious of his contention that the current fee regime has had a disproportionate impact on people in Cornwall. I cannot trace that in the figures that I have seen. Although we would all accept that there was a blip in applications in the year when the new regime was introduced, there has since been a steady and welcome increase in applications and in attendance in higher education, which demonstrates what we well know—that all young people who go through higher education see it as providing excellent value and good investment in the future. That is why I want the hon. Gentleman to join us in promoting higher education as a way forward in his county and elsewhere.
Matthew Taylor: I do not want to exaggerate the point. The numbers in higher education have fallen back in terms of the numbers who started at GCSE. I am worried about that, as the Minister would be. Nationally, once the initial effect of the tuition fee had worked through, although participation did not rise as fast as the Government would have wished, it continued to rise. In Cornwall, the participation rate has flattened off, and I think that tuition fees had an effect there.
Margaret Hodge: I will take the opportunity provided by the debate to examine that in detail and write to the hon. Gentleman.
I recognise that many of those who participate in higher education in Cornwall come from lower income backgrounds. That is reflected in the fact that almost three out of four Cornish students, many of whom study in the south-west even if they do not study in Cornwall, get full or partial contribution to the fee that currently exists, which is only a contribution to the current costs of tuition.
I do not accept much of what the hon. Gentleman said about the drivers for increased participation. In all the work that I have done over the past 18 months to two years in this job, I have come to learn that if we want to raise participation in higher education—and we do, because of the benefits for social inclusion and for the development of a much more skilled and competent work force—the key is to get more young people to stay on in school beyond the age of 16. Nine out of 10 of those who achieve two A-levels go on into higher education.
292
The real problem that we have in Britain, which seems from what the hon. Gentleman said to be particularly acute in his county, is encouraging young people to make that extra investment of time and money to stay on in education, so that they can expand their earnings later in life. Staying on in school and achieving the prior attainments necessary to pursue a university education unlock the opportunity that we want for individuals.
The other issue that we need to tackle, and which I am sure is true of Cornwall, is that far too many young people from low income families do not see university as an option for them. They see it as something for other people. That is why today's proposals from Opposition Front Benchers are so deeply damaging. If they were put into effect, we would revert to a situation in which only a few would see university as an opportunity for them, and the many would fall by the wayside and not develop their potential or contribute fully to the economy. Changing aspirations and achieving prior attainment are key to ensuring that the new combined universities of Cornwall are a success and are attended by many local people.
We need an appropriate funding regime. The hon. Gentleman would do a huge service to his constituents in getting them to aim higher and participate if he were a little more honest about what we were proposing. We recognise that debt aversion is a particular issue among young people from low income backgrounds, which is why vve have put together a package of proposals that addresses debt aversion among people from low income backgrounds, while ensuring that we get more money into the sector and that those who benefit from a higher education in increased earnings during their lifetime pay a little bit back into the system.
Only four out of 10 people currently pay the contribution to the fee. With our new system, that will continue. Only one in four of the hon. Gentleman's constituents currently pay the full contribution to the fee. If there is no change in the income distribution in his constituency, that will continue, and he should tell his constituents that that is the case. We also believe—he should applaud this—that it is important to get rid of upfront fees, which is why we have said that we do not expect people to pay when they are getting their education, but we do expect them to contribute when they become graduates and earn much more.
We are bringing back grants; let us again have a bit of honesty and straightforwardness about that. A third of our students will get a grant of £1,000. That will be on top of the loan, which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is offered on extremely generous terms. A student from a low-income background will get a £4,000 loan, will not be expected to pay the £1,100 fee and will get a grant on top of that. That scheme, which reaches a third of students, is much more generous than the scheme that currently applies in Wales, for which his party has some responsibility.
We are also raising the repayment level to £15,000. From a graduate on £20,000 a year, we are asking for a repayment of £8.60 a week, which is about the price of two bottles of wine or three glossy magazines. I believe that that is affordable. The loan scheme bears no real interest and is income contingent, so it will meet the needs of women, who may take time out of the labour

293
market. People will pay only according to what they earn and pay back only what they borrowed in real terms. I think that that is a fair way forward.
On variable fees, I do not accept that debt will double. We have clearly said that we will expect institutions that wish to introduce variable fees to have in place a bursary scheme that will give additional support to people from low-income backgrounds. We will also ensure that, if universities such as the combined universities of Cornwall wish to take that route, they properly engage with their local population to encourage young people to aim higher and go to university.
The Conservative proposals were advanced today, and I agree with the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) that they would threaten the expansion of place numbers in his county. However, the Liberal proposals do not add up. Interestingly, both Opposition parties
294
have made proposals that simply do not make arithmetical sense. The Liberals not only want to abolish tuition fees, double grants and pay benefits in the long vacation—we reckon that that would probably cost significantly more than £1 billion—but have said that they will be generous about research and meet the Bett pay settlement. Again, that does not add up.
I say to the hon. Gentleman that a 50 per cent. tax rate will not be the magic pot of money that funds every student in Cornwall. Our proposals will ensure fair access and expansion that will give us the inclusion and economic growth and prosperity on which our policy is built.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Nine o 'clock.

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

Gibraltar
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.]
9.30 am
Angela Watkinson: I am privileged to have the opportunity to open this important debate on Gibraltar. However, I am ashamed that the debate should be necessary. It is necessary because of the Government's disgraceful mishandling of negotiations with Spain, in their efforts to enhance an Anglo-Spanish alliance with the European Union that would balance the Franco-German axis. They are using the offer of joint sovereignty with Gibraltar as a bargaining chip, but without consultation with, participation by, or a mandate from Gibraltar. Gibraltar is our most loyal colony. It is iniquitous that its people should have to suffer any uncertainty about their future sovereignty.
Gibraltar was ceded to Great Britain under the treaty of Utrecht in 1713. Article 10 of that treaty states that should Britain ever give up sovereignty, Gibraltar would pass to Spain. British policy is based on article 73 of the United Nations charter, which gives paramount importance to the inhabitants of the territory. Gibraltar will therefore remain British for as long as its people so desire. The inhabitants of Gibraltar demonstrated, in a referendum held on 7 November 2002, that an overwhelming 99 per cent. of them do so desire.
Who could forget the wonderful display of Union flags when the people took to the streets to demonstrate the strength of their patriotic desire for the continuation of Gibraltar's present status?
Mr. Mark Hendrick: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Angela Watkinson: I should like to make a little progress.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the shadow Foreign Secretary, said:
"You could not have a clearer, democratically expressed view. To proceed, or to pretend to proceed, in the light of this, is to defy reality."
Gibraltar is of immense strategic value to the United Kingdom, as NATO's key communications centre in the western Mediterranean and as a forward base for British troops.
Mr. Hendrick: Can the hon. Lady say why a referendum was not given to the people of Hong Kong, given that country's strategic importance to the United Kingdom?
Mr. Richard Spring: It was on a lease.
Mr. Hendrick: I shall finish what I was saying. Hong Kong island was not on a lease; neither was Kowloon.
2WH
It was the new territories that were on a lease. Why were not the same arguments made for Hong Kong by the Tory Government?
Angela Watkinson: The basis on which a referendum could have been justified in Hong Kong was entirely different. As a British colony, Gibraltar is a special case.
Gibraltar is of immense strategic importance to the United Kingdom. Even if it had no strategic importance, the emotional ties of the past 300 years—ties of culture, tradition, heritage, history and loyalty to the Crown—bind us together. Gibraltar is family. In the 21st century, we no longer give away our princesses against their will in diplomatic marriages.
For Spain, joint sovereignty over Gibraltar is only a stepping-stone on the way to achieving its long-held ambition of full sovereignty and full access to Gibraltar's military base. Long-term harassment and a campaign of restrictions, such as land border delays and inadequate telephone capacity, have made life unnecessarily difficult for Gibraltar. EU directives that cause a financial burden are imposed, whereas beneficial directives are withheld.
In the recent negotiations, Spain made no effort to redefine its position, so persuaded was it by the Government that Gibraltar could be delivered. However, it could not be delivered—not without the agreement of its people, and that could not have been withheld more clearly. The way forward—the way to improve the relationship between Spain and Gibraltar—depends on Spain changing its attitude and becoming a good neighbour.
Bob Spink: As my hon. Friend is discussing the way forward, will she join me in encouraging the Conservative Front-Bench team categorically to state now that Conservative policy is totally to reject the joint sovereignty initiative, which is a deception on the people of Gibraltar and a betrayal of them by the Government?
Angela Watkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that. He will find that I absolutely endorse what he says in my remarks.
It is nothing short of a diplomatic disgrace that the Government reopened bilateral talks with Spain on the Brussels process without Gibraltar and with the aim of securing joint sovereignty in the wake of Gibraltar's conclusive referendum. The rights of the people of Gibraltar to self-determination were bartered over behind their backs by the British and Spanish Governments. It is not for politicians in London or Madrid to decide the sovereignty of Gibraltar—it is for the people of Gibraltar to do so, and they have made their decision for the rest of the world to see.
Mr. Chris Bryant: If that is true, will the hon. Lady explain why Peter Caruana, Gibraltar's Chief Minister, did not take part in the discussions and left vacant the seat that was available for Gibraltar? It is surely wrong to say that bartering was going on behind Gibraltar's back if it was invited to join the discussions.
Angela Watkinson: It is very clear why Peter Caruana did not take part—he was not given the same status as

3WH
the other participants. The fact that joint sovereignty was on the agenda precluded him from taking part. The issue was a non-starter for Gibraltar.
The prize simply was not deliverable. If Spain was given the impression that it was, it was misled. Far worse, Gibraltar was betrayed. It was deeply hurtful for Gibraltar to learn that its future had been the subject of covert horse-trading between Britain and Spain, which had been carried out in the interests of enhancing their positions in the EU. However important Britain's relationship with Spain, it is not more important that our historic links and loyalty to Gibraltar.
It is entirely spurious to excuse such behaviour by pretending that it was in the interests of Gibraltar's economy and that it was intended to guarantee Gibraltar and the surrounding area a prosperous future. No one—least of all Gibraltarians—would suggest that Gibraltar's economy has reached its full potential. Of course it can and will be developed further. Since the closure of the royal naval dockyard in 1985, tourism has become increasingly important, and Gibraltar is now a popular holiday destination—not least because it is British. It is also sunny. Commercial ship repairing and financial services render Gibraltar economically self-sufficient. It is not dependent on smuggling, as Spain has sometimes suggested. Happily, there is now full cooperation between the customs services of Spain and Gibraltar. As both countries are in the European Community, there is no incentive to use Gibraltar as a conduit for the illegal trafficking of people or drugs.
I know just how relieved Gibraltarians were to receive the Prime Minister's recent assurance, which he gave in response to a parliamentary question from me, that the future of Gibraltar played no role whatever in his negotiations with José María Aznar in securing Spain's support for the war against Saddam Hussein. The many letters that I have received from people living in Gibraltar—and in this country—illustrated the level of concern that has been generated by those joint sovereignty talks. There is much to do to dispel that concern.
The report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on Gibraltar could not have been more critical of the Government in its findings. It points to a failure to disclose that joint sovereignty with Spain was even under discussion. The report states that:
"Britain's negotiating position with Spain could not have been prejudiced by the British Government disclosing on, or shortly after, the relaunching of the Brussels Process in July 2001 that joint sovereignty over Gibraltar was under discussion as the Spanish Government was already fully involved in those discussions. We further conclude that the refusal of Ministers to make such a disclosure represented a serious failure in their accountability obligations to this Committee and to Parliament."
Gibraltar's referendum has been referred to as "eccentric". The Foreign Affairs Committee concluded that it rejected the Foreign Secretary's view that it is eccentric for the Government of Gibraltar to hold its own referendum. It added:
"We consider that in British Overseas Territories it is of great importance that democratic expressions of view should take place when territories themselves so determine. We recommend that the British Government take full account of the views of the people of Gibraltar as expressed in the referendum held on 7 November."
4WH
The Committee points to the failure to seek the endorsement of Gibraltar's Chief Minister. The report states:
"We conclude that the Government was wrong to negotiate joint sovereignty, when it must have known that there was no prospect whatsoever that any agreement on the future of Gibraltar which included joint sovereignty could be made acceptable to the people of Gibraltar, and when the outcome is likely to be the worst of all worlds—the dashing of raised expectations in Spain, and a complete loss of trust in the British Government by the people of Gibraltar."
The Committee recommended that the Government should explain in its response whether previous Governments had, as it appeared from the evidence, made a commitment to the Gibraltar Government to seek the Chief Minister's specific endorsement before entering into any new arrangement affecting Gibraltar at the Brussels process talks. It asked why—if this was indeed the case—the current Government have not decided to renew that commitment?
The Committee pointed to a failure to discern the difference between the legitimate complaints of Gibraltar against Spain, and the unjustified complaints of Spain against Gibraltar. The report states:
"We conclude that it is highly ironic that the British Government has given credence to complaints by Spain about law enforcement and the supervision of financial services in Gibraltar, given that these areas are the responsibility, not of the Gibraltar government, but of the British government and of the Financial Services Commission, appointed by it."
The Committee concluded that there was no parallel to be drawn between Gibraltar's legitimate complaints against Spain, and Spain's unjustified accusations against Gibraltar.
The list is long and shaming. Those were just a few examples from it. There simply is no mandate for talks between Britain and Spain on sharing the sovereignty of Gibraltar. Spain, for its part, could never agree to joint sovereignty in perpetuity. The 1969 Gibraltar constitution prevents the transfer of sovereignty unless or until the people of Gibraltar agree. Those two positions are irreconcilable. The Government must eat large portions of humble pie.
Where do we go from here? Unfortunately, life is not like a video tape; it cannot be rewound, and the parts that we do not like—or wish had never happened—cannot be erased. In real life, we must live with our mistakes and find ways to make amends. Going back is not an option, so we can either stand still or move forward in ways that will benefit everyone. Three-way talks are needed now to re-establish the trust and confidence of the people of Gibraltar and to improve relationships between Spain, Gibraltar and the United Kingdom.
There are plenty of possibilities. How better to start than by finding a workable solution to the unsatisfactory situation on pension contributions? The Gibraltar Government are required to pay full pensions to a large group of people—they happen to be Spanish—who have barely contributed to the Gibraltar pension fund. There are similar anomalies about community care on which work needs to be done. Meaningful discussions to lift land border delays and to improve Gibraltar's telecommunications would be fertile ground in creating good neighbours and improving life on the Rock.

5WH
It is the undeniable right of the people of Gibraltar to remain British until they—and only they—decide otherwise. That right must be defended. We enjoy the privilege of Gibraltar's loyalty and they deserve ours in return.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have received only one request from a Back-Bench Member to take part in this debate. However, I see that a number are trying to catch my eye, so I must alert the House to the normal practice in such 90-minute debates here. We commence the first of the three winding-up speeches at least 30 minutes before conclusion, so general debate will have only 44 minutes from now. I ask every hon. Member to take that into account when making their contribution and when accepting and responding to interventions.
9.46 am
Mr. Tom Cox: May I start by warmly congratulating the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) on securing this debate? Like all hon. Members, she knows that the way in which this or any Government respond to the deep concerns of the people and Government of Gibraltar about Government policy is of deep concern to many hon. Members. In recent years we have had a number of debates about Gibraltar in which Members from different parties have expressed their concerns, as have I.
I am the chairperson of the United Kingdom branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, although this morning I speak in my capacity as a Member of Parliament. I have a close relationship with fellow members of the Gibraltar branch of the CPA, which is a member of our region within the association. At the British islands and Mediterranean regional meeting at last year's annual CPA conference in Namibia, the members of the region discussed Gibraltar.
Gibraltar's Deputy Chief Minister, who was a member of its delegation, made it clear to delegates at the meeting that it seemed to the people of Gibraltar that the United Kingdom and Spain had clear understandings on the joint sovereignty that they wished to pursue, whatever the views of the people of Gibraltar. In the discussion that took place, delegates from Commonwealth countries in the region spoke in support of the views of the people and Government of Gibraltar, and against the imposition on them of any policy that they did not support.
At the end of the discussion, a statement on Gibraltar was put to the regional delegates, which read:
"It is resolved, that the delegates of the branches of the British Islands and Mediterranean Region meeting in … Namibia, on September 9 2002, affirm their recognition of the right of the people of Gibraltar to self-determination, that they will therefore recognise as definitive the results of the referendum of the people of Gibraltar to be held on November 7 2002 and hope and expect that the Government of the United Kingdom will do likewise."
Nobody voted against that statement: 27 members voted in support of it, and three abstained. The same feeling would exist at any Commonwealth conference, wherever it took place. We shall discuss Gibraltar again at the London CPA conference in two months. We say clearly that we should respect the wishes of the people of any country, the more so when it is a member of the CPA.
6WH
The referendum called by the Government of Gibraltar showed massive support for the policy clearly stated by the Chief Minister. Nobody in Gibraltar, Spain or the United Kingdom can doubt the wish of the people of Gibraltar, which is that future developments should be in the interests of their country. It most certainly is not that closer ties with Spain should be imposed on them.
The hon. Member for Upminster outlined the need for talks with Spain. I am not opposed to that, nor are the people of Gibraltar; some things need to be discussed. However, those of us who have long been involved in the affairs of Gibraltar know of the arrogance that Spain has repeatedly displayed towards the views and wishes of the people of Gibraltar. Let us tackle some of those arrogant actions—I have seen how they affect life in Gibraltar.
When will the British Government accept and understand the view that has been clearly stated in debate after debate at the CPA conference? No doubt the Minister for Europe will say that the Government respect the views of the people of Gibraltar. If that were true, it would have been reflected in the Government's attitude to the referendum of 7 November. There was no doubt about the turnout or the result, but the British Government have subsequently made many statements about the roles that Spain and the European Union might play. Perhaps they do have a role, but I suggest that it should be decided in proper negotiation with the Chief Minister and the people of Gibraltar.
The Minister must be aware that the people of Gibraltar have a deep distrust of the Government's intentions because, despite the result of their referendum, they repeatedly hear statements about what Ministers in London wish to happen, although they might not put it like that. I regularly meet members of the Gibraltar branch of the CPA, and they tell me and my colleagues that they are in no doubt of the British Government's clear intention to impose joint sovereignty on them, and they will not accept it.
Huw Irranca-Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cox: No, other hon. Members want to take part in the debate.
There is one other country whose people have stated their clear involvement with a country with which they have little in common. That is the Falkland Islands, which also belongs to the CPA. We clearly respect the Falkland Islanders' views. We do not attempt to say to them and their representatives, "You must now enter into a much closer association with the Argentines", because they do not want to do so. When will we say to the people of Gibraltar, "You must decide the level and extent of your country's involvement with Spain"?
Some Members of the House, irrespective of the party that they belong to, have a great ongoing commitment to Gibraltar, for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Upminster in her opening remarks. However, we will not accept any attempt to railroad its people, against their wishes, into a joint sovereignty with Spain which they clearly do not want. With great respect to the Minister, whom I have known for many years, he would be very foolish, as would the Government, if he

7WH
attempted to impose on Gibraltar or its people actions that do not meet their wishes. Some hon. Members will bitterly oppose any such action.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Minister for Europe): May I read into the record Chief Minister Peter Caruana's new year message for 2002? He said:
"Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary—
that is the Foreign Secretary of Britain—
"have recently made clear in parliamentary statements that there would be no change in the sovereignty of Gibraltar against our wishes. I believe that this assurance is totally reliable."
Mr. Cox: What my hon. Friend says is very interesting. If that is the case, I hope that we shall stop hearing of pressure being put on the people of Gibraltar and the Chief Minister to continue to be involved in negotiations for something that they clearly do not want or support. However, it is certainly not what those of us who have ongoing contact with Gibraltar, its representatives and, above all, its people believe.
9.58 am
Tim Loughton: I will not detain the Chamber long, but as vice-chairman of the all-party group I want to make a few comments on Gibraltar.
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) on securing the debate. She made many of the points that I would have made and that many of us know back to front. She is right to say that Gibraltar is family, and we owe it a degree of the loyalty that it has given us over many years. I am afraid that the Government have not shown that loyalty, which is very disappointing.
Those of us who have visited Gibraltar, and I was privileged to be in the group that went to the Gibraltar day celebrations last September, would give our eye-teeth for the sort of attendance at and participation in the political process that takes place there. In almost no other country in the world would half the population go to a political rally on a bank holiday to listen to politicians making speeches. Yet, in Gibraltar, 15,000 people turned out to listen to Members of Parliament from this country and politicians from Gibraltar talking about their fears and concerns for Gibraltar's future. It was illuminating that they were not just a bunch of expats—the pink gin-swilling brigade who hark back to past days.
The vast majority of those crowds were people in their teens, at school and university, and in their 20s—the next generation of Gibraltarians. They feel no less passionately about the future of that colony than did their parents and grandparents before them. There is no question of Gibraltar's loyalty to Britain and its desire to remain British diminishing through the generations. Great harm has been done during the past couple of years in particular. My hon. Friend was right to say that we desperately need to re-establish trust and confidence among the people of Gibraltar.
During interventions in my hon. Friend's speech a lot of rubbish was spoken. The situation in Hong Kong was completely different. The island was covered by a lease,
8WH
but if we had not come to an agreement with the Chinese, the water supply would have been cut off and the island would have been entirely unviable. However much we might have liked to retain a British element in Hong Kong, it was not practicable.
Reference was made to Peter Caruana not being part of the negotiations on Gibraltar. We all know that he was not offered the proper status that should be accorded to the First Minister of Gibraltar. The Government should be ashamed of that token exercise.
Reference was also made to the Brussels process. When Mrs. Thatcher entered into that process, did anyone seriously believe that there was any question of a Conservative Government under her or any other Prime Minister entering negotiations to cede any sovereignty against the will of the people of Gibraltar? The Brussels process was about negotiating with Spain to make the life of the people of Gibraltar easier and to stop Spain frustrating their lives on the Rock with procedure and red tape.
The issue is not only that the British Government are imposing certain actions on the people of Gibraltar, but that a sword of Damocles has been hanging over them. It is always in the background and, although nothing will happen to Gibraltar at this stage, the fact that the Government have technically done a deal in the background means that at some time that sword will fall, and the people of Gibraltar will find themselves sold down the river. That is what really matters at this stage, not whether a treaty may have been signed or a specific deal done with Spain.
I want to finish by asking the Minister some short questions. As my hon. Friend said, despite the Prime Minister's semi-assurance, many people both here and in Gibraltar remain deeply worried about what negotiations may have taken place in the Azores or subsequently. Will the Minister give an absolute undertaking that the subject of Gibraltar did not come up at all during the negotiations in the Azores or subsequently between our Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Spain?
Will the Minister comment on what military use was made of Gibraltar and its docks during the recent campaign in Iraq? How important will it be in future to secure the base in Gibraltar for any military campaign? Will the Minister reassess the statement by the Foreign Secretary in which he described the decision by the people of Gibraltar to have a referendum—it was an overriding success, and both the turnout and the result were categorical—as eccentric? That was childish in the extreme and it undermined the trust that we should place in the people of Gibraltar.
Can the Minister tell me what has improved for the people of Gibraltar since the Government entered into the so-called negotiations with the Spanish Government? Has the shortage of telephone lines improved? Is it true that the Spanish have made available only 70,000 telephone lines to cover all business and residential needs? The inability to get access to a telephone line is obviously acting as a serious brake on further investment in the country.
What improvements, if any, have been made to the access by the people of Gibraltar to the health care facilities offered by Spain? Also, is it any easier to get across the border? When I was there, the constant hassle

9WH
involved in getting to and from Gibraltar across the border was absolutely outrageous. Will the Minister comment on the situation that I gather still pertains whereby if planes are unable to land in Gibraltar because of weather conditions, they are not allowed to land in Spain, but have to overfly to Tangier and come back again, which is nonsense? If any of the frustrating tactics by the Spanish Government continue, as I suspect they do and as any recent visitor to Gibraltar will confirm, what action have the British Government taken vigorously to pursue the matter with the EU as a blatant breach of the codes of conduct for member states?
The situation with Gibraltar is grave. It brings the Government into disrepute that we have failed dismally to give assurances to the people of Gibraltar that they can remain British for as long as they wish and that their status will not be undermined by grubby back-room deals. It is time for the Government to come out firmly into the open and to state once and for all that there will be no deals, and that the sovereignty of Gibraltar will remain unimpugned for as many years as the people of Gibraltar wish.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have only 25 minutes left. If we continue to absorb time at our current pace, someone will fall off the end. I hope that that will not happen. Please bear in mind my advice.
10.6 am
Andrew Mackinlay: I apologise for the fact that I may have to absent myself for a few minutes because I have a previous engagement. For that reason, and because of what you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be brief. I want to raise a new matter that I hope will interest hon. Members, even if they do not agree with me.
Before I do so, I want to say that I agree with everything that has been said by so many hon. Members in support of Gibraltar. Some of them rehearsed a lot of recent history. An important part of debates in Westminster Hall is the need to return constantly to the subject. We must always be vigilant. The Minister and his successors will always be probed. We will never ease up because we have learned that we must keep an eye on the situation. We need to ensure that the Government are proactive in the interests of Gibraltar. They have not been so in the recent past.
The Prime Minister realised some time ago that negotiating with Spain was a journey to nowhere. That is my reading of the situation. However, rather like King Henry, who sent the knights off, when the Prime Minister realised that he had given the wrong signals, it was too late to pull people back. He certainly realised that there could be no agreement on joint sovereignty, first, because the Spanish could never agree to it in perpetuity and, secondly, because the constitution, which is enshrined in Speaker's House on a piece of rock from Gibraltar, says that "unless or until"—those are the important words—the people of Gibraltar decide otherwise, the constitutional status of the Crown will endure.
The Prime Minister also realised that the move would be bad politics. I do not think that such a change, which would be contrary to the interests and wishes of the
10WH
people of Gibraltar, could get through the House of Commons. Even if my judgment is wrong, such a change would do incalculable harm to the Labour party and the country because ordinary folk and many Labour supporters feel strongly about the matter.
Having said that the Prime Minister recognises the political realities of the situation, I point out that some people around him do not. Funnily enough, that remark does not relate exclusively to Ministers or Members of Parliament. A number of senior people in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office keep sending the wrong signals to Spain through body language—nods and winks—and through what they say in meetings outside the main summit chamber. I refer in particular to Sir Emyr Jones Parry, who was our permanent representative in NATO at that time, and who is now to be a permanent representative at the United Nations. He has been extraordinarily keen—a zealot if anything—on trying to reach an agreement with Spain. I do not complain about that; I do not even complain about him raising the matter with Ministers in the past. What I do say is that the Minister has to tell Sir Emyr Jones Parry and others in the Foreign Office to back off.
There comes a point where such people have to take political instructions, and the issue must not be raised again. Sir Emyr Jones Parry has repeatedly raised Gibraltar as a NATO issue with his opposite numbers, and that has sent all the wrong signals. It has increased expectations in Spain that cannot be realised, and it would be a disservice if that process were allowed to go on. I hope that the Minister will ensure that the permanent representatives—our diplomats— understand that the issue cannot and should not be raised again, and if they do so, they will be acting contrary to the instructions of the British Government. If they do so and the House finds out about it, there will be one hell of a row.
10.11 am
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: It is with great sadness that we debate this issue again. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government cannot get the message that the people of Gibraltar are British, wish to remain British and do not support any negotiation with a foreign power over their future and their sovereignty. I hope that the Minister will be brought to Westminster Hall and the House again and again until the Government understand that they must drop this ridiculous and undemocratic proposal.
Almost 50 years ago—in fact, it is 49 years ago this week—Her Majesty the Queen visited the Rock of Gibraltar. Next year, the people of Gibraltar will celebrate the 300th anniversary of Gibraltar being British territory. I hope that a further royal visit will take place. If anyone deserves recognition for their loyalty, it is the people of Gibraltar. Recently the magazine Panorama, published in Gibraltar, conducted a survey in which 14 per cent. of people said that Gibraltar belonged to the British and 86 per cent. said that it belonged to the Gibraltarians. Nobody believed that it belonged to Spain.
I remind the Minister that last November a referendum took place in which 99 per cent. of the people of Gibraltar voted to remain British and to reject the proposal for joint sovereignty with Spain. I remind

11WH
him also that the Government have held other referendums in London, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and in each case the views of the people have been respected and upheld. But the referendum in Gibraltar has been ignored by the Government in London. How can that be right or democratic? I understand the views of certain Government Members and what they hope to achieve, but surely they understand that democracy ultimately must prevail. For them to continue to pursue any process, when it is clear in the starkest terms that the people of Gibraltar reject it totally and utterly, cannot be justified in any parliamentary democracy.
Huw Irranca-Davies: Would the hon. Gentleman like to take this opportunity to put on record his thoughts about Chief Minister Peter Caruana's new year message, in which he said that he had total faith in the assurances that were given on sovereignty? Is the Chief Minister gullible or complicit in deceiving the people of Gibraltar? Or does he genuinely recognise the good faith of the Government, who will not deal with the sovereignty issue until it is put to a referendum?
Mr. Rosindell: I certainly shall not attempt to speak on behalf of the Chief Minister. However, I met hundreds if not thousands of people when I was in Gibraltar three weeks ago. I addressed the conference of the integration with Britain movement and I also spoke at the dinner for small businesses which was held on the Rock. I did not meet a single Gibraltarian who has any faith or confidence that they are not being sold down the river by the Government. I believe the people of Gibraltar when they say that they feel let down and betrayed by the Government. I did not meet the Chief Minister, but I met the leaders of the four other political parties. They are all deeply concerned at the ambiguity of the Government's position.
I do not doubt that the Minister is an honourable man. He has taken over the job from his predecessor, and he has tried—and succeeded to some extent—to calm troubled waters, but there is still a feeling that the Government want rid of Gibraltar and that they would prefer to make a deal with Spain to get an agreement in which they might gain in some other way, perhaps through the EU.
Mr. Spring: Do you join me in paying tribute to the Chief Minister—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The practice in this Chamber and the House is to address other hon. Members through the Chair.
Mr. Spring: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the Chief Minister who, despite the provocations, continues in a highly diplomatic way to hold out an olive branch to the British Government in the hope that some reason will prevail in their dealings with Gibraltar? The Chief Minister's conduct in the circumstances has been wholly admirable.
Mr. Rosindell: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Peter Caruana has been an outstanding
12WH
champion of the rights of the people of Gibraltar, and I look forward to his continuing in that role. I honestly believe that the people of Gibraltar are united, and that is shown by the results of the referendum. Let us not forget that Parliament has constitutional power and authority over our overseas territories, of which Gibraltar is one. We have a responsibility to ensure that those people are protected in the same way as we expect our constituents to be protected.
Mr. Mark Francois: The people of Gibraltar have been scrupulously loyal to this country for hundreds of years. Does my hon. Friend agree that they simply cannot understand why the Government in Britain do not return that loyalty, particularly after an absolutely emphatic referendum result has made it crystal clear that they will never accept joint sovereignty with Spain? They now look to the British Government to accept that and act accordingly, and they are utterly bemused as to why the Government will not do that.
Mr. Rosindell: My hon. Friend makes a vital point, which the Government must address. Why on earth are a group of British people who happen not to be part of mainland Britain treated so differently from the rest of us? That certainly does not happen to the people in Spain's territories. Spain wisely refuses to discuss sovereignty over Ceuta and Melilla. Why do the Government in London choose to discuss the sovereignty of Gibraltar with Spain, which sensibly refuses to discuss sovereignty over its territories?
The Netherlands treats its overseas territories equally. Denmark's overseas territories, the Faroe Islands and Greenland, send representatives to the Folketing—the Danish Parliament. Nobody represents the people of Gibraltar in this House apart from those hon. Members—many of whom are here today—who regularly turn up to speak on their behalf. Surely it is time that we allowed the people of Gibraltar to send their own Member to this House. France has overseas territories, which it treats with respect, decency and equality. The British Government choose not to treat Gibraltar and our remaining overseas territories with a similar degree of equality, fairness and decency, and it is time for them to consider such a policy, which would be legitimate.
The Minister will know that the United Nations has put forward three proposals—free association, independence or integration—for the decolonisation of overseas territories. In Gibraltar, independence would be illegal under the treaty of Utrecht and the people do not desire it. Free association is an option worth considering, but so is integration. Integration has been used in territories linked with countries such as Spain, France, the Netherlands and Denmark; why is it not an option for the people of Gibraltar? They should be allowed to decide their own future. If they want to become an equal part of the United Kingdom, they should be given the opportunity to do so.
I appeal to the Minister to take note of everything that has been said by all hon. Members—except for a couple of Government Members who are making ludicrous points that have been addressed time and again.
Mr. Hendrick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can Members contribute to the debate without

13WH
declaring the fact that they have received a trip to Gibraltar at the expense of the Government of Gibraltar?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is incumbent on any Member who receives a gift or trip that is not available to all Members of the House to record it in the Register of Members' Interests. Copies of the register are available for Members to refer to.
Mr. Rosindell: That shows the gutter into which some hon. Members are lurching.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members will return to the topic, bearing in mind the time that is left.
Mr. Rosindell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you have rightly pointed out, all declarations are registered, and I hope that the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) will remember that.
In conclusion, we should not repeat this debate every month, and we should conclude the matter. Regardless of the Government's previous views, I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the people of Gibraltar have made their choice: they want to remain British for good. They do not want their sovereignty to be disputed, discussed, sold down the river or handed over to anybody else. The territory of Gibraltar and the people of Gibraltar are inseparable. It is no good the Government saying, "Oh, the people of Gibraltar have British citizenship and we shall not take that away." That would be no good and the people will not be fooled by it. They want to remain British with their territory, which belongs to them, not to us. The land and the people cannot be separated.
I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to end the uncertainty, the hurt and the Gibraltarians' feeling, which they have had for years, that they are somehow second-class British. He should say once and for all that the people of Gibraltar have made their choice, which is their right in a democracy, and that the United Kingdom Government will respect their wishes and end any discussion with Madrid about the sovereignty of the people of the Rock.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must alert the House to the fact that our worthy Clerk has just enlightened me on a detail of the Standing Orders of which I was previously unaware. If the cost of accommodation and travel amounts to more than £550, it should be declared as well as registered. The point of order was well made.
Tim Loughton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have taken advantage of that hospitality, a fact that is recorded in the Register of Members' Interests. I present my apologies because I should have declared it before my earlier contribution.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that we are all grateful for that.
Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am in some difficulty because when I went to Gibraltar for the referendum, I paid for my own fare
14WH
and accommodation precisely because I had foreseen that this nonsense would arise. What I cannot remember—the Clerk has a register here—is how long the registration nonsense lasts, but I think that it is for one year after a trip. It is a charade and we are losing time, but as the matter has been raised, I shall come up to the Chair in a moment to see what I have declared in the register. I realised that this nonsense would happen—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The point has been made.
Mr. Rosindell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I have already stated, I have made a declaration in the register. I should also point out that I have been to Gibraltar on several occasions, with the Gibraltarian Government as my hosts.
10.26 am
Mr. Chris Bryant: It is a delight to have this reunion of old friends—people who are debating this issue for, I think, the sixth time during this Parliament. I congratulate the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) on securing the debate, but I feel somewhat saddened by its tone, which has been one of hyperbole rather than rational political argument. Perhaps that is true on both sides of the argument, but I shall advance no hyperbole of my own this morning. I shall say merely that if some of us on this side of the House appear to be an odd couple of people, we hold our views as firmly as others. Those views should be respected. [Interruption.] I am not going to refer to what the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) just said, not least because I know that, despite his hyperbole, he is a great friend of Spain, which he has often shown in this House and in debates in other arenas.
The hyperbole around whether the Government have betrayed Gibraltar and sold people down the river is unhelpful at a time when there is a genuine attempt to move forward. I hope that we will now eschew hyperbole. I would not want to suggest that the hon. Member for Upminster is a rabid anti-European colonialist who hates Spain, and I hope that she would not want to advance any hyperbole either.
The questions that really remain are should there have been discussions in the first place and should there be any now? I believe passionately that there should be discussions between Spain, Britain and Gibraltar for the simple reason that the world has changed since 1713. Franco has died and Spain is now a member of NATO, which should have dramatically changed the relationship between Britain, Gibraltar and Spain. We are EU allies of a kind who could, if we worked more closely together, achieve a more rational future for Europe.
I believe that it should be possible to achieve a better future for Gibraltar, too—as a result of negotiation, rather than shouting and screaming. The issue of telephone lines has been raised many times, and it is legitimate. The border problems are also a legitimate matter to raise. Most importantly, it would be good if Gibraltar could have a fully operational working airport that might serve the whole of Europe. If we

15WH
could achieve those changes through negotiation and co-operation between Spain, Britain and Gibraltar, we could create a Gibraltarian economy at the very heart of southern Spain. That would be good for the people of Gibraltar, the people of Spain and Britain, which is why I believe that it was right for Mrs. Thatcher to start discussions under the Brussels process and for this Government to continue them.
I also believe, although I accept that this is not the will of the people of Gibraltar, that joint sovereignty in perpetuity was a real possibility, and it may be again at some future date. I merely note that more than 500,000 Britons—nearly 20 times as many people as live on Gibraltar—live on mainland Spain. They consider themselves fully British and find it perfectly possible to live with a double identity.
If we are to address issues such as hospitals and health service availability to Britons on Gibraltar and on mainland Spain, we should carefully consider the operation of the E111 system in Spain. Many constituents have had problems getting help from the Spanish national health service.
Secondly, I raise the question whether the discussions were the right ones. It is wholly wrong of the hon. Member for Upminster to portray the talks as a covert operation. It was made perfectly plain to the people of Gibraltar that a seat would be available for them if they wanted to take part. There was always the backstop of a referendum, so no change could be brought about to their constitutional situation without consultation and a referendum in which they could make their view clear. Therefore, the assurance that Peter Caruana sought was always there for him. For his own political reasons, however, including, I suspect, elections in Gibraltar, he chose not to take part in the discussions. It was wrong for Gibraltar's representatives to do so, and they cut off their nose to spite their face.
The final question is, what remains to be done? Most importantly, we must improve relations between Britain and Gibraltar, as many Members have said. We must do that on the basis of robust negotiations with Spain to ensure that we achieve improvements in phones and the airport. We must try to build Gibraltar not as a fortress, but as an open city with a distinctive culture at the heart of the local Spanish economy. We must also resolve the voting issue, which is with the Electoral Commission.
One other issue, which has not been mentioned, but which will hit the people of Gibraltar soon, is the availability of BBC services. Until now, many people have received those services through digital satellite, but they will not be available from the end of May, because the BBC will go out unencrypted only in the UK on Astra D, not Astra A. I hope that the people of Gibraltar will still be able to get the BBC.
10.32am
Mr. Michael Moore: The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) said that we should avoid hyperbole, and he just kept within his own strictures. This has been a passionate debate, and his contribution typifies it.
Like many other Members, I congratulate the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) on securing the debate. We have had several such
16WH
discussions in the Chamber over the past few years, but it has been a while since we have had a chance to discuss what remain serious issues.
The status quo is clearly unsatisfactory: it is bad for Gibraltar, bad for the United Kingdom and bad for Spain. In Gibraltar, where it matters most, the practical difficulties of everyday life are compounded by the existing set-up, as many Members have highlighted. Despite all that, Gibraltar remains firmly opposed to the United Kingdom's plans. Given the recent history, we should not be at all surprised.
It has been an eventful 12 months. This time last year, the demonstrations on the Rock vividly highlighted the strength of feeling about Gibraltar's future. Last July, we had the Foreign Secretary's statement on joint sovereignty and the red lines in discussions with Spain, and we understand that that still represents the Government's position. In November, there was a flurry of activity, including the last Adjournment debate on the issue on the Floor of the House. There has been nothing since, apart from the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003, although that is, of course, a big qualification. Silence is not something that we normally associate with the Minister, and we look forward to his comments. It is strange that we have entered this period of no developments in the public domain, given the diplomacy of the past two years.
We supported the revival of the Brussels process in July 2001, principally because we believe that no progress can possibly be achieved when people are not talking to one other. We also recognise that for there to be any agreement there must be a discussion of all the issues that are important to all the parties, from the improvement of everyday practicalities to the very future of sovereignty, but we do not and cannot support the way in which the Government have handled the situation. The implementation of the process is flawed and now requires a serious overhaul.
The Foreign Secretary's statement in July 2002 set out a three-stage approach. First, a framework of proposals for a permanent settlement to be laid out in a joint declaration would be agreed. That would be followed by detailed negotiations on a comprehensive package, including a draft treaty. Finally, there would be a referendum. The people of Gibraltar have turned that process on its head, having held a referendum that sent a resounding message to the Government. Some 99 per cent. opposed the principle of joint sovereignty on an 88 per cent. turnout—impressive by anyone's standards. There is not even agreement on the framework that the Government have sought to agree with Spain, so there can be no prospect of agreement with the people of Gibraltar while those basic principles remain in flux.
In the modern world, attitudes to sovereignty have evolved. The United Kingdom comprises different countries that have shared their sovereignty, and the EU will have countries that have pooled theirs. Joint sovereignty need not be a bad thing, and it might be worth considering. However, it must be understood and accepted by the people who are affected. What does joint sovereignty entail?
Mr. Rosindell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Moore: I will not. How would Spain benefit from that joint sovereignty? Would the United Kingdom

17WH
retain the vestiges of legal sovereignty while Spain had all the practical advantages of sovereignty? Why the secrecy? Nobody can be expected to explore the concept seriously while the practicalities and principles are barely considered.
In last July's statement, the Foreign Secretary said that it had to be clear to people that there would be a permanence to any joint sovereignty arrangement. What guarantees can he offer, when the very idea of joint sovereignty represents a major step forward of which the Gibraltarians are seriously distrustful? There were other principles that the Foreign Secretary said had been agreed on more self-government and on the retention of British customs and ways of life, and on institutions. It is hard to disagree with any of those, but the details are again lacking and the reality is unclear.
The Government have become mired in a process of their own making. They are distrusted by the people of Gibraltar and cannot even obtain Spain's agreement to their chosen core principles. We are dealing not with some obscure trade deal, but with the future of real people. The Government's discussions should now be with the Gibraltarians, not the Spanish. When the Government made constitutional changes in the UK after 1997, they won support in referendums for the principles of devolution before the details were debated in Parliament. Those principles had been discussed for years and the detail of what was to follow was largely understood as well. Gibraltar has not been afforded the same treatment, and the November referendum delivered a predictable response.
Now is the time to set out a new process, build up trust, prepare more detailed proposals, allow proper discussion and reflection, allow the Gibraltarians full participation in those negotiations and ensure that there is a referendum on the principles of the plans, rather than presenting a fait accompli at the end of the process. All that will take time, but it is the least that the people of Gibraltar deserve.
Mr. Rosindell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Moore: I am about to conclude. If the prize of resolving the situation in Gibraltar is to be obtained, it will be only with the consent of the people. The Government repeatedly say that they accept that principle, but they must try harder to earn trust and win that consent.
10.39 am
Mr. Richard Spring: Thank you for your forbearance this morning, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I had the great pleasure of visiting Gibraltar in January, and I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate this matter. It is certainly timely that we should. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) on raising this important issue, on putting forward an eloquent case and on dealing, in the most dignified way, with some truly fatuous interventions. Her response and that of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) effectively dealt with the matters raised in those interventions.
I have never read a report more damaging to any Government than that published by the Foreign Affairs Committee last November. What a catalogue of
18WH
blunders it proved to be. It is a very special Government who manage to obtain the worst of all worlds. When the history of this Government is written, their disgraceful conduct towards the people of Gibraltar will, perhaps, be seen as their most shameful failure.
I applaud the remarks of the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). We heard a resounding no from the people of Gibraltar to the Government's plan to share their sovereignty with Spain. They have made it absolutely plain that they reject the Government's brow-beating behaviour regarding their democratic rights.
The policy on Gibraltar that the Government have pursued for 18 months lies in ruins. It is almost incredible that they have alienated the people of Gibraltar, led Spain up the garden path and infuriated the people of Britain. That is a mind-boggling triple whammy of sheer incompetence. I hope that we will hear from the Minister some recognition of the Government's cack-handed, bullying policy on Gibraltar. Perhaps he will even apologise.
We must, however, look to the future. We now have the opportunity to put the Brussels process on the foundation that it should always have had. That starts with the Government making an effort to rebuild the Gibraltarians' trust in Britain. I agree with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) on how that can be done on a number of levels. The Gibraltarians have been spun against and they have had accusations thrown against them. It is not surprising that they do not believe that the Government have their best interests at heart. Indeed, they have very good grounds for believing that the Government see them as a pawn in EU diplomatic activity, rather than as a British territory for whose well-being they are responsible.
The Government must immediately make it plain that they are willing to work with the people of Gibraltar. They must recognise that sovereignty cannot be on the table. Of course, there are difficulties between Spain and Gibraltar. I hope and believe that the Government want those matters to be resolved. However, they have not achieved very much so far. I remember that the Minister's predecessor made much of Spain's offer of new telephone lines. That turned out to be less than it seemed.
The Government should concentrate on those issues where agreement can be reached. We need to sort out the problems of access, communications and free movement between Gibraltar and Spain. Those are the practical issues that must be resolved. A normalisation of relations between Spain and Gibraltar must be our aim, and those issues should be solvable. A solution would benefit not only Gibraltar but the surrounding areas of Spain that are linked to Gibraltar. Gibraltar itself, given its extraordinary economic success story, could be an economic hub for the western Mediterranean. That will never happen while Spain remains fixated on the issue of sovereignty. It is time for us all to move on.
Talks must proceed on the basis of two flags and three voices, not only in a practical sense, but in the right spirit, which is why they have foundered before. All three parties must be fully respected. The full agenda of talks, and the limits within which they are taking place, should be fully and openly disclosed.

19WH
The Minister may be well aware of reports in last week's "La Razón" that at the Azores summit a deal was struck on shared sovereignty over Gibraltar. Given the Government's recent written answers on the matter, he can imagine that I read that with some surprise. Can he comment on that? Has any arrangement been made in which Spain is to assume command of the straits of Gibraltar under NATO? Is NATO's article 5 to be extended to Spanish territory on and off the north African coast? Is the right to over-fly Gibraltar to be extended to Spanish war planes? Do the Government plan to allow Spanish planes to use the Gibraltar airfield in those circumstances? If any of the above have to be done, what consultation will there be with the Government of Gibraltar? I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us.
In January, I had the great pleasure of visiting Gibraltar with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), the Opposition defence spokesman. While there, we were briefed by the Royal Navy. I had not realised how important are our defence interests there. The world today is tragically marked by terrorist activity, and a safe haven for ships and their personnel is vital, especially if nuclear capability is involved.
The plain fact is that the Royal Navy and the navies of friends such as the US feel comfortable and can find security in Gibraltar. Defence personnel are made very welcome by the Gibraltarians. There is probably no other comparably safe port or anchorage in the Mediterranean. Gibraltar also has the most important communications facilities. We simply cannot jeopardise the efficiency of our defence presence or antagonise the host community—it would be beyond irresponsibility. As for the host community, there can be very few places where followers of the Christian, Jewish and Islamic faiths co-exist so successfully—I saw that with my own eyes.
Gibraltar is not a partisan matter. Some respect the Gibraltarians' democratic rights, but others, including the Government and some Liberal Democrat Members, do not. I hope that they have learned that sovereignty is not up for grabs. The Government and our Spanish friends should stop insulting the Gibraltarians and start engaging with them. Progress can be made only where there is trust, and that trust must be earned. I will be interested to hear how the Government plan to restore that trust, and what they said to the Spanish to encourage them to play their part. I fully accept the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) about Spain being a valuable NATO and EU ally; and Gibraltar has to be dealt with in that spirit.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) said, one way to restore the impaired relations between the Foreign Office and Gibraltar would be for the Government, without hesitation, to throw their weight behind a fitting celebration of 300 years of a British Gibraltar. I know how much the Gibraltarians would appreciate a visit from an appropriate personage. The Royal Mail is not planning to mark the event with a commemorative stamp, which is a great pity; although it is late in the day, the Government could try to persuade it to change its mind. In any case, we will listen with interest to what the
20WH
Minister has to say on the matter. Plans must have been made. If a Minister—even the Minister for Europe—were to go there to celebrate those 300 years, he might be given a rather friendlier reception than the Foreign Secretary received last year.
Taking up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), who has left the Chamber, I remind the Minister that an incoming Conservative Government would not feel bound by an agreement to surrender Gibraltar's sovereignty which had been reached without the assent of the people of Gibraltar. I hope that the Government will draw a line under the fiasco that has been their policy towards our British cousins on the Rock, and that they will produce a policy based on principle and not expediency.
10.48 am
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): This has been an excellent debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) on obtaining it. We have heard some good speeches and some partisan knock-about. I have not read the debates on Gibraltar that took place in the 1980s, but hon. Members in my party may have made grave accusations against the Government of the day. We can take that as the small change of parliamentary debates.
Some important and concrete points have been made, but I cannot reply to them all because I do not have much time; I shall write to hon. Members on points that I cannot answer this morning.
Yesterday, I had the privilege of attending talks with the Government of Malta. It was a pleasure to spend time in that valiant island. The US aircraft carrier Iwo Jima was docked in the grand harbour to allow its sailors to enjoy some rest and recreation after their achievements, in Iraq. We should not forget that Spain was the closest and staunchest ally of the United Kingdom and the United States in tackling Saddam Hussein. Downstairs in Westminster Hall, preparations are being made for tomorrow's Victoria Cross and George Cross celebrations. In thinking of Malta, one also thinks of Gibraltar, which was the gateway to a Mediterranean that was not under fascist control in the 1940s. It is important for the whole of Europe to remember that.
Some 300 years ago, a combined fleet of the Netherlands and Great Britain took possession of Gibraltar. It became British in that it was ceded to the Crown in July 1713 under the treaty of Utrecht. It is worth reading—in English translation as the original is, of course, in Spanish and Latin—the last sentence of the treaty:
"And in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant, sell or by any means to alienate therefrom the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar, it is hereby agreed and concluded that the preference of having the sale shall always be given to the Crown of Spain before any others."
That is a solemn treaty from which we cannot resile.
Another solemn agreement was entered into by the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, Lady Thatcher. In article 1(c) of the Brussels agreement, issued after a meeting with the Spanish Foreign Minister in November 1984, her Foreign Secretary agreed on her behalf to:
"The establishment of a negotiating process aimed at overcoming all the differences between them"—

21WH
that is, the British and Spanish Governments—
"over Gibraltar and at promoting co-operation on a mutually beneficial basis on economic, cultural, touristic, aviation, military and environmental matters. Both sides accept that the issues of sovereignty will be discussed in that process."
It is not for me to deny commitments made by the noble Lady. Some of my hon. Friends may wish to, but that is the agreement that she solemnly entered into with the Government of Spain.
We have repeatedly affirmed, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said, that
"there will be no change in the sovereignty of Gibraltar unless the people of Gibraltar agree to it."—[Official Report, 5 November 2002; Vol. 392, c. 136.]
That is why the Chief Minister, Mr. Peter Caruana, said in his new year's message:
"Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have recently made clear in parliamentary statements that there would be no change in the sovereignty of Gibraltar against our wishes. I believe that this assurance is totally reliable."
It is regrettable that it is necessary for me, as a Minister, to read that into the record. However, we have heard statements impugning those solemn assurances, and suggestions that solemn agreements entered into by Her Majesty's Government should be torn up.
I want to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), in particular, that since I have been Minister for Europe I have received no suggestion, paper or other document from any official to the effect that there will be any change in the sovereignty of Gibraltar without the agreement of its people. I have the deepest respect for the commitment and service to the Government of the diplomat who was mentioned, and for his integrity and honour. However, Government policy, as set out by the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and myself, is clear and unambiguous. We have to move forward. I have sought not to stoke up any of the fires on the Gibraltar issue, as it is so easy to do.
When the former Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan, met his opposite number, the first Prime Minister of a post-Franco democratic Spain, Adolfo Suárez González, the issue of Gibraltar was raised, and Lord Callaghan said, "There's an old English saying: you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." That saying exists in Spanish, too. The point is that if, 25 years ago, the Government of Spain had shown a more conciliatory approach to the people of Gibraltar, they would have responded, and the vision so excellently drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) might have been realised. That is to say, Gibraltar would have been at the heart of that part of Europe as a regional hub for economic excellence and tourism with an effective, operational airport.
It is worth noting that the then Chief Minister, Sir Joshua Hassan, came to an agreement in 1987 that would have allowed the problem of Gibraltar's aviation prospects and its airport to be solved, but he was repudiated by the Assembly in Gibraltar. I have no problem with that; that was the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, not the British Government, trying to solve a problem for the people of Gibraltar, but not perhaps meeting the requirements of everyone on the Rock.
22WH
There are 30,000 Gibraltarians. They are British and they are friends of ours. Some 20,000 of them are eligible to vote and, as we know, 99 per cent. of them cast their vote in the referendum. Of course one has to take cognisance of that. I appreciated the approach of the hon. Member for Upminster and my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox).
The hon. Lady stated that there is co-operation between Spain and Gibraltar on customs services to tackle smuggling, which is a good point to place on the record. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting referred to the need for talks with Spain, which is clearly the Government's position. I do not want to re-run the old video, as the hon. Lady put it, but the plain fact is that there was a two-flags, three-voices offer during the talks last year, and it was not taken up. I respect the sense of that decision, but I regret it. Two flags, three voices will always be the way to solve problems between Gibraltar and Spain.
The hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) referred to the Azores talks. I can assure them that Gibraltar was not discussed there. Believe it or not, Ministers talk regularly to their opposite numbers in Spain about a whole range of global and European issues, without Gibraltar having to feature. Again, I pay tribute to the leadership shown by Prime Minister Aznar, against much of the public opinion in Spain. He was a very brave leader on the matter of dealing with Saddam Hussein, which was of great importance to the world. Of course, Gibraltar provided an important staging post for British forces en route to Iraq.
On the question of telephone lines, we want Spain to recognise the 00 350 dialling code for Gibraltar. That seems completely sensible and self-evident, but, alas, hon. Members have referred endlessly to sovereignty in the debate. I do not want to stray into other areas, but, in the context of the EU, some of the Members present are not as keen as some of us on sharing sovereignty with our European partners. So, of course, Madrid has the absolute sovereign right to decide what it wants to do about telephone access in its territory. The British Government are supporting the private complaints by GibTel and Gibraltar Nynex Communications to the European Commission on the problem of mobile phone access. We hope that Europe can play a very constructive role on the issue. A second channel has been open since March 21, but delays continue. I regret that because I do not think they are necessary.
The full opening of borders to commercial and personal traffic—many Gibraltarians have houses in Spain—would help to defuse the situation. That would be a welcome step forward by Spain.
We must continue talking. We shall talk to our friends and to British citizens in Gibraltar. We need to tackle these issues constructively through dialogue with Spain and Gibraltar, so we shall continue to seek opportunities to do so. I thank all hon. Members for this useful debate, which has allowed us to put many points on the record.

Emergency Broadcasting Systems
11 am
Tom Brake: In my role as chair of the National Council for Civil Protection, I share the unease felt by many emergency planning practitioners that many of the existing blueprints for emergency planning have been found to be outdated, insufficient in scope, practically unfeasible or, in some cases, absent. An emergency broadcasting system suited to the needs of the 21st century is one of the most notable omissions. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. Will hon. Members leave the Chamber if they wish to conduct a discussion?
Tom Brake: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We live in different times: the threat has changed and technology has moved on since the time of the cold war. As a community, the UK faces an increase in both natural and man-made disasters, whether as a result of climate change or failing technology. Consequently, we face severe flooding, train crashes and incidents involving hazardous materials, apparently with increasing regularity. Following the events of 11 September, we face the threat of random chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear—CBRN—suicide and conventional attacks by international terrorist groups, rather than invasion by hostile nations.
Maintaining public confidence in authorities has been shown to be instrumental in preventing mass panic and facilitating post-attack procedures. One of the most effective methods of maintaining such confidence is through communication and information dissemination. However, the Government's current guidelines significantly underestimate that vital aspect of managing and limiting damage following an attack or large-scale incident. For example, if there were an outbreak of a high-risk infectious disease such as smallpox, NHS Direct would be the only information service available to the public, apart from, presumably, the UK Resilience website. It is likely that, in the event of such an outbreak, the NHS Direct telephone service would be overwhelmed. It is therefore essential to provide supplementary sources of up-to-date information and advice for the public that can be easily accessed and readily understood.
The Government's website, UK Resilience, contains publicly accessible information on dealing with certain types of attack. However, that is insufficient to ensure the widespread dissemination of information, as it assumes that everyone has access to the web and that those who have will consult the site in an emergency. Although we might want to see 100 per cent. penetration of the internet, that is not the position at present, so the onus must be on the Government to ensure that the public are aware of possible responses to emergencies. The Government must consider a variety of media, as following, say, a nuclear incident or a large explosion, some communication networks, such as the telephone or television, may no longer function or may function only partly. They must also ensure that access to information is available to all sectors of society, not just to those with mobile phones or computers.
24WH
Any information strategy should be proactive as well as reactive in its outlook. Therefore, the Government should not rely entirely on post-attack dissemination of information. An informed, prepared public are less likely to panic in an emergency if they are aware of suitable responses that they can make themselves and are assured of an effective response by the authorities. Up-to-date generic advice on dealing with incidents should be made readily available in the form of leaflets and posters, as was discussed during a debate in this place a couple of months ago.
We can and should prepare now for eventualities for which we know that we are ill prepared and barely informed on. A recent episode of the BBC's "Panorama" suggested that many of the routes and modes designated for mass evacuation from London are unlikely to cope with large numbers of people in a short time. The rush hour demonstrates that daily, and evacuation information is not readily available to the public.
It is important to satisfy the vision that the national steering committee on public warning and information has of an integrated public warning and information package across the UK designed to meet local, regional and national needs. It is worth saying that we are not talking about a siren warning system. That was dismantled in 1992–93 and would be inappropriate in this day and age, as well as too costly to roll out. We need—again, in the words of the national steering committee—
"a coherent national policy on warning and informing the public … to increase the resilience of the UK".
Like the NSC, I acknowledge that public warning and information systems have improved. Parts of the jigsaw are already in place locally and nationally—certainly in relation to flood prevention and response to flood incidents—but the NSC identifies significant issues that remain: the absence of clear, statutory responsibilities for warning the public during many types of incident; the lack of a national culture of public awareness of how to respond to large-scale incidents, an aspect in which the USA is better prepared than the UK; and the ability to warn a static and transient population at all times of the day and night.
For those reasons, in my ten-minute Bill on 1 April, I called for an emergency broadcasting system with the ability to broadcast messages widely across different media and channels. That would save lives. The risk of doing without such an emergency broadcasting system is that information will not be provided, that it will be provided in an inconsistent fashion or that it will be provided to people at different times. That could lead to uncertainty and confusion when what is needed is clarity and confidence.
I hope that the Minister agrees—I know that he does—that, given recent incidents and events, a strategy for public information and reassurance is needed. How does he see that strategy developing? We know that there is a civil contingencies Bill, and we hope that it will be introduced soon. Can the Minister provide any information on the date when a draft Bill, White Paper or Green Paper will be available for consideration? When the Bill emerges, will it address public warning and information?

25WH
The sirens and new technology working group—the SNTG—recommends that the new legislative framework set out which agencies have responsibility for issuing public warnings and that a single national agency be made responsible for strategy and policy. What position does the Minister adopt on that? Does he think, as does the SNTG, that a single local agency should be made responsible for the command and control of public warnings prior to, during or after a major incident?
The NSC has suggested that any national policy needs to be able to respond to a variety of scenarios and that, during a catastrophic event with a short lead time, there is a need to contact a static person in their own dwelling, a static person in their place of work, a traveller on foot, a traveller in a vehicle and a traveller wishing to know about events elsewhere, for example, if they are moving into an area with possible flooding or a remote location with severe weather conditions. It will clearly be difficult to identify a technological solution that can address all those scenarios.
If we are to strengthen UK Resilience, a multi-channel strategy is the only way forward. I wonder whether the Minister agrees that the Government need to take a lead on developing such an emergency broadcasting system using a range of media. If we want national standards and protocols, the dissemination of good practice and a solution to the problem of responding to emergencies, the Government must take the lead. The Government need to help to facilitate the introduction of such systems and may need to legislate to introduce new licence requirements for telecommunications and broadcast media. I wonder whether they are considering the idea and are willing to entertain it.
Finally, if the Minister has free time in his diary tonight, will he be tuning into the BBC 2 programme, "The Day Britain Stopped"? The publicity for that programme describes it as a powerful drama examining a devastating chain of events on 19 December 2003, which, according to the drama, leaves Britain paralysed. The scenario is that we are facing a national crisis because the transport infrastructure is unable to cope with daily traffic volumes. That does not sound like the future—we are already there: our roads are the most congested in Europe, our skies are the most crowded in the world and our rail network lurches from disaster to disaster. In the drama, a combination of events leads to the implosion of the transport system, strikes and an incident involving two planes.
The scenario is clearly alarmist, but the Minister would probably concede that its individual components have occurred and that it is possible to envisage freak circumstances in which they all occur simultaneously. If such circumstances were to arise, does he feel that the emergency planning system is resilient enough to cope? What sort of emergency broadcasting system does he believe would be best equipped to deal with such a catastrophe? He will know that there are various options, which are helpfully set out on a website called www.cell-alert.co.uk, including sirens, public address systems, television, radio, radio RDS, telephone, electricity power lines, SMS text messages and cell broadcasting.
26WH
Does the Minister favour any of those systems? I favour the cell broadcasting system, which, if I understand the technology correctly, enables a message to be sent almost instantly to every person who owns a mobile phone. The cells are regional, which allows a message to be targeted on a particular region or regions. That system should be combined with television and radio to cover those people who do not have access to a mobile phone, perhaps because they are elderly or are permanently at home. Have the Government estimated the cost of such a system? A combination of the cell system, television and radio would ensure the simultaneous delivery of information. Has an estimate been made of the time scale in which such a system could be rolled out?
In conclusion, we cannot afford to skimp on emergency broadcasting systems or opt for obsolete technology, and we certainly cannot afford to delay. I hope that the Minister can provide reassurance on all the fronts that I have outlined so that we can avoid the fiction of "The Day Britain Stopped" becoming a reality.
11.15am
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): I have listened with great interest to the debate on emergency broadcasting. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on securing time to debate this important issue. Clearly, it is a subject of national importance, and the Government take it seriously.
On 1 April, when the hon. Gentleman introduced his ten-minute Bill on the subject, he stated:
"In times of crisis the public need the right quantity and quality of information, and they need to know where to access that information. It must be clear and consistent and it must come from a reliable official source."—[Official Report, 1 April 2003; Vol. 402, c. 798.]
No one would argue with that view. I am pleased to be able to confirm that a framework already exists to achieve those objectives. It is built on good communications practice and is underpinned by close working relationships with the broadcast and written media and telecommunications companies. It is based on sound, practical experience of what works. Its effectiveness has been demonstrated several times in recent years in a wide variety of real-life scenarios, at local, regional and national levels. In short, we already have an emergency broadcasting system, and we are not in the business of reinventing the wheel.
I recognise, of course, that we have much more to learn and that improvements can always be made. We are anything but complacent. Each time the system is used, it is evaluated; each time it is evaluated, arrangements are reviewed, lessons are learned and arrangements are accordingly strengthened. The framework has the scope and flexibility to incorporate increasingly sophisticated technologies as they become available and offer new opportunities. In that sense, it is and will continue to be a work in progress for the Government, but we are already in a position to deliver clear and consistent information to the British public.
The hon. Gentleman might find it helpful if I explain more about the nature of the existing arrangements. Long-standing protocols exist for warning the public in

27WH
the event of a major incident. The emergency services warn and advise those who are in the immediate vicinity of an incident. It is vital that the people who are immediately affected receive and respond to instructions that are tailored to the precise nature of the event in question. Hon. Members will be familiar with examples of large-scale evacuations in recent years in central Manchester and at the Aintree race course, which have demonstrated the effectiveness of such arrangements.
The public who are further away from the incident will be advised in line with the Government's "go in, stay in, tune in" doctrine. We have standing arrangements with the media to transmit detailed warning advice and guidance to the public through TV, radio, teletext, Ceefax and websites. Such arrangements enable swift and comprehensive coverage of the population, appropriate to existing and anticipated threat levels.
The hon. Gentleman sought leave on 1 April to introduce a Bill to require the Secretary of State to co-ordinate the provision of a multimedia broadcasting system, but such co-ordination already exists. As such, there is no need for legislation. The Government Information and Communication Service in the Cabinet Office leads on behalf of central Government in this area and maintains close working relations with all branches of the media. It agrees formal protocols that are based on the tried and tested arrangements that are already in place. The protocols will guarantee that information that the public need can be quickly processed and validated by the media to ensure its authenticity.
GICS works closely with the Media Emergency Forum, which is a national body that brings together the media, emergency planning experts from the blue light services, local authorities and industry. It has been a productive relationship. A study was produced and published on the UK Resilience website of the lessons to be learned in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September. That was followed up with detailed examinations of particular issues such as the important matter of media accreditation. Recently, an exercise was conducted to challenge the resilience of the wide array of communications equipment that the Government and the media would need to deliver information to the public at a time of crisis.
GICS also works closely with the national steering committee on warning and informing the public. That committee provides advice on the range of technical mechanisms available both for the delivery of information and for alerting the public. GICS plays a key role in co-ordinating the provision of that information from within the Government. It runs the news co-ordination centre in the Cabinet Office, which ensures that the Government can deliver the clear and consistent information that the public need at such times. For example, over recent years it has supported the response to Y2K, foot and mouth, and, more recently, the firefighters' strike and the war in Iraq.
It is important to keep in mind the scale of the threat that we face. The threat from terrorism remains real and serious. We are maintaining a state of heightened readiness in the UK and the public should remain alert, but not alarmed. With the single exception of a wartime missile attack, for which the national attack warning system was designed, one size of advice rarely fits all the
28WH
circumstances. Even for an event on the scale of 11 September, different advice would be needed in different parts of the country. Many areas would simply need to be told that they were not in danger, but that they should avoid calling the affected areas and overloading the telephone system. Those closer to the incident may need more detailed advice and those directly affected would be under direct instructions from the emergency services on site.
The value and effectiveness of local broadcasters, particularly local radio, has been amply demonstrated. For example, during recent major flooding, BBC Radio York was able to run a 24-hour news and information service keeping local residents up to date and offering up-to-the-minute advice and support to those affected by the flooding.
I would like to reinforce the praise given by the hon. Gentleman in his speech on 1 April to the BBC initiative "Connecting in a Crisis". The introduction states that the initiative is designed
"to achieve a shared state of professional readiness"
between local broadcasters and emergency planning communities. It was brought about with input and support from the Media Emergency Forum in general and from GICS in particular. It is a very valuable contribution to the development of expertise and understanding across the English regions.
The initiative is about warning and informing in the interests of public safety. It concentrates on delivering essential information quickly and is not about wider issues of news reporting. It highlights good practice and innovative partnership ideas from around the country and encourages joint planning and preparation.
Of course, on behalf of my constituents, I am particularly looking forward to seeing the Scottish equivalent that the BBC is currently preparing. I can reassure colleagues that the BBC is working on editions for Wales, Northern Ireland and the Asian network. I understand that the aim is to complete the series by the summer.
The BBC and GICS, through the Government news network, are together holding a series of seminars in the English regions to raise awareness of "Connecting in a Crisis" and the good practice that it advocates. The programme will be complete by the end of May.
The development of the initiative has grown alongside the introduction of a regional network of media emergency forums. They will mirror the function and range of interests of the national body, but be able to apply the lessons learned on a smaller scale and tackle issues that may be of particular relevance to specific localities.
GICS operations staff work closely with the national steering committee on warning and informing the public. They provide a secretariat for its meetings and host the committee website alongside UK Resilience. Lord Macdonald of Tradeston and I had a most useful meeting with the chairman, David Hay, and the chairs of his three working groups just before Easter. I would like to take this opportunity to record the Government's thanks for all the hard work and guidance that the committee has provided to us over the years on the development of a national warning strategy.
Tom Brake: The Minister may be about to come to my point. He mentioned the national steering committee. Does he recognise that it has concerns, to which I referred, about the absence of clear statutory responsibilities for warning the public, the lack of a national culture of awareness among the public, and the inability to warn a transient population at all times of the day and night?
Mr. Alexander: I fear that the hon. Gentleman anticipates the remarks that I am about to make on some of the committee's specific proposals.
The committee's advice has provided an essential part of the building blocks contributing to the evolution of Government policy in the area. In particular, the committee has done a substantial amount of work on alternative delivery methods for public alerts. Its sirens and new technology sub-group envisages a very limited role for sirens in a much broader integrated warning system. Sirens are currently used in some areas that are prone to flooding and on major industrial sites subject to major accident, hazard and radiation regulations. However, the committee's report in September 2002 stated:
"The Sirens and New Technology Working Group believes that the current threat status, and the extreme installation, annual maintenance, and management costs do not warrant the implementation of a new national siren system at present".
Many developments in technology may, in due course, be built into the existing framework of arrangements, but their incorporation may not be as straightforward or cost neutral as has sometimes been suggested. The hon. Gentleman referred to text messages, e-mails and faxes and was right to say that a huge amount of unsolicited material is sent daily by some of the media. I would argue that therein lies a key challenge. At present, such material is easy to produce and difficult to authenticate, so it carries limited credibility. Without credibility, it would have no value for the purpose that we are discussing today. Such problems will, I am sure, be solved eventually, but no quick fix is available at the moment and it is important that work continues. Both the City of London police and the Environment Agency have run trials of messaging systems that deliver information to individuals who subscribe to that service. Private sector
30WH
companies are offering similar subscription services commercially. Validity is dealt with by "opting-in", but I would argue that comprehensive cover, as described by the hon. Gentleman, is lost under the system operating at present.
The City of London police operate a scheme whereby security and crime-related information can be relayed, via pager or text message, to businesses in the City. It was launched in 1993 as a major incident early-warning system, but the scope of the scheme has expanded and is now a valuable means of communication between the police and the business community. The scheme is now being extended to the Metropolitan police area in London. The Government take seriously their responsibilities for ensuring that effective systems are in place for warning and informing the public. We have the mechanisms for doing that, and since 11 September the emergency arrangements for warning the public, both nationally and locally, have been reviewed and, where necessary, enhanced. Tailored local warning systems are in place in areas such as those subject to flooding or close to major chemical plants. Sadly, a long period of fighting terrorism in this country has ensured that the police have well-practised procedures for handling local incidents, particularly in urban areas.
The Government recognise that simple, robust and widely available systems, particularly local radio, have an important role to play in supporting communities during an emergency and relaying official advice and information. The Government have fully supported the BBC's recent initiative "Connecting in a Crisis" to encourage closer links between its local radio stations and other local services for emergency planning and disaster management. The GICS has arrangements in place to warn the public in the event of emergencies with a potential national impact. Those arrangements closely involve the police and include broadcasters. Existing agreements and systems will ensure the dissemination of public warnings through the whole range of radio and television services, including Ceefax, teletext and websites. I do not believe that we need to create an emergency broadcasting system because we already have one.
11.28am
Sitting suspended until Two o 'clock.

Sudan
2 pm
Mr. Hilton Dawson: I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate the vital issue of Sudan. I understand that peace talks resumed in Machakos last Saturday, and that prior to the recommencement of those discussions both sides expressed confidence that the new phase could bring about a final agreement to end the war. Frankly, I think that few things in the world can be as important as this issue. At the very least 2 million people have died— goodness knows how one estimates it—and 4 million people have been displaced. It is said that one in eight of the world's refugees originate from Sudan. A vast diaspora of able, talented people have been lost to their country. The latest round of fighting and war, which amounts to the last 20 years, has devastated the largest country in Africa.
Apart from a respite between 1972 and 1983, the country has been at war since independence in 1955. Members of the all-party Sudan group travelled to the country just over a year ago. They went to the north and the south, to the cities and the countryside, and they had talks with the Government, the Sudan People's Liberation Army, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement, other opposition parties and civil society at large. Last April, people talked to us of peace. I believe that Sudan wants peace and that nobody in the world knows the vicious reality of war better than the people of Sudan.
The Government have excelled in the careful, painstaking, patient, highly skilled and principled diplomacy that has been required to help the negotiations and to support the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, or IGAD, process in the search for peace. I am proud of that record. The work of the Sudan unit, which was set up between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development, is superb. That work reflects great credit on all the Ministers and officials involved. In particular, it reflects on my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short). It is highly appropriate today to pay tribute to her compassion, commitment and wholehearted resolve to ease the problems of war and poverty which exist in Africa on a grotesque scale. I pay tribute to the work that she has done over the past six years.
Above all, the progress that has been achieved so far at Machakos reflects great credit on General Sumbeiyo, the Kenyan chair and chief negotiator at the talks, on the Government of Sudan and on the SPLA and SPLM negotiators. So far agreement has been reached on a referendum on self-determination for the south after a six-year period, on the non-imposition of sharia in the south and on democratisation and regional development. Those issues were brought to our attention when we visited Sudan last April, and Sudanese constituents of mine first raised them with me years ago, when they came to my surgery and explained why they were in this country. They are long-running, consistent and heartfelt demands.
The Machakos agreement is a real sign of progress. These are historic developments that create the conditions for the Sudanese people themselves—not
32WH
anyone else—to decide the future of their country. They provide the best opportunity for 50 years for those who believe in a united Sudan on the one hand, and for those who believe in self-determination and the separation of the south on the other, to resolve the matter democratically, fairly and in peace. Instead of war the people of Sudan could have open debate. They could have persuasion through argument and example rather than through the gun or the helicopter gunship.
The six-year interim period will be an opportunity for those who want a united Sudan to show their fellow Sudanese that they can have a better life there. On the other hand it will be an opportunity for those who want self-determination to show that the south can rule and manage itself well. Above all it will be an opportunity for those people of Sudan who simply want a much better life for themselves and their families in any part of the country to decide what they want for the future. There is a huge amount more to do and I would be grateful to the Minister for any insight that he could give us on the future development of our Government's policy towards Sudan. There are still serious issues to resolve. Despite the memorandum of understanding on the cessation of hostilities and humanitarian access, we have still had serious breaches of the ceasefire.
Fighting continues around the oilfield areas in the western upper Nile, and far to the west we seem to have an emerging conflict in Darfur. The verification and monitoring team have been refused security clearance by the Government of Sudan. Despite the fact that Sudan's human rights status at the UN has been upgraded and that there will be no more monitoring from the UN human rights rapporteur, there are still almost weekly reports of political arrests.
Mr. David Drew: I want to raise a point to which I hope my hon. Friend will respond. It is a great sadness that Gerhard Baum has not been reappointed. I wonder whether we could ask the Minister what pressure the British Government have brought to bear to make sure that if Gerhard Baum is not reappointed, someone is given that role, because it is so important for the UN.
Mr. Dawson: My hon. Friend makes his point clearly and well. I agree with all that he says. We still have daily reports of political arrests, newspaper closures and torture. Despite the progress at Machakos there are still crucial issues of power and wealth sharing and security. The situation of three contentious areas, Abyei, the Nuba mountains and Funj, is crucial. When we get the final agreement at Machakos, there will be an overriding and pressing need to ensure that its peace and political agreement are sustained. It will be imperative to ensure the embedding of peace, democracy, human rights, and economic and social development, and above all to build the confidence of Sudanese people that the new condition of their country or countries can be permanent, rather than harking back to the Addis Ababa agreement. We then had a respite from war but not, in the end, a sustainable peace.
There are key issues to be resolved for the people of Sudan. What will be the UN's role in verification, monitoring and peacekeeping? How will civil society and the wide range of opposition groups that have so far been excluded—perhaps necessarily—from the

33WH
negotiations at Machakos be involved and engaged in the future development of the country? They have a fundamentally important role. There are many armed groups and militias that, again, have not been involved in the peace process. How will the issues raised by their presence and continued activity be resolved? How will the world move from what has, I think, been the biggest humanitarian relief enterprise that it has ever seen to the provision of development aid? How will that be coordinated between agencies and Sudanese institutions to ensure that it is effective and sustainable? What crucial developments must take place before the six-year interim period begins, and when during the process will we see effective and open elections?
Sudan is a potentially wealthy country with considerable oil reserves, which must be used for the betterment of Sudanese society, the development of the country and the interests of all the people of Sudan. What will be the impact of the extractive industries initiative on the absolutely essential needs to make oil revenues transparent and to ensure that they truly benefit the people of Sudan? How can the process of debt relief and assistance be benchmarked against progress on peace, democracy and human rights? Will there be effective co-ordination between international organisations and the EU on that?
Given that there is a large population of Sudanese people in this country and elsewhere in the world, how can we build the capacity of the Sudanese diaspora to return and to make a significant contribution to a country devastated by war? Last week, I was with a different all-party group in Angola where one of the inspirational things to be seen is the 2 million or so people moving within the country, who have come from outside it—from Zambia and from the Democratic Republic of the Congo—literally to rebuild their lives.
In the past few days, I have met people with skills and training, acquired in countries such as Zambia, which they are now looking to put to good use in their own country, Angola. How can that country assist the Sudanese people who have lived there, often for many decades? Many of them have important skills that could benefit the people of Sudan, but others need help to develop skills that could be used if they went back there. How can we help to build the capacity of the Sudanese diaspora?
I fully accept that I have asked far too many questions for the Minister to answer today, but this debate is part of a process. The issues of Sudan are raised regularly in the House. There are regular meetings of the all-party group, which brings together many Sudanese people from across the country. I hope that contact within the all-party group; between MPs and their constituents; between Sudanese people and people concerned about Sudan in this country; and among parliamentarians, Ministers and officials, can help to clarify many issues. Sudanese organisations, representatives and individuals, European and worldwide organisations, and Governments and NGOs can all be brought together. One of the great advantages of this place is that we can bring so many people together and bring so much intelligence, knowledge, experience and commitment to bear on problems.
It was an absolute privilege to visit Sudan last year as part of the all-party group. I very much hope that we will be able to go back later this year. Among the desperate
34WH
circumstances of a country that has been ravaged by war—and has gone through the worst experiences that people can go through—one acute impression that remains with me is that of Sudan's huge potential, not only to resolve its problems, but to play a major role in the wider development of Africa, perhaps as part of a swathe of countries including Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Those huge, resource-rich countries from north-east to south-west Africa are, I hope, emerging from war. I hope that they will be involved in the new economic policies for African development.
Sudan is a country with a foot in both the African and Arab worlds. I believe that it presents an opportunity to build a bridge between Africa and the middle east. Sudan is well placed, geographically, socially and historically, to play that role. Arabs and Africans—Christianity and Islam—have for too long been characterised as being in bloody opposition to each other in Sudan. I hope that the country's cultural variety can become as important an asset as its oil wealth and other natural resources. Whether Sudan remains united or becomes two countries living side by side in peace and harmony, today is a good opportunity to face its problems, to welcome the progress that has been made, to look forward to the future and, above all, to wish all the people of Sudan well.
2.18pm
Mr. Robert Key: It is more than a year since I had the good fortune to introduce a debate on Sudan in this Chamber. We were anticipating conflict with Iraq, and I remember commenting that the Government had their hands full and their eyes firmly fixed on many other targets. However, we were glad that the former Secretary of State for International Development had focused her attention on the matter, along with the Americans, and that there was enormous good will from the people of this country to the people of Sudan, north and south, in their search for agreement. We all welcomed the appointment of Alan Goulty in his role of seeking to achieve progress. 1 believe he has done that.
My diocese of Salisbury has had a link with Sudan for more than a quarter of a century, and it is a very lively link. One can follow its progress on the diocesan website to see the exchanges and the actions among people in the Salisbury diocese, and the interaction with people in Sudan. One problem for the Sudan Churches is that they have hardly any money, so they rely on sources in this country. Therefore, I pay tribute to the Sudan Churches Association in the UK. It raises modest sums of money with which it keeps the churches in Sudan afloat by finding funds for each of the 24 bishops of the Anglican communion.
Yesterday, the Sudan Churches Association had a long-standing appointment with the Secretary of State for International Development. Sadly, by the time its delegates got to the meeting, the Secretary of State was gone. However, they were fortunate that Alan Goulty was in London, and they had an excellent meeting with him instead.
The Sudan Churches Association sought to establish what the role of the inter-faith communities in Sudan would be following the settlement that was so warmly

35WH
expected. I get the impression from some reports that emerge that the talks are going better than it appeared at first. I hope that that is true. It seems to me that both sides recognise that there must be a compromise if we are to move forward. The goals being addressed by the peace talks are modest and realistic: people realise that, instead of giant leaps, there will be a modest, step-by-step approach to peace and a new world for the people of Sudan.
The original target for signing the agreement was the end of June. I regret to say that I believe that that is over-optimistic, not least because of the American Sudan Peace Act, which will be revisited in October. It is not likely that we will see much progress until then, so I simply hope that an agreement is signed by the end of 2003. That would be enormous progress. Something that has taken so long to achieve is more likely to stand the test of time.
What matters most is that the eventual agreement is translated into sustainable reality in the south, and I believe that the inter-faith communities are keen to look forward. We have all had enough of recriminations and looking back—indeed, looking back 80 years and more. We know about all that. The inter-faith communities, like almost everybody in Sudan, want to know what they can do to help to move things forward.
If an agreement can be signed, the environment for moving forward will become easier. The inter-faith communities will need to operate within the parameters of any agreement that is reached and work with the grain of that agreement. It is easy for us in Westminster to say that, given the horror of the past 20 years and more, it will be hugely difficult for anyone to be prepared to work with the grain of an agreement, when they cannot conceivably agree with every dot and comma. However, that has to happen: people must move forward with the new political realities. Above all, the initiatives must come from the Sudanese people. The faith communities and their strong supporters in the UK and elsewhere must help the people of Sudan to help themselves. That must be the tone of the approach of those in this country who wish to see progress in Sudan.
In modest ways, we can all help. For example, a computer expert from Salisbury recently travelled out for three weeks to train Sudanese nationals. He went to Aruha in Kenya, but he achieved an enormous amount there. Those of us who play with our computers every day and e-mail all round the world forget that if one is sitting in Sudan that is not so easy, as there is no help desk to phone—something that I do regularly—when things go wrong and one is not completely computer literate. Therefore, any help, however practical, is of enormous benefit and will become more important.
Another welcome development is that, just yesterday, two Sudanese youth leaders from Juba arrived in Salisbury for six months. They will work alongside the youth communities in my constituency, and I hope that that is the first of many exchanges. It has been extremely difficult to arrange visas for them, and the Foreign Office has a role to play in helping to facilitate such exchanges in both directions. I ask the Minister to do his best to ensure that no more obstacles, unless they are absolutely
36WH
necessary, are put in the way of ensuring the free exchange of people with skills as we seek to help with the rebuilding of that country.
Another fine example is a young lady from Marlborough college who is going out on a gap exchange to work on a programme supervised by the Mothers Union in Sudan. She will be working at a basic level in the community, simply using the skills that she has acquired from her education in this country to try to help where she can and to learn from the people of Sudan about their problems, their skills and knowledge, their country and their relationship with nature, which she may not know about as someone from a rich background in this country.
Those are modest ways in which we can all help, and I hope that we swiftly see such improvements and more contact at a simple level between the peoples of these countries. I also hope that the Minister can give us an uplifting progress report and that we have another debate, hopefully within a year, so that we can see where we have got to. It is very important that the people of Sudan know that, here in London and in the House of Commons, we are following progress closely and making every possible effort to ensure that the peace process works in the long term.
2.26 pm
Mr. David Drew: I am delighted to take part in this debate, particularly as I accompanied my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) to Sudan a year ago last April. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) who knows, loves and cares so much for Sudan. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) has also been to Sudan and will speak of her direct experience.
I shall not speak for long because it is important to obtain answers to the questions asked by my hon. Friend and that the Front Benches have an opportunity to look at the formal ways in which the Government and the Opposition can take the process forward. As my hon. Friend said, anyone who goes to Sudan immediately falls in love with it. It is a wonderful and diverse country with a rich history, but it has many problems. I have just struggled through the Deborah Scroggins book about Emma McCune who married Riek Machar. It shows the depth of the country's problems. Whether through Christian obligation or common humanity, we should, as a nation, do something about that because of our historical entanglement with Sudan, but others will also play a part.
I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre about the role of the UN special rapporteur. I make no apology for doing that, and I challenge my hon. Friend the Minister, not to explain how the negotiations are going, but to reply to a basic question about the role that the triumvirate—the United Kingdom, the United States and the Norway—is playing to ensure that everything possible is taking place appropriately following the Machakos agreement. I seek an assurance that the Americans are fully engaged in the process. From all the evidence to the all-party group during the past three or four years and particularly on the back of the Danforth initiatives, it seems that they are fully engaged, but, as is so often the case, other conflicts come and go.

37WH
One thing was imprinted on my brain when I went to Sudan. The plea was always made not to forget Sudan if other conflicts emerged. The history of the country is that it has always come low on the list of priorities. That is to our shame, and it is something that we must rectify. We must get it right now, because there will not be a better opportunity. Otherwise, the result will be another decade of conflict.
Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister in the nicest possible way whether he can assure us that the Americans are fully engaged, that they are totally behind the Machakos negotiations and that not only will they see the negotiations through to completion, which, as the hon. Member for Salisbury, who is my hon. Friend in this respect, rightly says should be by the end of this year, but that they will engage properly in rebuilding—or building, in some cases—the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre rightly concentrated on the issue that some of us feel most strongly about, which is human rights abuses. I am indebted to the Sudan Organisation Against Torture, which, to be fair, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office funds. It produces graphic reports—sometimes too graphic—of some of the abuses that occur in various parts of Sudan. We had the opportunity to talk to Sudanese judges when we were there and, by golly, that was an education. Some of us struggle with just one form of law. As far as I could make out, they work under five different forms of law. Christian judges may try a Muslim under sharia law in the south. That tends to change one's view of sharia, which is sometimes seen as a totally alien system.
It would be helpful to know what assistance we are providing for Sudan's incipient legal system. Without its being properly embedded, any chance of human rights, even with a peace settlement, will not come until some distant time in the future. It would be good to know what progress was being made to encourage a better system of justice not just in the south, which we saw, but in the north.
When we had our briefing with the Department for International Development and the FCO on our return from Sudan, we made it clear that we were keen to discuss how the primary education system could be further supported through teacher training initiatives, and to ensure that sufficient equipment was being supplied. A similar plea can be made for the health system.
We had a discussion—I put it no more strongly than that—with the former Secretary of State for International Development about the need to twin-track conflict resolution with capacity building in education and health to give people hope. Otherwise, they see the effort being made to stop the fighting but no actual improvement in their quality of life. I would appreciate it if my hon. Friend the Minister could give some assurances on that matter.
"Capacity building" is an awful term, but it is clear that what has bedevilled Sudan and resulted in lost opportunities is the political process. There are many conflicting political parties, all of which, in their own way, take a sincere stand, but the complexity and movement between sides make it difficult to achieve the stability that is needed to build peace. We heard from Alan Goulty about some interesting work done through
38WH
training provided by the Government. It would be good to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister that that is continuing, that it is a vital part of Machakos and that we are seeing a genuine attempt to provide democratic structures by helping the political parties rather than replacing them. We might not describe the political parties as—I tread gently on this point—traditional, but the process has to start with what is available. Too many African countries have ended up with their less savoury elements running things, which is unacceptable.
My hon. Friend mentioned my next point, which I shall stress. It is crucial that the territorial integrity of Sudan, regardless of whether it is independence for north and south or condominium, remains intact. Sudan's problems sadly do not begin and end within its boundaries. Eritrea and Ethiopia, which are unstable regimes, are next door and there is also the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which is the most unstable of the lot. Furthermore, the Ugandan army seems to have been charging across southern Sudan looking for the Lord's Resistance Army. Sudan is trying to provide stability and it cannot help to have armies encroaching on to its territory. That important issue needs to be fully explored.
Finally—I expected my hon. Friend to mention this because he has been chasing around Angola with Joseph Fiennes—I commend the Christian Aid booklet "Fuelling poverty—Oil, war and corruption", which is worth plugging partly because Christian Aid helped to fund us to go to Sudan. Sudan is bedevilled by its status as an oil state. We know the history of the fighting in the oilfields. I am not pointing the finger, although most of us know who is to blame. One of the ways in which the developed world can exert pressure is by saying, "We want to help you develop your resources, but that can only be achieved when you have peace and stability. We are not going to use your resources as a way to exploit one side and to damage the other."
The history of oil exploration in Sudan has involved companies saying that they want to improve the quality of life of people who live in the area and then suddenly moving them out. We met some of the oil people when we were in Khartoum. They made all the right noises, but those noises have not been carried through. Although it may be difficult for us in the west to influence oil policy given that the Malaysians and the Chinese are responsible for production, we should not lose sight of the fact that oil is an integral factor to settlement of the war in Sudan and, particularly, to building peace. It is not as though Sudan has no resources; it is just that the resources have become part of the problem rather than the solution.
We all feel passionately about Sudan and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre for giving us the opportunity to discuss it. As he said, I hope that the message reaches Sudanese people who live in parts of the world other than Sudan that we are obliged to do something about the problem and are fully committed to any measures that we can take here in Westminster.
2.38 pm
Mr. Michael Moore: This is an important debate on an important subject, and I congratulate the hon. Member

39WH
for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on securing it. The discussion has been positive and constructive, and a great deal of expert opinion has been offered in thoughtful and constructive ways, which is a pleasant change from some debates in this Chamber.
Much mention has been made of the all-party group's report. It is important that we commend the group on its thorough work, which contains some positive proposals. I hope that the Minister comments on how those proposals have been brought forward. Not only the Members present this afternoon, but others who contributed to the process, should be congratulated on their work.
We have heard this afternoon of the truly desperate history of Sudan, particularly over the past half century, which has been characterised by violence, war and only the briefest peace. It is truly staggering to reflect on the fact that about 2 million people have died in that time. As a Scottish Member of Parliament, I reflect on what a huge proportion of the Scottish population that represents. As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre highlighted, we need to add to that the staggering number of people who have been displaced from Sudan as a result of the conflict. We are talking about one in eight of the world total.
It is sad that we do not pay enough attention to the whole conflict more regularly in the House, because, undoubtedly, Britain has an important role to play in helping to settle what goes on. I join others in recognising that, ultimately, the conflict must be settled internally, but a responsible role for external parties is clearly a key to proper progress.
In the past year, there has been good, constructive progress under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development. Kenya's lead in that process has been widely recognised. The various developments that have occurred in the past 12 months ought to be celebrated. The Machakos protocol and the subsequent extensions of the memorandum of understanding have demonstrated a momentum, which we hope will continue to build and achieve the ultimate objective of a sustainable peace in the country.
A couple of features of the recent developments are worth noting. The agreement to extend the cessation of hostilities to June is welcome, although none of us would be foolish enough to pretend that there are not violations of that arrangement. Equally importantly, the agreement not to go on with attacks on civilians, which lasts until next March, is a positive development. That is particularly true of the oilfields, which, as Members have highlighted, are a particular concern.
All those things are enhanced by the agreement of the parties to allow external players to investigate the ongoing areas of conflict, although it is dispiriting to hear that the reality is not necessarily measuring up to the hopes that we might have. The creation of the verification and monitoring team is clearly an important part of the process, but if it is unable to get security clearance and unable to do its job, sadly it will be ineffective. I hope that the Minister can explain how he sees the problems for the monitoring team being resolved.
40WH
In this country, we have an important historical legacy as a result of our colonial involvement and our long-term involvement with the country since then. One of the most recent and positive developments is the appointment of the special representative for Sudan, who acts as an observer and reports to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and to the Department for International Development. Alan Goulty's role has been praised by a number of people this afternoon. It certainly is an imaginative way of dealing with Britain's relations with Sudan, not least because in many ways it recognises the overlapping responsibilities of the two Departments. That is sensible, and it shows that peace, security and development in Sudan are all intertwined.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) focused on points concerning how humanitarian aid has been provided and the importance of looking at development aid. Over 40 or 50 years, whole generations have come and gone without the vital help necessary in education services, health and developing sustainable food supplies. Surely we are at a point where we need to reappraise the situation.
The Government have made it clear that there are significant sums available for development assistance. I accept that such availability is a major incentive for all sides to work towards a peace process, and there would be risks if we moved into serious development work in an unstable environment. Equally, at present, we are not achieving what we need to achieve and whole generations of families are growing up in Sudan without the support that we in the international community should be willing to give them.
Last year, the all-party group highlighted that issue and it remains one of particular importance. In a debate secured by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), the then Secretary of State highlighted in a series of interventions the fact that more effort would be made to develop educational support services in Sudan, and I hope that the Minister tells us how that has been progressing.
For the future, we need a sustainable peace in Sudan, which will require a number of difficult problems to be resolved. The issue of human rights has already been mentioned, and I share the sadness of others that the United Nations rapporteur has not been reappointed. Can the Minister say what efforts will be made to overturn that disappointing development?
In the world post-Iraq and post-11 September, we are all acutely conscious of the risks of international terrorism. Building up the state in Sudan to cope with such pressures is also a very important principle. Whether we are talking about democratisation, relationships with neighbours or sharing the power and wealth of that great country, there are many difficult areas still to cover. We have not even touched on self-determination and how such matters will develop.
It would be reasonable to focus on the diplomatic activity of the past year and conclude that the developments have all been positive, but not all commentators are that sanguine about the prospects. We must recognise that there is a long way to go before there will even be a peace deal, never mind the successful completion of the proposed six-year transition before the referendum can take place. Although the people of Sudan must drive that process, we must not ignore our

41WH
responsibilities. The hon. Member for Salisbury gave some very good constituency examples of positive, constructive, small-scale initiatives. On a larger scale, we all must echo that enthusiasm and commitment.
In the post-Iraq situation, it is critical that we do not lose sight of the terrible events of the past 50 years in Sudan and that we are not distracted from resolving the issue by problems elsewhere. Like others, I welcome the role that the United States has played in Sudan. I hope that the Minister can confirm that, as far as he is aware, the US will remain engaged in the area. The European Union, too, must play its part. Recent press reports suggest that it might be looking again at Sudan, after 10 years in which it put aid on the table and then took it away. In that respect, the UK must take a leading role.
We have a great opportunity, and the cost of missing it will be measured in lives lost. We cannot contemplate that, nor can people in Sudan.
2.50pm
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on securing the debate. I also congratulate members of the all-party group on Sudan on the work that they have done in keeping the needs of the Sudanese people on the agenda. It is well worth paying tribute to them, because it is important that that work is done.
I had the privilege of visiting the north and the south of the country shortly before the conflict broke out in Iraq. My visit certainly opened my eyes to the complexity of the problems that beset the country, and I am grateful to our ambassador in Khartoum, William Patey, for helping me to see how complex the problem is. Often, the wider British public see the conflict in very simplistic terms—as a matter of north versus south, or of Christian versus Muslim—but the reality is much more complex. There are, for example, tribal and territorial disputes. The issue is not as simple as north versus south. Great territorial gains have been made, and the situation is probably much more of a patchwork.
The ambassador explained to me that there was also a real problem with warlords establishing themselves. They have absolutely no intention of giving up fighting if they can possibly avoid it. I therefore came away from my visit with, not a pessimistic view, but a more realistic view of how difficult it would be to proceed towards peace. We should not give up on achieving peace just because the situation is complex.
The overwhelming problem is security. We should not shy away from acknowledging that, although there is technically a ceasefire, there are daily violations of it. Indeed, the situation makes a mockery of the word. The day I flew south to Rumbek, we had barely landed on the airstrip before aid agency representatives came to the plane to report a particularly terrible violation of the ceasefire, involving the gang rape of women. That brought straight home to me the fact that there is no such thing as a real ceasefire. There is serious conflict in Darfur, and heavy fighting continues in western upper Nile, but we still hold on to the word ceasefire. It is important that we record in the debate that the ceasefire is very fragmented.
The current cessation of hostilities is due to expire in June, so it is important that we get agreement on renewing it and that a detailed agenda for the next round
42WH
of talks on security arrangements is agreed before then. That is absolutely imperative, given that the time scale is slipping. What importance does the Minister attach to achieving security before a peace deal is signed? What assessment has he made of the armed conflict in Darfur and the other areas that I mentioned? What discussions is he having with the two warring parties about helping to halt the violence? Before my group went to Sudan, his Department briefed us very well. It impressed on us the fact that if we had time to do nothing else, we should at least take the opportunity to speak to the leaders of the two sides—the Government of Sudan and the SPLA-SPLM—to persuade them that stopping the fighting was in their hands. In many cases, they are the source of the arms that are needed to continue fighting. We did impress that on the two leaders.
I am deeply concerned about the human rights abuses in Sudan, and I share the view of the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) that an error has been made and that Sudan might be sliding off the hook of international censure. Last week, the United Nations Committee on Human Rights killed a resolution that would have extended human rights monitoring in Sudan. Of its 14 members, 13 voted to reject the resolution. In view of the dreadful abuse of human rights that is going on, that was a surprising decision.
The ceasefire monitoring mechanism is also proving ineffective. The members of the civil protection monitoring team with whom I flew to the south of Sudan at dead of night would be the first to explain that they are often impeded in their work. I am sorry to learn that since my visit on 7 March, the Government of Sudan have prevented them from operating as they previously did. That is not conducive to our believing that the Sudanese Government take human rights abuses seriously and that they intend to do something about them. What assurances can the Minister give that full human rights monitoring—which should be the precursor to the lifting of international censure—will be allowed to resume? We should not just ignore the fact that human rights abuses are continuing; they must be tackled.
One does not realise until one visits the country what a contrast there is between the north and the south. Khartoum is a huge city, its population swollen by refugees from the south. Its essential services are in place and are well developed by comparison with those of the south. In the south—in Rumbek—there was nothing. All that remained of brick buildings was rubble. People were living in the forest in diminished circumstances. They were angry, afraid and hungry and I did not find among them the optimism about concluding the peace that I found in the Government. It is in the Government's interest for there to be peace so that they can develop the country economically. The profound pessimism in the south can be explained by the miserable conditions in which people are living.
At Lokichoggio, I saw one of the UN's largest food aid warehousing arrangements. Planes fly in and out, but aid does not reach all parts of the south. People are starving because the food pipeline is not adequate to meet the needs of all. We should not skate over that fact.
The question of oil revenues is central—it is a key cause of conflict. It is a tragedy that a large African nation with such wealth should have fought so

43WH
desperately for so many decades about who owns that wealth. I saw clear evidence that the construction of the oil road is continuing; that was, in part, what the civil protection monitoring team went to look at. The road will reinforce the current position; the flow of oil revenues is more likely to benefit the Government in the north. It is good to make progress, and I am sure that the southern Sudanese will be delighted to have scope for self-determination. However, my concern about the proposed framework for peace is that, if separation occurs prematurely, southern Sudan will not be a viable state, especially if the wealth from oil is corralled by the north.
Today, as we acknowledge the significant contribution of the former Secretary of State for International Development in this area, we should remember what she said at the end of last year. She did not beat about the bush. She said that our task was to challenge the Government of Sudan to
"work hard to improve life for southerners if they want to keep their country unified."
It is worth reminding ourselves of that important challenge.
When I visited the refugee camps outside Khartoum, I was made very aware of the disadvantages suffered by those people. They are living on the periphery of the city, which is too far away for them go to work. Unemployment in the camps is therefore high, and one of the consequences is an increase in the rate of AIDS.
I visited the medical centre that treats AIDS cases. One doctor, who serves 60,000 people, told me that the decision of the Sudanese Government to require all Sudanese citizens to pay for their medicines was disadvantageous to the refugee community, because they do not have the money. The medicines had hitherto been free, and the doctor explained that charging for them placed him in a difficult position because the refugees believed that he was pocketing the money. The Government's decision broke the relationship of trust between the doctor and his patients. He said that people were stopping their treatment ahead of time, especially the treatment of AIDS and the complications that go with it such as tuberculosis. He said that that would help spread those diseases among an already deprived population. I wonder whether the Minister can do anything about the specific matter of charging for medicines, especially charging refugees.
I remind the Minister that Sudan has 76 per cent. of the world's remaining cases of guinea worm disease. I am sure that he is aware of that, but I saw cases of the disease and was struck by it. It is one of those diseases that are often low on the agenda in developing countries, but it affects Sudan disproportionately. I hope that the importance of combating that debilitating disease has not dropped off the Government's radar screen.
As regards food, it is no exaggeration to say that in some parts of southern Sudan the constriction of food relief amounts to genocide. The word is often overused in relation to issues of international development, but the aid agency Concern has revealed that one in four children are acutely malnourished in the Aweil region of southern Sudan. Anything that the Government can do
44WH
to make a better assessment of that patchy provision of food aid would be valuable, especially for those who are simply slipping through the net. I ask the Minister to make a new assessment of the food crisis in Sudan, and to bring it to the public's attention. It is not enough to have food stockpiled at Lokichoggio, for it to go to certain parts of southern Sudan, and for it not to reach other parts of the country.
I am deeply concerned about the institutions of civil society; in the south, as far as I could see, they have been crushed. There is virtually nothing there. I met the judiciary of the southern Sudan, who are basically out of a job as a result of the imposition of sharia law. They are all trained in British jurisprudence, a completely different system, and they appealed to me for such basic items as law books. They no longer have a library—it was burned in Rumbek.
If we want southern Sudan to become viable and if we want to enable peace to take hold, the institutions of civil society must be buttressed, and there are practical things that we can do to help. The Minister might be intrigued to learn that one of the major opposition parties in Sudan, a Muslim party, has suggested a way forward on the divisive issue of sharia law. It suggests applying it to Muslim Sudanese but not to non-Muslim Sudanese, and proposes running the two legal systems coterminously. That suggestion, which comes from the people themselves, is worthy of further investigation.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), whose ongoing commitment to Sudan I commend, mentioned education. I was especially struck by the discrimination in the education service. Certain Sudanese children are discriminated against on account of their religion. The Christian schools are outside the state education system and are run only thanks to volunteers. In the two schools that I visited there were as many as 120 children in a class. The temporary nature of those schools—they have no fixed walls and everything is made of rush matting—sends a strong signal that such children are not catered for in the Government of Sudan's educational programme. Can the Minister say what is being done to ensure that all Sudanese children have access to a good education?
Since we do not know the full extent of the mining of Sudan, can the Minister give us an update on the progress towards relieving the country of land mines or on any plans to do so? At the very least, access routes should be made safe. Once a peace is concluded, people will not return to rural areas if they do not feel that it is safe to do so. That will be an important feature of the peace.
I have one deep concern, which is that in the desire to conclude a peace in Sudan we could skirt over the problems that remain. Sadly, we know from examples all too close to home that if such problems are buried or shoved under the carpet, the peace will not hold and the problems will surface again. I am concerned that not all parties have been invited to the negotiating table. I cite the example of women. I met a large group of widows in southern Sudan who were angry about the ongoing conflict and not optimistic about the prospects for peace. They told me something very telling. They said that they did not believe that men could make peace. It might be politically incorrect to say that, but if one puts oneself in the shoes of a Sudanese widow who is looking around at her friends who are also widows, it is not a

45WH
strange conclusion to draw. Those women are not substantially represented at the peace talks in Karen and I am concerned that other parties are missing from the negotiations.
A Government spokesman in Sudan put it to me that the peace talks had in some ways rewarded the two warring factions and that the two parties to the talks did not represent all the parties that needed to be involved. I seek an assurance from the Minister that that is not being overlooked. All parties must be at the table for the peace to hold.
It would not be appropriate to conclude without paying tribute to the work that the Kenyan Government have done to bring about the peace talks over a very long period—so long that the peace talks have become a fixture. Some of those taking part in the talks live almost permanently in Kenya. We want to see peace, but a quality of peace that will hold and of which all the people—those in the north and the south, those on the periphery, those in Khartoum, those displaced and those wishing to return—will be beneficiaries.
3.8pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) for securing this debate. I also congratulate him on his effective chairmanship of the all-party Sudan group. His work is most welcome. I, too, join him in praising the energy and commitment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) and her efforts on Sudan in recent years. Her focus on the country has been effective. I also join the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) in paying tribute to the Kenyan Government for their enormously important contribution to those efforts.
New momentum has been injected into the Sudanese peace process following the summit between President Bashir and Dr. Garang in Nairobi on 2 April. Both leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the peace process, the Machakos protocol and the agreements on cessation of hostilities and unimpeded humanitarian access. That is important, but I take the point that the hon. Member for Meriden made—ceasefires and agreements are subject to proof. Sometimes, what is written on paper is not what is delivered in practice. However, the fact that things are written on paper is a step forward. It may take some time for those who signed the documents to implement the obligations in them, but we hope that they will be able to do so.
We hope also that what is agreed in principle can be implemented in practice. There is reason, despite the history of that country, to be optimistic for the peace process. The timing may slip, but there is still a good chance for an agreement this year. Outstanding problems must be resolved on power and wealth sharing, the three conflict areas, the ceasefire and security issues, but discussion of those issues has begun.
We in Britain will continue to offer the Government of Sudan, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement and mediators our full support and advice. We welcome the parties' agreement to an addendum to the memorandum of understanding on cessation of hostilities, which followed an outbreak of fighting in western upper Nile
46WH
at the beginning of this year. The addendum is important. It contains new and welcome initiatives to build confidence among the parties, including the establishment of a verification and monitoring team to verify reports of fighting on the ground. A senior British liaison officer has been appointed to head the team. He departs for Nairobi this week. We have also contributed other personnel, and $500,000 towards the operation. I will return to that matter shortly, and answer questions.
The Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Army have expressed concerns about the tasking of the verification and monitoring team. The Intergovernmental Authority on Development special envoy, Lieutenant-General Sumbeiywo, has proposed a compromise position, which we hope will be accepted by both parties. We will continue to work with the mediators to ensure that the verification and monitoring team becomes operational as soon as possible.
We are concerned about the escalation of fighting in Darfur. Changes in the local administration, drought, deforestation and food insecurity, as well as access to land, have fuelled ethnic conflicts and insecurity in the region. I hear the point that the hon. Member for Meriden made about the complexities of the issues. She said that the matter could not merely be seen as a north-south issue, or one of religion, but that it is a very complex jigsaw of rivalries and conflicts. I say to the hon. Lady that the fact that the two protagonists are prepared to enter into dialogue is welcome, but that by themselves they will not resolve all the issues at stake.
In Darfur, mediation efforts have so far come to nothing and the situation is still extremely difficult. All sides should know from bitter experience that a military solution is not in prospect, and that peace and reconciliation offer the only real chance of a brighter future for the people of Sudan. Humanitarian access was restored to Darfur last week, but the provision of humanitarian assistance to the people of Darfur will remain difficult while the fighting persists. When we talk about getting aid there, providing assistance, and health and education, we must remember that in many of those areas most in need, there is still fighting, so delivery of services is extremely difficult.
We continue to be concerned about the human rights of all in Sudan, regardless of their ethnic and religious background. The promotion of human rights remains one of our priorities. We are, of course, disappointed that the EU-sponsored resolution on Sudan was not adopted by the UN Commission on Human Rights on 16 April. Also, the mandate of the special rapporteur, Gerhardt Baum, has ended. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre asked what we have done about that. We lobbied members of the Commission on Human Rights on the resolution before the vote was taken, arguing that Sudan's human rights situation continues to merit commission action. We also are consulting our EU partners on the next steps to take, and we will continue to press for improvements in human rights as part of the ongoing dialogue between the EU and Sudan. We must ensure that we have the cooperation of other countries, which is sometimes easier said than done. We shall continue our efforts in that respect. We acknowledge that the Government must be seen to take a high-profile interest, and we shall continue to do so.

47WH
We all know that the only long-term answer to the suffering in Sudan is a just and lasting peace agreement that allows the people to rebuild their lives. Alan Goulty and his team in the joint FCO-DFID Sudan unit continually consult the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement. We will continue to offer the parties and the mediators our full support and advice, and we will remain actively involved in helping them to reach a comprehensive peace agreement. I will pass on to Alan Goulty and his team the praise of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre and others. The Sudan unit is showing the patience, skill and care that are its hallmark. It is a positive point that Members have recognised that, which I know will give the team the encouragement that it needs to continue that work.
We are also working with donors and partners to ensure that resources are mobilised immediately after a peace agreement is reached to assist with the rehabilitation and development of Sudan and to deal with the problem of its external debt. We recognise that a sustained international effort will be needed to help Sudan following a peace agreement and we remain determined to play a part in that. Therefore, Sudan will remain a priority for our diplomacy.
The hon. Member for Meriden asked about land mines. There is little accurate information on the precise number and location of land mines in Sudan. What is known is that many roads in Sudan are not used by local populations or the humanitarian agencies—or, indeed, by anyone else—because of concerns about land mines, which means that a key artery of commerce and revitalisation is simply taken out of use. That debilitates the country's prospects.
Removing mines in areas where there was fighting is difficult, however. Mine action is possible only in the Nuba mountains, where a ceasefire seems to have held since January 2002. We have contributed £1.4 million to the UN Mine Action Service over the past year for mine clearance in the Nuba mountains region and to prepare for further mine action throughout Sudan. Land mine mapping and clearance are vital to enabling the free movement of people, particularly the return of internally displaced persons and refugees; to reducing the cost of transporting humanitarian aid, most of which depends on air transport; and, in due course, to kick-starting economic regeneration. The project reflects DFID's key objectives for its humanitarian mine action and its three-year global agreement with UNMAS.
The European Commission has also funded a de-miner training and Sudan land mine information and response initiative through Landmine Action, a UK NGO. We are anxious that Landmine Action's activities should be undertaken in full co-operation with UNMAS, which is the lead co-ordinating agency for mine action in Sudan, and we are in contact with the European Commission, UNMAS and Landmine Action to encourage that co-ordination.
The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) asked about the role that the Churches can play. We meet the Churches regularly, and Alan Goulty met a group of Church and faith leaders and aid agencies only
48WH
yesterday. The Churches have a key role to play in building the consensus for peace in Sudan. When there is peace, their role will become even more important in rehabilitation work at the community level. I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating those people who are seeking to help the Sudanese people in practical ways. He gave examples of that, which are most impressive, and I share his praise for the people who are prepared to make those efforts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) asked whether the Americans are engaged in the process. The evidence is that they are. It has been said often that the American political process is like a lighthouse that shines its beam on only one thing at any one time. That may be true of the media, Congress and the higher echelons of the leadership, but in relation to countries such as Sudan, there are those in the State Department and elsewhere who take a key role in pursuing such issues. Our work in this area has shown that there is considerable engagement by the US Administration.
My hon. Friend also asked about the justice sector. The UK Government support work to develop the justice sector, both in Sudan Government-controlled areas and those controlled by the liberation movement. The Government have provided the embassy small grants scheme, and when there is peace we plan to gear up our support to develop legal systems in Sudan. A DFID mission is in Sudan to plan for that. We are aware of the problem and will ensure that we continue to work on it. It is one of those issues that it is difficult to do much about until the fighting stops, but we are doing what we can in terms of preparation.
My hon. Friend asked about democratisation. Elections have been discussed by the parties at the talks, and they will be held at some point in the six-year interim period. The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) asked about health and education, and the hon. Member for Meriden asked about HIV. On the broad question of health, the UK has supported emergency health work in Sudan, focusing on lifesaving treatment for conditions such as TB, kala-azar and malaria. There is more than one issue that we need to focus on.
We support nutrition programmes in the most food-insecure areas of Sudan. When there is a peace agreement, it will be important to rehabilitate the whole health system throughout the country. The country is poor, and the health service is almost non-existent in places. There will have to be a major effort. We will not be able to do it all by ourselves as country, so we must mobilise the international community to ensure that the work is carried out.
We are considering the key issue of HIV/AIDS prevention, particularly as the peace agreement draws near. We have supported HIV/AIDS prevention throughout our humanitarian programme, and it will be part of our work post-peace. We will look at the issue of charging people for HIV medicine. In many ways, that is likely to cause more problems. Quite how much we can do about that in practice I do not know, but we shall examine the matter and write to the hon. Member for Meriden when we have further information. The point that she makes is very well taken.

49WH
The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale raised the question of the education system. Its rehabilitation, particularly in the conflict-affected areas and the south, will be a major priority once there is peace. Britain has supported schools rehabilitation in the Nuba mountains, where there has been a ceasefire. Books and equipment have been supplied to more than 100 schools. Basic rehabilitation in the Government of Sudan-controlled areas will be completed by this month.
The teachers' centre in the area controlled by the SPLM-SPLA has been rehabilitated and work on schools will start shortly. We will expand the programme to north and south Sudan during 2003. We have also supported scholarships for women. More than 100 have been awarded to students working in the region, and the subjects being studied include medicine, rural development and gender studies. The latter may not be a great priority in our universities, but in Sudan gender studies and how one deals with some of the complex issues faced by women there are highly important.
The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Etterick and Lauderdale and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre asked about UN monitoring. The UN department of peacekeeping has been at the peace talks in Kenya, although UN planning regarding monitoring is at an early stage. Crucially, the Government of Sudan need to agree to a UN mandate before the UN can play a full role. We are trying to see whether we can assist in achieving that agreement.
The hon. Member for Meriden also asked about achieving security before a peace deal, indicating that we could urge parties to extend the cessation of hostilities and improve its quality. We can do that. However, we hope that with hostilities ending in June and with a peace agreement hopefully reached, an opportunity will be provided to ensure that the ceasefire is properly implemented. Achieving security before an agreement is desirable. I honestly do not know at this stage how far we can go towards achieving that, but it is important that we do all that we can. We will work through the UN verification and monitoring team, and in any other way we can.
There are two other issues worth mentioning. The hon. Lady asked about civil society. I agree with her on the importance of engaging with civil society groups and building on the capacity there, including Church and women's groups in Sudan and in the neighbouring states, as well as on involving NGOs and others outside who wish to help in reconstruction and development.
50WH
The matter involving Churches, which the hon. Member for Salisbury raised, is important: once we achieve peace, there should be a real effort to rebuild civil society and a capacity to engage with them. It will be important to have groups make contact, and perhaps provide support and recognition of the fact that there is concern about the issues in this country and elsewhere.
Mr. Dawson: I want to emphasise the importance of the Sudanese diaspora in this country. We meet regularly in Parliament, and the Committee Corridor is turned into Africa due to the number of people who turn up who are passionately concerned for the future of their country. In what ways are the Government prepared to engage with Sudanese living in this country to help them to plan for the future of their country?
Mr. O'Brien: The Sudanese community here are very concerned about the situation in Sudan and have been working hard to see whether they can achieve an agreement and end the killing. Many Sudanese who make a contribution to Britain also have families in Sudan. They feel threatened and they are concerned for their families. It is difficult to agree to meet representatives of all the Sudanese diaspora, but, if I may discuss later with my hon. Friend the best way to engage them, in principle that seems to be a very positive approach.
The UK is one of the largest bilateral donors to Sudan. Since 1991, we have committed over £220 million, including the UK's share of European Community food aid, to Sudan and Sudanese refugees through Operation Lifeline. In 2003, we committed about £15 million to support humanitarian work and the peace process. Today, there are opportunities for Sudan that have not existed in recent years: there is a prospect of real peace and a willingness to be optimistic, although that has not yet percolated down to those who have suffered most—the poorest in the most marginal areas who have been the victims of too much violence, intimidation and starvation. However, we are seeing a chance for the main parties to be reconciled and to reach an agreement that will end the killing, which would be the best news that Sudan could have.
The Government are committed not only to helping the parties to reach an agreement, but to doing all we can thereafter to ensure that the agreement produces a better future for the children of Sudan, which will mean that they do not have to go through the same deprivations, inhumanities and traumas as their parents.

Entry Clearance (Indian Subcontinent)
3.30pm
Keith Vaz: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise in the Chamber the important issue of the entry clearance operation in the Indian subcontinent. The issue has a profound effect on my constituents. At every surgery that I hold in my constituency, half the people coming to see me have a problem with the way in which the service operates, which makes about 30 cases a week. It is therefore understandable that I am concerned about the deficiencies in the operation.
Both the Minister and I are former Ministers with responsibility for entry clearance. I was sorry that my hon. Friend gave up that portfolio because, with his experience in the Home Office, he had a good understanding of the matter. As I was when I spoke from the Front Bench on the matter, he will have been given a speech prepared by officials to tell the Chamber how well things are going. I am not here to criticise unnecessarily; I want to see a better system emerge so that, as a consumer of the service and a passionate supporter of the Government, I can tell my constituents that the Labour Government have improved the visa operation.
Let me agree with the Minister about what has gone right. The operation in the Indian subcontinent is impressive. I am sure that he will dazzle us with statistics reminding us that Mumbai, Delhi, Islamabad, Dhaka and the other operations in the Indian subcontinent comprise the biggest visa operation on the planet. He will, and I do so too, pay tribute to the work of entry clearance officers and entry clearance managers. He will tell us that the people at the joint entry clearance unit, which is now called UK Visas, do a splendid job, and I agree that they do.
The Minister will explain that the new visa centres established in the subcontinent are a success. I know that they are and I am glad that they have achieved what the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), intended when he set them up. I am particularly pleased about what has happened at Ahmedabad and Syletett, where there was initial reluctance. However, I want the improvement to go further.
I want to single out for praise a number of first class officers who are a credit to the service: Chris Dix in New Delhi, Colin Mulcahy in Islamabad and Janet Battersby, who is now somewhere in the subcontinent. Robin Barnett does a very good job as head of UK Visas, when he can be found. On the single case that he dealt with when I approached him, I was very pleased with his hard work and the result of his deliberations. I have nothing but praise for people such as Suroth Miah and Gary Truman at UK Visas, but sadly they are neutered by a process that cries out for reform and that places all power to make visa decisions in the hands of ECOs. The people who work at UK Visas should be paid more.
I do not want the debate to sound like all our yesterdays, but I worked with many of those people, including the excellent David Reddaway who is now our man in Canada, and I am sorry that his departure to greener pastures has seen the service go downhill. There
52WH
is, of course, an ongoing problem in Islamabad, where the office has been closed for several months, but it is up to other hon. Members to raise that matter in the House because I have had little to do with it.
The real problem in the subcontinent is Mumbai and I want to illustrate it by referring to an ongoing case. It sums up, first, what is wrong with Mumbai and, secondly, what a lot of time is wasted by Members of Parliament in trying to deal with those matters—frankly, some ECOs disrespect Members.
Mr. and Mrs Rajani made an application to come to this country for a two-month visit on 4 April 2003. They were refused. The grounds on the refusal notice were:
"You plan to spend all of your savings including your pension. I am not satisfied that your future intentions are as stated."
They were coming to this country for a religious purpose—to attend a ceremony involving the sister of a member of their family—and to see their family. Much as they admire new Labour, they had no intention of remaining in the United Kingdom. Their sponsors have impeccable credentials and I have known them for 16 years. I have met them and I know that they have enough income and savings to support their family during a two-month visit.
I rang Mumbai and spoke to the entry clearance manager who is temporarily in post. I faxed a letter and contacted UK Visas. My office faxed another letter. I tried to get hold of Mr. Barnett, but he was not available. His answering machine told me to ring Clare Handyside and her answering machine told me to ring Emma. I rang Emma, but no one answered. I rang the private office of the permanent secretaries office and asked who was the director in charge of this area. The person who answered told me that there was a reshuffle going on in the Foreign Office and that they did not know who was in charge of the matter, but took on responsibility to contact me and made four calls to UK Visas. I rang again in the afternoon but no one responded.
Eventually, Nick Astbury, the deputy head of UK Visas rang me and tried to resolve the issue. He gave me a road map—my hon. Friend the Minister will approve of that term—and I was happy to clutch that road map as a means of resolving a standard visitor's visa case. He said that Mumbai wanted confirmation that the sponsor could pay for the trip and told me that that was the only outstanding point. We faxed the sponsorship letter to UK Visas several times, but, sadly, its fax machine had run out of paper. Paper was eventually restored to the fax machine and the information went through. Having been told that the only outstanding point was that concerning income, which is clear in the refusal notice—that is what Members of Parliament see at their surgeries when constituents come to see them—I was then told by Mr. Astbury that Mumbai stood by its original refusal.
In total, I and my staff had made 25 telephone calls and sent six letters. A total of eight personnel from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office were involved, as were an entry clearance officer, an entry clearance manager, two private offices and two Members of Parliament. My only recourse, under the guidance for MPs, is to see the Minister, who is abroad. However, I understand that the information has been faxed to him and that he is considering it.

53WH
It is very difficult for me to know what Mr. Rajani has done in his past to upset the entry clearance officer so much that all the information required, according to its own refusal notice, and information requested by the deputy head of UK Visas was cast aside by the entry clearance officer.
I have one more refusal notice to bring to the Minister's attention as an example. Jackie McFarlane, also from Mumbai, told us about a Mr. Jayendra Rajyaguru, another applicant who was unable to come to this country. She refused him admission on the grounds that he did not display sufficient closeness to the applicant. However, Mr. Rajyaguru is the father-in-law of my constituent, Mr. Mistry, who lives on Halkin street. The relationship between a son-in-law and father-in-law is a matter of permanence, law and fact. It is not a matter of speculation and Mr. Rajyaguru can produce a photograph of himself and his son-in-law to show that, whether Mr. Mistry wanted to change his father-in-law or not, he is Mr. Mistry's son-in-law, who wanted to come here on a visit.
In 1997 the new Labour Government declared their intention to establish a new family visitor visa for those wishing to visit a close relative and the Government gave people a right of appeal. My hon. Friend the Minister was in the Home Office then and should take credit for what was done. Fees were introduced—people thought that they were too high—and then abolished, for which we were grateful. I feel very sad that the Government are failing to honour their commitments in this area. A right of appeal that takes eight months to exercise is no right of appeal. Someone who applies now to come for a wedding in June will not be allowed to come. If they are refused, they will have to appeal, but the appeal will not be heard until January 2004. That is not acceptable.
ECOs are unwilling to state clearly why they have refused a visa and, more important, to state in plain English what can be done to satisfy them. I am pleased that the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department, of which I am a member, has agreed to set up an inquiry into immigration appeals. I believe that I have persuaded it to look abroad and to work with the Home Office, the Home Affairs Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee to develop a joint approach for Parliament.
Richard Dunston, the immigration policy officer at the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, has written an excellent report and analysis of ECOs' decisions in 2002. It is such a good report that I would like to read all of it out, but there is not enough time. The headline information is as follows: in the period 1 August 2002 to 30 November 2002, the refusal rate was 27.5 per cent.—up from 20 per cent. In Mumbai, the refusal rate went up from 16.4 per cent. to 33.5 per cent. In Delhi, it went from 29 per cent. to 59.4 per cent.—an increase of 104.8 per cent. The number of applications is down, but the appeal rate is going up. Fifty per cent. of appeals are allowed by adjudicators, which shows the poor quality of some ECO decision making.
For my staff and me, dealing with ECOs in Mumbai is like doing the dance of the seven veils with a Sellotape wraparound. The ECOs must change their attitude. Mr. Astbury told me that UK Visas was supposed to be an intelligent post box, and so it should. There is no doubting Mr. Astbury's intelligence—he used to work
54WH
for me. However, despite its rebranding, UK Visas has been turned into a meaningless post box during the past two years. It has become nothing more than a paper-pushing exercise despite the hard work and commitment of really high-calibre people such as Carol Doughty and other staff, who have absolutely no power to do anything. Just one ECO can hold the whole system to ransom.
In conclusion, I call on my hon. Friend the Minister to do five things. First, I ask him to publish the report that the Home Secretary commissioned in January 2001. It was promised in May 2002. In December 2002, it went to the Lord Chancellor's Department, which said that it would be published in late 2003. It has not come out. Secondly, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to ask the Minister with responsibility for entry clearance, when he returns from Latin America, to visit the Indian subcontinent to review the visa operation, which he still has not done.
Thirdly, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to appoint a first secretary for immigration in Mumbai. The situation is still in transition, and there appears to be a lack of leadership. My constituents tell me that officers could be more polite and that they treat letters of support from MPs with contempt, in some cases waving them away. Fourthly, I would like to arrange a delegation of Members of Parliament to visit the Foreign Secretary and the Minister with responsibility for entry clearance. The Foreign Secretary knows about the problem, because he has one of the biggest case loads of visa applications from the Indian subcontinent.
Finally, I get the impression that ECOs think that MPs are irritants in the system. We stand in the shoes of our constituents and expect to be treated with respect. The system is not about keeping people out of Britain but about allowing visitors to come and visit their family here. We must be able to explain ECOs' views to our constituents and vice versa. Chris Dix and Colin Mulcahy have shown how that can be done. If they disagree, they tell us why. They do not always say yes, but they give valid reasons that we can pass on to our constituents. They, too, want a system that is firm but fair.
My constituents and those of other hon. Members deserve better. I make it clear to the Minister that my interest will not end here. I will be back again and again on this issue, until we have some real improvements.
3.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The way in which UK Visas has improved its service in recent years is a great tribute to the work that many have done—the officials in particular, but also my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who presided over UK Visas and must take the credit for the things that are going right. However, some things have been going wrong in recent years, and no doubt my hon. Friend would put his hands up to that too, as we all must. As a Minister who formerly dealt with UK Visas—I handed over that responsibility a few months ago to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell)—I must join my hon. Friend in accepting the responsibility.

55WH
Sometimes things do not go exactly as they ought to. Indeed, I have been tearing my hair out about some of my constituency cases. I have been perplexed, annoyed and astonished by the quality of some of the answers that I have had to visa cases. Probably most Members of Parliament who deal with constituency cases have felt the same perplexity.
That said, however, there has also been an enormous improvement in the quality of the service in many respects. Officials are working enormously hard to get what they do right. In many cases, they are responding to MPs' requests for information much more quickly than they did before. The quality of service has improved, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East said. It is important to make that point because with the brickbats must also come praise where praise is due.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Rajani case. The 25 telephone calls and six letters certainly do not sound very good. I do not know all the details of the case because the file is with my hon. Friend the Undersecretary—I cannot say that he is looking at it as we speak because he is in south America and the file is with him— because there is some concern about how the case was handled. The Foreign Office stands by its decision. However, it takes the view that the case was not well handled. To the extent that it was not well handled, I extend the apologies of the Foreign Office to my hon. Friend and, most particularly, to the sponsor, who is his constituent, and to the applicant, who has a right to a better quality of service from UK Visas and the Foreign Office.
When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary returns with the file, I hope that we can arrange for him to meet my hon. Friend to ensure that the case is dealt with in the round, and that whatever decisions need to be taken are taken and whatever lessons need to be learned are learned.
My hon. Friend asked a series of questions. First, will we publish the report that he tells me was provided in January 2001? I will certainly talk to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary about that when he returns and pass on that request.
Secondly, will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary visit India, Pakistan and Bangladesh? Well, I have certainly made that visit and found it very important. I have been to Delhi a couple of times and examined the visa operation. By and large it is good, as my hon. Friend knows. That is a tribute to such people as Colin Mulcahy—I too met him and was enormously impressed—who turned around a difficult operation in Delhi and made it one of the most effective operations that we have. Good managers are difficult to come by. Colin happens to be one, and my hon. Friend mentioned a number of others. When we find them, we make the best use of them that we can.
We will consider whatever questions are raised about the operation in Mumbai, but it is important that we also ensure that, when things are going well, as they often are in Mumbai, the staff do not feel undermined, chastised or criticised by MPs if one case does not go
56WH
well. Those members of staff are working hard, doing their best and achieving improvements in the quality of service.
Keith Vaz rose—
Mr. O'Brien: I am sure that my hon. Friend rises to agree with that.
Keith Vaz: As my hon. Friend will know, I agreed before he even spoke about these matters. Could he also make representations to the Lord Chancellor's Department? As he knows, the problem starts at the posts abroad. In many cases, we want to say to our constituents who have a right of appeal, "Exercise your right of appeal and have your case heard before an adjudicator." The problem is that a delay of eight months means that we cannot say that. That is why we are forced to put so much pressure on UK Visas and to go to Ministers to ask for overturns. If that system were working, the whole system would be more effective.
Mr. O'Brien: When the system was set up, we hoped that some decisions could be made on paper much more quickly than they are. That was the object of the exercise. However, we find that, when new systems of appeal are set up, the sheer numbers quickly overwhelm the process, and the taxpayer must often meet the cost. One reason why initially we charged significant fees for appeals, with the result that there were considerable protests, was that when the income is coming in it is much easier to employ extra staff to meet the demand. However, when one relies entirely on the taxpayer meeting the costs of people from abroad who want to visit relatives in the UK, the cost falls on the Chancellor, the Budget and the taxpayer. The taxpayer's resources are limited and do not immediately stretch with the increase in demands.
There is a balance to be struck. People protested about the high fees, so they were reduced, but the consequence is that there is no readily available income stream that would enable the Lord Chancellor's Department and others to expand the system of appeals as quickly as might be necessary to meet the demand.
My hon. Friend also asks whether my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would see Members of Parliament about visas. My right hon. Friend is always willing to meet groups of MPs. I cannot give a commitment as to the date, but I am sure that if my hon. Friend put together a group of MPs who wanted to talk to my right hon. Friend, he would be willing to see them to discuss these issues, no doubt together with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
The other point raised by my hon. Friend related to the attitude of staff members of UK Visas towards MPs. UK Visas, like all public services, is accountable to Parliament and to the people who pay taxes—the British public. UK Visas is also the interface between Britain and people from other countries, who expect quality of service and fairness from Britain.
Keith Vaz: I was referring not to the attitude of UK Visas staff, but to the attitude of the staff in the posts abroad.
Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful for that clarification. The staff in the posts abroad also recognise that they are the

57WH
interface with people from other countries and are paid by the taxpayer to provide a good quality service. By and large they do that, and my hon. Friend has recognised that. There have, however, been instances— my hon. Friend has experienced them, I have experienced them and, as I have said, most MPs have experienced them—when the quality of the work is not as good as we have a right to expect. In those circumstances, it is important to have systems of management and appeals that rectify individual cases and faults in the system as quickly as possible.
The role of an MP is to act as the spokesperson for the British taxpayer. Where the British taxpayer's relatives cannot get a visa to which they should be entitled, the MP can be a spokesperson for those relatives too. In those circumstances, the people from UK Visas should pay due regard to the MP's role. However, in law the staff of UK Visas and the staff at posts abroad have a legal responsibility to make a decision according to the law. In fulfilling his legal responsibility to make the right decision, the entry clearance officer cannot let the mere fact that an MP has written a letter be the deciding factor; his decision has to be based on the application. If he believes that there is serious doubt about the information that has been supplied, he should refuse the application. That was the position when my hon. Friend was dealing with such issues; it was the position when I was the Minister dealing with them; and it is the position now. The ECO will pay due regard, within proper proprieties, to any letter that he receives.
Constituents often ask me, "Will you write a letter to support my relative coming in?" By and large, I do not know the relative so I refuse. However, if I happen to know an individual, I might be able to write a letter about him. My hon. Friend mentioned a case in which he knows the family concerned and can make reference to what he believes to be the veracity of the sponsoring family. Unless he knows the family abroad, he cannot say anything about the applicant, whom he does not know. When the ECO looks at a letter from an MP, he
58WH
has to be aware that his decision must be made on the basis of the information provided by the applicant, who is probably not known to the MP.
Keith Vaz: I agree entirely. Most constituents who come to surgeries to see their MPs expect them to send letters of support; some do and some do not. However, the issue that I described goes further. It concerns cases that we take up, as Members of Parliament, beyond the letter. In such instances, ECOs should give us credit for not taking up every single case, just as the Minister does not. Members of Parliament filter out certain cases that they feel merit particular attention. Those should be given proper consideration.
Mr. O'Brien: Many MPs filter, and the quality of much of that filtering is good. Some of it is not so good or non-existent. I have heard that some just write letters. I know that my hon. Friend, like most MPs, does not do that; neither do I. When I was at the Home Office, we received lots of letters on lots of issues, and it seemed that some MPs had a breathtaking level of social contact with their constituents. However, I do not accuse anybody of impropriety; it is merely that some people accept cases and make representations.
We need to arrive at a situation in which MPs know that if they have relevant information they can provide it. If they know a particular sponsor well, let them say so and give their views. However, the ECO has ultimately to make the decision based not on the sponsor or on the MP's letter—although those factors must be taken into consideration—but on whether the applicant has given sufficient information to show that his application should succeed. If the person has not given sufficient information, it should be rejected. That is the basis on which such things should be done.
My hon. Friend knows the job well, and he will know that I have a speech here containing bedazzling information on the quality of operations of UK Visas. I could have delivered it to him and sparkled with erudition and my mastery of statistics. Given that I have replied to most of his points, I shall save him the bother of bedazzlement and leave it at that.

Home Education
4 pm
Mr. John Randall: I am most grateful for the opportunity to have this debate and to my constituent Fiona Berry, who first brought home education to my attention. Like the vast majority of people in the country, I was rather ignorant of home education, not to say slightly prejudiced about it.
In any free society, the freedom to choose the type of education that we want for our children is essential. Although there is much talk about the dangers of social exclusion, it is easy to see that a state system that insisted on total inclusion would not be free. We can be proud that that freedom was enshrined in our law long before the UN decided that it was an essential, in the convention on the rights of the child. We can also be proud that the number of families who have chosen to home educate in England has been growing for the past 30 years.
It may surprise hon. Members, as it surprised me, to learn that there is no such thing as a compulsory school age, despite the passion of the Department for Education and Skills for that phrase. The Education Act 1944 calls on all parents to ensure that their children are educated, but they are free to decide whether that should be at school or otherwise. Roughly 1 per cent. of the children in education in England and Wales are educated at home by their parents, whose reasons for doing so are as diverse as their families. Although the percentage is small, it represents a significant number of young people. I do not believe that there are accurate figures for the number of home-educating families in England and Wales. That lack of firm information perhaps reflects the free society in which we live. Parents are under no obligation to register with anyone or to notify the local education authority, as long as they continue to fulfil their obligations under section 7 of the 1944 Act to educate their children in a way that suits their ability, age and aptitude, by attendance at school or otherwise. The best guesses put the number of families that are currently home educating at 25,000 and the number of children who are being educated at home at 150,000.
One might ask why anyone would wish to home educate when a free state education system is available to all. There are as many answers to that question as there are families home educating. Some decided from the beginning that they preferred to continue to allow their children to learn in the natural way that they did in their pre-school years. Others began to home educate after withdrawing their children from school, perhaps because of bullying or school refusal, or sometimes because the child was over-stretched or even bored by the academic work. Some parents begin home education confident that they are making the best possible choice for their child, while others agonise over their abilities, but consider that they have no other option.
Despite the concerns of professional educators about the capabilities of home-educating parents, research indicates that it is hard to get it wrong. Whether parents use the national curriculum or no curriculum at all, whether they use formal methods or allow their children autonomy, whether children learn to read early or late, home-educated children outperform school children in
60WH
studies that have been done in England, the United States and Canada. Recent research has shown that the brain is aggressive and that children are natural learners. They are born wanting to learn. What surprises home educators is that in an information-rich culture our educational institutions sometimes manage to block that basic desire to learn successfully.
Home education offers many benefits for the families who do it. Learning becomes an integral part of everything, and takes place anywhere at anytime, not in special places at specific times. Once the compulsion is removed, children do not regard learning as work, but as a natural part of their lives. Children who are not segregated from their parents can become involved in their communities. Many families contribute significant amounts of time and energy to local projects.
The critics of home education sometimes refer to potential problems with socialisation, but research at the University of Michigan showed that home-educated children had no such problem. Perhaps that is because home-educating families take their children with them, and involve them in many social situations. Those children are, therefore, able to mix with people of all ages, and do not discriminate on the basis of age. In 2001, the Fraser Institute produced a comprehensive report into home education in the US and Canada. That report includes Professor Thomas Smedley's conclusion that
"home-schooled students are more mature and better socialised than those who are sent to either public or private schools."
The term "public or private schools" is used in the American sense.
Given those facts, it is rather strange that officialdom often lumps home-educated children into the same category as excluded or truanting children, or those in the care of the local authority. Assumptions are made about their behaviour, on the basis that children not in school are all the same. Home-educating families would maintain that their commitment to education and to the strength of their families, and their sense of social responsibility mean that officialdom has an uninformed way of thinking about electively home-educated children. The Fraser Institute report into home education in the US and Canada, where roughly 2.5 per cent. of children are home educated, concluded that home education provided a better education at a fraction of the cost of state education. The cost of home education is generally borne by the parents in the US, as is the case here. The report shows that those children out-performed schoolchildren, irrespective of their socio-economic background.
Dr. Paula Rothermel's study in England also showed that all children benefited from home education. Her report concluded that the children who did best were those from the lowest socio-economic group—turning the usual outcome of mainstream schools on its head. These days, parents are encouraged to respect their child's natural development in the early years. One advantage of home education is that it allows development to progress at a child's own pace, and ignores any notions of the average, or of targets. Some home-educated children learn to read at four. Many more learn later, sometimes as late as 10 or 11. One

61WH
study showed that, by the age of 13, it was impossible to distinguish the age at which a child had learned to read. Indeed, a delay in the beginning of reading sometimes may have positive advantages, as the incidence of dyslexia and other problems is very much reduced among children who have been taught by autonomous methods.
A wide range of approaches may be adopted, ranging from running a school at home, with lessons and timetables, to topic-led studying, which takes a single subject as far as possible, to completely child-led, free-form methods, and every style in between. The education provided can be tailored to each child and each family, and take account of their talents and challenges.
For children who have been withdrawn from school due to bullying, or school refusal—something that many Members of Parliament come across in their weekly surgeries—the removal of any compulsion to attend is often all that is needed to solve the problem. Thus, it is rather astonishing and dismaying to know that many parents of extremely unhappy children remain in ignorance about their legal rights to provide home education. In some cases, parents have willingly gone to jail, rather than send a school-phobic child to school. It seems outrageous that—despite months of meetings and discussions with officials—in many cases, parents are not even informed about the option to deregister their child and home educate. In some cases, schools and education officials have encouraged parents to return children who are almost suicidal to school, rather than offer the information that home education is a legal alternative.
That misinformation extends from the constant repetition of the phrase that I mentioned at the beginning of my contribution, "compulsory school age", to legally incorrect information sent out with child benefit uprating letters. When home educators protested that it was not true that every parent had a legal duty to ensure that their children went to school, hurt disbelief that any home educator would so misunderstand the message of the leaflet was apparent in the apologies received from the Department. The problem was not that home educators would mistakenly rush to enrol their children in schools, nor that they would live in fear of arrest. The problem was that many parents who might one day need to know that home education was a legal and viable option were prevented from learning about it by a deliberate lie.
Those words may seem harsh, but, as reported in The Sunday Times, many home educators protested in autumn 2002 about the proposed wording of the leaflet. However, the same wrongly worded leaflet is still being sent out, so it seems that the misinformation must be deliberate. It is little wonder that the home-educated community has become officially invisible, subsumed as it is within a motley collection of exclusions and truants; it is being treated as if it belongs in the same category as the socially excluded and those totally disengaged from education.
In many cases, a lack of real information or knowledge about home education has resulted in the Government's not considering the impact of mainstream policies on home educators. Truancy patrols have been most entertaining in that respect, asking to see non-existent registration cards, or proof of
62WH
home education that is impossible to produce. It is curious that home educators should see a vast amount of money expended on trying to herd school children back to school instead of on improvements in the attractiveness and desirability of the education on offer.
Another effect of mainstream policies—I hope that it is unintended—is that although the Government are avidly committed to keeping young people in learning, it appears that they are systematically denying the same access to those who are educated at home. In the past, home-educated children and young people could study for and obtain GCSE examinations as external candidates. They would incur the same cost as other children entered for exams externally—about £30 a subject. However, as the number of marks awarded for coursework has increased, the examination boards have become more reluctant to trust parents to supervise study for the exams.
Some families were able to get around that problem by studying for international GCSEs, but from June 2003 that avenue will no longer be open to home-educated students in the United Kingdom. The only options remaining for many parents are to employ supervising tutors, to spend a lot of money on GCSE correspondence courses at between £200 and £300 a subject, or to obtain places at colleges of further education for children under the age of 16.
We readily understand that many home-educated families exist on lower incomes because of the need for one parent to stay at home. The families do not complain about that because it is their free choice. However, it seems extremely unfair that, having made those financial sacrifices to facilitate their children's education, parents should find themselves discriminated against when trying to gain access to college courses.
Some parents who have applied for places at colleges for their children to study GCSEs or vocational courses have been told that places are available at bargain rates for senior citizens and the unemployed and that they are free for children over 16 who meet the entry requirements, but that a charge of £1,800 per subject is made for home-educated children under 16. However, some parents, who were nevertheless ready and willing to pay that £1,800 per subject, have been told that a college can accept only LEA money for children under 16.
As for many things in today's world, a postcode lottery is in operation; parents in some areas find it easier to get places and funding for colleges courses, while others find it impossible. It is rarely possible to obtain LEA funding for home-educated children, and LEAs often state that they receive no funding for those children whose parents have chosen to home educate. The funding guidance for further education is not so sure, however, stating that LEAs receive funding for children educated otherwise. Perhaps there is some confusion between children educated electively by their parents and children educated otherwise by the LEA. It would be good to know.
The same document explains that the Learning and Skills Council may, in rare cases, provide funding for courses for learners of compulsory school age—there is that phrase again—but the guidance goes on to say that
"the Secretary of State would expect the Council to exercise its power… only in exceptional circumstances"

63WH
and that the figures
"do not allow for any general expansion in the number of learners under 16."
That seems odd. It is almost as though our education system prefers home-educated children to slow down or give up on studying before reaching the magical age of 16, even if they are ready and willing to apply themselves to obtaining qualifications. Some families thus find that a college will say that no places are available to home-educated children under 16, while maintaining blocks of places for allocation to young people who have been permanently excluded for serious misbehaviour. It is odd that kicking one's headmaster might gain one a free college place at 14, but studying hard at home for 10 years does not, and it is strange that a Government who, rightly, promote the value of, and access to, lifelong learning, and put considerable resources into keeping young people in learning should deny such things to a community that values education so highly.
I know that home educators do not ask for special consideration; they are certainly not asking for large resources to be assigned to counting and controlling. The Fraser Institute report for Canada and the United States, where it was possible to contrast results in strictly regulated states with those in unregulated ones, concluded that spending money on regulation made no difference to the level of achievement of home-educated children; they performed at the 85th centile, compared with the 50th centile for schooled children.
All that home educators want is for the Government to acknowledge that the law makes education, not school, compulsory; for accurate information about home education to be given freely to all parents; and for access to GCSEs and facilities in colleges to be available to home-educated children as they are to others in our country.
We are in a new millennium; the information age is upon us. Lifelong learning is not just a possibility but an essential tool for survival in a society in which frequent job changes will be the norm. Home educators are leading the way, preparing their children for a future in which learning is a continuing part of their lives. Home education is not for everyone; the mainstream education system is there for all. However, I should like the result of this debate to be that the issues have been aired, the Minister has heard them and home educators are able to compete on an even playing field.
4.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on having secured the debate. It is a good opportunity to shine a light on an issue that does not receive enough attention and to demonstrate—
4.17pm
Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.
4.37 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Lewis: I was congratulating the hon. Member for Uxbridge on securing a debate on such an important
64WH
issue; we need to focus more on the issue than we have done in the past. I shall try to respond to his points constructively. If he wishes to ask further questions, I shall be happy to answer those later.
The basic position on home education in England can be summarised in a phrase; education is compulsory, schooling is not. That links into the hon. Gentleman's comments about the leaflet. When we realised that the wording could cause confusion, we clarified the matter and reprinted the leaflet. However, some old copies might still be in circulation.
As the Minister responsible for behaviour and discipline in schools, I would not want any attempt to be made to undermine the message on truancy. It is a serious problem; too many parents actively collude and are involved in their children's truancy. The Government make no apology for being determined to stamp down on that. Truancy contributes to educational underperformance and has a direct bearing on street crime. I hope that there is a political consensus on the fact that truancy is bad; it undermines our objectives for education.
Mr. Randall: Of course there is consensus. The problem is that the home educators whom I have met would be the last people to be considered irresponsible. They find the way in which they are included in the same breath as truancy rather upsetting.
Mr. Lewis: This is an opportunity to clarify a simple point. Children who are enrolled on a school register are expected to be there unless they have authorised absence. If they are not there, that is truancy and we expect parents to co-operate with the system on that. Clearly, if the child is being educated at home according to the law—properly and in accordance with the basic standards—that is perfectly lawful. We do not see that as truancy and there is no ambiguity or confusion about that. I am sorry if parents sometimes feel that the language is a little unclear, and we shall endeavour to do whatever we can to clarify it and put an end to any ambiguities in that regard.
It is the state's responsibility to provide for the education of children in schools. As an Education Minister, it is my belief that, for most pupils in most circumstances, school is the right place in which to receive an education. However, it is a fundamental right for parents to be free to educate their child at home if they so wish. As the hon. Gentleman has said, parents chose to home educate for various reasons. They might include religious, cultural or philosophical beliefs or the parents might simply take the view that home education works best for their children. Most of those children have never attended schools, so are never registered with the LEAs because there is no requirement for them to be. The hon. Gentleman made that point.
We accept that sometimes a decision to home educate might be prompted by particular circumstances or problems that arise during the course of a young person's school experience. A child might develop medical problems, or become school-phobic, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I acknowledge that, in some cases, issues such as distance, access to local schools, dissatisfaction with the general education system or with an individual establishment, or bullying may be factors

65WH
that lead a parent to choose home education. In all such circumstances, that should be a source of regret and a message to people at local and national level to take action. We do not want the school system to be such that a parent feels that they have no alternative but to remove their child from it. In the end, that represents a serious failure of the system.
This Government are doing a variety of things to address such concerns. We are providing learning mentors to help young people remove barriers to learning, and Connexions personal advisers to advise and guide young people and maintain their engagement. The new behaviour and education support teams bring together a wider range of child specialists to help children and families deal with problems. Our reform of the secondary curriculum, which seeks to introduce a more individualised learning experience for young people, is also important. The new modernised teaching profession that has been created is better engaged to manage behaviour and has more time to teach and to provide children and young people with the support and help that they need.
We recognise the need to reform the education system to minimise the number of children for whom being in a school environment is a negative experience. We recognise, too, that a whole variety of factors can contribute to that, including making the curriculum more relevant, reforming the teaching profession, using external advisers and improving relationships between what is happening at school and at home. Through such means, we are determined to make school as positive and attractive as possible for young people and their parents. That is absolutely integral to our overall policy priority of reducing the number of young people who drop out of education at the age of 16 in this country. That is still a major problem and often happens because young people get turned off education far too early in their educational lives.
Turning to the legal situation, local authorities have a general responsibility to ensure that they make suitable provision for education in their area, although parents who educate at home are not required by law to be registered in any way, a point that the hon. Gentleman has made.
We welcome the fact—the hon. Gentleman should also welcome it—that local authorities can intervene if they have reason to believe that parents are not providing a suitable education. They also have the right to make reasonable inquiries to ensure that children withdrawn from school to be home educated are receiving what is deemed an appropriate education. It is right that they should continue to have that power.
Of course, local arrangements vary. Many local authorities contact home-educated pupils as soon as such pupils start to be educated at home and continue to contact them annually. LEAs do not have the legal right to enter a home or physically see a child, but it is the parent's responsibility to ensure that enough evidence is submitted to the LEA to satisfy it that the child is receiving a suitable education. Parents may choose to meet an LEA officer at home or at a neutral location; that is roughly the right balance between the rights and responsibilities of parents and the state.
LEAs may decide to contact home-educated children or their parents more regularly if they are not fully satisfied that the child is receiving a suitable education.
66WH
It is a question of balancing the right to freedom and individual choice with the state's responsibility and duty to ensure that an appropriate education is being secured. There are some circumstances in which an LEA may provide home tuition for pupils who cannot attend school because of, for example, sickness, exclusion, school phobia or teenage pregnancy. Education is provided through home tutors and e-learning. E-learning allows schooling to be available through virtual communities and can be established in homes or in groups in libraries. We know that some of those projects can lead to children attaining significant national vocational qualifications.
LEAs can pay directly for home tuition and the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the Department is providing some support for a project, notschool.net, that offers an IT-based education for disaffected children. The cost of the system amounts to £3,000 per year per pupil, which is broadly equivalent to the pupil cost in a mainstream school.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that LEAs have no legal duty to provide financial support for parents who home educate. Some LEAs provide free national curriculum materials or other forms of support to home-educating parents. That decision must continue to be made locally, so that any support fits with both the policies of individual LEAs and the needs of each child.
I will examine the hon. Gentleman's point about access by young people, particularly under-16s, to further education. The playing field should not be uneven and we should examine whether the system disadvantages young people who could benefit from placements in colleges in the further education system.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of numbers. Because not all home-educated children are registered with an LEA, we do not have firm figures on how many of them there are. However, some groups that work with parents of home educated-children have suggested that the number is between 50,000 and 100,000, and they claim that numbers are increasing.
Education provided at home must be efficient and appropriate to the age, ability and aptitude of the child. We accept and understand that parents adopt a wide variety of legitimate approaches. They have significant flexibility; for example, they are not required to teach the national curriculum or to have a timetable. Many parents who opt to home educate speak enthusiastically about the benefits that it provides. They cite the independence, the maturity and the keenness to learn that it can foster and the opportunity it provides for children to develop at a pace that suits them. As I said earlier, we respect their views. Other parents point to the high grades that some home-educated children achieve when they enter formal examinations. However, it is important to make this point; there has not been any independent and systematic evaluation at a national level of the overall quality of the education provided and the specific outcomes that it delivers for the children concerned.
My Department recognises and respects the right to choose to home educate. The circumstances of families and the needs of individual children will always vary and home education provides a route for parents to tailor and more directly to guide their children's learning, where they are particularly keen to do so. However, I am

67WH
sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the learning potential and the welfare of the child must remain paramount. Positive relationships and mutual respect between the local authorities and the parents concerned are the best way to secure that aim, which we actively seek to encourage through our guidance and contacts with local authorities and parents.
The Government believe that we must recognise the right to choose home education. For example, my Department provides general guidance on home education and parents' legal responsibilities on its
68WH
website. The guidance also provides links to other useful information, including the national curriculum and assessment arrangements, and enables access to websites created by home educators. There is no question about the Government being negative or trying to impede home educators, whose contribution we value.
The matter is sensitive and there are many differences of view, but the main thing is the best interest of children. We need to pay more attention to the contribution that home educators make.
It being nine minutes to Five o 'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

CABINET OFFICE

  Crown Copyright
  David Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the role of the Advisory Panel on Crown Copyright. [112593]

  Mr. Alexander
  As I announced on 14 April to the House through a written ministerial statement the role of the Advisory Panel on Crown Copyright is:To advise Ministers on how to create opportunities in the information industry for greater reuse of Government information;
  To advise Her Majesty's Stationery Office about changes in the information industry, so that the licensing of Crown copyright information is aligned with emerging developments; and
  To advise on the impact of complaints under the Information Fair Trader Scheme.

  I look forward to meeting its Chairman, Professor Richard Susskind, shortly.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Luke
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress is being made to increase the number of members of ethnic minorities who take up public appointments. [112594]

  Mr. Alexander
  Good progress is being made. "Public Bodies 2002" published on 31 January 2003, showed that members of ethnic minorities held 6.2 per cent. of public appointments, up from 4.8 per cent. in the previous year.

  Government Services (Disabled People)
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps have been taken towards making Government services accessible to the disabled. [112592]

  Mr. Alexander
  2003 is the European Year for Disabled People and the Government are committed to ensuring the delivery of accessible electronic information and electronic services to disabled users.

  The Government first issued "Guidelines for UK government websites", requiring all new or re-designed web-based services to be made accessible to the disabled, in December 1999. It is now a condition of registering a.gov.uk domain name that websites comply with these guidelines.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to increase the volume of freight carried on the rail network, with particular reference to changes in funding arrangements. [112577]

  Mr. Darling
  The Strategic Rail Authority published its "Freight Progress Report" on 8 May. A copy is in the Library.

  £54 million of Freight Facilities Grants have been awarded by the Strategic Rail Authority, matched by £31 million of private sector investment, which together keep over 4 million lorry journeys off the roads.

  The Strategic Rail Authority plans to reopen the Freight Facility and Track Access Grant schemes in the autumn for spend from April 2004, subject to available funding.

  A556
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what improvements he plans to make to the A556 link between the M6 and the M56. [112578]

  Mr. Spellar
  In his announcement on 1 April 2003, the Secretary of State for Transport was not convinced that the proposal for a new motorway in open countryside between M6 Junction 19 and M56 was acceptable. Instead, he has asked the Highways Agency to work with local stakeholders to identify smaller-scale measures to address congestion and safety on the A556. Consultation will take place this summer, with the full involvement of local stakeholders. The Highways Agency has a scheme at Bucklow Hill, which is expected to start in the next 12 months.

  Village Bypasses
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is on the provision of village bypasses. [112580]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Proposals for village bypasses are appraised against the Government's objectives for the environment, safety, economy, integration and accessibility, and decisions on particular bypasses are made on a case-by-case basis.

  Rail Services (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on rail services to and from Gloucestershire. [112581]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In order to improve reliability and performance on the Virgin Crosscountry network, the Strategic Rail Authority has decided that most Virgin Crosscountry trains should no longer serve Gloucester station from the beginning of the summer 2003 timetable on 18 May. Instead, new services operated by Central trains and Wessex trains will provide a more reliable service to a range of destinations including Cardiff, Cheltenham, Worcester and Birmingham, from where onward connections can be made.

  Detrunking (Lancashire)
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the detrunking of roads in Lancashire. [112582]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency is planning to detrunk the A59, A565, A65, A646 and A679 in Lancashire on 1 July. They are working with the local highway authority and any objectors to resolve any outstanding issues.

  Ticketing
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to facilitate joint ticketing between public transport companies. [112583]

  Mr. Spellar
  Operators may agree ticketing schemes falling within the block exemption from the Competition Act 1998. Local authorities have statutory powers to make ticketing schemes for buses, with or without tram or rail connections.

  My Department has encouraged the Journey Solutions organisation to deliver a simple add-on bus option to rail tickets called PlusBus.

  Gourock Station
  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the Chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority regarding the actions of Network Rail in relation to the redevelopment of Gourock station. [112584]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has recently spoken to the Chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, met representatives from both Network Rail and Inverclyde council, and has written to the Chairman of Network Rail about the company's participation in the Gourock Interchange Project.

  Totnes Castle
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with Network Rail about the proposed construction of a telecommunications mast in front of Totnes Castle. [112585]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None. I am advised that Network Rail has an on-going dialogue with South Hams local district council regarding the location of the GSM-R mast in Totnes.

  Airports (Transport Links)
  Paul Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to improve public ground transport links to airports. [112586]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have looked closely at possible improvements to public transport links, as part of our studies of airports and air services across the UK, on which we are presently consulting. We will set out our conclusions in the air transport White Paper. Airports are also working with the relevant parties to improve public transport links, in accordance with the policies set out in the 1998 "New Deal for Transport" White Paper.

  Alconbury Airfield
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for a further public display of proposals for the construction of an airfield at Alconbury, held at a venue close to the airport site. [112640]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are no plans for further public exhibitions on the options presented in "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East" (second edition).

  Public exhibitions providing information about the published consultation options were held last year, This included an exhibition on 3 October at the Huntingdon Marriott Hotel concerning the option for the small-scale airport development at Alconbury airfield.

  On 27 February 2003 the Government published a revised South East consultation document, including runway options for Gatwick airport, A public exhibition about these new options was held recently with a further day planned for later this month,

  Cycling
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to(a) develop and (b) promote cycling as an element of multi-modal transport planning (i) in England, (ii) regionally and (iii) in Teesside. [112716]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Our National Cycling Strategy (NCS) aims to quadruple the number of journeys made by bike (based on 1996 figures) by 2012. We have established the NCS Board for England to take this forward. The Board combines expertise on transport engineering, marketing, local government and research. It has established a team of regional champions—the English Regions Cycling Development Team—to work with local authorities to promote and monitor cycling and deliver an improvement in conditions for cyclists.

  At local level, provision and improvement of facilities for cyclists are largely funded through Local Transport Plan funds, All authorities have developed a local cycling strategy as part of these plans. This must identify gaps in the local infrastructure and potential improvements to the cycling network. In the 2003–04, Tees Valley authorities plan to spend over £1 million on cycling schemes.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he has entertained Labour hon. Members at public expense in the last 12 months; and at what cost. [106391]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his Department's(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. [107177]
  137W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The contribution by the Department for Transport to Total Managed Expenditure can be measured by the total of spending under resource and capital budgets, less non-cash items in Annually Managed Expenditure, Data for 1998–99 to 2001–02 were published in the 2002 Departmental Report (Cm 5405), New estimates will be published in the same table in the 2003 Departmental Report, in May 2003.

  Estimates of spending on Information Technology (IT) are not held centrally, and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Rail Accidents
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents have occurred on the Stratford to Birmingham railway line between Earlswood and Tyseley since 1980. [112167]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) advise that, since their records began in December 1990, there have been a total of 108 incidents on the railway (including stations) between Earlswood and Tyseley that are reportable to the HSE under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1995. The incidents recorded range from slip and trip injuries to employees to more serious route crime incidents such as missile strikes to train cabs.

  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents on the Stratford to Birmingham railway line between Earlswood and Tyseley since 1980 were caused by leaves on the line. [112168]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) advise that, since their records began in December 1990, there have been no accidents caused by `leaves on the line' incidents reportable under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995. However, there were two incidents on 24 August 1996 and 3 January 1998 where trains have struck trees that have fallen on to the line near Earlswood station,

  Railway Complaints
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many complaints were received from members of the public regarding each rail operating company in each of the last five years. [112185]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Data on the number of complaints received by each train operator is published in the Strategic Rail Authority's On Track publication, copies of which are placed in the Library of the House. The information first appeared in the issue published on 29 June 2001 which provided data back to 1999–2000.

  Rosyth
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 19 March,Official Report, column 759W, on Rosyth, what estimate he has made of the likely change in long distance lorry movements through Tyneside which will result from the new RO-RO facilities at Rosyth. [113056]
  138W
  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department's grant award to Forth Ports Pic, Rosyth was predicated on the substantial environmental benefits which will arise through the savings of over 400,000 long distance lorry journeys between Scotland and the ports of Dover, Hull and Teesport over the next 10 years, No specific estimate was made of the number of lorries that would pass through the Port of Tyne,

  Of the 400,000 lorry journeys, 100,000 would have originated in Aberdeenshire, Angus, Fife, or Borders and thus passed through Tyneside on the way south.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has set the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority a target for response times to letters from(a) hon. Members and (b) the general public; and if he will make a statement. [112973]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State has not set such targets for the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA). However, the SRA aims to answer all correspondence from hon. Members within 15 working days of receipt, and to answer correspondence from members of the public within 20 days of receipt.

  Toll Roads
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of the introduction of toll roads on poorer communities and social exclusion; and if he will make a statement. [112715]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The M6 Toll is the only planned toll road. Midland Expressway Ltd. (MEC) was given a concession for the road in 1992. No assessment was carried out of the impact on poorer communities and social exclusion of tolls being levied on this road, as there is a free alternative to this road.

  Traffic Calming
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent changes he has made to regulations affecting the height of road humps and other traffic calming measures; and if he will make a statement. [113264]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The most recent regulations containing details on road humps and other traffic calming measures are "The Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1999" and "The Highways (Traffic Calming) Regulations 1999". Copies of these regulations are available from The Stationery Office. We have no current plans to alter these regulations.

PRIME MINISTER

  Chagos Islands
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what reply he has sent to the petitioners from the Chagos Islands who delivered a petition to 10 Downing street on Friday 2 May; and if he will publish his reply. [113238]
  139W
  The Prime Minister
  I have asked my right hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) to reply on my behalf.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister what guidance is given to civil servants in his office on the sharing of opinions with politicians not in the Government formed in the course of their professional activities about hon. Members. [112895]

  The Prime Minister
  Contacts between civil servants and politicians not in the Government are conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Service Code, the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers and the Directory of Civil Service Guidance.

  Iraq
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister whether British interrogators have obtained independent access to captured senior officials of the Saddam Hussein regime in the search for weapons of mass destruction. [113012]

  The Prime Minister
  UK and US personnel are conducting a co-ordinated series of interviews with senior officials of the Saddam Hussein regime.

  Ministers' Partners (Government Employment)
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Prime Minister, how many(a) husbands, (b) wives and (c) partners of Government Ministers are in paid Government employment as (i) civil servants and (ii) advisers; and if he will list them. [112561]

  The Prime Minister
  All appointments are made, as appropriate, in accordance with the requirements of the Ministerial Code, the Civil Service Code, the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers and t he Code of Practice on Public Appointments. Detailed information in the form requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Prime Minister how many meetings he has had with representatives of the Irish Republic's Government about the situation in Northern Ireland this year. [112902]

  The Prime Minister
  This year I have met the Taoiseach on the following occasions:

  Date

  Location

  23 January

  No. 10

  12 February

  Hillsborough

  27 February

  No. 10

  3–4 March

  Hillsborough

  8 April

  Hillsborough

  10 April

  No. 10

  16 April

  EU Council, Brussels

  6 May

  Dublin

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Animal By-products
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the impact of the Animal By-Products Regulation on(a) small abattoirs and slaughterhouses and (b) planning applications for small and medium-sized abattoirs and slaughterhouses since October 2002. [111117]

  Mr. Morley
  A partial Regulatory Impact Assessment on the Animal By-Products Regulation is in the Library of the House, as part of the consultation on the enforcing regulations dated 27 January 2003. The Department has issued guidance to abattoirs, suggesting simple, low-cost ways of complying with the new requirements for disposal of blood. Planning applications may not be required in all cases. We have no information on the impact that the Regulation has had on the number of planning applications from small and medium sized abattoirs since October 2002.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made of the provisions relating to the separation of buildings in the Animal By-Products Regulation in relation to small abattoirs and slaughterhouses. [111118]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK has secured a modification to Annex V of the Regulation to allow fat-rendering plants to be linked to abattoirs, providing they are operated separately and only process animal by-products originating on the premises.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what regulations will be in force regarding the burial of horses on racecourses and studs following the introduction of the EU Animal By-products Regulation; and what information has been given to horse owners and trainers. [111350]

  Mr. Morley
  New EU legislation, the Animal By-Products Regulation, applied in Member States from I May. Amongst other things the Regulation banned the routine on-farm burial and open burning of animal carcases.

  Horses from racecourses and stud farms will have to be disposed of in accordance with the Regulation. Burial or open burning is not permitted. Currently the permitted disposal routes for fallen stock include rendering, incineration, or sending the carcases to approved knackers yards, hunt kennels or maggot farms.

  No specific advice has been provided to horse owners and trainers, but information on the disposal of animal carcases is available on the Defra website, at http:// www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bv-prods/default.htm., and from local Defra Animal Health Offices.

  Catering Policy
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to encourage catering sections of each
  141W
  Department to source and serve food which is (a) produced in Britain, (b) organic and (c) Fair Trade. [111156]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra has published guidance for public sector bodies that covers issues such as removing obstacles to tendering by local and UK producers and the purchase of organic and fair trade produce. It can be seen on our web site at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/ sustain/procurement/index.htm. We are also taking a number of other steps to integrate sustainable development into the public procurement of food and catering services. These include seminars to raise awareness, bilateral meeting at Ministerial and senior management level (including with representatives of local government) and the production of case studies. The guidance takes account of the Government's policy of achieving value for money and its commitment under the EC rules to ensure that public procurement is fair, transparent and non-discriminatory.

  Conservation Areas
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects(a) Wedholme Flow, (b) Bolton Fell Moss and (c) Solway Moss to be designated as special areas of conservation in accordance with the recommendations of English Nature. [112032]

  Mr. Morley
  Following English Nature's recommendations in June 2002, issues concerning boundary alignment and compensation payments have arisen. English Nature is working with stakeholders to resolve these questions. Until these matters have been resolved it is not possible to say when the sites will be designated as Special Areas of Conservation.

  Countryside and Rights of Way Act
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects

  Regulation

  Section

  Consultation commenced (not later than)

  Date regulations in force (not later than)

  Regulations regarding mapping of access land and consultation on draft maps

  Section 11

  March 2001 [ended June 2001]

  1 November 2001

  Regulations regarding issue of provisional maps, appeals, and issue of conclusive maps

  Section 11

  November 2001 [ended 8 Feb 2002]

  29 July 2002

  Regulations regarding the establishment of LAFs and the appointment of members

  Section 94 (Part V)

  July 2001 [ended October 2001]

  7 August 2002

  Regulations on correcting minor errors and omissions in provisional and conclusive maps

  Section 11(2)(1)

  October 2002 [ended 7 November 2002]

  June 2003

  Regulations regarding dedication of land for access

  Section 16

  January 2002 [ended 15 April 2002]

  June 2003

  Regulations relating to exclusion or restriction of access under Chapter II, including appeals (but not emergencies)

  Section 32

  December 2001 [ended 22 March 2002]

  June 2003

  Regulations on removal or relaxation of restrictions on access land and to exclude access in emergencies (including appeals)

  Paragraph 7, Schedule 2; Section 31

  June 2003

  December 2003

  Regulations on appeals relating to notices

  Section 38

  June 2003

  December 2003

  Regulations on references to public places in existing enactments

  Section 42

  June 2003

  December 2003

  Regulations regarding review of conclusive maps

  Section 11

  February 2004

  August 2004

  EU Tobacco
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the recipients of exported EU tobacco by(a) country and (b) grade; what quantities are involved; what
  142W
  the new rights of access under Part I of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to commence in the upper north west region. [112530]

  Alun Michael
  I announced in November last year that the new right for the public to walk on mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land will be rolled out on a region by region basis. This will give walkers the right to walk in open countryside and on registered common land as early as possible, rather than having to wait for the mapping process to be completed for the whole country. I intend to open the upper and lower north west regions in the autumn of 2004.

  This is a demanding timetable as we will need to have in place not only the conclusive maps for those regions but also all necessary restrictions and exclusions. Guidance and codes of practice will also need to be available to walkers and landowners. These mechanisms are necessary under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (The CROW Act) and it is important for them to be in force in each region before access land is made available to the public so that the interests of both land managers and walkers are safeguarded. We expect to meet the target of having all access land open by the end of 2005.

  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 16 January,Official Report, column 735W, if she will set out the timetable for the implementation of regulations under Part I of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. [112801]

  Alun Michael
  The table below records the progress we have already mace towards bringing regulations into force and our timetable for completing the process. As I explained in my answer of 16 January, the precise timing may vary but we are firmly committed to ensuring the necessary regulations are made to allow the new right of public access under the Act to be rolled out as planned.

  quantity of each grade is destroyed by the Communities; what the cost in 2003 is of (i) subsidy and (ii) destruction, broken down by grade; which countries are recipients of production subsidy; and if she will make a statement. [111076]
  143W
  Mr. Morley
  Exports of tobacco in 2001, the latest full year available, were as shown in the table.

  There is no provision under the EU regime for tobacco to be destroyed.

  The cost of production subsidies in 2002 was 970 million euros (£610 million at 2002 exchange rates1). The budget provision for 2003 is £956 million euros (£623 million2).

  EU exports to world of tobacco, 2001 (latest full year)

  Units=tons

  Unmanufactured tobacco; tobacco refuse— CN Code 2401

  Tobacco, not stemmed/ stripped— CN Code 240110

  Tobacco, partly of wholly stemmed/stripped— CN Code 240120

  Tobacco refuse— CN Code 240130

  World

  388,238

  124,219

  78,674

  56,577

  of which:

  France

  21,694

  2,050

  1,510

  15,778

  Netherlands

  40,016

  11,957

  10,453

  3,338

  Germany

  41,557

  7,666

  10,909

  5,311

  Italy

  11,290

  6,426

  1,444

  407

  United Kingdom

  17,376

  2,055

  8,234

  2,598

  Ireland

  7,856

  833

  4,168

  1,578

  Denmark

  782

  368

  100

  1

  Greece

  9,876

  1,446

  607

  1,706

  Portugal

  2,958

  403

  658

  599

  Spain

  3,911

  208

  631

  553

  Belgium

  19,279

  4,719

  4,287

  2,959

  Luxembourg

  8,404

  7,821

  26

  45

  Norway

  957

  152

  100

  253

  Sweden

  252

  181

  14

  0

  Finland

  102

  67

  0

  8

  Austria

  7,084

  1,132

  3,603

  1,237

  Switzerland

  7,178

  1,913

  934

  183

  Andorra

  138

  0

  9

  0

  Gibraltar

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Malta

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Turkey

  4,266

  14

  744

  904

  Latvia

  1,329

  180

  159

  329

  Lithuania

  416

  197

  219

  0

  Poland

  5,113

  1,840

  816

  187

  Czech Rep.

  903

  273

  253

  146

  Slovakia

  664

  162

  106

  182

  Hungary

  2,556

  667

  1,392

  83

  Romania

  6,290

  1095

  955

  1,093

  Bulagaria

  1,251

  128

  0

  747

  Albania

  121

  121

  0

  0

  Ukraine

  7,332

  1,443

  1,001

  556

  Belarus

  1,054

  670

  159

  149

  Moldova

  773

  392

  119

  0

  Russia

  36,630

  13,923

  6,485

  6,589

  Georgia

  339

  185

  79

  0

  Armenia

  227

  187

  0

  0

  Azerbaijan

  4,509

  806

  2,181

  13

  Kasakhstan

  1,149

  68

  170

  300

  Uzbekistan

  279

  18

  0

  87

  Kyrghistan

  132

  0

  0

  131

  Slovenia

  1,544

  39

  912

  57

  Croatia

  149

  0

  0

  0

  Bosnia-Herz.

  199

  0

  152

  0

  Serb. Monten.

  3,143

  559

  1,365

  723

  For. JRep. Mac.

  1,393

  428

  572

  316

  Morocco

  648

  648

  0

  0

  Algeria

  7,610

  5,160

  1,000

  0

  Tunisia

  4,924

  2,501

  20

  239

  Libyan Arab Jamahir

  363

  0

  213

  0

  Egypt

  17,918

  10,050

  1,107

  335

  Mauritania

  636

  629

  0

  7

  Mali

  38

  38

  0

  0

  Burkina Faso

  349

  0

  18

  0

  Senegal

  788

  91

  0

  13

  Guinea

  19

  0

  0

  0

  Ivory Coast

  3,617

  51

  37

  118

  144W
  The countries in which tobacco subsidies are paid are Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain.

  This Government are opposed to the payment of production subsidies for tobacco and seeks their elimination as part of the continuing reform of the common agricultural policy.

  1Based on the average for 2002: 0.628685 euro to the GB pound.

  2Based on 2 January 2003 exchange rate of 0.652000 euro to the GB pound.
  145W

  EU exports to world of tobacco, 2001 (latest full year)

  Units=tons

  Unmanufactured tobacco; tobacco refuse— CN Code 2401

  Tobacco, not stemmed/ stripped— CN Code 240110

  Tobacco, partly of wholly stemmed/stripped— CN Code 240120

  Tobacco refuse— CN Code 240130

  Ghana

  21

  0

  21

  0

  Gabon

  20

  20

  0

  0

  Rwanda

  137

  0

  137

  0

  Ethiopia

  100

  0

  100

  0

  Kenya

  22

  0

  18

  4

  Tanzania

  13

  0

  13

  0

  Madagascar

  237

  26

  0

  0

  Zimbabwe

  17

  16

  1

  0

  South Africa

  1,322

  74

  1,047

  3

  USA

  20,775

  10,788

  2,184

  2,926

  Canada

  346

  185

  159

  0

  Mexico

  1,354

  673

  0

  384

  Honduras

  48

  48

  0

  0

  Cuba

  21

  21

  0

  0

  Haiti

  40

  0

  0

  0

  Dominican R.

  427

  176

  139

  0

  Jamaica

  79

  0

  0

  0

  Trinidad, Tob.

  492

  157

  0

  0

  Colombia

  2,129

  95

  40

  356

  Venezuela

  2,009

  30

  0

  1,979

  Ecuador

  15

  15

  0

  0

  Brazil

  951

  868

  0

  83

  Chile

  175

  127

  32

  0

  Bolivia

  30

  0

  0

  0

  Paraguay

  539

  281

  0

  0

  Uruguay

  3,495

  3,413

  0

  0

  Argentina

  361

  342

  0

  0

  Cyprus

  10

  10

  0

  0

  Lebanon

  455

  0

  257

  0

  Iran

  59

  0

  0

  0

  Israel

  978

  374

  300

  0

  Jordan

  147

  147

  0

  0

  Saudi Arabia

  30

  8

  22

  0

  U.A. Emirates

  25

  0

  0

  25

  Pakistan

  1

  0

  0

  0

  India

  71

  49

  18

  4

  Bangladesh

  842

  352

  370

  120

  Sri Lanka

  166

  131

  32

  3

  Vietnam

  149

  1

  6

  0

  Cambodia

  271

  0

  271

  0

  Indonesia

  3,911

  3,412

  494

  3

  Malaysia

  611

  298

  218

  95

  Singapore

  2,994

  23

  2,056

  156

  Philippines

  566

  67

  0

  0

  North Korea

  208

  208

  0

  0

  South Korea

  4,419

  4,419

  0

  0

  Japan

  7,877

  4,081

  2,296

  35

  Taiwan

  366

  364

  0

  0

  Hong Kong

  1,980

  565

  366

  538

  Macao

  16

  16

  0

  0

  Australia

  444

  367

  77

  0

  New Zealand

  10

  10

  0

  0

  Source:

  Comest, Eurostat—disk no. 12/2002. Extracted: 30 April 2003.

  Fallen Stock
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to respond to proposals from farmers' representatives regarding the use of animal carcases in relation to carrion; and if she will make a statement. [107126]

  Mr. Morley
  A derogation to permit the feeding of fallen stock to necrophagous birds is available to Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal and France as part of approved conservation measures for vultures. This derogation is not available in the UK.
  146W
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement about the use of fallen stock in upland and moorland areas being used as food for carrion. [107696]

  Mr. Morley
  A derogation to permit the feeding of fallen stock to necrophagous birds is available to Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal and France as part of approved conservation measures for vultures. This derogation is not available in the UK.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a
  147W
  statement on the implementation or the EU fallen stock regulations in Buckinghamshire. [110320]

  Mr. Morley
  The EU animal by- products regulation which includes a ban on burial of fallen stock applies throughout the EU from 1 May 2003. Defra has sent a letter to all livestock farmers in England asking for expressions of interest in joining a national fallen stock collection and disposal scheme although it is not an essential requirement. We very much hope that farmers in Buckinghamshire will respond positively to this letter.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects the independent study into the environment and health implications of the foot and mouth disease burial site at Throckmorton to be published; and what arrangements will be made to ensure that elected representatives for the area receive a copy of the report at the time of its publication. [112666]

  Mr. Morley
  The report by consultants DNV has been published this morning and is available at the Defra website: http://www.defra.gov.uk/footandmouth/regions/wmidlands/wmidlands.htm. I have placed copies of the report in the Library. I understand that DNV has written to local elected representatives to inform them of the outcome.

  Fishmeal
  Mrs. Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what weight of wild fish is required to provide fishmeal for the production of one kilogram of farmed fish; and what assessment she has made of the long-term implications for wild fish stocks. [112417]

  Mr. Morley
  We do not hold information on the weight of wild fish used in fishmeal for feeding to farmed fish in the UK. The quantity involved will vary depending on the proportion of the fishmeal used in the different grades of dry fish feed produced for the species of farmed fish concerned and their stages of growth. However carnivorous aquaculture species are unlikely to consume more natural marine resources through feed than their wild counterparts would consume in the natural environment.

  The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) makes annual assessments of the main commercial fish stocks around Britain, including those used to produce fish meal such as sandeels, Norway pout and blue whiting, and provides advice on their management. The total abundance of sandeel or Norway pout in the North Sea varies considerably for natural reasons, but the ICES assessments show that they are currently stable. ICES does not consider that the sandeel and pout fisheries are affecting the availability of food for other wild fish at the stock level, but studies are in progress to investigate whether problems are likely to occur more locally. As regards blue whiting, ICES has stated that these stocks are outside safe biological limits and that catches should be
  148W
  limited to 600,000 tonnes in 2003. Although there is no internationally agreed Total Allowable Catch (TAC), the EU has set a TAC of 345,000 tonnes for Community waters in order to help manage the fishery.

  Food and Drinks Industries
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what support her Department is giving to the British food and drinks industries to help them to promote British brands. [110747]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra promotes the export of British brands of food through sponsorship of and grant in aid to Food from Britain, which also assists with the marketing of regional speciality foods. As part of the Strategy on Sustainable Farming and Food, we have introduced a new structure and an additional £3 million over three years for regional food initiatives both in this country and overseas.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what security guidelines her Department has issued in the last year to food(a) producers, (b) processors and (c) providers regarding potential terrorist action. [105073]

  Mr. Morley
  The Food Chain Emergency Liaison Group, which we have set up with the industry and which meets regularly, provides a forum for sharing of advice on security issues. We are also in regular contact with representatives of all parts of the food chain and pass on security information of relevance to them.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to advise people entering Britain of the illegality of importing meat; and if she will make a statement. [111279]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 May 2003]: Information is displayed at ports of entry to the UK as well as at some foreign airports, and disseminated through many of our diplomatic posts abroad. In addition we have produced two videos and a radio filler. The videos are being broadcast on television and we continue to work with airlines to get our message across in-flight. An increasing number of airlines are now making in-flight announcements on the personal import rules. Our message on meat imports is currently advertised on seven million ticket wallets for long-haul destinations.

  Defra has recently produced a new leaflet setting out in detail the up-to-date rules on personal imports. This leaflet is being distributed via HM Customs, who have taken over responsibility for enforcement at the border, and for publicity at our ports and airports, at overseas destinations and in transit to the UK. Defra will retain responsibility for raising awareness within Britain of the fact that there are rules on the import of animal and plant products, the reasons for them and the penalties for breaking them, for example by attending appropriate shows and events.

  LPG
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the environmental effects of liquid petroleum gas fuel in comparison with other fuels. [112719]

  Alun Michael
  An assessment of the environmental performance of various alternative fuels was carried out by the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force in 2000. A copy of their report is available via the DfT website, at www.dft.gov.uk. Copies are also available through the House of Commons Library. The research showed that road fuel gases can have environmental benefits over conventional fuels, particularly for air quality and noise, although progress with conventional engine and fuel technologies is reducing this advantage.

  As announced in Budget 2003, the Government plans to consult key stakeholders on how best to ensure that future support for LPG and other road fuel gases continues to reflect environmental and other policy objectives.

  Rural Transport Development Fund

  Rural Transport Partnership1

  Parish Transport Grant

  Rural Bus Challenge2

  Year

  Number

  Funding (£m)

  Number

  Funding (£m)

  Number

  Funding

  Number

  Funding (£m)

  1998–99

  N/A

  1.6

  N/A

  4.2

  —

  —

  46

  11.2

  1999–2000

  N/A

  1.6

  N/A

  4.2

  —

  —

  58

  16.8

  2000–01

  N/A

  1.6

  N/A

  4.2

  —

  —

  51

  21.2

  2001–02

  —

  —

  278

  8.0

  40

  2.0

  58

  20.5

  2002–03

  —

  —

  350

  12.0

  116

  5.0

  46

  20.2

  2003–04

  —

  —

  3350

  312.0

  3200

  38.0

  4

  4

  2004–05

  —

  —

  3350

  312.0

  3300

  37.0

  4

  4

  1Prior to 2001–02 this was called the Rural Transport Partnership Scheme

  2The Rural Bus Challenge is an annual competition and the level of funding refers to the total award granted to successful bids.

  3Budget and project targets in the Countryside Agency Business Plan.

  4DfT will administer a further round of the Challenge fund later this year.

  DfT has also funded improved transport services in rural areas through the Rural Bus Subsidy Grant, and the 2003 Budget Statement announced the continuation of this grant to 2005–06. Local transport authorities can also use their own revenue resources and Local Transport Plan capital allocations for rural transport projects. Data on projects supported through these mechanisms is not centrally held.

  Mr. Anthony Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the sources of funding available for rural transport schemes. [112823]

  Alun Michael
  Funding for rural transport schemes is available through the Department for Transport's Local Transport Plan process, Rural Bus Subsidy Grant and Rural Bus Challenge scheme, as well as the Countryside Agency's Rural Transport Partnership and Parish Transport Grant schemes. Local transport authorities can also use their own revenue resources for rural transport projects.

  Water Companies
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to encourage(a) greater competition between water supply companies, (b) customer choice between water supply companies and (c) a choice of tariffs for customers; and if she will make a statement. [113123]

  Rural Transport Schemes
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many rural transport schemes have been funded by the Government in each of the last five years, with the amounts given; and how many have been earmarked funding for the next two financial years, with the amounts given. [112822]

  Alun Michael
  Since 1998–99 the Countryside Agency has administered four rural transport schemes. In 2001–02 the Parish Transport Grant was launched and the Rural Transport Development Fund was amalgamated with the Rural Transport Partnership Scheme to form the Rural Transport Partnership. It would involve disproportionate cost to provide the number of projects funded under the Rural Transport Development Fund and the Rural Transport Partnership Scheme from 1998–99 to 2001–02. Since 2001, the Countryside Agency has been part of DEFRA's responsibilities while the Department for Transport funds rural bus projects through the Rural Bus Challenge and figures for this are also shown in the following table.

  Mr. Morley
  The Government consulted in July 2002 on its proposals to extend opportunities for competition in the water industry in England and Wales. In the light of comments received, proposals were included in the Water Bill, now before Parliament.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Bullying
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners if he will make a statement on measures to combat bullying in the Church. [112597]

  Mr. Bell
  A number of Church of England dioceses have produced their own guidelines for clergy on bullying and harassment and the Convocations of Canterbury and York will publish guidelines on professional conduct later this year.

  In addition, the National Church Institutions are committed to an equal opportunities policy containing a formal investigations and complaints procedure. The institutions require every member of their staff to attend an equal opportunities course, and harassment advisers are available to provide independent support and advocacy to anyone making a complaint.

DEFENCE

  Iraq
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the terms of reference are of the Committee appointed by Major General Robin Brims to run Basra; how many people have been appointed; how many of these are women; and if he will list their names. [109214]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 14 April 2003]: United Kingdom Forces under the command of the General Officer Commanding 1st (UK) Armoured Division, are establishing interim consultative groups across the provinces of Basra and Maysan. These groups have no formal terms of reference. Their purpose is to help restore public administration and services. The number of appointees is increasing as the groups are established. Membership of the groups is open, to date there are no women representatives but we are actively seeking their participation. Because the status of the groups has yet to be formalised, I do not intend to list the names of their members, who may in any event not wish their involvement to be publicised.

  Mr Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what latest estimate he has had of the death toll from current hostilities in Iraq amongst (a) UK forces (b) US forces (c) Iraqi forces (d) Iraqi civilians and (e) other civilian non-combatants. [110267]

  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his latest estimate is of the number of non-combatants killed in Iraq since 19 March. [111460]

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilians are estimated to have been killed in Iraq by British armed forces in the recent conflict. [112007]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 7 May 2003]: As of 6 May 2003, 34 United Kingdom Service personnel had died during coalition military operations against Iraq.

  The number of fatalities suffered by US forces is a matter for the US authorities.

  We make every effort to minimise any impact on the Iraqi civilian population. We have no means of ascertaining the numbers of Iraqi military personnel or civilians, or other civilians who were killed or injured during the coalition's military action.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the book value is of ordnance, ammunition and missiles used up in the course of the conduct of operations in Iraq; how such book cost is calculated; what categories of munitions were used; and to what extent supplies will need to be replenished. [112087]

  Mr. Ingram
  The cost for 2002–03 is being calculated. Once it has been audited and approved by the National Audit Office I will write to the hon Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House. I will also cover 2003–04 estimates.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many escort vessels(a) he expects will be
  152W
  needed to accompany each new aircraft carrier when it enters service and (b) are needed to accompany each existing aircraft carrier on deployment. [111313]

  Mr. Ingram
  The size and shape of any escort group supporting an aircraft carrier on deployment is dependent on the circumstances existing at the time. Various factors have to be considered, such as the nature and scale of a potential threat, the operating environment and whether the Task Group is deployed as part of a national or coalition force. We are introducing the modern and more capable Type 45 from 2007, fitted with the highly capable Principal Anti-Air Missile System (PAAMS), which will support the existing and future aircraft carriers.

  Anti-nuclear Protests
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost was to his Department of additional security at the Faslane base caused by anti-nuclear protests in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [112258]

  Mr. Ingram
  Additional security costs incurred by the Ministry of Defence as a result of anti-nuclear demonstrations at Faslane, which includes Her Majesty's Naval Base at Clyde and the Royal Naval Armaments Depot at Coulport are:

  2001–02: £311,000

  2002–03: £169,000

  The costs include the provision of additional MOD Police resources, overtime incurred by the existing MOD Guard Service and repairs to damaged MOD property.

  Armed Forces Accommodation
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what his Department's disposal targets are for married quarters estate stock in each of the next five years; [112886]

  (2) what his Department's targets are for reducing the void rate levels in the married quarters estate; and if he will make a statement; [112888]

  (3) how many of his Department's married quarters were empty at 31 March 2003. [112890]

  Dr. Moonie
  8,161 Service family properties in Great Britain were empty at 31 March 2003. The relevant targets set for the Defence Housing Executive (DHE) are expressed not in terms of numbers of houses for disposal but as the progressive reduction of void rates in order to achieve, by 2005, a management margin of 10 per cent. (The management margin is the proportion of working stock vacant).

  Some 12,000 properties have been passed by DHE for disposal since January 2000. Further disposals will be set in hand this year, but the Services have requested DHE hold back from disposal about another 2,000 vacant properties which may or may not be needed in future, depending on the resolution of Service deployment uncertainties.
  153W
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many new build units in the married quarters estate are planned by his Department in each of the next three years; and how many houses this will replace from the existing married quarters estate. [112887]

  Dr. Moonie
  The numbers of new build service family houses planned in Great Britain for the next three years, through both capital projects and Private Finance Initiative are as follows:

  Year

  2003–04

  415

  2004–05

  476

  2005–06

  315

  Total

  1,206

  It is difficult to specify how many existing family houses these new builds will replace. New build is often at locations where the requirements for service housing are new or increasing, and therefore the new houses are not intended as replacements, but they may indirectly replace housing at other locations where requirements are declining.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department's upgrade programme for the married quarters estate will be completed by 2005; how many units are part of this upgrade programme; how many units have been upgraded so far; and if he will make a statement. [112889]

  Dr. Moonie
  Good progress has been made with the upgrade programme for Service family housing in mainland United Kingdom. Since the establishment of the Defence Housing Executive (DHE) in 1995, the number of properties at Standard 1 For Condition has increased from only about 1,000 to about 21,000. About half the families housed by DHE are now in Standard 1 properties and some 90 per cent. in Standards 1 or 2. The upgrade programme will not be completed by 2005, but it will continue to progress towards the services' long-term requirement for family housing, currently estimated at around 41,000 properties. Demanding targets will be set for DHE each year depending on funds available.

  Defence Review
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish the foreign policy base line for his Department's defence review. [112562]

  Mr. Hoon
  There is no defence review. I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the Defence White Paper issued each Parliament. I intend to publish this in the autumn. It is likely to include a description of the strategic environment in which our Armed Forces operate.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated total procurement cost for Eurofighter is; what the estimated(a) cost and (b) saving would be of cancellation of the third tranche of orders; and if he will make a statement. [111837]
  154W
  Mr. Ingram
  The estimated total procurement cost to the United Kingdom for Eurofighter Typhoon is £18.633 billion.

  Under the collaborative procurement arrangements for the project, the attribution of costs and savings from any cancellation of the third tranche of orders would need to be discussed and formally agreed between the four nations. No such discussions have taken place.

  European Rapid Reaction Force
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role he envisages for(a) the Royal Navy and (b) the Royal Marines in an EU rapid reaction force. [112263]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is no standing European Rapid Reaction Force. Under the Helsinki Headline Goal, EU member states have identified relevant forces and capabilities that might be contributed to EU-led crisis-management operations.

  As regards Naval and Royal Marines forces, the United Kingdom offer includes 18 warships, as well as amphibious infantry. Committing forces to EU-led operations is a matter for national governments to decide in the light of the circumstances of each operation.

  Future Carrier Programme
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether BAe and Thales have structured the(a) terms and (b) work share of their partnership in the CVF programme. [112016]

  Mr. Ingram
  Both BAE Systems and Thales UK have agreed to take the programme forward on the basis of the allocation of roles and responsibilities outlined in the announcement made by the Secretary of State for Defence on 30 January 2003. Specifically, they have agreed to the contract for Demonstration and Manufacture being managed and executed by a single, integrated team staffed from both organisations and the Ministry of Defence. BAE Systems will lead as preferred Prime-contractor with Thales UK as Key Supplier participating in key management posts within the integrated team. The precise terms of the contract remain the subject of on-going negotiations which are due to complete by the end of this year.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make an assessment of the benefits of moving the CVF contract to a Target Cost Incentive Fee. [112017]

  Mr. Ingram
  No final decision has been taken on the CVF pricing strategy. The most appropriate pricing mechanism for incentivising contractors' performance is generally a choice between firm or fixed prices, or a target cost incentive fee. CVF is a complex programme and the balance of advantage between these options is being carefully weighed in order to secure the optimum arrangement. The way forward will be finalised as part of the main investment decision early in 2004.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects Assessment Phase Stage 3 of the CVF programme to be completed; and whether he plans to extend the time scale of this phase. [112018]
  155W
  Mr. Ingram
  It is planned that the CVF Assessment Phase Stage 3 contract will ran up to the end of November 2003. It will also contain contract options to enable the continuation of work through to the planned award of the Demonstration and Manufacture contract in the spring of 2004. This is consistent with our plan at the commencement of the CVF Assessment Phase, which called for the award of a build contract in spring 2004.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to visit the British military base on Gibraltar. [110704]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence visited British Forces Gibraltar in July 2001 and hopes to visit them again later this year. I visited at the end of last year, similarly other defence Ministers will visit regularly.

  Gulf War Illnesses
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards the former service personnel suffering from Gulf War illnesses, with particular reference to the War Pensions Tribunal adjudication in the case of Lance Corporal Alex Izett, RE. [112248]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 12 May 2003]: The Ministry of Defence takes the ill health veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict extremely seriously. It is addressing their concerns by providing medical help through the Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme and financial assistance through pensions and fundig scientific research. Gulf veterans who are concerned about their health should contact the MOD's Gulf Veterans' Illnesses Unit on Freephone: 0800 169 4495.

  We have asked the independent Medical Research Council to carry out a formal review of research to date and recommend what further work we should sponsor. This is expected to the published later this month.

  The Pensions Appeal Tribunal (PAT) decided in December 2002 that Mr Izett was ill as a result of the immunisations he was given. It was only necessary for him under the provisions of the war pensions scheme to raise a reasonable doubt of a causal link between ill-health and Service. The PAT accepted such a doubt had been raised and therefore allowed the appeal. Whilst we disagree with the PAT's decision, such decisions can only be challenged on a point of law. There is no point on which MOD can mount an appeal.

  Ministry Land
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what conditions he stipulates about the areas of MoD-owned land over which particular hunts may hunt. [112247]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 12 May 2003]: Specific conditions on access to Ministry of Defence land may be stipulated to an individual hunt as part of their licence for hunting. These conditions are laid out in the Schedules to the Hunting licence. MOD may at its
  156W
  discretion deny access to any scheduled land; advance notice will be given to the Hunt of seven days under normal circumstances or 48 hours in case of emergency. All hunting applications must be made in writing by the Hunt to the Defence Estates office within the relevant area and a 'Permission to Hunt' form must be completed by each recognised hunt before any fixture takes place. As part of this form there are schedules which may contain conditions applicable to each individual hunt.

  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many acres of land were used on a permanent basis by his Department in England(a) in 1980, (b) in 1990, (c) in 2000 and (d) on the latest date for which figures are available. [112358]

  Dr. Moonie
  The defence estate is kept under continuous review to ensure that it is no larger than is required. Since 2000 the Estate has consisted of some 240,000 hectares (approximately 593,000 acres).

  The information for previous years is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Naval Deployment (Gulf)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what Royal Naval and Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels remain on deployment in the Gulf; and what the scheduled dates are for the return of each; [111337]

  (2) if he will list the Royal Naval and Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels which have completed their deployments as part of the second Gulf war task force, together with the dates of deployment for each vessel. [111336]

  Mr. Ingram
  On the 6 May 2003 the following ships remain deployed on Operations in the Gulf region: Frigates HMS Chatham and HMS Richmond supported by the RFA tanker Brambleleaf on routine peacetime level deployments; Mine counter measures vessels HMS Grimsby, HMS Ledbury, HMS Ramsey and HMS Shoreham remain in theatre to conduct Mine Clearance Operations, Defence diplomacy and to exercise with Gulf Co-operation Council nations.

  By 6 May 2003, only the submarine HMS Turbulent will have completed its deployment in the recent Gulf action, as marked by its return to the United Kingdom on 16 Apr 2003.

  All other units which took part in the conflict, are currently on passage to the UK or are continuing with their previously scheduled deployments elsewhere.

  I am withholding information on specific operational programming dates for RN and RFA units under Exemption la (National security) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Officer Training
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the senior officers who have completed the Higher Command and Staff course since it was established. [112564]

  Dr. Moonie
  Those United Kingdom officers who have completed the Higher Command and Staff Course since it was established are listed in a table which has been placed in the Library.

  Public Access (Military Training Areas)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) legislation he has introduced and (b) regulations he has issued in the last 12 months which has resulted in new restrictions on (i) the general public and (ii) controlled public access to military training areas. [112314]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 12 May 2003]: None.

  RAF Deaths
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the(a) Army, (b) Navy and (c) RAF have been killed while in service (i) in action, (ii) in action through friendly fire, (iii) by accident on operations, (iv) by accident on exercise and (v) by other means between (A) 11 September 1999 and 11 September 2001 and (B) 11 September 2001 to date; and if he will make a statement. [111827]

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Royal Navy (Co-operation)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent co-operation there has been between units of the Royal Navy and of the French Navy. [112254]

  Mr. Ingram
  Royal Navy and French Navy ships are occasionally attached to our respective Task Group deployments on a purely bilateral basis. The most recent attachments were those of FS Primauguet to the Naval Task Group (NTG) 2003 between 17 to 29 January 2003 and the French Minehunter, FS Cassiopee, to a Royal Navy Mine Countermeasure Group between 21 January to 7 March 2003. This followed the attachment of FS Aconit during the NTG 2000 deployment which built on the successful integration of HMS Somerset, followed by HMS Grafton, in the French Task Group during operations in the Adriatic in 1999. Such integration between our naval forces is considered routine business.

  Royal Marines
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the flame-retardant properties of Royal Marines' uniforms. [112260]

  Mr. Ingram
  The standard issue uniform for the Royal Marines is the tri-service Combat Soldier 95 (CS95) or, if deployed in desert climates, its desert pattern equivalent. Neither has flame-retardant properties as Operational Analysis shows that the soldier on the battlefield faces a minimal risk from burn injuries.

  Submarine Fleet
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to change the(a) size and (b) composition of the submarine fleet. [112264]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Department regularly reviews the Defence programme in order to deliver the optimum operational capability within available resources. There 158W
  are no current plans to alter the United Kingdom's strategic nuclear deterrent submarine fleet (SSBN), however, in line with the 1998 Strategic Defence Review, the Royal Navy's Swiftsure and Trafalgar class attack submarine (SSN) force level will reduce to 10 vessels by 2006. It is intended that the Swiftsure and Trafalgar class capability will be progressively superseded by new Astute class vessels through a phased replacement programme.

  Tomahawk
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK submarines have been fitted with the Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles and are ready for service; and what other improvements and refits have been carried out upon submarines. [110025]

  Mr. Ingram
  Five RN submarines are Tomahawk capable. Three are currently fully operational, with the fourth, HMS Spartan, undergoing sea trials before returning to the fleet in mid 2003, and the fifth, HMS Trafalgar, undergoing a fleet time maintenance period planned to complete in the first quarter of 2004.

  In common with all RN vessels, submarines are subject to improvements and modifications throughout their operational lives. Details of all improvements and refits conducted could only be provided at disproportionate cost. However, in addition to the fitting of Tomahawk, recently completed major upgrades have included major sonar improvements, a Submarine Command System upgrade, addition of the Spearfish Torpedo Weapons systems and various communications equipment upgrades. Re-fuelling of the submarines' nuclear reactors has also been undertaken during Long Overhaul Periods.

  Additionally, I refer my hon. Friend to my recent answer on 24 February 2003, Official Report, column 311W, to the hon. Member for New Forest (Dr. Lewis) detailing the last upkeep periods that included a major upgrade for the current Swiftsure and Trafalgar Class submarines. Also HMS Vanguard is currently undergoing the first Long Overhaul period and re-fuelling of the Vanguard Class submarines.

  Type 23 Frigate
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the annual financial savings from a decision to dispose of a Type 23 frigate. [111320]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are currently no plans to dispose of any Royal Navy Type 23 frigates earlier than scheduled. The annual financial savings arising from a decision to dispose of a Type 23 frigate prematurely would vary according to the circumstances. An Investment Appraisal would be conducted, including an examination of the resource accounting implications (eg depreciation, cost of capital charges etc.). Any decision, however, would be dependent on the Royal Navy's ability to maintain the required level of capability to meet its current and contingent operational requirements.

  Type 45 Destroyers
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to equip Type 45 destroyers with Tomahawk land attack missiles. [111333]

  Mr. Ingram
  As I made clear in my answer of 24 February Official Report, column 303W, the principal role of the Type 45 Destroyers will be Anti-Air Warfare. However, these ships are being designed and built with significant space and weight margins to enable incremental acquisition should an emerging requirement necessitate a different equipment fit. Our requirements are being kept under review, and the design could be modified, to incorporate improved land attack capabilities, including a cruise missile system such as Tomahawk.

  War Pensions Claims
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what percentage of reviews of applications for(a) war disability pension and (b) war widows pension were (i) successful and (ii) successful when the claimant was represented by the Royal British Legion at independent tribunal in each of the last three years. [112553]

  (2) what percentage of reviews of applications for (a) war disability pension and (b) war widows pension were successful in each of the last three years. [112554]

  Dr. Moonie
  The percentages of successful entitlement appeals in respect of war disability pensions and war widow(er)s pensions heard by Pensions Appeal Tribunals for each of the last three years are shown in the following table:

  Year

  War disability pension (percentages)

  War widow(er)s pension (percentages)

  2002

  41

  26

  2001

  45

  32

  2000

  39

  20

  The percentages of successful appeals in terms of an increased assessment in respect of war disability pensions heard by the Pensions Appeal Tribunals are shown in the table.

  Year

  War Disability Pension percentage

  2002

  36

  2001

  34

  2000

  31

  We are unable to provide figures for the number of successful appeals where the claimant was represented by the Royal British Legion.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many claims for(a) war disability pension and (b) war widows pension are awaiting review. [112556]

  Dr. Moonie
  At present there are some 1,200 appeals where the case papers have been prepared and are awaiting a tribunal hearing. It is not possible to provide separate figures in respect of war disablement pensions or war widow(er)s pensions.

  Warships
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to dispose of Royal Navy frigates and destroyers which are not scheduled for fitting with Sonar 2087. [111312]

  Mr. Ingram
  Sonar 2087, a Low Frequency Active Sonar system, is planned to be fitted in 12 of the 16 Royal Navy Type 23 Frigates but not to any Destroyers. Since it is designed for Anti-Submarine Warfare, there are at present no plans to fit the system in other types of Royal Navy vessels, nor for those Frigates not currently scheduled to be fitted with Sonar 2087 to be disposed of earlier than planned previously.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to sell(a) Type 22 and (b) Type 23 frigates to Chile within the next 12 months. [111316]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no Royal Navy Type 22 or Type 23 frigates planned to become available for sale within the next 12 months. However we have recently concluded a Government to Government Sales Agreement with Chile for HMS Sheffield, a Batch 2 Type 22 frigate.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Indonesia
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guarantees have been given to the UK Government on the use by the Indonesian armed forces of military equipment exported by the UK; and if he will make a statement. [113235]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Senior members of the Indonesian Government and armed forces have repeatedly assured us that UK-supplied military equipment will not be used to suppress human rights in Indonesia. Despite allegations there have been no confirmed reports of offensive use of UK-built military equipment.

  Slovakia
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to discontinue the visa requirements for Slovak nationals who wish to visit the UK. [111198]

  Mr. Rammell
  All visa regimes, including that in respect of Slovak nationals, are kept under constant review and are lifted when it is judged that the circumstances which gave rise to the imposition of the requirement have been addressed. The visa regime on Slovak nationals will be lifted as soon as possible and at the latest by May 2004, when the Slovak Republic becomes a full member state of the European Union.

  Amina Lawal
  Mr. Paul Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Nigerian Government on the death
  161W
  sentence on Amina Lawal since the recent decision of the Nigerian Supreme Court; and if he will make a statement. [113051]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for South Swindon (Julia Drown) during questions to the Foreign Secretary on 6 May 2003,Official Report, col. 528.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what correspondence was exchanged between Foreign Office Ministers and Mr. David Mills; and what representations were made to the British Embassy in Washington on his behalf concerning the sale of(a) aircraft and (b) aircraft parts to Iran. [112550]

  Mr. Straw
  Mr. David Mills wrote to my noble Friend Baroness Symons on 9 July 2002, and she replied on 16 July 2002. The British Embassy in Washington was consulted for advice on the drafting of the Minister's response, but no representations were made on Mr. Mills' behalf concerning the sale of aircraft, or aircraft parts, to Iran.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Ministers from his Department contacted the UK Embassy in Washington to make representations to the US Government on selling jets to Iranian airlines; which Ministers sought the advice; what advice was sought; from which United States agencies it was sought; what reply was received; and to whom advice was passed outside his Department. [112551]

  Mr. Straw
  No FCO Minister has contacted the British Embassy in Washington to make representations to the US Government on selling jets to Iranian airlines.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the written Ministerial Statement on Export Licences (Iran),Official Report, 26 March, column 6WS, from which (a) agencies, (b) bodies and (c) individuals advice was sought on the decision that the Iran Working Group should no longer convene to consider export licence applications to that country. [112552]

  Mr. Straw
  All appropriate experts and advisers within the Ministry of Defence, Department of Trade and Industry and Foreign and Commonwealth Office were consulted on this procedural change. The final decision was agreed jointly by the Ministers concerned.

  Gender Strategy
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will publish the gender strategy for his Department. [111008]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's gender strategy is encapsulated in our strategic framework document on Diversity, "Investing for Tomorrow". I will place a copy in the Library of the House. In order to advance gender diversity in the Department, the FCO has a Gender Advisory Group, chaired by a member of the FCO Board.

  Gibraltar
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that Gibraltar meets its obligations under the Directive on a General Framework for Equal Treatment in Employment (2000/78/EC) in time for the stated implementation deadline of 2 December 2003. [112859]

  Mr. MacShane
  Gibraltar Government officials are aware that this Directive must be transposed by 2 December 2003. We understand that they intend to complete this process within the required timescale. We will provide technical assistance if required.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that Gibraltar meets its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, as expressed in the judgment of 9 January 2003 of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of L and Vv. Austria, to equalise the homosexual and heterosexual ages of consent [112860]

  Mr. MacShane
  We have informed the Gibraltar Government that we believe the age of consent should be equalised for homosexual and heterosexual couples to avoid a breach of Articles 8 and 14 of the ECHR. The Gibraltar Government are now considering how to do so.

  Iraq
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of the delegates who elected a mayor and council in Mosul on 5 May 2003 were women; and how many of those elected to office were women. [112938]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We do not know the procedure by which the town council was chose, nor do we know its composition. I have asked the British official working with the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance in Northern Iraq to find out. When she replies, I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Liberia
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support his Department has given to the Liberian peace talks and the Bamako Talks. [110745]

  Mr. Rammell
  Through the International Contact Group on Liberia, the UN and the EU, we are working to facilitate the peace process in Liberia and to encourage all sides to enter into ceasefire negotiations. We welcome the efforts of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the Inter-religious Council of Liberia to promote reconciliation in Liberia.

  Initial peace talks between the Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD) and the Liberian Government took place in Freetown under the auspices of ECOWAS in early February. These were not followed up in Bamako as had been planned.

  SARS
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice is being given to British nationals who reside in(a) China, (b) Thailand, (c) Japan, (d) Canada, (e) New Zealand and (f) Australia regarding the SARS virus. [111302]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  British nationals residing abroad are able to receive up-to-date information about the SARS virus via the Travel Advice pages of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk) and by remaining in contact with their nearest embassy, high commission or consulate. In addition, our missions in Beijing, Hong Kong and Guangzou, where the SARS outbreak has been most serious, produce information notices on SARS for the British community which are updated regularly. British nationals resident in Australia, New Zealand and Canada also have access to the advice on SARS provided by the Australian, New Zealand and Canadian Governments.

  The travel advice on the FCO website contains links to the websites of the Department of Health and the World Health Organisation where more general information on the SARS virus, its symptoms and precautionary measures against it, can be found. Travel advice is also available by telephone around the clock, on 0870 606 0290.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the British Council has had with the Movement for Democratic Change in Harare on public sector training(a) inside and (b) outside Zimbabwe. [112932]

  Mr. Rammell
  The British Council is a non-political organisation. It has not discussed these issues with the MDC.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to President Mugabe on the arrest and treatment of MDC Members of Parliament; and if he will publish his dossier on human rights abuses in Zimbabwe. [112934]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have repeatedly condemned the Mugabe regime for its violent attacks on the MDC. Most recently, the UK was at the forefront of preparing a resolution on Zimbabwe at the UN Commission on Human Rights. This condemned the Government of Zimbabwe for its attacks on the opposition and civil society and called upon it to comply with its international human rights obligations.

  We receive detailed information on the human rights situation in Zimbabwe from numerous non-governmental and civil society organisations. We do not intend to publish a dossier of their findings, as this would only duplicate their reporting.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will discuss human rights abuses in Zimbabwe with President Mbeki during his visit to South Africa. [112935]
  164W
  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will discuss Zimbabwe with the South African Government. He will explain that our objective is to see an end to the politically motivated violence and human rights abuses and the beginning of multi-party dialogue in Zimbabwe, as a first step towards restoring good governance and economic prosperity.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Movement for Democratic Change in Harare with respect to the reform programme for Zimbabwe once President Mugabe stands down. [112936]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not discussed this. Any future reform programme for Zimbabwe will be a matter for a future Zimbabwean Government. We would monitor such a programme closely and engage with it where appropriate, but we are not trying to pre-judge such a process.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Movement for Democratic Change in Harare on plans to fund public service programmes(a) inside and (b) outside Zimbabwe. [112933]

  Ms Keeble
  My Department receives requests to fund development projects from many organisations. This has included contacts from MDC MPs and MDC run local government bodies. As with similar requests from ZANU-PF MPs and bodies, our response is that we are currently giving priority to humanitarian assistance and HIV/AIDS programmes. DFID is not funding public service programmes outside of these issues at present.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Employers' Liability Insurance
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the number of small firms that have closed citing the cost of employers liability insurance in each year since 1997–98; and what steps she is taking to ensure that the cost of employers liability insurance does not force small firms to close. [111280]

  Nigel Griffiths
  It is not possible to attribute the closure of businesses to a single factor such as the cost of employers liability insurance, and meaningful estimates are therefore unavailable. 1.7 million businesses have started since 1997. The Government's review of the Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance (ELCI) system, which is due to report shortly, aims to assess the scale and nature of the current difficulties being experienced in relation to ELCI, in particular the extent to which these difficulties are likely to be short-term only, repeated in the future or permanent. The Government continue to encourage insurers, brokers and business to work together to mitigate these current difficulties.

  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 advisory committee for implementation of the Community market-access strategy, (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. [110310]

  Ms Hewitt
  The advisory committee for the implementation of the Community market access strategy is established under Council Decision (98/552/ EC) for consultation among member states and the Commission to assist in its activities set out in Article 1 of the Decision. As an advisory committee it does not take decisions, which remain the prerogative of the Commission.

  Details of the market access strategy—including access to the market access database, a key component—are available on-line at: http://europa.eu.int/comm./trade/mk_access/index_en.htm and http://mkaccdb.eu.int/ The committee has met twice since January 2002, on 6 June and 4 December 2002; one DTI official represented the UK on each occasion.

  A principal issue at these meetings was how the market access database could be developed into a more effective and more user friendly tool for traders. To this end, the Commission has now added new sections on market studies and on statistics and existing sections have been expanded. The committee also discussed the setting up of a new help desk, or one stop shop, to assist developing countries extend their export capability to the EU.

  In accordance with Council Decision 1999/268/EC on simplifying the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission, the Commission publishes an annual report on the working of committees. The latest report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 13 January 2003 (Commission Document 5060/2003).

  The UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, their agendas and recent actions to be accessible through the Commission's website.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which Government Department is responsible for the enforcement and monitoring of arms licences(a) outside and (b) within the UK; and which civil servants are tasked with enforcement. [112365]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials in overseas posts are asked to monitor goods exported under licence where appropriate. HM Customs and Excise are responsible for enforcement of UK export controls. Officials from the Export Control Organisation in the DTI monitor compliance with the terms of open export licences.

  Fairtrade
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to continue to support the DfID in its efforts to get wider recognition and acceptance of Fairtrade goods; and if she will make a statement. [109006]

  Ms Hewitt
  I strongly support the aims of the Fairtrade movement and welcome the fact that fairly traded products are a growing part of the UK market. I am increasingly concerned by the low prices received by commodity farmers and have set up an Industry/Government Working Party to look at ways of securing improved livelihoods for commodity producers in developing countries. I believe that Fairtrade is a small but important part of the answer to the problems experienced by these commodity workers.

  The Government, through the Department for International Development have provided £0.5 million over the last two years to the Fairtrade Foundation to help with its marketing campaigns.

  I have also ensured that Fairtrade tea and coffee is available throughout the DTI and I have encouraged other cabinet colleagues to do the same. My hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness, held a meeting with business leaders in November to look at further ways of mainstreaming Fairtrade as part of an ongoing dialogue on this important issue.

  Fur Imports
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department has taken to(a) control and (b) prohibit the import of furs of domestic cats and dogs. [112249]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are investigating possibilities for labelling any products that may contain domestic cat and dog fur. Equally we are working to ensure a reliable scientific test is in place to validate the accuracy of any such labels. This will give consumers the information they want about what exactly they are buying.

  It has not proved possible to determine either through trade statistics or through scientific testing, what level of imports of these products, if any, is entering the UK. Therefore the Government do not consider any prohibition on imports to be proportionate to the scale of the problem at this time.

  International Coffee Organisation
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department has had with her US counterpart regarding the possibility of the USA joining the International Coffee Organisation. [111581]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Secretary of State has had no direct discussion with her US counterpart on this issue. However, the UK supported International Coffee Organisation Council Resolution 413, approved on 27 September 2002, inviting the USA to join.

  Iraq
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the Answer of 28 April 2003,Official Report, column 106W, on Iraq (Reconstruction), what discussions the Government have had with EU partners on equality of treatment in bidding for contracts to aid the reconstruction of Iraq; and if she will make a statement. [112124]

  Ms Hewitt
  As I have made clear in this House and to the US authorities, we expect UK companies to play a significant role in the redevelopment of Iraq. We will continue to discuss with companies the best way of ensuring that their expertise is put to full use. In this context, we have established an Industry Working Group, which will act as a channel of communication to industry in our work to help companies access opportunities. We are also planning to hold a joint seminar with the US authorities in London in late May, which will present an excellent opportunity for UK companies to meet key US departments and contractors.

  It is clearly important that there is a level playing field for companies who are interested in participating in the redevelopment of Iraq. We have made this clear to the US authorities. The Government have had no discussions with EU Partners on this issue.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer of 20 April 2003,Official Report, column 106W, on Iraq (Reconstruction), which British companies have been invited to tender for contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq; what the process is for bidding for contracts; who decides the criteria for inclusion in the tender list; how many contracts have been let; what each contract is for; what the value of each contract is; what the overall budget for the reconstruction of Iraq is; who has contributed to the budget; and if she will make a statement. [112125]

  Ms Hewitt
  We expect UK companies to play a significant role in the redevelopment of Iraq. In the shot-term US funding is likely to be the main source of opportunities for UK companies. Full details of the US contracts are available on US Government websites. There is no overall agreed budget for the reconstruction of Iraq. We are in close contact with the US authorities and others about financing the reconstruction.

  Andrew Natsios of USAID has confirmed to me that UK companies will be allowed and indeed encouraged to hid for US funded sub-contracts. We have agreed with the US authorities to hold a joint seminar in London in late May. This demonstrates US interest in ensuring that UK companies are involved. While we expect UK companies to bid for and win contracts, companies are not obliged to inform us if and when they have done so.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer of 20 April 2003,Official Report, column 106W, on Iraq (Reconstruction), what the process for decisions on awarding contracts to companies for the reconstruction of Iraq is; who makes the final decision; and if she will make a statement. [112126]
  168W
  Ms Hewitt
  In the short-term US funded contracts are likely to be the main source of opportunities for UK companies looking to get involved in the redevelopment process in Iraq. Under US law, only US companies can be awarded primary contracts. However, the law has been relaxed to allow UK companies to bid for sub-contracts. It will be for the prime contractors to decide on the awarding of sub-contracts. We will continue to work with companies to ensure that they are as best placed as possible to participate in the redevelopment process.

  Military Technologies
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she has taken in the last three years to advise exporters of military sensitive technologies of their responsibilities in such exports. [112654]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Department of Trade and Industry's Export Control Organisation (ECO) has taken a number of steps to advise exporters of their responsibilities under UK strategic export controls. These include seminars, workshops, rating advisory service, electronic notification of changes to procedures and controls, and a telephone helpline. Further details of the help and advice available to exporters is available from the ECO's website www.dti.gov.uk/export.control.

  Multi-national Enterprises (Complaints)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many formal complaints have been received by the National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines for Multi-national Enterprises; and what action has been taken. [112971]

  Ms Hewitt
  Since the most recent revision of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multi-national Enterprises which took place in June 2000, the United Kingdom National Contact Point (NCP) has been in receipt of two formal complaints. The first was received on 27 February 2002, in respect of an alleged breach by a UK based company of the guidelines arising from its activities in Africa. The NCP replied to this submission on 1 March 2002. Further details with regard to action taken are governed by the confidentiality provisions of the Guidelines.

  The second complaint was only received on 29 April 2003 and concerned an alleged breach of the guidelines by an international consortium led by a UK plc. operating in Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. So far, the complaint has been acknowledged and copied to the company concerned.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the sustainable development remit of the regional development agencies. [113221]

  Alan Johnson
  Section 4 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 gives the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) a statutory purpose to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom where it is relevant to its area to do so.

  Regions White Paper
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress the Department has made towards the goal set out in the White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice, of(a) ensuring that regional awareness and devolution feature strongly in civil service training and development, (b) increasing the mobility of civil servants between headquarters offices, regional offices, and the Government Offices and (c) encouraging interchange between the civil service and organisations in the regions. [108581]

  Ms Hewitt
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office set out the overall civil service perspective on the goal set out in the White Paper in his reply of 14 April 2003,Official Report, columns 602–03W. My Department has a key role in our regional agenda and has members of staff in every regional Government Office. We are committed to regional awareness and development and are progressing towards the goal. Regional awareness and devolution issues are always incorporated into internal DTI training where relevant. Vacancies arising in HQ offices, regional offices and the Government Offices are advertised to all DTI staff through our vacancy advertising scheme. We encourage people in the Department to consider posts in these offices as part of their career development.

  Our central records show that in 2002–03, 80 external secondees took up a secondment in my Department, of whom 63 per cent. were seconded from organisations based outside London. This represents an increase of 20 per cent. over the previous year.

  During the same period, 22 members of DTI staff took up secondments in external organisations, of whom 41 per cent. were seconded to organisations based outside London. This represents an increase of 1 per cent. over the previous year.

  Trade Publications
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what publications promoting British trade are funded or part-funded, by her Department; and how much was spent on such funding in 2002–03 [112861]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 12 May 2003]: During 2002–03, a number of publications were produced that were aimed at developing British overseas trade. These were funded and part funded centrally by British Trade International at a cost of £389,500. The publications are:

  Flagship brochure "Business Success Overseas"

  "Business Success Overseas2 Welsh version

  Guide to services provided by COI for exporters

  8 Sector publications

  Overseas Trade Magazine—10 issues

  2002–03 Annual Review

  The DTI also funds the New Products from Britain service, which promotes British products and services to potential overseas buyers. This includes leaflets, catalogues and brochures which cost a total of £272,326 in 2002–03.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Council Tax
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average percentage council tax change was for council tax payers in England in 2003. [112974]

  Mr. Leslie
  In 2003–04 the average Band D council tax in England has increased by 12.9 per cent.

  EU Committees
  Mr. John Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list(a) the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU advisory committee on the development and reconversion of regions, (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. [110285]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Committee is chaired by DG REGIO—the Directorate General for the regions. All of its activities are a matter of record with all the information sought in (a) to (d) available on the Commission's website.

  As the CDCR is an advisory committee there is no requirement to communicate any decisions directly to the House.

  The Committee has met nine times since the answer I gave to the House on 4 July 2002. Its structure and remit are unchanged.

  Housing
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many publicly owned residential units there are within each of the six districts of Cornwall and on the Isles of Scilly, broken down by(a) lead government department and (b) proportion of each district within each of the four parliamentary constitutencies. [112420]

  Mr. McNulty
  Information on the numbers of publicly owned dwellings in each local authority area in England is collected as part of the annual Housing Investment Programme round. The most recently reported figures for the six districts of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly are tabled:

  Stock of dwellings as at 1 April 2002:

  Caradon

  3,869

  Carrick

  4,015

  Kerrier

  336

  North Cornwall

  3,796

  Penwith

  0

  Restormel

  183

  Isles of Scilly

  121

  Source:

  ODPM's 2002 Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix returns completed by local authorities.

  Notes:

  Penwith and Kerrier went through a Large Scale Voluntary Transfer (LSVT) where all or most of the local authority stock has been transferred to the RSL sector.
  171W Figures include public dwelling stock owned by other local authorities in that geographical area. Also included in the figures are those owned by the local authority for non-housing purposes, by Housing Action Trusts, government departments and other public sector agencies.
  (a) The number of publicly owned residential units broken down by lead government department is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  (b) The number of publicly owned residential units broken down by proportion of each district within each of the four parliamentary constituencies are also not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Local Government Finance (Worcester)
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage increases in local government grant were awarded to Worcester City Council in each year since 1992–93. [112989]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There are two funding streams to help support revenue funding by local authorities. These are Revenue Support Grant (RSG) and redistributed non-domestic rates (NNDR). It is important to look at the total of these funding streams (formula grant) in order to compare support from central government year-on-year, since the level of non-domestic. rates can vary year-on-year.

  Since 1997 there have been many changes in local government functions and funding. To enable a like-for-like comparison between years, we calculate adjusted grants. The percentage change figures have been calculated on the basis of these like-for-like comparisons.

  However, until the introduction of Central Support Protection Grant in 1999–2000, there was no need to calculate grant on a like-for-like basis. For this reason grant comparisons in the years between 1992–93 and 1998–99 do not make logical sense and are not available. For information, the unadjusted grant amounts for these years are still shown.

  The following table shows the amount of formula grant (which consists of RSG, NNDR and SSA Reduction Grant (where appropriate)) received by Worcester City Council during the period. The table also shows the percentage year-on-year changes in formula grant on a like-for-like basis where possible.

  The large decrease in formula grant between 1992–93 and 1993–94 represents a significant change in the way formula grant was paid. Up until 1992–93 all formula grant was paid to the billing authority and then paid by the billing authority to other tiers of authority. In subsequent years each authorities grant has been paid directly and hence billing authorities receive less grant.

  Year

  Formula grant (i.e. RSG+NNDR) (£ millions)

  Increase in formula grant, (percentages)

  1992–93

  40,482

  n/a

  1993–94

  5,518

  n/a

  1994–95

  6,065

  n/a

  1995–96

  6.037

  n/a

  1996–97

  6.098

  n/a

  1997–98

  5.981

  n/a

  172W

  Year

  Formula grant (i.e. RSG+NNDR) (£ millions)

  Increase in formula grant, (percentages)

  1998–99

  6.388

  n/a

  1999–2000

  6,477

  1.4

  2000–01

  6.723

  3.8

  2000–011

  6.772

  2001–02

  6.926

  2.3

  2001–021

  6.832

  2002–03

  7.088

  3.7

  2002–031

  6.928

  2003–;04

  7.147

  3.2

  1Adjusted

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make it his policy not to apply resource equalisation to the budget of Worcestershire County Council in future financial years; and if he will make a statement. [1112662]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Resource equalisation has been part of the revenue funding system for many years, where it serves an important purpose in helping to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of central Government support between local authorities. It is the Government's intention that an allowance for the differing ability of local authorities to raise income locally from council taxpayers should remain an integral part of the grant distribution system for all authorities.

  Postal Voting
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to extend the pilots for postal voting used during the recent local elections to other areas. [112534]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has been very encouraged by the early indications that all-postal voting has been a success in the May 2003 local elections, and in the light of the Electoral Commission's evaluation of each pilot scheme we shall decide what steps to take on extending postal voting at local elections. Before making all-postal voting available as an option in all local elections, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister would consult widely.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what powers the shadow regional assemblies have; what their(a) membership, (b) cost and (c)remit are; and if he will make a statement. [112838]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The existing eight Regional Chambers call themselves Assemblies, but they are not shadow bodies for the elected regional assemblies, whose potential remit was described in the 2002 White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice". The Chambers initially came together voluntarily to act as a focal point for considering issues of regional interest.

  The Chambers are designated under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 as representative regional bodies to scrutinize the plans and activities of the Regional Development Agencies. As of 1 April 2003, they have all chosen to become Regional Planning Bodies responsible for keeping regional planning guidance (RPG) under review and preparing any draft revisions as necessary. They collectively receive government grant of £11 million a year for these

  173W
  purposes. An additional £3 million is being made available from the Planning Delivery Grant fund for the purpose of improving their performance in the review of RPG. The bulk of their funding, to support their broader role as a regional focus, comes from local authority subscriptions and other sources.

  To meet the criteria for designation and receipt of grant their membership needs to be representative of the range of views and interests within the region. The Government expect at least 30 per cent. of Assembly measures to come from stakeholder groups, representative of business, trades unions, environmental, consumer and other groups. The remainder come from local government, and reflect the broad political balance across the region. The Government are not prescriptive about the size of the Assembly, provided that these criteria are met, and both the size of the Assembly and the selection process for membership vary from region to region.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the responses of(a) the National Council of Voluntary Organisations, (b) the TUC Northern Region, (c) the TUC North West Region, (d) the IOD North West, (e) the North West Chambers of Commerce, (f) the Local Government Association North, (g) the Local Government Association North West, (h) English Regions Network, (i) the North West Regional Assembly, (j) the North West Constitutional Convention, (k) CBI North West, (l) CBI Northern and (m) Sustainability North West, to the recent consultation on regional government in the North West of England. [112912]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government have asked for responses by 16 May to their soundings exercise on level of interest in each English region in holding a referendum on an elected regional assembly. An announcement will be made in due course as to the region(s) that will proceed towards holding referendums first. At the same time, the Government will publish a summary of the responses received and a breakdown of the responses by region and type of organisation. Where organisations have provided substantial evidence and have not asked that their responses be kept confidential, we will also make their responses available.

  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will publish his plans for the holding of referendums on regional government. [113005]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government published their proposals to hold referendums in those English regions where there is demand for them in their White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice", on 9 May 2002. The Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act, which enables referendums to be held, received Royal Assent on 8 May 2003. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will announce shortly the region(s) in which he is directing local government reviews, the necessary precursor to referendums on elected regional assemblies.

  Rent Service
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will give landlords the right to seek pre-tenancy rent determinations from the Rent Service. [112431]
  174W
  Mr. McNulty
  The Rent Service already provides the equivalent of pre-tenancy determinations to landlords on request, providing that they can demonstrate that there is a tenant about to take up residence.

  In addition, the Rent Service is currently running a market rental guidance scheme, which includes the provision of pre-tenancy determinations for landlords. Further details of the scheme can be obtained from the Rent Service headquarters and its local offices.

  Search Agents
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the comparative costs incurred by local authorities in(a) staff and (b) administrative time in dealing with enquiries from personal search agents making enquiries about land and property information (i) by post and (ii) electronically; and if he will make a statement. [112181]

  Mr. McNulty
  Local authorities are not required to provide this information to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and no assessment of costs incurred by local authorities has been made. Local authorities have discretionary powers to charge for answering inquiries about land and property made in connection with home sales and other transactions. In determining the amount of the charge, each authority has to have regard to its costs in dealing with such enquiries. Charges for Local Land Charges Register inquiries are prescribed by my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, who is currently considering an application by the Local Government Association for an increase in the prescribed fees.

  Standards Board for England
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many complaints have been considered by the Standards Board for England against(a) parish or town councillors, (b) district councillors and (c) county councillors in Worcestershire; and how many of these complaints have been upheld. [112659]

  Mr. Leslie
  For parish and town councillors in Worcestershire: 85 allegations have been received by the Standards Board, of which 37 have so far been passed for investigation. Of the 29 completed cases, nine have been passed to the Adjudication Panel. Hearings are yet to be held.

  For district councillors in Worcestershire: 42 allegations have been received by the Standards Board, of which 14 have so far been passed for investigation. Of the seven completed cases none has produced evidence of breaches of the code where action is considered necessary.

  For county councillors in Worcestershire: two allegations have been received by the Standards Board. None of these has so far been passed for investigation.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister why complainants to the Standards Board for England remain anonymous; and if he will make it his policy to require the disclosure of the names and addresses of complainants to councillors against whom complaints are made. [112660]
  175W
  Mr. Leslie
  The conduct of investigations into allegations of misconduct is a matter for the Standards Board for England and for ethical standards officers employed by the Board. I understand that it is the practice of the Board to provide anonymity for persons making allegations only in exceptional cases, where that person is considered vulnerable.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many complaints have been considered by the Standards Board for England against(a) parish or town councillors, (b) district councillors, (c) unitary authority councillors and (d) county councillors; and how many of these complaints have been upheld. [112667]

  Mr. Leslie
  For parish and town councillors: 1,805 allegations have been received by the Standards Board, of which 801 have so far been passed for investigation. Of the 404 completed cases, 90 have been passed for hearing to the Adjudication Panel. Of the 42 cases so far heard by the Adjudication Panel. 41 have concerned parish councillors, 40 of which were upheld.

  For district councillors: 839 allegations have been received by the Standards Board. 289 of these have so far been passed for investigation. Of the 114 completed cases, 24 have been passed for hearing to the Adjudication Panel. These are yet to be heard.

  For unitary authority councillors: 280 allegations have been received by the Standards Board. 88 of these have so far been passed for investigation. Of the 30 completed cases, one has been passed for hearing to the Adjudication Panel. This case is yet to be heard.

  For county councillors: 72 allegations have been received by the Standards Board. 13 have so far been passed for investigation. None has produced evidence of breaches of the code where action is considered necessary.

  Tenants' Deposit Scheme
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress is being made on implementing a statutory tenants' deposit scheme; and if he will make a statement. [112512]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister hopes to announce the outcome of the consultation on tenancy money and the Government's decision on future measures in due course.

  Transport and Social Exclusion Report
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps are being taken to implement the Cabinet Office report on Transport and Social Exclusion. [112511]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Social Exclusion Unit (SEU), now part of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, published its report "Making the Connections: Transport and Social Exclusion", on 26 February this year. The Department for Transport (DfT) are leading on its implementation, and are co-ordinating work across Government to deliver the actions that it sets out. DfT is also established a working group of local authority transport practitioners to develop and pilot approaches to accessibility planning. This will inform 176W
  guidance on accessibility planning to be issued by DfT and other relevant departments to inform the next round of Local Transport Plans.

  Travellers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to reform the law on the rights of travellers. [112285]

  Mr. McNulty
  There are no current plans to reform the law on the rights of travellers.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action he plans to take to require local authorities to provide sites for travellers and gypsies; which authority in areas with two tiers of local government is responsible for(a) the location, (b) the financing and (c) the management and maintenance of sites; and if he will make a statement. [112407]

  Mr. McNulty
  Local Authorities have discretionary powers to provide sites based on need within their area. The Government have no immediate plans to change this.

  Planning policies concerning the provision of suitable locations for Gypsy sites, whether local authority provided or private, is set out in the Department of Environment Circular 1/94 'Gypsy Sites and Planning'.

  The Government do not, however, specify who should take the lead in site provision issues in areas where there are two tiers of Local Government.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received from(a) local authorities, (b) organisations representing travellers and gypsies and (c) others to allocate additional finance to provide the additional pitches for travellers and gypsies by 2007 to meet the Government's target. [112408]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government have received no representations concerning the allocation of additional finance to provide the number of additional pitches suggested by the research report "The Provision and Condition of Local Authority Gypsy/Traveller Sites in England".

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what procedures he has laid down for local authorities to bid for financial support for the provision of sites for gypsies and travellers; and if he will make a statement. [112409]

  Mr. McNulty
  Local authorities have a discretionary duty to provide sites based on need within their area. Where they identify a need, they would be expected to fund it. Planning policies concerning the provision of suitable locations for gypsy sites, whether local authority provided or private, is set out in the Department of Environment Circular 1/94 'Gypsy Sites and Planning'.

  In 2001, the Government made £17 million over three years via the Gypsy Site Refurbishment Grant. The grant allows local authorities to bring unused or under-used sites back into full use; and/or improve the facilities on sites; and to create new transit or emergency stopping sites. Bidding guidance and application forms are sent out to local authorities in the autumn. The guidance sets out the purpose for the scheme, how to bid, the criteria for assessment and conditions for payment.
  177W
  The Government recently announced a further two rounds of the grant, amounting to £16 million.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much money is to be allocated in(a) this financial year and (b) the next financial year to assist local authorities in the provision of sites for gypsies and travellers; and whether the money can be used for replacement sites in areas where previous sites have closed. [112410]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Gypsy Sites Refurbishment Grant is providing £8 million in 2003–04—successful bids were announced in March 2003. A further £8 million per year will be available for 2004–05 and 2005–06.

  The grant may be used to bring under-used or closed sites back into use. Bids that involve re-location of sites will be eligible for consideration provided that planning permission has been obtained. Additionally, the grant may be used to create new temporary sites to enable Gypsies and Travellers to pursue their nomadic lifestyle.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Women's Sports
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Minister for Women what recent discussions she has had with the Minister of State for Sport regarding the promotion of women's sports in the UK. [111135]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 7 May 2003]: I have had no such recent discussions. However, I welcome the publication by my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport in December 2002 of a joint strategy document between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Strategy Unit which sets out our determination to improve opportunities for women at all levels in sport, whether as participants, competitors, coaches, or administrators.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Child Care Costs
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the average cost of full-time child care in the Hemsworth constituency; and if he will make a statement. [109899]

  Maria Eagle
  The cost of child care reported in the Department for Education and Skills 2001–02 audit shows average costs for Wakefield, the LEA within which Hemsworth falls, of £83 per week for full day care. The audits were completed for each local authority by their respective Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships. The audits do not give a further breakdown for constituency areas.

  The Government recognise that making child care affordable is a key challenge for the National Childcare Strategy and have made a substantial investment to achieve this.

  Working parents, subject to the level of their income, may receive support through the child care element of the Working Tax Credit. Tax credits are rightly targeted at lower and middle income families who may use a range of types of child care. The child care element of the
  178W
  Working Tax Credit provides for up to 70 per cent. of costs of eligible child care. It can pay up to £94.50 a week for one child (where the child care cost is £135), and up to £140 a week for two or more children (where the cost is £200).

  £1 million a day is now spent on supporting parents with child care costs through the Working Tax Credit.

  A-Levels
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average number of A-level points obtained by students in(a) Lancashire, (b) the North West of England and (c) England was in 2002. [112058]

  Mr. Miliband
  The average point scores of 16–18 year old students entered for GCE/VCE A/AS examinations in Lancashire, the North West of England and in England in 2002 are shown as follows.

  Average GCE/VCE A/AS point score1 per candidate

  Average point score1 per GCE/ VCE A/AS examination entry

  (a) Lancashire

  272.6

  75.8

  (b) North West Region

  246.7

  71.8

  (c) England

  Maintained Sector

  240.5

  72.9

  Total England

  254.5

  76.0

  1 The number of points assigned to each GCE/VCE A/AS qualification and VCE Double Award reflects the UCAS Tariff.

  Child Minding
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the Childminding National Standards for England, Standard 2 section prohibits more than one baby under one year in a child minding setting; and what consultations were carried out prior to setting this standard. [109539]

  Maria Eagle
  The National Standards for under 8s child minding require that childminders should normally look after no more than one child under one-year-old. Ofsted guidance indicates that each case should be considered on its merits. Exceptions can be made to accommodate siblings. The National Standards were finalised in 2001 after extensive consultation. We are reviewing the Standards this year and, alongside other matters, are proposing to allow child minders to care for more than one baby under one if child minders have the necessary experience or training.

  Education Costs
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the average cost in 2002–03 of schooling for an individual student taking three A-levels at(a) an English maintained secondary school and (b) an English maintained sixth form college. [110124]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Learning and Skills Council's published rates show that the basic cost to the public purse of delivering three A-levels to a student in 2002/03 at an English maintained secondary school was £2,899. This figure comprises £733 for the delivery of each A-level course, and £697 for each student for the
  179W
  enrichment of their learning programme. The basic cost to the public purse of delivering three A-levels to a student at a sixth form college in 2002/03 was £2,641. This figure comprises £663 for the delivery of each A-level course, and £697 for each student for the enrichment of their learning programme. In each case additional funding may also be available to take account of the higher costs of delivering learning in particular geographical areas, in higher cost subjects, or to students with particular disadvantages or individual needs. We expect the funding gap between school sixth forms and sixth form colleges to narrow over the 2003/06 period while maintaining the real terms guarantee for school sixth forms.

  Enterprise Advisers
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what role enterprise advisers will play in secondary education. [112448]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 12 May 2003]: Enterprise Advisers will work in secondary schools in disadvantaged areas, providing advice to headteachers on the delivery of the enterprise initiative, improving school interaction with business and offering help and advice on way in which the schools themselves behave as businesses. We also see them as having a role in helping pupil motivation and attendance and contributing towards our reform of the school workforce. In some cases, the advisers will work full time in large schools, in others, they will provide advice on a part time basis.

  Entertainment
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he has entertained Labour hon. Members at public expense in the last 12 months; and at what cost. [106388]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  No such events have taken place.

  Finance
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the amounts that education authorities in London have budgeted above or below their education formula spending shares in the 2003–04 financial year. [111042]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is contained in the following table:

  Comparison of Education Formula Spending Share and LEA budget figures for London LEAs, 2003–04

  LEA name

  Total Education Revenue Expenditure (Net) EFS plus grants Difference

  Inner London

  City of London

  2,615,800

  1,226,508

  1,389,292

  Camden

  113,342,594

  107,985,343

  5,357,251

  Greenwich

  159,989,517

  164,569,795

  -4,580,278

  Hackney

  127,533,250

  137,287,270

  -9,754,020

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  85,401,070

  85,261,772

  139,298

  Islington

  114,560,504

  119,107,877

  -4,547,373

  Kensington and Chelsea

  60,953,589

  56,257,643

  4,695,946

  Lambeth

  148,594,202

  148,891,564

  -297,362

  Lewisham

  165,390,368

  165,893,736

  -503,368

  Southwark

  170,006,239

  170,964,811

  -958,572

  Tower Hamlets

  190,557,010

  188,115,846

  2,441,164

  Wandsworth

  122,857,794

  129,861,892

  -7,004,098

  Westminster

  92,120,800

  92,039,148

  81,652

  180W

  Comparison of Education Formula Spending Share and LEA budget figures for London LEAs, 2003–04

  LEA name

  Total Education Revenue Expenditure (Net) EPS plus grants Difference

  Outer London

  Barking and Dagenham

  116,076,894

  116,076,378

  516

  Barnet

  182,083,514

  181,692,641

  390,873

  Bexley

  137,334,000

  136,475,414

  858,586

  Brent

  156,674,000

  165,980,786

  -9,306,786

  Bromley

  159,322,266

  171,694,306

  -12,372,040

  Croydon

  180,515,679

  185,271,856

  -4,756,177

  Ealing

  173,383,600

  172,788,425

  595,175

  Enfield

  188,275,645

  188,850,351

  -574,706

  Harrow

  108,779,529

  108,880,485

  -100,956

  Haringey

  143,975,735

  143,975,113

  622

  Havering

  128,712,757

  127,784,035

  928,722

  Hillingdon

  150,604,139

  153,162,645

  -2,558,506

  Hounslow

  141,509,011

  142,454,999

  -945,988

  Kingston upon Thames

  74,808,013

  73,125,099

  1,682,914

  Merton

  83,595,696

  83,595,481

  215

  Newham

  204,977,803

  216,163,763

  -11,185,960

  Redbridge

  155,929,715

  158,559,815

  -2,630,100

  Richmond upon Thames

  72,793,300

  68,027,091

  4,766,209

  Sutton

  110,191,837

  110,191,973

  -136

  Waltham Forest

  141,330,292

  145,461,125

  -4,130,833

  Notes:

  1. Figures in this PQ refer to the whole Education budget, not just the Schools budget.

  2. This PQ looks at the total level of planned spend by the authority compared to their formula allocation. This is a different issue to passporting which looks at the increase in the schools budget, compared to the formula increase.

  3. Total Education Revenue Expenditure figures are drawn from Table 1 of the section 52 budget statements for 2003–04. Figures are as reported by LEAs on 6 May 2003 and are subject to change.

  4. Total Education Revenue Expenditure (net) includes an adjustment for LSC SEN allocations where these had been clearly omitted.

  5. EPS plus grants includes EPS, departmental LSC allocations, Specific Formula grants (including EiC) and London budget support grant for comparability.

  Independent Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of children of compulsory school age attended independent schools in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [111682]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Independent schools: Number and percentage of pupils of compulsory school age1: England

  Position in January each year: 1999 to 2003 (Provisional)

  Number of pupils in all schools

  Percentage of pupils attending independent schools2

  1999

  6,919,812

  6.0

  2000

  6,963,773

  6.0

  2001

  6,992,843

  6.1

  2002

  6,984,413

  6.1

  20033

  6,989,000

  6.1

  1 Pupils aged 5 to 15 on 31 August of the previous year.

  2 The number of pupils in independent schools expressed as a percentage of the number of pupils in all schools.

  3 Provisional numbers, based upon returns made to the Department by the end of March 2003. Number of pupils rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Literacy
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what examples of best practice from other countries in Europe he plans to introduce to enhance Government plans to encourage literacy throughout the UK. [112451]

  Mr. Miliband
  The international 'Progress in Reading Literacy Study' (PIRLS), showed that our primary school pupils were the third most able readers in the world, and that England was the most successful English speaking country. This demonstrates the international success of our National Literacy Strategy which has led to dramatic improvements since its introduction in 1998. The number of 11-year-olds achieving the expected level for their age (Level 4) in English rose by 10 percentage points between 1998 and 2002.

  The National Literacy Strategy has from its inception benefited from international research such as PIIZLS to support teachers. Important elements of its guidance to teachers, including Progression in Phonics, Grammar for Writing and Developing Early Writing, have drawn on experience in other countries. We will, of course, continue to refine the Strategy to ensure that it reflects international best practice and research evidence, so that all children fulfil their potential. We will shortly be publishing a strategy document on primary education, which will set out how we intend to build on the success of the NLS.

  Teachers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list teacher supply agencies with his Department's quality mark status, broken down by year of accreditation. [110052]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following agencies have been awarded the Quality Mark, which is administered by the Recruitment and Employment Confederation:

  2002:

  Protocol Teachers

  Standby Teacher Services

  Capita Education Resourcing

  Supply Desk

  Celsian Group

  Academy

  Select Education

  ITN Teachers

  Quay Education Services

  Teach London

  Louis Paul Recruitment

  GB Recruitment

  Teachers Workline

  Link Education

  TimePlan

  182W
  2003:

  Supplynet Recruitment

  Kelly Educational Staffing

  GSL Education

  Reed Education Professionals

  Focus Education

  Dream Education

  SOS Education Services

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many supply teachers were employed in each year since 1997; and what proportion of those who had qualified teacher status, broken down by local education authority. [110185]

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

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers there were per head of population in(a) Lancashire and (b) the North West of England in each year since 1997. [111575]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the number of full-time equivalent regular teachers (excluding occasionals) in service in January of each year in the maintained schools sector per thousand of population of all ages.

  Teachers per thousand of population

  Lancashire1

  North West

  1997

  8.4

  8.8

  1998

  8.4

  8.8

  1999

  8.6

  8.9

  2000

  8.6

  8.9

  2001

  8.6

  9.0

  20022,3

  8.4

  8.9

  1 The figures shown for 1997 and 1998 are based on the boundaries prior to local government reorganisation in April 1998.

  2 The most recent teacher data available at regional or LEA level are for 2002.

  3 The population figures used as denominators for 1997 to 2001 are revised mid-year estimates that take account of the 2001 Census. Population estimates for 2002 are not yet available, the percentages for that year are therefore based on projections for mid-2002 (which were prepared before the results of the 2001 Census were known).

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to protect the employment of newly recruited teachers against the consequences of the financial difficulties of the schools which employ them. [112245]

  Mr. Miliband
  It is for schools, as employers, to determine their appropriate staffing levels in line with their budgets.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Ancient Monuments (Maintenance)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will increase the financial assistance to local authorities responsible for ancient monuments; and if she will make a statement. [112489]
  183W
  Dr. Howells
  Funding settlements for local authorities are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has no plans to provide additional grants to local authorities responsible for ancient monuments. However, English Heritage offers grants for the repair and conservation of historic buildings, monuments, areas and historic parks and gardens. The Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) distributes money raised by the national Lottery to support all aspects of heritage in the UK, from historic buildings and museums to archives, nature conservation and oral history. The HLF provides both capital grants ( for buildings and equipment) and time-limited activity grants. Further information is available from both organisations.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what powers she has to require local authorities to maintain ancient monuments; and if she will make a statement. [112490]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not have powers to require local authorities to maintain ancient monuments. Planning Policy Guidance Note 16 issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister makes clear that detailed development plans (i.e. local and unitary development plans) should include policies for the protection, enhancement and preservation of sites of archaeological interest and of their settings.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make it her policy to provide grants to local authorities specifically to assist in the maintenance of Roman town walls. [112491]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to provide grants to local authorities specifically to assist in the maintenance of town walls. However, English Heritage offers grants for the repair and conservation of historic buildings, monuments, areas and historic parks and gardens. The Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) distributes money raised by the national Lottery to support all aspects of heritage in the UK, from historic buildings and museums to archives, nature conservation and oral history. The HLF provides both capital grants (for buildings and equipment) and time-limited activity grants. Further information is available from both organisations.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will require local authorities with Roman town walls to provide her with(a) an audit of their condition, (b) a statement of works required to repair them and (c) an estimate of the cost of repairs. [112492]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to require local authorities to provide her with this information. In the case of scheduled ancient monuments, this is a matter for discussion with English Heritage.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost was of the publication of the 2001 Departmental Report. [112816]
  184W
  Dr. Howells
  The cost of publishing the 2001 Annual Report was as follows:

  Year

  2001

  Design, typesetting, pdfs etc.

  56,105

  Print1

  24,774

  Proof reading

  570

  Total

  81,449

  1Buy back of copies from The Stationery Office

  Document Classification
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many documents are held by her Department that are subject to security classification, broken down by category of classification. [107357]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him on 7 May 2003,Official Report, column 696W by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Douglas Alexander).

  Inclusive Design
  Mrs Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what steps her Department is taking to develop and promote the business case for inclusive design; [111169]

  (2) what discussions her Department has had with manufacturers of digital radios on improving the accessibility of this equipment for visually impaired people; [111172]

  (3) what steps her Department has taken (a) to publicise good practice in inclusive design and (b) provide data, guidelines and case studies relating to inclusive design to those involved in the design and production of (i) digital television products, (ii) digital radio products and (iii) telecommunications products; [111170]

  (4) whether her Department has produced a policy statement on inclusive design in relation to consumer equipment in the (a) telecommunications and (b) broadcasting sectors: and if she will make a statement. [111171]

  Dr. Howells
  The Digital Television Action Plan includes actions to ensure that digital television equipment and services are widely accessible. In 2001, the Government appointed CRSP, Loughborough University, to scope the human aspects of adopting digital television, including the needs of disabled people. The report was published in March 2002 and the recommendations fed into the Action Plan. The Action Plan's Technology and Equipment Group (comprising manufacturers, broadcasters, software/application providers and consumer groups) has an ongoing action to analyse the needs of disabled people and made reference to the issue in its first report. Copies of the reports are available on www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk.

  The Government recently appointed the Generics Group to undertake research on how consumers engage with and use digital television and this will consider individuals with special needs. We anticipate a report in July 2003.

  185W
  DCMS is working with the RNIB on a business plan for production of an audio description module. The Department of Trade and Industry's innovation programmes, in particular its Digital Testbed and LINK Broadcast Technology programmes, have explored using digital technologies to benefit elderly and disabled people. This includes work on automatic subtitling and an interface for portable digital radios.

  The Government continue to support and participate in work by relevant expert and advisory groups at European level to improve the availability and range of communications equipment available which is suitable or adapted for use by persons with disabilities. This includes the work programme being carried forward by a group called INCOM, which has a specific focus on inclusive communications.

  Iraq
  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what help and advice she is offering to the authorities in Iraq to help secure the return of looted antiquities. [111477]

  Tessa Jowell
  We are working closely with UNESCO and the British Museum to develop a co-ordinated response to Iraq's needs from the archaeological and museum world. On 29 April I attended a seminar of world experts at the British Museum. We aim to support members of the international museum and archaeological communities in their efforts to assist the Iraqis in identifying and recovering antiquities looted from museums and sites. Within the next few weeks we will be sending an advance team of administrators and archaeological professionals to join the US Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Aid (ORHA) in Iraq. Working with Iraqi colleagues they will be able to reach rapid conclusions about the extent of the damage to Iraqi museums and sites and to begin the process of making an inventory of missing objects.

  Millennium Commission
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to wind up the Millennium Commission; and if she will make a statement. [112121]

  Dr. Howells
  The Millennium Commission's grant's programmes are planned to be completed by 31 March 2006. Its future is being considered as part of the on-going Lottery review.

  Olympic Bid
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she expects to make an announcement about a bid for the UK to host the Olympic Games in 2012. [113120]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Government will decide whether to support a bid to host the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games in sufficient time to meet the IOC deadline of 15 July 2003.

  In the meantime the Government, together with other key stakeholders, continues to carry out the necessary preparatory work so that, if a bid is made, its quality and potential winnability are maximised.

  Specialist Playgrounds
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many specialist playgrounds there are that cater for disabled children; what assistance is available for disabled children who wish to take on a sport professionally; how much has been invested in disabled persons' sports since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [112743]

  Mr. Caborn
  DCMS does not hold information on the specific numbers of playgrounds that cater for disabled children. The Department launched a Children's Play Review in October 2002, which includes research into provision for disabled children. Elite disabled sport is supported by the UK Sport World Class programme, which has been given £4.6 million in exchequer funding since 1997. In addition to this, the DCMS also funds grassroots disability sport through Sport England, which from 1998–2003 allocated £4,240,056 to the English Federation for Disability Sport. The EFDS works to improve opportunities to participate in sport for all people with disabilities.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Autism
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to create a residential facility for young people suffering from autistic spectrum disorders in Northern Ireland. [111410]

  Jane Kennedy
  Plans are currently being developed for the establishment of a Centre of Excellence for Autism at the former St. Joseph's Training School at Middletown, Co. Armagh. This is an initiative between the Department of Education and the Department of Education and Science and the aim of the Centre is to promote excellence in the education of children and young people with autistic spectrum disorders throughout Ireland.

  The developing aims of the Centre include an Individual Learning Centre, which will provide an exemplar of good practice in assessment and educational intervention, training of parents and professionals, a research facility and a teaching and outreach support service. The Centre will complement and support, rather

  Award scheme title

  Scope

  Results due date

  Simultaneous notification

  Awards in 2001

  The Cash Grant Awards Scheme

  To enable individuals or groups to carry out practical projects which will result in better care for health and social services users

  April/May 2001

  Yes

  Diversity 21 Awards

  To recognise and celebrate the diverse interests and cultures in Northern Ireland at the beginning of the 21st century

  29 May 2001

  Yes

  Northern Ireland Exporter of the Year Awards 2000

  Encouraging NI companies to export

  June 2001

  Yes

  DARD Rose Award

  Best cluster of flowered rose at Belfast City Rose Trials

  July 2001

  Yes

  National Training Awards

  The National Training Awards competition is open to all individuals, companies and organisations in the public, private and voluntary sectors

  15 September 2001 to 13 November 2001

  No

  The HPSS Quality Awards

  To recognise, reward and promote excellence in the provision of health and social care within the Health and Personal Social Services

  November 2001

  Yes

  Northern Ireland Health and Social Services Environmental Awards Scheme

  Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland

  November 2001

  Yes

  Beacon Awards

  The Association of Colleges in England and Wales administers the Beacon Awards programme. Beacon Awards are also open to Northern Ireland Further Education (FE) colleges. The awards are designed to promote the interdependence of FE colleges and business, professional and voluntary organisations to their mutual advantage

  December 2001

  Yes

  Food From Britain Export Awards: Northern Irish Exporter of the Year

  To celebrate the success of companies operating in international markets

  December 2001

  Yes

  NI Quality Award

  Public, private and voluntary sector organisations

  January 2002

  No

  Steps to Excellence

  Public and voluntary sector organisations

  January 2002

  No

  NI Quality Award

  Public, private and voluntary sector organisations

  January 2002

  No

  Steps to Excellence

  Public and voluntary sector organisations

  January 2002

  No

  All Ireland Garden Centre of the Year Awards

  Best Garden Centre

  February 2002

  Yes

  Best Developing Garden Centre Awards

  Most Improved Garden Centre

  February 2002

  Yes

  Awards in 2002

  The Cash Grants Awards Scheme

  To enable individuals or groups to carry out practical projects which will result in better care for health and social services users

  April/May 2002

  Yes

  Diversity 21 Awards

  To recognise and celebrate the diverse interests and cultures in Northern Ireland at the beginning of the 21st century

  11 June 2002

  Yes

  DARD Rose Award

  Best cluster of flowered rose at Belfast City Rose Trials

  July 2002

  Yes

  National Training Awards

  The National Training Awards competition is open to all individuals, companies and organisations in the public, private and voluntary sectors

  13 September 2002 to 5 November 2002

  No

  Development Farmer of the Year

  Significant Development in grass-based enterprises and establishment of a viable diversified enterprise

  September 2002

  Yes

  Northern Ireland Food and Drinks Awards: Supply Chain Excellence Award

  To recognise the creation or improvement of supply chain linkages that deliver clear benefits to producers

  October 2002

  Yes

  188W
  than replace, current and developing service provision. The Centre will offer residential accommodation for up to twenty children and young people who would attend the Learning Centre for short-term support.

  The progress of the development is subject to the successful completion of purchase arrangements of the site.

  Award Schemes
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the award schemes in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002 promoted by the Department; what their scope was; when the relevant participating organisations are scheduled to be sent results; and whether other parties will be given notification of the results at the same time. [102059]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Northern Ireland Office did not promote any award schemes in 2001 and 2002. But it was involved in sponsoring NIHE Community Safety Awards.

  The core Departments of the Northern Ireland Administration promoted the following award schemes in 2001 and 2002:

  189W

  Award scheme title

  Scope

  Results due date

  Simultaneous notification

  Public Authorities Awards

  Best in category

  October 2002

  Yes

  Landscape Maintenance Awards

  Best in category

  October 2002

  Yes

  The HPSS Quality Awards

  To recognise, reward and promote excellence in the provision of health and social care within the Health and Personal Social Services

  November 2002

  Yes

  Northern Ireland Health and Social Services Environmental Awards Scheme

  Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland

  November 2002

  Yes

  Beacon Awards

  The Association of Colleges in England and Wales administers the Beacon Awards programme. Beacon Awards are also open to Northern Ireland further Education colleges. The awards are designed to promote the interdependence of FE colleges and business, professional and voluntary organisations to their mutual advantage

  December 2002

  Yes

  Food From Britain Export Awards: Northern Irish Exporter of the Year

  To celebrate the success of companies operating in international markets

  December 2002

  Yes

  All Ireland Garden Centre of the Year Awards

  Best Garden Centre

  January 2003

  Yes

  Best Developing Garden Centre Awards

  Most Improved Garden Centre

  January 2003

  Yes

  NI Quality Award

  Public, private and voluntary sector organisations

  January 2003

  No

  Steps to Excellence

  Public and voluntary sector organisations

  January 2003

  No

  NI Quality Award

  Public, private and voluntary sector organisations

  January 2003

  No

  Steps to Excellence

  Public and voluntary sector organisations

  January 2003

  No

  Northern Ireland Business Education Awards

  To recognise and encourage the promotion of business education activities and links

  12 March 2003

  Yes

  Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan
  Reverend Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to publish the draft Belfast metropolitan area plan; and what the reasons are for the further delay in publication. [109018]

  Angela Smith
  The Development Plan Programme set out in Planning Service's Corporate and Business Plan 2002–03 indicated that the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan (BMAP)—Draft Plan would be published before the end of the 2002–03 financial year.

  A number of important research studies being carried out by, or on behalf of, the Plan Team, required ward level data from the 2001 Census. As this data was not published until 19 December 2002, I agreed a revised timetable with members of the Political Group, representative of the six Councils in the Belfast Metropolitan area, which oversees the process and which I Chair. This revised timetable allowed for completion of the research, and indicated that the Draft Plan would be published in September 2003.

  A number of factors outside the control of the Plan Team now mean that it will not be possible to meet that timescale.

  Following an initial round of consultation meetings between the BMAP Team and the Councils within the Plan area, a number of Councils have written requesting an extension to the consultation timeframe. I have agreed to this request.

  The amended consultation timeframe, together with the fact that a number of inputs to the BMAP process from other bodies will not be available until May/June, will result in the final Council consultation being delayed until late summer. While this delay is unavoidable, it is essential that the new timetable is strictly adhered to, in order that the plan process remains within an appropriate timeframe.
  190W
  I have written to members of the Political Group to advise them of the amendments in the consultation timetable. The full implications of the timescale for the remainder of the BMAP process will be considered at the next meeting of the BMAP Political Group. I will write to you further to advise you of the outcome of that meeting.

  Chilcott Report
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the findings of the Chilcott report into the break-in at Castlereagh police station on 17 March 2002. [101945]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I will inform the House when I have received the report into the break-in at the Castlereagh police station from Sir John Chilcot.

  Columba Initiative
  Mr. Nigel Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Columba Initiative was established; what was the Northern Ireland contribution in each financial year; and by which Department that money was contributed. [100443]

  Angela Smith
  The Columba Initiative was established in 1997. Northern Ireland joined in April 1998.

  The Northern Ireland contribution in each financial year has been as follows:

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  (£s)

  1998–99

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  48,892

  1999–2000

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  63.607

  2000–01

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  25,000

  2000–01

  Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure

  42,500

  2001–02

  Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure

  150,000

  2002–03

  Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure

  165,000

  Community Relations
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the principal initiatives were of the former Central Community Relations Unit, to fulfil its objective of encouraging greater mutual understanding in Northern Ireland and greater respect for cultural diversity. [100444]

  Mr. Browne
  The former Central Community Relations Unit (CCRU) had a large and diverse community relations programme aimed at promoting greater cross-community contact between the main sections of the Northern Ireland community and increasing mutual understanding and respect for cultural diversity.

  This programme included support for the Northern Ireland community relations council to fulfil its strategic aim by providing support for local groups and organisations, developing opportunities for cross community understanding and increasing public awareness of community relations work.

  Support was provided for the district community relations programme to fulfil its aims to develop cross community contact and co-operation, promote greater mutual understandingand increase respect for cultural traditions.

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to bring forward primary legislation to amend the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and revise the definition of disability in line with the recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force. [101006]

  Mr. Browne
  The Northern Ireland Executive consulted on three of the Disability Rights Task Force's recommendations on the definition of disability in "Improving Civil Rights for Disabled People" in September 2001.

  The majority of respondents to that consultation supported the recommendations on the definition: recognising HIV as a disability from the point at which it is diagnosed; recognising cancer (provided it is symptomatic) from the point of diagnosis as being a condition that is likely to require substantial treatment; and making it easier for people who are blind or partially sighted to be recognised as having a "disability" within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act.

  The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (ECNI) will also be making recommendations to Government following their recent review of the Disability Discrimination Act in Northern Ireland. These may include further recommendations on the definition of disability.

  Any new recommendations from ECNI, will be considered and where agreed, will be taken forward in primary legislation with those Task Force recommendations already consulted on, in the context of the single Equality Bill. Consultation on proposals for the Bill will take place in the Autumn.
  192W
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which government department in Northern Ireland will be responsible for preparing proposals to remove the transport exemption from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and when the consultation process will begin. [101010]

  Angela Smith
  The Department for Transport consulted on 29 November 2002 on the proposal to remove the exemption for transport services in Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in relation to GB. Once the outcome of this consultation is known it will be for the Department of the Environment and the Department for Regional Development to consider the implications for Northern Ireland and decide what action is appropriate. Any proposed action will be subject to public consultation in Northern Ireland but it is not yet possible to give a timescale for this.

  Disability Rights Task Force
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the reasons were for the delay in producing a strategy to implement the recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force in Northern Ireland; and when the strategy will be published. [101007]

  Mr. Browne
  The former Northern Ireland Executive agreed the Promoting Social Inclusion (PSI) priorities and the Terms of Reference and membership for the Working Group which was tasked with developing the strategy on 31 May 2002. The Group met for the first time on 2 July 2002.

  The original Programme for Government target for the strategy was December 2002. Work on the draft strategy requires close cross-departmental input and agreement on how best to implement the actions flowing from the Executive's response to the Disability Rights Task Force recommendations. Active consideration of other non-legislative issues relating to access to information, services and equipment by people with disabilities has been carried out. This has been a particularly important aspect of the work as it links in with work on the European Year of People with Disabilities (EYPD) 2003 which is of high priority and will raise public awareness of issues affecting people with disabilities.

  It is currently planned to publish the strategy in summer 2003. However, the delay in publishing the strategy has not resulted in delay in progressing the actions to be included within it. Many of the legislative recommendations for example are currently the subject of consultation in draft Regulations.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reason the PSI working group developing the strategy to implement the recommendation of the Disability Rights Task Force in Northern Ireland contains no representatives of disability groups. [101008]

  Mr. Browne
  The Promoting Social Inclusion (PSI) Disability interdepartmental Working Group was established primarily to develop a strategy to implement the former NI Executive's response to the Disability Rights Task Force recommendations. Membership of the Working Group was agreed by former Ministers and
  193W
  comprises those who are responsible for implementing the recommendations. The consultation exercise on the Executive's response, which ended on 31 December 2001 included representatives from organisations representing the disability sector.

  The Group's remit also includes wider issues raised during the consultation process such as barriers to the provision of services and equipment for people with disabilities and taking forward this part of the strategy has involved representatives of disability groups. A focus group meeting was convened (last September) comprising representatives from those groups who had responded to the questions on barriers to services and equipment in the consultation exercise. Full and active consideration of those views is on-going as part of the Working Group's deliberations on the strategy.

  Foundation Hospitals
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce foundation hospitals in Northern Ireland. [112905]

  Mr. Browne
  There are no plans at present to introduce NHS Foundation Hospitals in Northern Ireland.

  District Policing
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many ex-RUC officers applied to become members of District Policing Partnerships; how many were shortlisted; how many were deemed appointable onto the District Policing Partnerships; and how many were appointed to District Policing Partnerships. [108438]

  Jane Kennedy
  According to Policing Board records, 10 former police officers applied to become members of District Policing Partnerships. Of those, nine were shortlisted, and two were appointed.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will instigate a review of appointments to District Policing Boards to ensure that appointments are made on personal merit; and if he will make a statement. [102131]

  Jane Kennedy
  There are no plans to review the appointment of independent members to District Policing Partnerships.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, published a Code of Practice in August 2000, after extensive consultation, on the appointment of independent members of DPPs. The process adopted by the Policing Board was in line with the guidelines issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and had been considered by the Equality Commission.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the breakdown by party affiliation is of those councillors chosen to serve as members of District Policing Partnerships. [110206]

  Jane Kennedy
  The following table details the breakdown of the political affiliations of the councillors chosen to serve as political members of the 26 District Policing Partnerships.194W

  Political affiliation

  Total

  Alliance Party

  9

  DUP

  69

  Independent

  12

  Independent Unionist Party

  1

  PUP

  1

  UK Unionist Party

  1

  UUP

  80

  SDLP

  68

  EU Water Directives
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on infraction proceedings against the Government arising from Northern Ireland's failure to comply with EU directives on drinking and waste water. [112074]

  Angela Smith
  With regard to drinking water, I can confirm my officials are currently responding to a case taken against the UK in February 2002 for failure to comply with the Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC). With regard to waste water, I can confirm that my officials are currently responding to a number of cases on implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (Directive 91/271/EEC) which have been raised with the UK by the European Commission and in which there are particular implications for Northern Ireland.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to his answer of 31 March 2003,Official Report, column 532W, on multiple sclerosis, how many patients in Northern Ireland have commenced (a) beta interferon products and (b) glatiramer to treat multiple sclerosis since 1 January. [111847]

  Mr. Browne
  No additional patients have commenced treatment with these specialist medicines since 1 January 2003 because recruitment of the necessary specialist staff, as explained in the answer referred to, has not yet been completed. Interviews have now taken place for extra nursing staff, who are expected to be in post no later than June 2003 and regional joint medical/nursing clinics are in the process of being set up.

  Murders
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the murders committed in Northern Ireland in each of the past 10 years have been attributed to(a) loyalist paramilitary organisations and
  (b) republican paramilitary organisations. [109376]

  Jane Kennedy
  The table provides details of the number of murders committed by Loyalists and Republicans since 1992.

  Number of murders as a result of the security situation

  Year

  By Loyalist

  By Republican

  1992–93

  38

  33

  1993–94

  38

  27

  1994–95

  32

  22

  1995–96

  3

  9

  1996–97

  6

  7

  1997–98

  22

  9

  195W

  Number of murders as a result of the security situation

  Year

  By Loyalist

  By Republican

  1998–99

  10

  33

  1999–2000

  4

  3

  2000–01

  14

  4

  2001–02

  10

  5

  2002–03

  11

  4

  Total

  188

  156

  Note:

  2002–03 statistics are provisional and may subject to minor amendment. Finalised figures will not be available until the end of June 2003

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Nigel Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the Non-Departmental Public Bodies in Northern Ireland; how many people are appointed to each; and who those serving on each are. [100722]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  A listing of non-departmental public bodies in Northern Ireland can be found in the Cabinet Office's publication "Public Bodies 2002". Details of appointees and the individuals serving on bodies sponsored by NI Departments are available from the "Public Appointments Annual Report 2001/2002 Volumes 1 & 2", and for bodies sponsored by the Northern Ireland Office in its "2002 Departmental Report—Expenditure Plans and Priorities" published in June 2002.

  Copies of all three documents are available from the Library of the House and can also be viewed at the following websites: "Public Bodies 2002":

  www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/quango/2002/publicbodies.pdf

  Public Appointments Annual Report:

  www.ofmdfInni.gov.uk/publicappointments

  NIO's 2002 Departmental Report

  www.nio.gov.uk/pdf/niodep. pdf

  North-South Bodies
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff are employed in servicing(a) the Civic Forum, (b) the North-South Ministerial Council, (c) North-South Implementation Bodies and (d) British Irish Council. [98196]

  Mr. Browne
  The information is as follows.

  Non-bank nurses1 who have been recruited to work in trusts in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997

  (headcount figures given only)

  Trust

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  South and East Belfast HSS Trust

  26

  44

  41

  18

  48

  59

  Armagh and Dungannon HSS Trust

  5

  11

  10

  10

  14

  25

  Southern Board HQ

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  Homefirst Community HSS Trust

  144

  114

  195

  225

  141

  312

  Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  30

  165

  81

  115

  144

  191

  Sperrin/Lakeland HSS Trust

  47

  75

  54

  58

  34

  77

  Blood Transfusion Service

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Altnagelvin Group HSS Trust

  96

  86

  72

  80

  81

  63

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community HSS Trust

  22

  23

  35

  28

  34

  22

  Craigavon Area Hospital Group HSS Trust

  20

  37

  98

  82

  46

  110

  Ulster Community and Hospitals Group HSS Trust

  81

  71

  150

  189

  248

  333

  Down Lisburn HSS Trust

  39

  62

  59

  57

  105

  102

  Regional Medical Physics Agency

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  196W
  (a) Civic Forum

  Funding for the Civic Forum ceased during suspension. As a result staff in the Civic Forum Secretariat have been redeployed on other duties.

  (b) North-South Ministerial Council

  The North-South Ministerial Council cannot meet during suspension. The 25.5 whole time equivalent staff employed in the Joint Secretariat are currently engaged in providing administrative support associated with the care and maintenance of the North/South Implementation Bodies and a range of other duties.

  (c) North-South Implementation Bodies

  At the latest date for which staffing figures are available, there are 486.6 whole-time equivalent staff employed in the North-South Implementation Bodies.

  (d) British-Irish Council

  The British and Irish Governments provide the Secretariat for the British-Irish Council in co-ordination with officials from each of the other members. In addition to servicing the work of the Council, the officials are involved in carrying out a range of other duties. It is therefore not possible to identify detailed staff numbers in respect of those functions which relate to the Secretariat.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the status is of the North-South Implementation Bodies following the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly. [85883]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Implementation Bodies were established under the Implementation Bodies Agreement of 9 March 1999 made between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland. That Agreement also conferred functions on the Bodies. The Agreement was incorporated into the domestic law of Northern Ireland by the North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) (NI) Order 1999. Following suspension it is the intention of the British and Irish Governments that the Bodies should be able to continue to perform their essential functions.

  Nurse Recruitment
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many nurses have been recruited in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997. [102308]

  Mr. Browne
  Figures are provided in the following tables.
  197W

  Non-bank nurses1 who have been recruited to work in trusts in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997

  (headcount figures given only)

  Trust

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Foyle Community HSS Trust

  40

  26

  46

  42

  60

  36

  Royal Hospitals

  160

  191

  253

  281

  289

  341

  Green Park Healthcare HSS Trust

  74

  111

  71

  39

  63

  92

  North and West Belfast HSS Trust

  25

  19

  22

  16

  51

  30

  Newry and Mourne HSS Trust

  26

  27

  18

  30

  38

  47

  Causeway HSS Trust

  84

  61

  85

  66

  72

  84

  Mater Infirmorum Hospital HSS Trust

  13

  24

  36

  21

  48

  85

  United Hospitals HSS Trust

  107

  103

  93

  120

  74

  82

  Total

  1,040

  1,250

  1,420

  1,478

  1,591

  2,094

  1 Bank nurses have been excluded from these figures—they cover for staffing shortfalls and fluctuating workloads in order to maintain service delivery

  Bank nurses who have been recruited to work in trusts in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997

  (headcount figures given only)

  Trust

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  South and East Belfast HSS Trust

  1

  19

  0

  5

  3

  9

  Armagh and Dungannon HSS Trust

  2

  5

  3

  8

  7

  14

  Southern Board HQ

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Homefirst Community HSS Trust

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  1

  20

  16

  7

  37

  41

  Sperrin/Lakeland HSS Trust

  26

  37

  35

  22

  33

  26

  Blood Transfusion Service

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Altnagelvin Group HSS Trust

  26

  31

  35

  45

  23

  21

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community HSS Trust

  11

  11

  7

  9

  8

  8

  Craigavon Area Hospital Group HSS Trust

  6

  8

  17

  34

  17

  38

  Ulster Community and Hospitals Group HSS Trust

  20

  10

  32

  32

  29

  29

  Down Lisburn HSS Trust

  33

  23

  22

  32

  55

  39

  Regional Medical Physics Agency

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Foyle Community HSS Trust

  27

  53

  45

  24

  14

  27

  Royal Hospitals

  12

  3

  32

  31

  19

  22

  Green Park Healthcare HSS Trust

  14

  12

  21

  9

  14

  9

  North and West Belfast HSS Trust

  4

  13

  3

  7

  15

  18

  Newry and Mourne HSS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  14

  72

  n/a = Not applicable

  1 Unable to provide

  Nursing Care
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in nursing homes have been assessed for contributions towards their nursing care since October 2002. [100871]

  Mr. Browne
  Monitoring of assessments carried out by Health and Social Services Trusts indicates that, since October 2002, approximately 1,400 people in nursing homes have been assessed for contributions towards the costs of their nursing care.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average amount of money per week awarded to those who have been assessed for contributions towards nursing care has been since October 2002. [100873]

  Mr. Browne
  Since October 2002 nursing home residents who have been assessed as eligible to receive payments for nursing care have benefited from a Health and Personal Social Services contribution of £100 per week towards the cost of their nursing care.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average period of time has been from an assessment for nursing care contributions taking place until receipt of the first payment by the patient. [100874]
  198W
  Mr. Browne
  The average period of time from an assessment for nursing care payments taking place until payment is received by the patient's nursing home is four weeks.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average length of time spent with a patient by medical staff has been when carrying out an assessment for a contribution to nursing care. [100875]

  Mr. Browne
  A nursing needs assessment is completed by a nurse. If any other needs are identified the appropriate professional will be asked to contribute to the assessment. Clients who agree to a nursing needs assessment undergo a specific assessment process using the agreed needs assessment tool. The average time spent by nursing needs assessors with a patient undergoing the assessment is 90 minutes. The assessment times can increase or decrease depending on the clients health and ability to participate, the information within nursing and medical notes, the representative/carers input to the assessment and the nursing home staffs evaluation of a clients needs. Further information may also be necessary in order to reach a decision.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals the Government have to
  199W
  introduce the right of third party appeals in the planning process in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [108173]

  Angela Smith
  There is no proposal, at present, to introduce third party appeals to the Northern Ireland planning process. When the Draft Planning (Amendment) (NI) Order 2003 was being considered by the House of Commons I indicated that I was commissioning a Regulatory Impact Assessment of the impact which third party appeals would have, if introduced. When complete, this will be published as part of a full consultation paper. Any decision to introduce third-party appeals in advance of that consultation would be premature.

  Police Service
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future awarding of the Royal Ulster Constabulary long service medal to members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve. [110790]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Royal Warrant for the Special Constabulary Long Service Medal is in the process of being revised to allow service in the Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve to be aggregated with previous service in the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve for the purpose of eligibility for the award of the Medal.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the successful applicants in the recent competition for clerical posts with the Police Service of Northern Ireland were(a) Roman Catholic and (b) others; and how many of these successful applicants have been offered a post. [86960]

  Jane Kennedy
  In the latest competition for administrative assistants in the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which took place in May 2002, 264 candidates were found suitable for inclusion in the merit pool. Of these, 26 were classified as having a Roman Catholic community background, and 238 as having a non-Roman Catholic background. 52 were, therefore, appointable under current legislation, all of whom will be offered a post.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether it is his policy that past terrorist atrocities which have not resulted in charges or convictions should not be investigated by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. [102091]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  No. Whether a criminal investigation is reopened by the PSNI is a matter for the Chief Constable. When there are calls for public inquiries into past incidents, the Government have to decide on a case by case basis the most appropriate course of action. In doing so the Government's priority is that those responsible should be convicted and that the whole truth should emerge. In many cases I believe that criminal investigations represent the best way of achieving this.
  200W
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) whether serving officers in the Garda Siochana will be subject to the 50:50 Catholic: non-Catholic recruitment quotas if they apply to join the Police Service of Northern Ireland under the proposed arrangements; [98558]

  (2) whether serving officers in police forces in Great Britain are subject to the 50:50 Catholic: non-Catholic recruitment quotas if they apply to join the Police Service of Northern Ireland. [98559]

  Jane Kennedy
  The 50:50 recruitment arrangements apply only to police trainees. They do not apply to lateral entry at ranks above constable. Serving police officers in both the Garda Siochana and police services in Great Britain are therefore subject to the 50:50 arrangements if they apply to join the Police Service of Northern Ireland as police trainees. The proposed new arrangements provided for by clause 19 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, to enable fixed term appointments of up to three years to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, will apply only to the ranks of sergeant to Chief Superintendent. The 50:50 recruitment arrangements will therefore not apply to appointments under this scheme.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons who at the time of their application were serving as police officers in forces in Great Britain have applied to join the Police Service of Northern Ireland; and of these, how many have been appointed. [98560]

  Jane Kennedy
  Numbers of applicants and appointees to the Police Service of Northern Ireland who were formerly serving officers in GB are as follows:

  PSNI post/rank applied for

  Number of applicants from GB police forces

  Number of appointees from GB police forces

  Trainee constable

  1Not known

  17

  Sergeant

  15

  7

  Inspector

  6

  4

  Chief Inspector

  10

  1

  Assistant Chief Constable

  1

  0

  Deputy Chief Constable

  3

  21

  Chief Constable

  2

  1

  1 It is not possible to determine the numbers of serving officers from GB forces who have applied for trainee posts in the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

  2 Appointment announced, to commence at the beginning of April 2003.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons classified as(a) male Catholic, (b) male non-Catholic, (c) female Catholic and (d) female non-Catholic were admitted to, and graduated from, each training course run by the Police Service of Northern Ireland to date; and what the maximum number of recruits was that could be accommodated on each of these courses. [98561]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is set out in the table. The maximum number of recruits that could be accommodated in the PSNI college is 48 and 60 alternating every 5 weeks, to a maximum of 540 students per year.
  201W

  PSNI intakes

  PSNI graduates

  Non RC

  RC

  Non RC

  RC

  Intake date

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  4 November 2001

  17

  6

  16

  8

  17

  6

  14

  8

  9 December 2001

  23

  6

  15

  15

  23

  6

  15

  14

  20 January 2002

  14

  10

  20

  4

  14

  10

  19

  4

  24 February 2002

  17

  13

  19

  10

  17

  12

  19

  10

  31 March 2002

  15

  9

  13

  10

  15

  9

  13

  10

  5 May 2002

  14

  2

  11

  9

  13

  2

  10

  9

  9 June 2002

  11

  14

  18

  8

  11

  14

  18

  8

  14 July 2002

  15

  5

  19

  2

  15

  5

  19

  2

  18 August 2002

  11

  18

  22

  6

  11

  17

  22

  5

  22 September 2002

  13

  3

  13

  5

  Still in training

  27 October 2002

  22

  6

  22

  5

  1 December 2002

  14

  6

  20

  7

  12 January 2003

  15

  4

  8

  5

  16 February 2003

  12

  3

  15

  1

  Post Mortems
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reason hospital pathologists in the Royal and the City hospitals are empowered to undertake coroners post mortems. [102018]

  Mr. Browne
  Article 11 of the Criminal Justice (NI) order 1980 empowers the Secretary of State to approve a list of registered medical practitioners for the performance of Coroner's post mortem examinations. The list is compiled by the Secretary of State on the advice of the State Pathologist.

  The current list is made up from forensic pathologists on the staff of the State Pathologist's Dept and named hospital pathologists attached to the Royal Victoria Hospital or the Belfast City Hospital. SPD staff will be engaged to conduct the majority of coroner's cases, especially post mortem examinations involving deaths, which might result in serious criminal charges being prepared, or where medical negligence or neglect has been alleged.

  Hospital pathologists currently conduct coroner's cases when the death of a patient has occurred in one of the Belfast teaching hospitals (Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast City Hospital, Mater Hospital and Ulster Hospital). In some circumstances eg paediatric deaths, autopsies are carried out jointly between a member of the State Pathologist's Department and a paediatric pathologist, while in others, specialist advice such as neuropathology, may be sought by the State Pathologist.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the expected saving to future funds from the private finance initiative schemes due to become operational in 2003. [105769]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Northern Ireland Office do not as yet have any Private Finance Initiative schemes in operation. The information for the Northern Ireland Administration is as follows:The Classroom 2000 (C2K) project to provide information and communication technology infrastructure needed in schools in Northern Ireland shows a Net Present Value saving against the Public Sector Comparator (PSC) of £12 million, representing 7 per cent. of the PSC; and
  202W
  the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency's Vehicle Testing project to equip vehicle testing centres throughout Northern Ireland with the latest computerised vehicle testing technology fully meeting EU testing obligations has a Net Present Value saving against the Public Sector Comparator (PSC) of £6 million, representing 16 per cent. of the PSC.

  Public Relations Consultants
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent on public relations consultants in each year since 1997. [100725]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Northern Ireland Office has not used the services of Public Relations consultants.

  Within the Northern Ireland administration the cost of public relations consultants in each year since 1997 is set out in the following table:

  Year

  £

  1997–98

  897,537

  1998–99

  1,110,559

  1999–2000

  1,311,243

  2000–01

  1,270,102

  2001–02

  1,013,129

  2002–03

  556,370

  One department was unable to provide figures in relation to the cost of public relations consultants.

  These figures do riot include Agencies and NDPBs.

  Regional Planning (Enforcement)
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times enforcement action has been taken by the(a) regional planning offices and (b) the sub offices in Northern Ireland in each of the last six years. [108175]

  Angela Smith
  The Planning Service has a number of options to seek to remedy a breach of planning control. The Planning Service normally seeks to remedy the breach initially through negotiation of remedial works, such as the removal of the unauthorised structure. This approach successfully resolves a high proportion of enforcement cases. If this approach is unsuccessful, the Department will consider formal enforcement action.
  203W
  Although statistical records maintained by the Planning Service have historically taken account of enforcement procedures, it is only since 1999 that separate data specifically relating to enforcement action has been recorded. It is not possible to provide a breakdown of enforcement statistics by division. Presented in the table are the total number of enforcement cases for each year since 1999. These figures appear in the Agency Annual Report and Accounts for the years 1999–2002. Figures for the present year are not yet available.

  Cases investigated

  Cases resolved

  Enforcement Notices issued

  Stop Notices issued

  2001–02

  3,800

  1,634

  50

  4

  2000–01

  3,500

  1,422

  54

  3

  1999–2000

  2,678

  1,167

  82

  2

  A review of the current system, to allow information to be readily collated on a divisional and sub-divisional basis, will be undertaken as part of Modernising Planning Processes.

  Road Accidents
  Reverend Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been(a) injured and (b) killed in road traffic accidents in Northern Ireland since 1 January. [109973]

  Angela Smith
  The collection of road traffic data is the responsibility of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). Full details for the year to date are not yet available but PSNI has provided provisional figures and these are set out in the table.

  Education and library board area

  Schools

  Approval given

  BELB

  Fernhill PS and Glencairn PS, Belfast

  1998

  St. Comgall's PS and St. Joseph's PS, Belfast

  1999

  St. Paul's PS and St. Mary's PS, Belfast

  2000

  Holy Trinity Boys PS and Holy Trinity PS

  2000

  St. Catherine's PS, St. Gall's PS and St. John's PS

  2000

  NEELB

  Antrim HS and Ardnaveigh HS

  1998

  Coleraine Boys HS and Coleraine Girls HS

  2000

  Cambridge House Boys Grammar and Cambridge House Girls Grammar, Ballymena

  2001

  SEELB

  Maze PS Lisburn, St. James PS

  2000

  Hillsborough and St. Johns PS, Hillsborough

  2001

  Clough PS, Downpatrick and Downshire PS, Dundrum

  2001

  St. Mary's Boys PS and St. Mary's Girls PS, Newcastle

  2002

  Hillsborough PS and Newport PS, Hillsborough

  —

  SELB

  Lurgan Cahone PS, Rathfriland and St. Colman's PS, Glassdrummond

  1998

  St. Clare's Convent PS and St. Mary's PS, Keady

  1998

  St. Clare's PS and St. Colman's Abbey PS, Newry

  1999

  Our Lady's PS and St. Mochuas PS, Keady

  2000

  Ballygawley PS and lnnismagh PS, Ballygawley

  2001

  St. Josephs Infants PS, St. Peter's Boys PS and Sacred Heart PS, Lurgan

  2001

  WELB

  St. Patrick's Broys HS and St. Patrick's Girls HS, Dungannon

  1998

  St. Michaels PS and St. Theresa PS, Enniskillen

  2001

  Bready PS and Sandville PS, Strabane

  2002

  Secondments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals have been seconded to his Department from the private sector, in each case listing(a) from which organisation and (b) dates of secondments in 2002–03. [108074]
  204W

  Period

  Number of deaths/fatalities1

  1 January—14 April 2003

  50 killed

  1 January—28 February 2003

  35 killed

  1 January—28 February 2003

  225 serious injuries

  1 January—28 February 2003

  1,420 slight injuries

  1 provisional figures

  School Closures
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by(a) name, (b) location and (c) education and library board area those schools that have been closed in each of the last five years. [110570]

  Jane Kennedy
  A total of eight primary, one special arid one post-primary schools have closed in the past five years. These schools are:

  Education and library board area

  School and location

  Date of closure

  BELB

  Jaffe Special School, Belfast

  23 June 2001

  St. Anthony's PS, Willowfield, Belfast

  31 August 2001

  NEELB

  Dunamuggy PS, Templepatrick

  31 August 1999

  Millbrook PS, Larne

  31 August 2000

  Mosside PS, Ballymoney

  31 August 2002

  SEELB

  O'Neill Memorial PS, Crossnacreevy, Belfast

  31 August 2002

  SELB

  Star of the Sea PS, Kilkeel

  31 August 1998

  WELB

  Cavanacaw PS, Omagh

  31 August 2001

  Glengorland PS, Donemana, Strabane

  31 August 2001

  Dungiven HS

  31 August 2002

  In addition, in this five year period a number of schools have received approval to amalgamate, namely:

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Within the Northern Ireland Office during the period 2002–03 no individuals have been seconded from the private sector.

  Within the Northern Ireland Administration there were five secondments from the private sector to the Northern Ireland civil service during the period 2002–03. Details are as follows.

  205W

  Organisation

  Dates of Secondment

  GFW Price Consultancy

  10 July 2001-current

  Partnership UK

  6 January 2003-current

  Partnership UK

  4 February 2003-current

  SERCO

  17 February 2003-current

  IBM

  24 February 2003-current

  State Pathology Department
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research the State Pathology Department undertakes in Northern Ireland. [102016]

  Mr. Browne
  It is the policy of the State Pathologist's Department to use where appropriate, the valuable information gained from conducting post mortem examinations, particularly in areas such as sudden infant deaths, suicides, terrorist related deaths and genetic disorders. This information may be of tremendous value, particularly in inherited diseases for genetic counselling and in other instances for providing advice and guidance in preventing further similar deaths.

  In conveying such information, the anonymity of 1he deceased is protected. If relatives decide to donate tissue or organs specifically for research, the State Pathologist's Department must have their written consent to do so.

  The State Pathologist's Department does not use material derived from Coroner's post mortem examinations to conduct research. Such material is solely taken to assist in the ascertainment of the cause of death, or if required for evidential purposes in suspected criminal cases.

  Teachers' Salaries
  Mr. David Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effect changes to the common funding formula, and in particular changes to threshold funds, will have on funds available for teachers' salaries. [100977]

  Jane Kennedy
  The intention is to introduce the common formula in the calculation of school budgets for 2004–05.

  All changes to the common formula, when in place, will be subject to detailed modelling and consultation with education interests. There is no separate allocation for teacher costs within LMS formulae and schools may therefore decide for themselves the staffing complement and the organisational structure.

  The inclusion of threshold resources within school delegated budgets in 2003–4 means that, on average, school budgets will increase by between 8 per cent. and 11 per cent. depending in which area the school is located. In common with longstanding arrangements any school with a financial difficulty should contact its funding authority which will consider what additional financial support can be made available under its LMS Scheme and taking account of its responsibilities for other schools in its area.

  Voting Attitudes
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent on(a) opinion polling and (b) research into the attitudes of voters in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997. [100726]

  Mr. Browne
  The amount spent by the Northern Ireland Office on attitudinal research in each year since 1997 is set out in the following table:

  Table 1: Costs of attitudinal research1 carried out by the NIO 1997—March 2003

  Year

  Cost (£)

  1997–98

  14,200

  1998–99

  15,400

  1999– 2000

  64,675

  2000–01

  56,750

  2001–02

  90,545

  2002–03

  82,232

  1 Relating to views on a range of issues including organised crime, views on the Northern Ireland Policing Board, attitudes to devolution and the NIO's contribution to the Community Attitudes Surey.

  Walsh Visa Programme
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people from Northern Ireland have entered into the Walsh Visa Programme; how many of these dropped out early from the programme; and what the financial cost has been to the Government of running this programme. [100068]

  Jane Kennedy
  449 people from Northern Ireland have entered the US under the Walsh Visa Programme. 163 participants are still working in the US under the terms of the visa. I should clarify that the visa scheme allows participants to live and work for up to three years in the USA. There is no requirement for individuals to stay for the full three years visa period.

  Expenditure on the programme to date is £1,787,000 with an expected outturn of £1,952,000 by the end of 2002–03.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Terrorism Act
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the observations in relation to staffing levels at ports in Lord Carlile of Berriew's 'Report on the Operation in 2001 of the Terrorism Act 2000'; and if he will make a statement. [110717]

  Mr. Blunkett
  In his report on the operation of the Terrorism Act (laid before Parliament on 26 November 2002), Lord Carlile recommended that consideration should be given to the creation of a single ports and borders police force.

  The Government have made it clear that we do not rule out in the longer term any change that could be shown to improve the security of the UK, but that our immediate priority must be to exploit to the full all the opportunities for closer working between Special Branches and with our border agencies. Recent steps

  207W
  include measures to strengthen Special Branches, and to develop closer co-operation between them and improve co-ordination through the appointment of a National Coordinator of Ports Policing. Wholesale reorganisation of our border controls could adversely impact our defences at a time of enduring threat.

  There are currently around 1,200 Special Branch officers at ports in the UK. Staffing levels at ports are a matter for the Chief Constable of each force. The level of Special Branch officers at ports in England and Wales is supported by the Home Office through Dedicated Security Post funding.

  In addition to the Special Branch border control function, separate uniform policing arrangements are made on a territorial basis as the circumstances of each port dictate. The hon. Member will be aware of Sir John Wheeler's report on airport security which recommended a review of the arrangements by which airports are 'designated' for uniform policing purposes. `Designated' airports have a full time uniform police presence paid for by the airport operator. That review is under way.

  Responsibility for security at sea ports rests with the owners of the port. There are, however, eight ports in the UK which have dedicated non Home Office port police.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are detained without trial under the Terrorism Act 2000; and how many of them are under 18. [112114]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 8 May 2003]: No one is detained without trial under the Terrorism Act 2000, though individuals may be held for investigation purposes following arrest for strictly limited periods.

  Under the immigration powers in Part 4 of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, 15 foreign Nationals have so far been detained. Of the total detained, two have voluntary left the United Kingdom. The other 13 remain in detention.

  None of these people is under 18 years of age.

  Abu Hamza
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received requests for assistance from the United States authorities relating to information provided by James Ujaama and the case of Abu Hamza. [111715]

  Mr. Blunkett
  For operational reasons it is Home Home policy to neither confirm nor deny that a request has been received.

  Airport Arrests
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were arrested at airports in the UK in the last two years. [112135]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Data on the number of arrests for notifiable offences are collected centrally at police force area level only and as a result we cannot identify specific locations.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders have been(a) applied for and (b) obtained by (i) police and (ii) local authorities in Cheshire in each year since their introduction. [112315]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 12 May 2003]: Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) were introduced from 1 April 1999. Information held centrally up to 31 May 2000 is for the number of ASBOs issued within England and Wales by police force area only.

  From 1 June 2000 official statistics on the number of ASBOs issued within England and Wales are based on quarterly returns from Magistrates' Courts Committees (MCCs). From copies of the orders we have been able to identify the applicant involved.

  The number of notifications received by the Home Office of ASBOs issued in Cheshire from 1 April 1999 to 30 November 2002 (latest available) are given in the table.

  We are aware that the numbers of ASBOs made nationally have been consistently under reported in returns made by magistrates' courts and are considering how reporting can be improved.

  The number of ASBO applications, as reported to the Home Office, from 1 April 1999 to 30 November 2002, within the Cheshire MCC area, by type of applicant and result

  Period

  Total

  Issued

  Refused

  Police applications by result

  1 April 1999 to 31 May 20001

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1 June 2000 to 31 December 2000

  0

  0

  0

  1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001

  2

  2

  0

  1 January 2002 to 30 November 2002

  7

  7

  0

  Total

  9

  9

  0

  Local authority applications by result

  1 April 1999 to 31 May 20001

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1 June 2000 to 31 December 2000

  0

  0

  0

  1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001

  0

  0

  0

  1 January 2002 to 30 November 2002

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  0

  0

  0

  Total applications by result

  1 April 1999 to 31 May 20001

  2—

  0

  2—

  1 June 2000 to 31 December 2000

  0

  0

  0

  1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001

  2

  2

  0

  1 January 2002 to 30 November 2002

  7

  7

  0

  Total

  9

  9

  0

  1 For this period the number of ASBOs issued only is known

  2 Not available

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is his policy to refuse applications for asylum from people recently engaged in hostilities against British forces. [107666]

  Beverley Hughes
  There is currently a hold on deciding all asylum claims from Iraqis. However, there is no question of people recently engaged in hostilities against British forces being granted asylum or Humanitarian Protection.

  Despite the hold, all Iraqi asylum applicants are fingerprinted and checked against the Immigration Service Warnings Index computer system. As part of the

  209W
  initial screening process all claimants are interviewed comprehensively about the routes and methods employed to reach the UK.

  Any cases giving rise to security concerns are immediately referred to the appropriate agencies.

  When decision-making is resumed, all claims will be considered on their individual merits against the circumstances which then apply in Iraq. But anyone who commits a war crime or is guilty of terrorist acts will be denied asylum, as the Refugee Convention requires. So, too, will anyone committing a serious non-political crime before arrival in the UK.

  In addition, any other person whether asylum seeker or refugee who poses a threat to national security will be denied the protection of the Refugee Convention.

  It will not be possible to establish a claim for asylum simply on the basis of having been a Ba'ath Party official, of having supported Saddam Hussein or having been forced to join the party or fight against UK/US troops.

  We do not expect Iraqis to face persecution following its liberation. We therefore envisage the progressive return of Iraqis to their country now that large scale combat operations are over. They will have an important role to play in rebuilding Iraq's economy and civic society.

  Arrangements will be made for senior officers to consider any claims raising security concerns, including any evidence of having fought against UK/US troops, or where anything other than outright refusal is anticipated.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are planned to reduce the number of asylum seekers who become unaccounted for after entering the country. [111297]

  Beverley Hughes
  As part of the initial screening process asylum seekers are required to provide proof of residence at a particular address and are issued with an Application Registration Card (ARC) containing their details and fingerprints. The Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) maintains databases containing the information supplied, which is also recorded in the individual Home Office file. For those subject to a reporting regime, place of residence is verified during the reporting event. Measures are now in place to increase the numbers of asylum seekers subject to reporting conditions, which will reduce the numbers absconding. All applicants, and their representatives, are told of their obligation to notify the Home Office of any subsequent change of address.

  The Immigration Service has eight designated reporting centres to assist in managing reporting regimes and, in addition, a person may be required to report to a police station near their address. Alongside these measures systems are in place to track and monitor all failed asylum seekers.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unaccompanied young people under 16 seeking asylum have been allowed into the United Kingdom in each of the last three years. [112198]
  210W
  Beverley Hughes
  Reliable information on the entry routes of unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC), including when UASCs first enter the United Kingdom, is not available.

  The available information on applications from unaccompanied asylum seeking children is given in the table. However this data relates to applicants aged 17 or under.

  Unaccompanied Children1,2,3 aged 17 or under, applying for asylum in the United Kingdom, 2000 to 2002

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  20004

  2,735

  1,395

  1,340

  20014,5

  3,470

  1,645

  1,820

  20025,6

  5,945

  1,220

  4,725

  1 Figures are rounded to the nearest 5.

  2 Unaccompanied at point of arrival, and not known to be joining a close relative in the United Kingdom.

  3 Figures exclude age dispute cases reported by A-CID.

  4 Figures exclude cases lodged at Local Enforcement Offices and Postal Applications.

  5 Provisional figures.

  6 Figure not comparable to manual count data previous to 2002, which excluded LEO and Postal applications which are now reported by A-CID.

  Indicative information for 2002 suggests that of the 5,945 unaccompanied asylum seeking children, under 40 per cent. of the total, are aged under 16. Comparable data for previous years for the proportion of UASCs who were aged under 16 is unavailable and could be produced only by incurring disproportional costs.

  Information on asylum applications from unaccompanied asylum seeking children is published annually in the statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom", a copy of which is available in the Library, and from the RDS website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration 1 .html

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those seeking asylum in the UK from Kosovo have returned since the arrest of Slobodan Milosevic; and if he will make a statement. [112243]

  Beverley Hughes
  I regret that information on the number of asylum applicants who have returned to Kosovo since the arrest of Slobodan Milosevic at the end of March 2001 is not available.

  Information on the number of principal asylum applicants from the countries of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) who were removed from the UK between April 2001 and September 2002 (the latest date for which nationality data are available) is given in the table. FRY is comprised of Kosovo, Serbia and Montenegro, but the majority of FRY applications are thought to be from Kosovars.

  Principal asylum applicants from the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) removed from the UK1,2,3

  Q2 2001

  455

  Q3 2001

  445

  Q4 2001

  560

  Q1 2002

  500

  Q2 2002

  585

  Q3 2002

  605

  Total

  3,155

  211W
  1 Provisional estimated data, subject to change.

  2 Includes persons departing 'voluntarily' after enforcement action had been initiated and persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Returns programmes run by the International Organisation for Migration.

  3 Nationality does not necessarily indicate the country to which someone was removed.

  Data rounded to the nearest five.

  Cabinet Office Strategy
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on his Department's progress in achieving the recommendations of the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit's report "Private Action, Public Benefit"; [111647]

  (2) what plans there are to create a new public benefit test to determine an organisation's eligibility for charitable status. [111648]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Strategy Unit report is a report to Government and does not represent settled Government policy. Home Office officials are currently completing their analysis of the responses to those recommendations for which the Home Office has responsibility. It is the Government's intention to publish in the summer a summary of the responses to the consultation and an indication of the Government's view as to the way forward on the implementation of the recommendations, including those relating to public benefit.

  Where recommendations have commanded general support and do not require legislation, we aim to move as quickly as possible to implement them, although some may first need further policy development work.

  However, legislation would be needed to give effect to many of the recommendations. The Home Secretary has given a commitment to publish a draft charities Bill as soon as possible.

  Cannabis
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been arrested for possession of cannabis in the last 12 months. [112143]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Information on arrests for specific(a) types of drug offence and (b) specific types of drugs is not collated centrally. However, the number of people apprehended or summonsed by the police in England and Wales in 2000 for unlawful possession of cannabis is 39,121. This is the latest figure available at the current time, and is from the Home Office Court Appearances Database.

  Charities
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines are in place to determine which charities and charitable organisations will receive direct funding from central and local government. [111546]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are no central Government guidelines to determine which charities and charitable organisations will receive direct funding from central and local government. Nor are there plans to develop 212W
  any as it would be inappropriate to do so. Each individual central Government Department and local authority, develops their own funding programmes to pay for service provision and/or support charitable activities in line with their objectives and such regulations as are set out to guide all public spending.

  Government Accounting provides advice to Departments on accounting and procurement practice. This is complemented by guidance from the Office of Government Commerce (OGC). Home Office officials are working with officials from both the Treasury and the OGC to review existing guidance to ensure there are no unnecessary barriers to voluntary and community sector involvement in delivering public services.

  Government have published a Funding Code under the Compact on relations between Government and the Voluntary and Community Sector to encourage good practice. This code is due to be reviewed shortly.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 2 April 2003,Official Report, column 750W, if his Department will publish an updated version of Central Government Funding of Voluntary and Community Organisations 1982–83 to 1999–2000: ISBN 1 84082 636–3. [111584]

  Beverley Hughes
  Yes. We plan to announce publication of the latest research into central Government funding of voluntary and community organisations at the beginning of the next parliamentary Session.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which charities and charitable organisations provide public services(a) alongside and (b) additional to those provided by (i) central and (ii) local government. [111547]

  Beverley Hughes
  There is no centrally held data on the charities and charitable organisations, which provide public services either alongside or in addition to services provided by central and local government. However, the Treasury Cross Cutting Review on 'The Role of the Voluntary and Community Sector in Service Delivery' published in September 2001, considered Government flows of funding—as grants and/or contracts—to the voluntary and community sector. On the basis of research conducted by the Home Office, it is estimated that, in 2000–01, central Government Departments and their associated agencies/non-departmental public bodies provided funding spent in excess of £1.8 billion through voluntary and community organisations in England. In the same year, local authorities are estimated to have spent in excess of £1.1 billion through voluntary and community organisations in England.

  The Treasury report recommends that a unified system of data collection is put in place by April 2006.

  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the review of the Charity Commission has to give additional assistance to trustees of charities in fulfilling their obligations. [111544]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Strategy Unit Report, Private Action, Public Benefit set out a package of recommendations to modernise charity law, to improve
  213W
  the range of legal forms available to charities and social enterprises, to develop greater accountability and transparency in the voluntary and community sector and to ensure independent, open and proportionate regulation of the sector.

  The Charity Commission, as the regulator of charities, has responsibility at present for providing a wide range of advice to charity trustees. The Strategy Unit report recommends that the Charity Commission's advisory role should be defined in statute to give a clearer focus on regulatory issues. Implementation of the recommendation would empower the Charity Commission to concentrate its resources more on providing advice to trustees to enable them to comply with their responsibilities under charity and trust law.

  Civil Service (People with Disabilities)
  Mr. John Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in meeting targets for the proportion of people with disabilities in senior posts in the Department. [110534]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Home Office has adopted the corporate civil service target that staff with disabilities should comprise three per cent of the Senior Civil Service (SCS) by 2005. At present the department has no known staff with disabilities at that level but arrangements are in place to support people who have disabilities when they apply for jobs in the Home Office, and to support such staff once appointed in their development and progression. Representation of staff with disabilities has risen at junior and middle management levels and it is hoped that this will feed through into more senior levels including the SCS. The department operates a guaranteed interview scheme for candidates with disabilities applying for external and internal vacancies, provided they meet minimum post requirements. Where necessary reasonable adjustments are made and special equipment provided for staff with disabilities, both at the workplace and in selection and promotion procedures, including selection for the department's Intensive Development and Fast-track Nomination schemes. The Home Office is currently engaged in external recruitment to senior grades and is taking steps to draw this to the attention of disability groups. The department participates in the Cabinet Office Disability Bursary Scheme, designed for staff with potential for early promotion to senior levels, the Cabinet Office summer placement scheme for disabled graduates and the Cabinet Office-chaired Disability Working Group, which is examining ways of raising the representation of people with disabilities in the SCS.

  There is evidence, from a Home Office staff survey in 2001, of a significant gap between the numbers of staff who declare disability and the actual position. Against this background, the department is exploring ways of persuading staff of the value of declaring their disability. The department has facilitated and resourced the establishment of the Home Office Disability Support Network (HODS), to provide support and encouragement to staff with disabilities and advice to the department about their needs. The membership of HODS has recently risen to 350.
  214W
  The department is working with HODS to raise awareness and improve understanding of disability issues across the office, and of the potential of disabled staff to rise to senior levels. A number of events and activities are being planned as part of the European Year for Disabled People to raise the profile of disability in the department.

  Community-based Organisations
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recommendations have been issued to community foundations on better working with independent grant making trusts; and who he consulted when drafting them. [111693]

  Beverley Hughes
  I can confirm that there have been no recommendations issued to community foundations on better working with independent grant making trusts. Community Foundations operate as independent organisations and, as such, it is not for government to issue guidance on how they should operate.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice has been issued and what is being done(a) centrally and (b) regionally as part of the Home Office's work in supporting grass roots organisations to (i) develop coherence and a distinctive identity for specific grant making programmes, (ii) foster productive networking, learning and knowledge transfer among partner organisations and (iii) support the dual role of community-based organisations as local service providers and independent voices, with a wide advocacy role. [111694]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Compact on Relations between Government and the Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) in England, published in November 1998, provides a framework of principles and undertakings, which should underpin the relationship between the Government and voluntary and community in England. The Compact is supported by four Codes of Good Practice covering: funding; consultation and policy appraisal; black and minority ethnic and community organisations; and volunteering. The Compact Code of Good Practice on Funding makes a number of recommendations that are designed to ensure coherence and clarity in Government funding programmes.

  Fostering productive networking, learning and knowledge transfer among partner organisations is achieved in a variety of ways both nationally and regionally. The main mechanism is through the 18 regional voluntary sector networks consisting of a general and a black and minority ethnic network in each of the nine regions, which are funded by the Active Community Unit. The Regional Voluntary Sector Networks exist to increase the effectiveness of the VCS in each region, to unlock further funding at the regional level and to advocate effectively at the regional level. The networks, through their links to sub-regional and local networks, link grassroots organisations to key regional developments and network and learning opportunities.

  In September 2002, the Treasury published "The Role of the Voluntary and Community Sector in Service Delivery: a cross cutting review". The Cross Cutting Review reaffirms the Government's commitment to

  215W
  ensuring that when the sector wishes to engage in service delivery there are no unnecessary barriers from both central and local Government. The Cross Cutting Review contains recommendations concerned with strengthening the sector, simplifying bureaucracy and getting the funding relationship between government and the sector right. It also recognises that if the expertise of the voluntary and community sector is to be used in the delivery of public services it is vital that the sector's right to independence is protected, separate to any funding relationship with Government that might exist.

  Criminal Proceedings (EU)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on the proposals set out in the European Commission Green Paper on Procedural Safeguards for Suspects and Defendants in Criminal Proceedings throughout the European Union (COM (2003) 75(01)); and if he will make a statement. [112154]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Government are considering the extent to which action at ED level on these matters is appropriate. The Green Paper published by the Commission does not contain firm proposals for action but rather identifies certain basic rights and poses a number of questions about the setting of minimum standards in these areas. The Government believe that any future proposals for EU measures should be based on the principles of mutual recognition and subsidiarity and assist the process of tackling cross-border crime by ensuring that suspects or defendants are not discriminated against when subject to criminal proceedings in another EU country.

  Deportations
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were deported in 2002; and what the total cost to his Department was. [112130]

  Beverley Hughes
  Data on the number of people deported from the UK in 2002 and the total cost of deportations in that time are not available.

  The latest published information on deportations shows that of the 49,135 people removed from the UK in 2001, 450 were removed as a result of deportation action.

  Information on all those removed from the UK, including the number of deportations, will be published in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Control of Immigration Statistics UK 2002" which is due to be published at the end of August, and will be available from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate web site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration l. html.

  Entry Clearance
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in each of the last three years he has overturned a decision to refuse entry. [112485]
  216W
  Beverley Hughes
  Information on the number of decisions to refuse entry that have been overturned by the Home Office in each of the last three years is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case files. The available information relating to appeals determined by the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) is given in the following table and shows that most appeals are dismissed.

  Outcome of appeals to Immigration adjudicators, by broad category, 1999–20011 United Kingdom—Number of principal application

  Outcome

  Appeal category

  Total dealt with

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  2Withdrawn

  All appeals

  19993

  28,610

  7,630

  17,350

  3,630

  20003

  27,130

  5,960

  20,040

  1,120

  20011,3

  56,815

  13,335

  42,160

  1,320

  Refusal of entry clearance4

  19993

  5,800

  2,070

  3,280

  450

  20003

  6,650

  2,360

  3,690

  600

  20011,3

  10,755

  4,415

  5,910

  430

  Refusal of Asylum

  19993

  19,460

  5,280

  11,130

  3,050

  20003

  19,400

  3,340

  15,580

  480

  20011,3

  43,415

  8,155

  34,440

  825

  20021,3

  64,405

  13,875

  48,845

  1,685

  Other non-asylum5

  19993

  3,350

  280

  2,940

  130

  20003

  1,080

  260

  770

  40

  20011,3

  2,640

  765

  1,810

  65

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 10 except figures for 2001 and 2002 which are rounded to the nearest five.

  2 Includes cases where the appellant withdrew the appeal because the Home Office had conceded the case, as well those where the appellant decided not to pursue the appeal further.

  3 Figures are estimates based on data supplied from the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Presenting Officers Unit in the Home Office.

  4 Including refusal of certificate of entitlement.

  5 After-entry into United Kingdom.

  Information on non-asylum appeals are published regularly in the Command Paper Control of Immigration Statistics, a copy of which is available in the Library. It is planned that information relating to non-asylum appeal determined in 2002 will be published at the end of November 2003.

  Gun Crime
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many weapons, and of what type, have been handed in(a) in total and (b) to each UK police force as part of the national gun amnesty. [112720]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Police forces will be providing final gun amnesty figures at the end of May. This will include a detailed breakdown of the items handed in. However, latest police estimates indicate that over 40,000 guns will have been handed in during the amnesty, along with nearly a million rounds of ammunition and 5,896 other weapons.

  Immigration and Asylum
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Iraqi prisoners of war being treated in hospitals in the UK will be eligible to claim asylum. [108032]
  217W
  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 8 April 2003]: There is currently a hold on deciding all asylum claims from Iraqis. However, there is currently no question of Iraqi prisoners of war in the UK being granted asylum or Humanitarian Protection. Despite the hold, all Iraqi asylum applicants are fingerprinted and checked against the Immigration Service Warnings Index computer system. As part of the initial screening process, all claimants are interviewed comprehensively about the routes and methods employed to reach the UK.

  Any cases giving rise to security concerns are immediately referred to the appropriate agencies. When decision-making is resumed, all claims will be considered on their individual merits against the circumstances which then apply in Iraq. But anyone who commits a war crime or is guilty of terrorist acts will be denied asylum, as the Refugee Convention requires. So, too, will anyone committing a serious non-political crime before arrival in the UK.

  In addition, any other person whether asylum seeker or refugee who poses a threat to national security will be denied the protection of the Refugee Convention.

  It will not be possible to establish a claim for asylum simply on the basis of having been a Ba'ath Party official, of having supported Saddam Hussein or having been forced to join the party or fight against UK/US troops.

  We do not expect Iraqis to face persecution following its liberation. We therefore envisage the progressive return ofIraqis to their country now that large scale combat operations are over. They will have an important role to play in rebuilding Iraq's economy and civic society.

  Arrangements will be made for senior officers to consider any claims raising security concerns, including any evidence of having fought against UK/US troops, or where anything other than outright refusal is anticipated.

  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether senior Iraqi republican guard commanders have applied for asylum in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [112643]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office has no record of an asylum application from anyone with a credible claim to have been a senior republican guard commander. Any evidence to the contrary will be thoroughly investigated.

  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.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to repatriate(a) Iraqi asylum seekers and (b) Iraqis granted exceptional leave to remain; and if he will make a statement. [112150]

  Beverley Hughes
  We are working actively to ensure that Iraqis can be assisted to return voluntarily to their homeland as soon as practicable. Many Iraqis in the UK have skills, which will be of value to the reconstruction of Iraq. The Government are committed to helping clear 218W
  the way for them to do so. We will work closely with the Iraqi communities in the UK and sector experts on voluntary return.

  We will be looking to commence enforced returns of those who do not qualify for leave as soon as conditions allow.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures have been put in place in the NASS Restricting Access to NASS Support team to comply with the Court of Appeal judgment on section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; and whether his Department will be issuing a new policy bulletin in relation to changes to procedure. [112162]

  Beverley Hughes
  Following the judgment of Mr. Justice Collins of 19 February on the application of section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, we anticipated all of the main points of the Court of Appeal judgment of 18 March. Changes to the procedure have been made. For example:

  The interviewer and decision-maker are now one and the same person;

  The purpose of the interview is clearly spelled out to the applicant at the outset;

  The account given by the applicant about the circumstances in which entry to the UK was achieved is thoroughly probed and warnings are given when the story is not believed; and

  Article 3 European Convention on Human rights (ECHR) issues are considered in all cases to ensure that a negative section 55 decision would not result in a breach of Convention rights.

  An updated version of Policy Bulletin 75 was issued on 11 April 2003 and reflects fully the new procedures set in place following the Court of Appeal judgement. The Policy Bulletin is available on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's website and the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) will send out copies on request.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimated level of saving to the Department is from the use of market testing in 2002–03. [107775]

  Mr. Blunkett
  My department has not used market testing in 2002–03.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [110448]

  Mr. Blunkett
  There will be no cost as minimum rates in the Department, agencies and the relevant non-departmental public bodies already exceed the new national minimum wage.

  Police
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers occupy(a) posts

  219W
  that have previously been occupied by civilian staff and (b) posts that could be performed by civilian staff in each police service in England and Wales; and what percentage these figures represent of the total officer strength of each police service in England and Wales. [111854]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The information requested is not collected. Decisions about the deployment of staff, including decisions about whether particular posts should be filled by police officers or civilians rest with chief officers.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take measures to discourage officers from forces where special priority payments are limited to 30 per cent. of the force from transferring to neighbouring forces with special priority payments for up to 40 per cent. of the force. [112436]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Secretary of State is not aware of evidence that officers have transferred for this reason. He has however asked the Police Negotiating Board (PNB) to review the Special Priority Payment (SPP) Scheme, to ensure that it is operating smoothly. PNB will wish to ensure that the Scheme is not having undesirable unintended effects. The Secretary of State wants PNB to ensure that the Scheme is delivering the outcomes for which it was agreed by all parties in PNB—principally to give extra rewards to officers in the most difficult and demanding frontline posts.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many road traffic accidents involving North Wales police vehicles responding to emergency calls took place in each year from 1998 to 2003. [112513]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The number of collisions involving police vehicles engaged in immediate/ emergency response and pursuits in the North Wales Police force area is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1997–98

  9

  1998–99

  10

  1999–2000

  7

  2000–01

  12

  2001–02

  23

  Notes:

  The information provided by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, to which forces submit statistical returns.

  All figures are for financial years.

  Figures for 2002–03 are not yet available.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what central funding his Department makes available to police forces to cover the cost of policing football matches. [111164]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Police Grant Funding Formula allocates grant in line with general policing needs. It does not include a component specifically for the cost of policing football matches. However, in the last two years special grant support of £300,000 a year has been provided to South Wales Police Authority toward the cost of hosting the Cup Finals at the Millennium Stadium.

  Press Office
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are employed in his Department's press office; and how many were employed on 2 May 1997. [108388]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer the hon Member to the reply I gave to the hon Member for Yeovil (David Laws), on 24 February 2003,Official Report, column 335W.

  Quarterly Reports
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether copies of the state of the sector quarterly reports will be sent to hon. Members; and what their purpose is. [111692]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office is establishing a State of the Sector panel to monitor progress against the Government's target of increasing voluntary and community sector activity by 5 per cent. by 2006. The first report on findings from surveys of the panel will be available in the autumn of this year. Copies of the reports will be placed in the Library. In addition, reports will be available on the Home Office website at www.homeoffice.gov. uk/rds/sosp.html.

  RAF Fairford
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his Answer of 28 April, ref 108954, on RAF Fairford, on what basis the Terrorism Act 2000 was used to body search demonstrators at RAF Fairford. [111793]

  Mr. Blunkett
  We do not comment on operational counter-terrorist measures, but the Chief Constable, Gloucestershire Constabulary, has informed me that powers of stop and search under the Terrorism Act were used, for the purpose of searching for articles of a kind that could be used in connection with terrorism.

  SARS
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure people of Chinese origin are not discriminated against as a result of the public concerns over SARS; and if he will make a statement. [111786]

  Beverley Hughes
  The provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976 apply equally to all people irrespective of colour, race, nationality and ethnic or national origin. It is unlawful for anyone to discriminate against another person on any of these grounds in any area covered by the legislation.

  The Chief Medical Officer has advised that at present SARS poses a low risk in this country. On 1 May the World Health Organisation removed the UK from the list of SARS affected areas, as there has been no transmission in the UK for over 20 days.

  The Department of Health continues to take this situation extremely seriously and have implemented a number of precautionary measures to stop the spread of this infection in the UK. They are taking a precautionary but proportionate approach and all measures are kept under continuous review.
  221W
  The current number of probable cases in this country stands at six. All of these patients have recovered and been discharged from hospital.

  Suicide Bombing (Tel Aviv)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what investigations he is making into the connections and circumstances in the UK in which two British citizens allegedly went to Israel to carry out a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv on 29 April; and if he will make a statement [111877]

  (2) if he will investigate the connections of Asif Mohammed Haniff and Omar Khan Shariff with fundamentalist organisations in Britain; and if he will make a statement. [111878]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 8 May 2003]: The Metropolitan Police Service Anti-Terrorist Branch is liaising closely with the Israeli authorities and is carrying out vigorous inquiries into all relevant aspects of the case. Six arrests were made on 2 and 3 May under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in connection with these inquiries and three individuals were changed on 8 May with offences under that Act.

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the written answer of 3 April 2003,Official Report, column 872W, on timber, if he will place certificates showing that purchased construction timber for the redevelopment of 2 Marsham Street has been sourced legally and sustainably in the Library. [111015]

  Beverley Hughes
  When all certificates are received from Anne's Gate Property plc in respect of purchased construction timber for 2 Marsham Street, they will be placed in the Library. This is expected in the next few weeks.

  Voluntary Groups
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the way in which his Department intend to take forward the twinning of ethnic minority and mainstream voluntary groups. [111691]

  Beverley Hughes
  In 2000 the Government launched the Black and Minority Ethnic Twinning Initiative (BMETI) which aimed to increase the involvement of black and minority ethnic people within mainstream voluntary organisations and raise the national awareness of current good volunteering practice in black and minority ethnic communities. In April 2001 an independent external evaluation showed that the initiative benefited both black and minority ethnic organisations and mainstream voluntary organisations. The evaluation contained a number of recommendations for building on the successes of the initiative. They have been taken forward as part of the Home Office Active Community Unit's work with the voluntary sector.

HEALTH

  Asthma
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what targets he has set for the take up of written personal action plans for people with asthma; [111428]

  (2) what efforts he has made to extend the use of written personal action plans for people with asthma in each of the last two years; [111429]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the impact of personal action plans for people with asthma in respect of (a) asthma symptoms, (b) working days lost, (c) night time waking, (d) outpatient hospital visits, (e) in-patient hospital visits, (f) emergency events, (g) medicine dependency, (h) prescription costs and (i) other measures. [111430]

  Jacqui Smith
  The new British Thoracic Society asthma guidelines do recommend written asthma action plans for all patients, particularly those admitted to hospital. We do not collect information centrally on the specific impact of personal action plans, which are not necessarily the same as written asthma action plans.

  However, improved management of asthma patients may have helped to contribute to the reduction of hospital admissions for asthma sufferers. The hospital episode statistics data in the table shows hospital admissions between 1997–2002 where asthma was the primary diagnosis.

  Admissions

  1997–98

  71,434

  1998–99

  69,824

  1999–2000

  66,054

  2000–01

  60,376

  2001–02

  60,134

  As part of the current chronic disease management programme, general practitioners are required to prepare an individual management plan with the patient and ensure there are regular reviews. 93 per cent. of GPs participate. Other requirements include ensuring that all newly diagnosed patients with asthma get appropriate education and advice and ensuring that all patients get continuing education including supervision of inhaler technique if necessary.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people received NHS continuing care in(a) nursing homes and (b) residential care homes in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [112164]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not collect the information requested, but figures from. Laing & Buisson's "Care of Elderly People, Market Survey 2002" suggest the following was the number of people in care homes providing nursing care in receipt of national health service continuing care from 1997 to 2001.
  223W

  Number

  1997

  16,000

  1998

  17,000

  1999

  18,000

  2000

  18,000

  2001

  19,000

  It would be unusual for an individual in a care home not providing nursing care to be in receipt of fully funded NHS continuing care.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public money has been spent on services provided by private care homes in the last 12 months. [112246]

  Jacqui Smith
  The gross total expenditure by local authorities in England in 2001–02, the latest year for which data are available, on residential care placements for adults and older people provided by the private and voluntary sector was £3,092 million. The gross total expenditure on nursing home placements provided by the private and voluntary sector in England in 2001–02 was £1,510 million.

  Children's Trusts
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding his Department will make available to finance the start up costs of children's trusts in each of the next three years. [112363]

  Jacqui Smith
  The selected children's trust pilots will be given pump priming of £60,000 per year to assist with the start up costs. Trusts that are particularly large or complex will be able to bid for additional funds, up to a further £40,000.

  Continuing Care Funding
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was to the NHS of providing continuing care in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [112165]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department of Health does not collect this information.

  NHS Dental Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the National Health Service (Dental Charges) Amendment Regulations. [109433]

  Mr. Lammy
  None.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the population of Shropshire was registered with an NHS dentist in each of the last five years. [111664]

  Mr. Lammy
  At 28 February 2003, 39.3 per cent. of the population for Shropshire County Primary Care Trust was registered with a general dental service (GDS) dentist. The information in the table shows the percentage of population registered with a dentist for Shropshire health authority area at 30 September for the years 1998 to 2001 and for 31 August 2002.224W

  General Dental Service: Proportion of the population registered with a dentist 1998 to 2002—Shropshire health authority

  At 30 September

  Percentage of population registered with a CDS dentist

  19981

  44.4

  19991

  43.2

  20001

  42.7

  20012

  40.7

  20023

  41.4

  11998–2000 ONS mid year population estimates based on the 1991 census.

  22001 ONS mid year population estimates based on the 2001 census.

  32002 data is at 31 August.

  Registrations lapse if patients do not return to their dentist within 15 months and so the registration figures exclude patients who have not been to their CDS dentist within the past 15 months. Also excluded from the figures are patients who receive dental treatment from other national health service dental services, including dental access centres.

  Some of the reduction in recorded registration numbers is due to improvements in the methods of removing duplicate registration records, which were first employed by the Dental Practice Board in 1993.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dentists there are per head of population in Shropshire. [111665]

  Mr. Lammy
  The number of national health service dentists working in Shropshire health authority area at 30 September 2001 and the number of dentists per 100,000 population is shown in the table. These figures are on a headcount rather than whole-time equivalent basis and take no account of part-time working. Dentists working in more than one dental service are included in each service, apart from dentists working in both the personal dental service and general dental service (GDS), who are counted in the GDS only.

  Dentists working solely in private dentistry are not covered in these figures.

  NHS dentists—Shropshire health authority area at 30 September 2001

  Number of NHS dentists

  General dental service1

  143

  Salaried service of GDS

  0

  Personal dental service2

  4

  Community dental service3

  20

  Hospital dental service3

  10

  Total

  177

  Number of NHS dentists per 100,000 population4

  40.1

  1The General Dental Service (GDS) figure cover principals on a HA list, assistants and vocational dental practitioners.

  2The Personal Dental Service (PDS) figure covers dentists working in the PDS who are not working in the GDS.

  3Figures by Health Authority are rounded to the nearest 10.

  4ONS mid year population estimates based on the 2001 census.

  Electronic Yellow Card Scheme
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many reported adverse drug reactions via the
  225W
  electronic yellow card scheme there have been in each of the last five months; and what assessment he has made of the scheme. [111132]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 7 May 2003]: The Medicines Control Agency (MCA) and the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) launched a new electronic yellow card on 31 October 2002. During 2002, 15 electronic reports of suspected adverse drug reactions were received in November and 16 reports in December. During 2003, 25 reports were received in January, 10 reports in February, 20 reports in March and 10 reports in April.

  A working group of the CSM and its subcommittee on pharmacovigilance has been formed to advise on strategies for electronic reporting and the criteria for the evaluation of its contribution to pharmacovigilance. The working group has proposed a questionnaire for electronic reporters to obtain their opinions on the usefulness of the electronic yellow card. Reporters are invited to complete this electronic questionnaire after completing an electronic report. An evaluation will be carried out in November 2003, in order to assess the impact of and the nature and quality of information received on electronic yellow cards. The CSM will consider the findings of the evaluation, to inform future enhancements to the electronic yellow card.

  The capability for early action on emerging safety issues is reflected in the MCA's high level and operational targets. These reflect the time taken to make newly received spontaneous adverse reaction reports available for review and analysis by pharmacovigilance assessors. The MCA's performance against targets is published annually and in 2001–02 all targets were met or exceeded, against a background of a 55 per cent. increase in spontaneous adverse reaction reports.

  Emergency Readmission/Delayed Discharge
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place a copy of the quarter 4 2002–03 emergency readmission and delayed discharge figures in the Library. [111047]

  Jacqui Smith
  The quarter 4 (March 2003) figures on delayed discharge and emergency readmission should be available in June. When they are available, they will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce the allocation to local authorities of the money to offset the effect of delayed discharge penalties. [112443]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 May 2003]: An announcement of individual allocations for local authorities can be expected shortly.

  Energy Policy
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement, in relation to his Department and each agency and non-departmental public body for which his Department is responsible, on(a) the amount of energy consumed, (b) spending on (i) energy and (ii) energy efficiency measures, (c) the amount saved through energy efficiency measures and (d) energy policy in each of the last five years. [108862]
  226W
  Mr. Hutton
  Information in relation to the Department's main administrative buildings, plus a number of subsidiary offices, agencies and non-departmental public bodies where available is shown in the tables. Figures in the first table are based on information reported in the first "Sustainable Development In Government" annual report and the earlier "Greening Government" annual reports and have been weather corrected. Expenditure on energy efficiency measures is not recorded separately but is included as part of regular maintenance and updating of ageing equipment.

  Main Department of Health Buildings

  Energy Consumption (GWh/y)

  Energy Expenditure (£/y)

  Energy/m2 (k W/m2/y)

  Percentage savings over 1997–98

  1997–98

  19.4

  738,355

  309.16

  —

  1998–99

  22.51

  786,383

  358.73

  -16.03

  1999–2000

  23.12

  758,908

  368.44

  -19.18

  2000–01

  20.81

  653,639

  331.65

  -7.27

  2001–02

  19.59

  717,423

  312.14

  -1.97

  Notes:

  Column 1. Energy consumption shown in the table is weather- corrected, using annual degree days relative to the 20-year average for 1990–91. The figures are those reported on for the Central Government Estate campaign, and generally include each Department's main estate plus agencies, but not NDPBs.

  Column 2. Energy expenditure: this is actual spend. The Climate Change Levy was paid between April and November 2001; since that date the Department has purchased electricity from a green tariff for its main London estate.

  Column 4. Savings over 1997–98: These have been expressed as percentage savings relative to the first year quoted here, and are based on the figures in the preceding column.

  Energy consumption figures in the following tables have not been weather corrected.

  Departmental Records Office

  Energy consumption (G Wh/y)

  Energy Expenditure (£/y)

  Energy/m2 (k W/m2/y)

  Percentage savings over 1997–98

  1997–98

  0.76

  17,844

  217.17

  —

  1998–99

  0.90

  19,806

  256.84

  -18.27

  1999–2000

  0.73

  16,260

  209.71

  3.43

  2000–01

  0.63

  12,503

  179.20

  17.48

  2001–02

  0.73

  17,245

  209.06

  3.73

  Medical Devices Agency1

  Energy consumption (G Wh/y)2

  Energy Expenditure (£/y)

  Energy/m2 (k W/m2/y)

  Percentage savings over 1997–98

  1997–98

  0.42

  22,026

  134.63

  —

  1998–99

  0.36

  15,021

  115.99

  13.84

  1999–2000

  0.37

  16,946

  117.25

  12.90

  2000–01

  0.41

  15,684

  130.60

  2.99

  2001–02

  0.41

  20,534

  131.57

  2.27

  1,2The Medical Devices Agency's main building is Hannibal House. The Medical Devices Agency (since April 2003, the Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Agency) occupies 38 per cent. of the building, while the rest is occupied by central DH and other related bodies. Figures in the table have therefore been calculated on the basis of 38 per cent. of total consumption. Only electricity figures are given; gas for heating is supplied via the Landlord's service charge and is not included here.

  227W

  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency1,2

  Energy consumption (G Wh/y)

  Energy Expenditure (£/y)

  Energy/m2 (k W/m2/y)

  Percentage savings over 2001–02

  2000–01

  1.29

  28,730

  351.05

  2001–02

  1.19

  54,438

  323.86

  7.75

  1This table relates to buildings occupied by the Purchasing and Supply Agency (PASA) in Chester, Reading and Sheffield.

  2The Agency came into existence in April 2000. Figures for its predecessor body (part of the NHS) have not been sought.

  Dental Practice Board1

  Energy consumption (G Wh/y)

  Energy Expenditure (£/y)

  Energy/m2 (k W/m2/y)

  Percentage savings over 1997–98

  1997–98

  3.99

  128,286

  398.64

  —

  1998–99

  3.47

  111,780

  346.91

  12.98

  1999–2000

  3.29

  92,059

  329.36

  17.38

  2000–01

  3.16

  85,748

  315.67

  20.81

  2001–02

  3.11

  92,295

  310.92

  22.01

  1The Dental Practice Board is an NDPB based in Eastbourne. The building is shared with other occupiers, but the DPB is responsible for energy efficiency measures. Figures are for the whole building.

  The Energy White Paper, "Our Energy Future—Creating a Low Carbon Economy", made clear the importance the Government attach to improving energy efficiency in its own estate. This is reflected in several targets. There is currently an interim target of a 1 per cent. per annum ongoing reduction in weather-corrected carbon emissions, pending the development of new indicators and targets based on benchmarking the performance of each department's largest buildings. These new targets are planned to be in place later this year. New targets for Government Departments' use of combined heat and power generated electricity will also be established during 2003.

  In addition, the review of Government procurement has identified areas where procurement could reinforce the achievement of these targets, and arrangements are being made centrally for Departments to purchase goods with high energy efficiency standards and which provide good value for money.

  The Department of Health has a good record on the environmental management of its own estate and continues to seek ways of improving its performance. Against the Government target that five per cent. of Departments' electricity should come from renewable sources by 30 March 2003, the Department has been purchasing renewable energy for the majority of its London administrative buildings since November 2001. This effectively reduces carbon to air emissions by 39 per cent. per annum.

  Foundation Hospitals
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which targets set by the NHS will apply to foundation hospitals. [111540]

  Mr. Hutton
  Subject to parliamentary approval, Clauses 40 and 45 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill require all national health service bodies, including NHS foundation trusts, when exercising their functions to take national standards into account. A NHS foundation 228W
  trust will be independently inspected by the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection against the same national standards as other NHS trusts.

  GP Contracts
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of the minimum income guarantee to GP practices in the next five years. [109200]

  Mr. Hutton
  The minimum practice income guarantee (MPIG) forms part of the proposed new general medical services contract. It will ensure that any practice which would have lost income as a result of the introduction of the global sum arrangements will receive funding equal to its previous level of income from those aspects covered by the global sum providing it meets minimum standards of quality.

  The British Medical Association and NHS Confederation have announced details of the MPIG for the first two years of the new contract. Beyond 2005–06, the application of the MPIG will be considered in the light of the review of the allocation formula.

  The costs of the MPIG are estimated at £393 million in 2004–05 and £293 million in 2005–06 in England. These costs form part of the financial envelope for primary care investment already agreed between the NHS Confederation, the BMA and Government and which remains unchanged.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by when he expects the GP contract will come into force. [110325]

  Mr. Hutton
  Should the profession vote in favour of the contract, and subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary legislation, the Government's intention is that the implementation timetable would be as set out in chapter 8 of "Investing in Primary Care—the new GMS contract". This lists which elements would be introduced from 2003–04 and elements which would be introduced from 2004–05.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on the new GP contracts for those practising in the London area. [110743]

  Mr. Hutton
  If accepted by the profession, the new national general medical services (CMS) contract will apply to all CMS practices including those in London. Personal medical services contracts will continue as a permanent complementary local option.

  In recognition of the particular problems faced by practices in the London area, the new CMS contract provides for an off-formula addition to the funding available to London practices. In 2004–05, this would amount to £53 million. Taken with the recently announced minimum practice income guarantee this means that no practice in London would lose against their global sum equivalent, so long as they continue to provide the same or a greater range of services and meet minimum quality standards. They would gain from the considerable additional funding provided for primary care—a 33 per cent. increase United Kingdom-wide by 2005–06.

  Health Funding
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the timetable is for the implementation of the new health funding system; when primary care trusts will receive their full target entitlement under the new system; and what the difference between target funding and allocation is for each primary care trust. [111173]

  Mr. Hutton
  The revenue allocations to primary care trusts (PCTs) for 2003–04 to 2005–06 were announced on 11 December 2002. The allocations were based on a new formula following a review carried out under the auspices of the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation.

  For the 2003–04 to 2005–06 allocations round PCTs have received average cash increases of 9.24 per cent., 9.55 per cent. and 9.32 per cent., or 30.83 per cent. over the three years. This represents average real terms increases of 6.84 per cent., 6.88 per cent. and 6.65 cent., or 21.79 per cent. over the three years.

  As a result of the 2003–04 to 2005–06 allocations round all PCTs will make progress towards their target shares of resources as determined by the new formula.

  The allocations to all PCTs for 2003–04 to 2005–06 include resources to finance the cost of pay reform, new drugs and treatments and additional capacity. It includes the commitments we set out in the NHS Plan. We have also given extra resources to under target PCTs.

  Information from targets as determined by the weighted capitation formula for 2003–04, is available in the Library.

  Health Services (Havering)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions are being made to increase the level of funding for services for the mentally handicapped in the London Borough of Havering. [110693]

  Jacqui Smith
  People with learning disabilities use both specialist and mainstream health and social services and benefit from increased expenditure on these. National Health Service expenditure is increasing by an average 7.5 per cent., per year over the next three years. Over the six years to 2002–03, funding to local councils for personal social services has increased by over 20 per cent., or 3 per cent. above inflation each year and will continue to increase over the next three years at around 6 per cent, above inflation; however, most

  Hospital, public health medicine and community health services (HCHS)—medical and dental staff 1997 to 2001— England at 30 September

  Number1

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  All medical and dental staff of which:

  66,836

  68,458

  70,000

  71,688

  73,846

  Consultant of which hospital:

  21,373

  22,224

  23,225

  24,306

  25,690

  Hospital medical and dental staff of which:

  62,048

  63,871

  65,796

  67,561

  70,022

  Hospital consultant

  20,766

  21,607

  22,596

  23.625

  24,994

  1 Headcount

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental work force census
  230W
  resources are allocated on an unhypothecated basis and it is for local councils to decide how much to allocate to learning disability services.

  The proportion of the social services budget nationally spent on learning disability has increased from 7 per cent, in 1983 to 14 per cent. in 2001–02. Learning Disability Partnership Boards can have a role in influencing the way in which councils allocate resources.

  On a like for like basis, the London Borough of Havering's social services resources increased by 10.1 per cent. in 2001–02 and by 6.4 per cent. in 2002–03. Our proposals for improving services for people with learning disabilities, their families and carers are set out in the White Paper Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century (Cm. 5086), published in March 2001. The White Paper announced two new funds to provide central support for key aspects of its programme; the Implementation Support Fund and the Learning Disability Development Fund.

  On 1 April, we announced in Making Change Happen (HC514-11)1, the Government's annual report on learning disability, that the Implementation Support Fund would continue at £2.3 million for 2003–04 and at £2 million for 2004–05 and 2005–06. The fund is used mainly to support local advocacy projects and the Learning Disability Helpline. The £42.6 million Development Fund will continue to March 2004; priorities for the £20.6 million revenue element include modernising day centres, developing supported living approaches for people with learning disabilities living with older carers and supporting the wider introduction of person centred planning.

  In 2002–03, Barking and Havering Health Authority was allocated £88,000 from the revenue element of the Development Fund in respect of the London Borough of Havering; the allocation to Havering Primary Care Trust for 2003–04 is £89,000.

  Hospitals (Leavers)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital-based doctors and consultants have left the NHS in each of the past five years. [110948]

  Mr. Hutton
  We do not collect data on the number of leavers and joiners in the national health service. Work force data are collected through the annual Department of Health medical and work force census. The census is a snapshot of data as of 30 September in the appropriate year. The information in the table shows the net increases in the number of consultants in each of the last five years.

  Leonard Cheshire Foundation
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Leonard Cheshire Foundation on its report on access to primary care for disabled people, with particular reference to(a) premises, (b) staff training and (c) consultation with disabled people. [105896]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government welcome this report and I attended its launch on 26 March. I wrote to the Leonard Cheshire Foundation on 25 April setting out the actions the Department of Health is already taking to offer better access to people with disabilities, and the further actions now planned. These include the establishment of a joint group with the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) to develop a programme to address disability equality issues; placing a new duty on national health service bodies to involve and consult patients and the public (including disabled people and groups) in developing services; as part of a wider equalities and diversity strategy for the NHS workforce commissioning the NHS University to lead development of a new disabilities awareness training plan which will consider with the Leonard Cheshire Foundation and the DRC how best to use the 'Working with Disability' learning package; and supporting primary care providers in ensuring that their premises comply with the Disability Discrimination Act.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many sick days were lost over the last year by his Department through staff mental health problems. [111998]

  Mr. Lammy
  Information on the number of days lost through mental health problems is not held centrally.

  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of the development of mental health services for young people. [112166]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government's strategy for the development of child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS), initiated in 1999–2000, is making progress with the aim of improving the overall quality and accessibility of local services for children and young people with mental health problems. In the four years ending 31 March 2003, we invested ?105 million in CAMHS developments across the National Health Service and local authorities, which resulted in significant increases in staffing, new or expanded services and better joint working between the main providing agencies.

  Our objectives for the further development of CAMHS, set out in the Department's Priorities and Planning Framework 2003–2006 "Improvement, Expansion and Reform", include year-on-year increases of at least ten per cent across the service according to agreed local priorities leading to a comprehensive service in all areas by 2006. These developments will be underpinned by additional central investment of some £250 million over the three years and by guidance contained in the new children's national service framework (NSF). The recently published emerging
  232W
  findings from the NSF include a chapter on the mental health and psychological well-being of children and the content of a comprehensive CAMHS.

  NHS Modernisation Agency
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who the chief executive officer of the NHS Modernisation Agency is. [112704]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service Modernisation Agency is a Directorate of the Department of Health and as such does not have a Chief Executive Officer. The Director of the NHS Modernisation Agency is David Fillingham.

  NHS Professionals
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 8 April, column 239W, on NHS Professionals, which NHS trusts are using NHS Professionals; and which NHS trusts have used NHS Professionals in the past and have since ceased to use its services. [110890]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service trusts using NHS Professionals are shown in the table. No NHS trusts have ceased to use the services of NHS Professionals.

  NHS trusts using NHS Professionals

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  Barking Havering & Redbridge NHS Trust

  Bath & NE Somerset PCT, Bath

  Cherwell Vale PCT, Oxfordshire

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust, Manchester

  City Hospital Sunderland NHS Trust

  Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Trust, Stourbridge

  East & North Herts NHS Trust, Stevenage

  East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust

  Epping Forest PCT

  George Eliot NHS Trust, Nuneaton

  Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust

  Harlow PCT

  Lancashire Care NHS Trust, Preston

  Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust, Leicester

  Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Wakefield

  North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol

  North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  North East Oxfordshire PCT

  North Essex Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust

  North Mersey Community NHS Trust

  North Middlesex University Hospital

  Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust

  Nuffield Orthopedic Centre NHS Trust, Oxford

  Oxford City PCT

  Oxford Learning Disability NHS Trust

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust

  Oxfordshire Mental Healthcare NHS Trust

  Penine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Oldham

  Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, Harlow

  233W

  Royal Liverpool Childrens NHS Trust

  Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust

  Royston, Buntingford & Bishops Stortford PCT

  Salford Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  South East Oxfordshire PCT

  South Leeds PCT

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  South Tees Hospitals NHS Trust, Middlesborough

  South West Oxfordshire PCT

  South West Yorkshire Mental Health NHS Trust

  St Helens & Knowsley Hospitals NHS Trust

  St Marys NHS Trust, London

  Stockport NHS Trust

  United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  University College London Hospitals NHS Trust

  University Hospital, Nottingham NHS Trust

  Uttlesford PCT, Essex

  Walsall PCT

  Walton Neurology & Neurosurgery NHS Trust, Liverpool

  West Middlesex University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust

  Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  Worcestershire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust

  School Nurses
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent estimate he has made of the number of school nurses; and if he will make a statement. [110003]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 28 April 2003]: This information is not collected centrally.

  Strategic Health Authorities/Primary Care Trusts
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the total cost of establishing(a) strategic health authorities and (b) primary care trusts. [110815]

  Mr. Hutton
  The costs of establishing strategic health authorities and primary care trusts were met from within the financial allocations to the health authorities and are therefore not identifiable. Approximately £63.1 million of central funding was made available between 1999–2000 to 2001–02 to support the establishment of primary care trusts.

  Target Funding Allocations
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the distance from target funding allocations and (b) estimated time to target for (i) each strategic health authority and (ii) each primary care trust. [110823]

  Mr. Hutton
  Strategic health authorities do not have distances from targets. Information on primary care trust (PCT) distances from targets as determined by the weighted capitation formula for 2003–04, has been placed in the Library.

  For the 2003–04 to 2005–06 allocations round PCTs have received average cash increases of 9.24 per cent., 9.55 per cent. and 9.3 per cent., or 30.83 per cent. over
  234W
  the three years. This represents average real terms increases of 6.84 per cent., 6.88 per cent. and 6.65 per cent., or 21.79 per cent. over the three years.

  As a result of the 2003–04 to 2005–06 allocations round all PCTs will make progress towards their target shares of resources as determined by the new formula.

  The allocations to all PCTs for 2003–04 to 2005–06 include resources to finance the cost of pay reform, new drugs and treatments and additional capacity. It includes the commitments we set out in the NHS Plan. We have also given extra resources to under target PCTs.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time was in A&E from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge in(a) England, (b) Royal Shrewsbury Hospital Shropshire, (c) Princess Royal Hospital Telford and (d) Wrexham Maelor District General Hospital on the last date for which figures are available. [111690]

  Mr. Lammy
  Information on average waiting times in accident and emergency (A&E) departments in England is not collected. Information is available on the proportion of patients who spend less than four hours in A&E from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge for each acute NHS trust in England. The available information is shown in the table.

  Total time spent in major A&E departments, NHS trusts in England, October to December 2003

  Name

  Percentage of patients who spent less than 4 hrs in A&E

  England

  78

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospitals NHS Trust

  88

  Princess Royal Hospital NHS Trust

  87

  Source:

  Department of Health form QMAE

  Questions relating to hospitals in Wales are now matters for the devolved Administrations.

  Whistleblowers
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the Answer of 6 May, ref 106425, on Mr. Mark Heyes, what steps he has taken in response to the Prime Minister's letter of October 2002 concerning Mr. Heyes; and if he will make a statement on the application of the Department of Health's whistle-blowing policy to Mr. Heyes. [112487]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 May 2003]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 6 May 2003, Official Report, column 661W. If Mr. Mark Heyes could send me a copy of correspondence dated 23 October, I will ensure that he receives a reply.

  The Department is satisfied that its policy on whistle-blowing in the national health service has been applied appropriately by the Southport and Ormskirk Hospitals NHS Trust.

  Young Carers
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his latest estimate is of the number of carers in the UK under the age of 16. [109937]

  Jacqui Smith
  Figures from the 2001 census indicate that there are 97,362 carers under the age of 16.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases funded by legal aid monies have been handled by Citizens Advice Bureaux in each year since 2000–01. [111416]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The number of cases completed by Citizens Advice Bureaux for Legal Help for the years in question was as follows:

  Number

  2000–01

  29,871

  2001–02

  42,425

  2002–03

  56,166

  The General Civil Contract for Not-for-Profit organisations allows agencies to perform up to 10 per cent. of their contracted casework at 'level 1' work. This allows for the provision of up to 20 minutes of legal advice to a client without a financial eligibility check. Figures pertaining to 'level 1' work are not included in the answer because this work is not recordable as 'cases' and so no data is available relating to the individual occurrences of this work

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much legal aid funding has been paid to Citizens Advice Bureaux for legal aid work in each year since 2000–01. [111417]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Legal Services Commission has paid Citizens Advice Bureaux the following amounts for Legal Help:

  £million

  2000–01

  4.61

  2001–02

  20.02

  2002–03

  22.47

  Civil Service (People with Disabilities)
  Mr. John Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations she has received about the Immigration and Asylum Appeals (Fast Track Procedure) Rules. [110513]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  None, other than a response from the Council on Tribunals to formal consultation on the proposals.

  Immigration and Asylum
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations she has received about the Immigration and Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules. [111727]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  None, other than responses to a formal consultation on the proposals.

  Parliamentary Elections
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Lord Chancellor will move polling day for future(a) general and (b) European parliamentary elections to a Sunday. [112383]

  Yvette Cooper
  Following consideration of the responses to the consultation paper "Combining English Local Authority, Greater London Authority and European Parliament Elections in 2004", my Department, together with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, issued a statement on 6 May 2003 which included an indication that the Government intend to undertake further piloting and evaluation of voting at weekends.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Ceremonial Clothing
  David Winnick
  To ask the President of the Council if he will propose to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons that ceremonial clothing worn by officers should be dispensed with. [112863]

  Dr. John Reid
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave at Business Questions on 8 May 2003,Official Report, column 841. I will pass to the Modernisation Committee the suggestion that it consider the question of ceremonial dress by officers of the House.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Child Care (Hendon)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the average cost of full time child care in Hendon; and if he will make a statement. [109024]

  Maria Eagle
  The cost of child care reported in the Department for Education and Skills 2001–02 audit shows average costs for Barnet, the LEA within which Hendon falls, of £150 per week for full day care. The audits were completed for each local authority by their respective Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships. The audits do not give a further breakdown for constituency areas.

  The Government recognises that making child care affordable is a key challenge for the National Childcare Strategy and has made a substantial investment to achieve this.

  Working parents, subject to the level of their income, may receive support through the child care element of the working tax credit. Tax credits are rightly targeted at

  237W
  lower and middle income families who may use a range of types of child care. The child care element of the working tax credit provides for up to 70 per cent. of costs of eligible child care. It can pay up to £94.50 a week for one child (where the child care cost is £135), and up to £140 a week for two or more children (where the cost is £200).

  £1 million a day is now spent on supporting parents with child care costs through the working tax credit.

  Benefits Applications
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many applications have been received in each quarter since September 2000 for(a) attendance allowance, (b) disability living allowance and (c) invalid care allowance; of those how many were (i) successful. (ii) unsuccessful, (iii) subject to appeal and (iv) successful at appeal; how many (A) claims, (B) reviews, (C) reconsiderations and (D) appeals there were on which a decision had not been reached at the end of each quarter; how many applications have been (1) subject lo reconsideration and (2) successful at reconsideration; what was the average number of days taken to process appeals; and what the average processing time has been for (a) first-time claims and (b) appeals for claims to be reconsidered in each quarter over the last three years. [105398]

  Disability living allowance—mobility component: (i) annual number of new awards to people aged 60, 61, 62, 63 and 64; (ii) average age in years of people with new awards; and (iii) number of recipients aged 65 in Great Britain as at 30 November of each year from 1998 to 2002

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  (i) Annual number of new awards of DLA mobility component to people aged:

  60

  7,400

  6,900

  8,700

  7,200

  7,700

  61

  6,400

  6,300

  7,500

  6,900

  6,800

  62

  7,000

  6,500

  7,500

  7,200

  8,400

  63

  7.400

  7,000

  8,100

  7,200

  8,700

  64

  7,900

  8,000

  8,600

  8,600

  8,900

  (ii) Average age in years of people with new awards of DLA mobility component

  41

  41

  41

  41

  41

  (iii) Number of DLA mobility component recipients aged 65

  58,800

  63,700

  66,200

  66,700

  69,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures are taken from a 5 per cent, sample of DLA computer system records as at 30 November each year.

  2. All figures are rounded to the nearest hundred, except for those for item (ii) of the table.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre

  Pensions
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average age was of those starting to draw(a) personal pensions and (b) occupational pensions in (i) 1980, (ii) 1985, (iii) 1990, (iv) 1995 and (v) 2000. [112893]

  Maria Eagle
  The information requested is not available because it is not collected centrally. As the recent pensions Green Paper made clear, however, increasing longevity means that individuals will need to consider their retirement options carefully if they are to get the retirement income they want. The Green Paper contains a range of proposals to allow individuals to both increase their retirement income through saving and extend their working lives.
  238W
  Maria Eagle
  Not all information requested is available, nor is all available information in the form requested. Such information as is available has been placed in the Library.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many people aged 65 and over are receiving the mobility component of disability living allowance(a) at the higher rate, (b) at the lower rate and (c) in total; [111679]

  (2) how many people aged (a) 60, (b) 61, (c) 62, (d) 63 and (e) 64 made a successful claim for the mobility component of disability living allowance in each of the last five years; and what the average age was of successful mobility claimants in each of the last five years; [111680]

  (3) how many people in receipt of the mobility component of disability living allowance reached their 65th birthday in each of the last five years. [111683]

  Maria Eagle
  As at 30 November 2002, the latest date for which information is available, about 538,000 people aged 65 and over were receiving the disability living allowance mobility component, of which some 496,500 were receiving the higher rate and around 41,500 were receiving the lower rate. The other information requested is in the table.

  Retirement
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions by what age the majority of(a) males and (b) male manual workers have ceased to work. [112892]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  In the year March 2002 to February 2003, 52.2 per cent. of men aged 62 were economically active compared to 48.8 per cent. of men aged 631.

  It is not possible to give comparable figures for male manual workers only.

  1 Source:

  Labour Force Survey GB March 2002-February 2003.

TREASURY

  Birth Certificates
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what circumstances parents can apply for the birth certificate for their child to be issued in Welsh; and if he will make a statement. [112190]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Lembit Öpik, dated 13 May 2003:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales, I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the circumstances under which parents can apply for the birth certificate of their child to be issued in Welsh rather than English. (112190)
  For a birth occurring in Wales, if the entry in the register is in Welsh and English, then the birth certificate will be bilingual. There is no current provision in law for a birth certificate to be issued in Welsh only.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance his Department has issued to local registrars on the issuing of birth certificates in the Welsh language to parents who have made this request; and if he will make a statement. [112191]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Lembit Öpik, dated 13 May 2003:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the guidance issued to local registrars over the issuing of birth certificates in the Welsh language. (112191)
  As Registrar General, I issue instructions and guidance to registration officers in England and Wales. The form of entry in the registers of births is prescribed. For Wales, it is bi-lingual and the particulars may be recorded in Welsh and English or in English only. Registration officers are instructed that on issuing a certified copy of an entry in a birth register it must contain the details as they appear in the register. Consequently if the details in respect of a birth in Wales were recorded in Welsh and English then any certified copy will contain the details in both languages. If the details were recorded in English only they will appear on the certified copy in English only.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Totnes of 19 March 2003 concerning VAT on medicines administered to animals. [112824]

  John Healey
  I have done so.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of regional variations in staff turnover in his Department. [112752]

  Ruth Kelly
  All Treasury staff are based in London.

  Euro
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the exchange rate of the pound to the euro on export performance. [112289]

  Ruth Kelly
  A full assessment of the prospects for UK exports can be found in the Budget Report (HC 500, Chapter B).

  Illegal Food Imports
  Andrew George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent(a) discussions he has had and (b) representations he has received on the application of intelligence by his Department in preventing illegal food imports from entering the United Kingdom. [112557]

  John Healey
  Customs worked closely in 2002–03 with Defra, Port Health Authorities and local authorities, who were then the lead enforcement agencies for illegal imports of meat and animal products, to improve intelligence relating to these imports.

  The Statutory Instrument which effected the transfer of anti-smuggling controls to Customs with effect from 11 April 2003 contains a statutory gateway which enables Customs to strengthen their intelligence gathering and sharing with the other enforcement agencies.

  Discussions are taking place this week between Customs, Defra and the Veterinary Laboratories Agencies to develop the risk assessment released by Defra on 25 March 2003.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures his Department is taking to tackle illegal food imports into the United Kingdom. [112558]

  John Healey
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the written ministerial statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 25 March 2003,Official Report, column 5WS.

  The Draft Action Plan will be finalised following a Stakeholder Forum today, which provides an opportunity for discussion with interested parties.

  Sponsorship
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of his Department's projects have received sponsorship in the last financial year; who the sponsor was in each case; what the nature of each project was; what time period was covered by each project; what the total cost of each project was; how much money was involved in each sponsorship deal; and if he will make a statement. [112403]

  Ruth Kelly
  There were no occurrences of private sponsorship of my Department's activities in the two financial years ending 31 March 2002 and 31 March 2003. This information will be disclosed in the Treasury's forthcoming Departmental Report.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many multiple identity tax credit fraud investigations are under way; and what the maximum number of identities assumed for a given case is. [112341]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are currently 18 multiple identity tax credit fraud investigations under way. The maximum number of suspected false identities in one case is 200.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many multiple identity tax credit fraud investigations have been conducted in each year since tax credits were introduced; and what the maximum number of identities assumed for a given case was in each of those years. [112342]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In 1999–2000 there was one investigation This involved one suspected false identity.

  In 2000–01 there were 10 investigations involving multiple identity tax credit fraud. The maximum number of suspected false identities in one case was 66.

  In 2001–02 there were 18 investigations involving multiple identity tax credit fraud. The maximum number of suspected false identities involved in one case was again 66.
  242W
  In 2002–03 there were 21 investigations involving multiple identity tax credit fraud. The maximum number of suspected false identities involved was 200.

  All new tax credit applications are screened automatically before payment is made to pick up cases of suspected identity fraud.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of his staff have been(a) disciplined, (b) suspended, (c) dismissed, (d) prosecuted and (e) convicted for matters relating to tax credit fraud in each year since tax credits were introduced; and what amount of tax credit was defrauded in each case. [112343]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The figures for the Inland Revenue for each year are:1999–2000: None
  2000–01: One prosecution leading to a conviction and involving £675. A second case is still proceeding, the amount suspected to be involved is less than £500.
  2001–02: One case which is still proceeding, the amount suspected to be involved is approximately £6,000.
  2002–03: Two cases which are still proceeding, the amounts suspected to be involved are approximately £10,000 in each case.

  It is Inland Revenue policy to suspend staff pending prosecution and dismiss anyone found guilty.

  There have been no cases in which Treasury or Customs and Excise have taken disciplinary action against staff in respect of tax credit fraud.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Homeless Households
  The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women (Mrs. Barbara Roche)
  I am today issuing a consultation paper on temporary accommodation for homeless households. The consultation paper sets out and invites comments on proposals to:Strengthen existing homelessness legislation such that placing homeless families with children in B&B hotels for longer than six weeks will not be permitted;
  Issue statutory guidance to clarify existing minimum standards for all temporary accommodation used by housing authorities to accommodate homeless families and individuals under the legislation;
  Issue statutory guidance on additional standards that should apply to B&B hotels where this is used by housing authorities to accommodate families with children for less than six weeks, or other households and individuals for any length of time, under the legislation; and
  Issue statutory guidance on the arrangements that should be put in place to ensure that all households placed in temporary accommodation by housing authorities under the legislation receive support to ensure that their health, education and social services needs are met.

  Responses to the consultation are invited by 5 August 2003. A copy of the consultation paper has been placed in the Library of the House.

HEALTH

  Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears)
  I should like to provide an update to the statement on severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) given on 28 April 2003,Official Report, columns 38–52 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  World wide reported cases total 7,296 as at 10 May, with 526 deaths. The situation in Toronto is now such that Canada has been removed from the World Health Organisation and UK travel advisories. However, the WHO has now extended its travel advice to cover Tianjin, Inner Mongolia Province and Taipei. The UK followed suit and amended its advice for UK travellers on 8 May.

  The UK total of "probable" cases now stands at four. This figure includes one case diagnosed retrospectively from March as a result of a review of the clinical findings. At the same time, other cases have been removed following confirmation of alternative diagnoses. The last case in the UK was admitted to hospital on 10 April, and all those diagnosed as probable cases have now recovered.
  4WS
  The UK has now been removed from the World Health Organisation's list of "affected countries". We were listed as a result of our last case having acquired the illness in London following a face-to-face meeting with a Hong Kong business man who was passing through, and who was diagnosed with SARS on his return to Hong Kong. There have been no other cases associated with this incident.

  My right hon. Friend outlined a five point plan of further action following advice from the Chief Medical Officer. Progress on implementing these is as follows:

  First, a letter went to all Chief Executives of National Health Service and primary care trusts on 29 April, reminding them of the action they need to take in their own organisations as a precaution in case of further possible cases presenting to the NHS. This included advice on health care workers recruited to the NHS from SARS affected areas. A summary of this letter has gone to all general practitioners.

  Secondly, observers have been to Hong Kong and Singapore to look at their exit health screening procedures in relation to the guidance issued by the World Health Organisation. Plans are in train to send a further observer to Beijing, this time in association with the WHO.

  Thirdly, we have secured agreement with UK carriers and Air China on the distribution of information to passengers leaving SARS affected areas, and are continuing to take this work forward with the other non-UK carriers.

  Fourthly, a letter has been sent, incorporating relevant parts of the Aircraft Regulations, to remind airlines of the laws which apply to them. This includes in particular their obligations to provide an aircraft declaration of health when a plane arrives in this country should the medical officer require it; and for the commander of an aircraft to report details of an individual suffering from an infectious disease (or with symptoms which may indicate the presence of an infectious disease) before arrival at destination.

  And fifthly, the Department of Health is taking forward the proposal for a meeting of Ministers alongside the World Health Assembly later this month. In the meantime a special European Health Council met last week at which the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), led the UK delegation. The Council agreed draft conclusions. It endorsed the measures taken so far and set out actions to strengthen European preparedness. The Council will review the situation at its meeting on 2 June.

DEFENCE

  Defence Analytical Services Agency
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  The Business Review of the Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA) has been completed. Having consulted widely with customers and other stakeholders the Review concluded that DASA is delivering a good service to its existing customers, but that it needs to have more impact on central policy-making. It recommended
  5WS
  DASA embed itself with central policy making staff when the Ministry of Defence Headquarters moves back into the refurbished main building. It also concluded that the currently configured owners advisory board does not provide sufficiently focused strategic direction to the agency, nor is the expertise of the non-executive directors being fully realised. It recommended that the advisory board be reformed.

  The review also recommended that DASA merge with some other analytical organisations in MOD, and that its corporate HQ move to Bath.

  Finally, the Review recommended that DASA retain Agency status, but this should be reviewed once the benefits to be accrued from site rationalisation and internal restructuring have been realised.

  I have endorsed these recommendations, and action is now in hand to give them effect as soon as possible. The new DASA advisory board is planned to come into existence in summer 2003. A copy of the business review report has been placed in the Library of the House.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Appointment of Chief Executive, Jobcentre Plus
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  I am pleased to announce that the Prime Minister has approved the appointment of David 6WS
  Anderson as Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, part of the Department for Work and Pensions. David is currently Chief Executive of the Yorkshire Building Society and will take up post on 2 June.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Occupied Territories
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  I am deeply shocked that three British nationals have been shot in the Occupied Territories in recent months. Since the shooting of lain Hook by the Israel Defence Forces on 22 November 2002, Thomas Hurndall was seriously injured on 11 April and James Miller was killed on 2 May. Our thoughts are with the family and friends of the victims.

  I welcome the co-operation the Israeli Government have provided in investigating the death of Mr. Hook. I hope for similar co-operation into the incidents involving Mr. Hurndall and Mr. Miller also. I have asked the Israeli Government for full and transparent investigations into these incidents.

  I am deeply concerned about the number of incidents in which civilians, both Palestinian and foreign, have been killed or injured as a result of encounters with the Israel Defence Forces. I have urged the Israeli Government to take steps to revise their tactics in the Occupied Territories in order to reduce the likelihood of such incidents happening again.

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.

Iraq: Participation of Women
Baroness Greengrossasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to ensure that the terms of United Nations Resolution 1325 for broad participation of women in peace-building and post-conflict Iraq are being met.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Government are fully committed to Resolution 1325. Our military on the ground and secondees in the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance—ORHA—are aware of their responsibilities under the resolution.
My right honourable friend the Minister for Women has met and will continue to meet Iraqi women from a variety of different political and civic groups in this country. A gender expert from the Women and Equality Unit is being seconded to ORHA, and the new UK-funded TV channel in Iraq will shortly begin broadcasting programmes to encourage women to participate in civic and political life in Iraq.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very full reply. In recognising the difficulty of meeting the demands of women while ensuring that Iraqis themselves determine their own future, will the conference that I believe is proposed be representative of all groups? In particular, will it include widows, whose numbers have greatly increased due to the Saddam regime and the recent conflict?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is a point very well taken. The statistics show an abnormal disproportion of women to men in Iraq. Statistics vary somewhat, but 55 per cent of the Iraqi population are women. We believe that that is due to the deaths of men during the Iran-Iraq war, and to killings, executions and disappearances. Of course, many women have also been subject to terrible atrocities.
The noble Baroness is looking forward to the possibility of a conference in Iraq. We are looking at that. Our UK special representative, John Sawers, has emphasised the importance of women being an integral part of Iraq's political process. I assure the noble Baroness that we shall keep a very particular eye on what happens about widows.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, the Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that the people of Iraq have a right to decide their own future. Can the Minister
124
clarify what would be the position of Her Majesty's Government if a regime—for example, a clerical regime—came to power and abused women's rights? How would the UK respond?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is an excellent question, and one that I have asked colleagues. I absolutely see the inherent dilemma of self-determination on one hand, and the possibility of such an outcome—it is very much not to be wished for—on the other. The answer is that human rights are fundamental rights, as recognised by the United Nations. We recognise women as having those rights as much as men, and we would expect any regime in Iraq to recognise the rights of women, too.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the participation of men is essential in bringing women into full political power in Iraq? What efforts have the Government made, and what efforts can they make, to sound out the key male players in the Iraqi political situation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course it is important that men are part of the process.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am trying to work out why that was amusing. My colleague Mike O'Brien has twice raised the issue of women's representation, including at the central Iraq conference in Baghdad. Although there were 250 Iraqi participants at the conference, I very much regret to say that only six of them were women. If I may say so, the problem at the moment is not so much bringing men into the dialogue, but making sure that women are part of that dialogue as well.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, is there any intention to set up a gender sub-committee, as has been done in Sri Lanka following the ceasefire, to advise the negotiating process on gender issues? Does the Minister agree that there are plenty of women, both inside and outside Iraq, who could play a part in such a committee? Can she tell me how far the proposal for a women's tent meeting has got? It was put forward by the Iraqi Women for Peace and Democracy in this country, and its intention was to bring a lot of women together and begin the process of equipping them to take part in the discussions on the constitution, the rule of law and so on that lie ahead.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the meeting to which the noble Baroness refers is under active discussion, but I cannot give her any details about it at the moment. As we have already discussed, the security situation in Iraq does not permit that. However, I am sure that as soon as my right honourable friend the Minister for Women has anything to announce on the issue, she will do so. She is meeting a group of Iraqi women again in London tomorrow.

125
As for setting up a sub-committee, the FCO Iraq policy unit has forwarded a gender equality policy brief to ORHA in Iraq, which explains the importance of working out detailed ways to promote the involvement of women in all aspects of the reconstruction of Iraq. I very much hope that the secondee that we are sending, who is an expert in the field, will also be able to add to the range of options that might be open for furthering the interests of women.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, despite the repression in the previous Iraqi regime, many women had access to education and healthcare and were able to play a part in public life? If some of the returning clerics have their way, those rights will disappear, and women could well face a Taliban-like regime. What is being done to prevent that, given that, as she rightly said, human rights are women's rights and vice versa?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the most effective way to deal with the matter is to continue to reiterate the point, again eloquently put by my noble friend, concerning the importance of women's rights being part of human rights. And, yes, my noble friend is right; Iraqi women score highest of all Arab women on the United Nations measure of gender empowerment, largely because of their relatively high rate of political participation. It is true that women held almost one-fifth of the seats in the former Iraqi parliament, whereas the average in the Middle East is 3.5 per cent.
However, in saying that, I do not believe that my noble friend should overlook the terrible human rights abuses which were also part and parcel of the Saddam regime; a regime which in 1990 declared that male relatives could kill a female relative in the name of honour without any punishment. Let us remember that although there was a certain amount of empowerment, there were also some terrible abuses of women.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the subject might well be worth discussing further with both the Turks and the Egyptians, as in both constitutions women are described as being equal to men?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, indeed, that is right. I am also aware that many other parts of the Arab world take a different view about women and human rights. We have some good examples, as we regard them, of the ways in which women are treated and some others which we would find more questionable.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, pointed out to the House, there is a real dilemma. We must face up to it when dealing with our friends in the Arab world about the ways in which they treat women. It is one which in my view we should not back away from and I believe that that is very much the view of the Government.

Northern Ireland: Stevens Report
2.44 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwickasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will set up a judicial inquiry on the facts revealed in the Stevens report on the role of British officials in the murder in Northern Ireland of Roman Catholics by Protestant paramilitaries.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the possibility of holding a judicial inquiry into Mr Finucane's case is not ruled out. However, the criminal justice process must take its course: an inquiry at present could undermine the prosecution process and damage the possibility of successful prosecutions. Decisions about prosecutions are, of course, for the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, who acts with total integrity and impartiality, as I can testify from my personal knowledge.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for that reply. Does he agree that the Stevens report is a deeply shocking and shaming document, detailing as it does the collusion of the security forces with paramilitaries in the murder of British citizens and that if that had happened in some far away South American country it would have caused the Government to have a fit of moral outrage?
Is it not regrettable that the report was published when Parliament was not sitting; that the Government made no Statement when Parliament resumed; and that the Leader of the House himself refused a PNQ on the issue? Will the Leader of the House recognise that it is not enough just to leave the matter to the DPP, because the serious question is how far up the chain of responsibility did knowledge of these events go and whether people who knew about these matters are in positions of responsibility today. And if the Government will not have an inquiry into those questions, how can the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office continue to pontificate about human rights elsewhere in the world?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord attended to my Answer. First, the status of the Stevens report is that it is not a report to government. It is a report commissioned by the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Secondly, I am glad that the noble Lord now seems to accept my stance when I dealt with Questions about Senator Pinochet that allegations of state crime ought to be fully investigated.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, of course the Stevens report reveals some disgraceful facts, but can the noble and learned Lord assure the House that any judicial inquiry will not prove a legal goldmine, as has happened elsewhere? Furthermore, will he give his view on the merits of having a truth and reconciliation commission in Northern Ireland?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and I have said on a number of occasions, we need to focus quite carefully on the form of any inquiry and the fact that it should not become simply a beanfeast for lawyers. As regards truth and reconciliation, that idea has not been ruled out and it is certainly worthy of further detailed consideration.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord that the matter still has to go through the normal legal processes. But, bearing in mind the unfortunate flawed precedent of the Widgery report, would he not agree that a judicial inquiry under a sole British judge, however eminent, would not be regarded as credible in Northern Ireland at the present time? Do we not need to look at some form of international tribunal which will fall far short of the excesses of the Saville inquiry in terms of the expense and may well incorporate a truth and reconciliation element?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as I believe your Lordships know, the distinguished retired Supreme Court judge from Canada, Judge Peter Corey, is presently looking at six distinct cases. The Governments of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom have agreed that they will attend to his recommendations and put them into effect. Of course, that will include the nature of the tribunal to which the noble Lord, Lord Smith, referred.

UK-US Extradition Treaty
2.48 p.m.
Lord Goodhartasked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect that the terms of the United Kingdom-United States extradition treaty will be published.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the new United Kingdom-United States bilateral extradition treaty will be laid before Parliament as a Command Paper in the normal way. We hope that it will be possible for this to happen by the end of May.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the Government have already indicated that the treaty excludes the need to produce evidence of guilt to support the extradition claim. Given that the United States of America contains 51 different jurisdictions, and that in some of them the standards of investigation and trial are questionable to say the least, how do the Government justify that?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is the case that we intend to remove the requirement for prima facie evidence to accompany extradition requests. There has been no secret about that. We drew attention to that fact in an Answer to a parliamentary Question by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. We do not see any difference between the United States as an
128
established democracy and the other signatories to the European Convention on Extradition, which comprise some 40-plus countries.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, why have we abolished the prima facie rule?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Earl is a supporter of the party which removed that obligation from the Council of Europe countries. We do not believe that it is the sort of stringent requirement an established democracy requires.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is one important difference between our system and that of the United States? In the United States the Senate is able to scrutinise a treaty such as the extradition treaty before ratification whereas in our curious and antiquated parliamentary procedures the best that we have is the Ponsonby rule, an explanatory memorandum and exiguous parliamentary scrutiny. Do the Government now accept the recommendation of the Wakeham Commission that there should be more effective scrutiny arrangements in this House with a treaty scrutiny committee to look into matters of that kind?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this has been the traditional way to scrutinise such treaties. There will be the opportunity for a debate on this matter in your Lordships' House. I know that the issue of adopting an affirmative procedure is one of concern to noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches. No doubt that point can be debated during the passage of the Extradition Bill through your Lordships' House.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Mr Kenny Ritchie, who is now on Death Row, becomes eligible for British citizenship in view of the fact that Section 13 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act came into force at the beginning of this month? Will the extradition treaty withhold leave to extradite any person from this country who may be liable to the death penalty in the United States?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my understanding is that the answer to that question is "Yes".
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the debate in this House to which the Minister referred be held on an assurance before ratification?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think that that probably is a matter for the usual channels.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, bearing in mind that people in the United States are six times more likely to be placed in prison than are people in this country, is it wise to get rid of the requirement that prima facie evidence should be provided before extradition takes place?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we trust all other democratic nations and states without having a

129
prima facie evidence provision in place. I see no difference between the 40 signatories to the European Convention on these matters and the United States, which is a mature and highly effective democracy.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister would reconsider that answer. I understand that in a number of democracies outside the European Union and the Council of Europe procedures it is indeed the case that prima facie evidence is still required. In the light of that, will the Minister carefully consider the Question raised by my noble friend Lord Goodhart about the very different procedures in the different states of the United States?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I understand the force of the point made by the noble Baroness. These matters can be debated and these are points to be considered, but that is the position adopted by the Government.

Individual Learning Accounts
2.54 p.m.
Baroness Blatchasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made on the investigation into individual learning accounts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, the department's special investigations unit has been asked to investigate 157 learning provider organisations. The police are investigating 98 of those cases. There have been 71 arrests, which have resulted to date in six people being convicted, nine people accepting cautions and one other awaiting a court appearance.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this has been the most scandalous waste of public money. The department has been found wanting and yet there has been no apology and to date no proper compensation for genuine providers. What are the Government going to do about it?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, first, on behalf of the Government, we do apologise for this. Indeed, when he appeared before the Public Accounts Committee the Permanent Secretary said:
"this is a very bad story … I am very sorry for it too, and we have to put it right".
So, I believe we are quite clear in apologising.
The noble Baroness will be aware of the Ombudsman cases. As a consequence of those we shall be writing to a number of learning providers. I believe we have written to 179 and will be writing to some 3,000 in June inviting claims from those who have had similar experiences to those covered in the Ombudsman cases. We have written to 20,000 learners to seek out those who may
130
have had similar experiences to those outlined by the Ombudsman. I do believe that we have already made some inroads into sorting this out.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, my noble friend has frequently accepted the responsibility of the department for failings and shortcomings. Would it not be better if the Opposition, who continually raise the matter, were for once to condemn the crooks rather than pretend that what happened was a result of the department's failings?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. These investigations are about fraud. I am sure that the noble Baroness. Lady Blatch, and other noble Lords will be fully aware that the nub of the matter is to ensure that we bring to justice those who have defrauded us.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how much this has cost so far and what will be the projected costs of this débâcle?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the department has spent £273 million on the programme. As noble Lords will know, there was a very high take-up of individual learning accounts. Indeed, the satisfaction rates for those involved are extremely high—independent research would suggest 91 per cent. The overspend on the programme is £74 million and our forecast for the final overspend for the two years is £93.6 million. Based on the estimates and extrapolations, the fraud and serious irregularities may be up to some £67 million, a figure I have given before in your Lordships' House.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the Minister accept that I hold no brief for the people who have been fraudulent in this case but that I do hold a brief for the genuine recipients of the courses and the genuine providers of the courses? The way in which the department set up the scheme allowed not only for fraudulent activity to take place but for it to take place over such a long period that millions of pounds have been lost to the taxpayer. That precious money could have gone to our schools, which are badly in need of it.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Baroness holds no brief. I am sure that she would join me in wholeheartedly condemning those who have defrauded the system. I accept that entirely. The timescale of events shows that in May 2001 we recognised that we had met our commitment to get into the system the number of learners we wanted. We recognised that there were severe issues by the end of October and the scheme closed down in November. With the information we received, I believe that we acted with all possible speed.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the principle behind the scheme, which was to provide a means of helping adult learners into courses on a part-time basis, was a good one? At

131
one point there was a proposal that such a scheme should he resumed. Can the Minister inform the House as to when we are likely to see a scheme introduced by the department which, it is to be hoped, will he totally fraud free?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, on the last occasion that such a question was asked my noble friend Lord Davies stated that we intend to come forward around June with new proposals for a scheme which will indeed meet the worthy objectives outlined by the noble Baroness.

Cholera Outbreak, Basra
2.59 p.m.
Baroness Northoverasked Her Majesty's Government:
What actions they are taking in the light of the cholera outbreak in Basra, Iraq.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Baroness Amos): My Lords, The World Health Organisation (WHO) has confirmed 18 cases of cholera in Basra in the past 15 days. No deaths have yet been reported. A cholera task force has been established in Basra consisting of the Ministry of Health, the World Health Organisation, the UN Children's Fund and NGOs. DfID has cholera kits sufficient to treat 11,000 people on standby in Kuwait in case any are needed.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she recall the warning from the UN and the WHO that if Iraq was attacked there would be a great danger of a cholera epidemic, especially among children? Is she aware that most of the cholera cases she mentioned are among children under five? Surely, unless all the stops are pulled out, cholera could rapidly become not endemic but epidemic. Can she tell the House what preparations were made in advance to repair the water and sanitation systems that had previously been badly damaged and which were damaged again in this conflict? Furthermore, how soon will it be before the people of Basra have access to safe water and sanitation systems?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware that there were concerns about the possibility of a cholera outbreak. The noble Baroness will be aware from the Answers I gave to Questions yesterday that cholera is normally endemic in Iraq at this time of year. The problems that we have seen with water and sanitation systems are increasing the risk of further outbreaks. We are very conscious of that. That is why repair of the water and sanitation systems has been a priority.
The noble Baroness will also be aware that over many years in Basra Saddam Hussein's regime did not repair the water systems. So this is an inherited problem with which our forces in the area are dealing.
Lord Rea: My Lords, with regard to the health of the people in and around Basra, will the Government back
132
an independent investigation—preferably carried out by the World Health Organisation—into the apparent increase of cases of cancer and congenital abnormalities ascribed by many to the use of depleted uranium during the first Gulf war?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, that issue is somewhat wide of the Question.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, will my noble friend relay to our troops in the Basra enclave area the appreciation of many Members of the House of Lords for the exemplary work they did in the early stages following the conflict to bring in vital supplies of water to the area?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I would be perfectly happy to do that. This House has expressed its appreciation on many occasions. We cannot overestimate the very good job our troops have done.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, at what point will the coalition authorities, or the civil authorities who replace them, be in a position to let contracts for the revitalisation of the water systems in southern Iraq? Will whoever does that bear in mind that there are many Iraqi engineers living in exile who would be delighted and honoured to play a part in the reconstruction process?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will know that there is an ongoing political process to lead to the establishment of the interim Iraqi authority which will, over a period of time, take over responsibility for the administration of Iraq. I am afraid that I cannot give a timescale with respect to the letting of contracts, but I am sure that the IIA, once it is up and running, will be well aware that there are qualified and professional people in Iraq who can carry out some of the work.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell us something about the situation in Baghdad? That would appear to many of us to be much more susceptible to a great increase in cholera than Basra, where it appears to be reasonably under control.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the situation in Baghdad is improving. The noble Lord will be pleased to know that there are now some 200 UN workers in and around Baghdad from outside Iraq and some 3,000 Iraqis, who have worked with the UN in the past, engaged, for example, in food distribution. So the picture is improving, although the security situation remains fragile. There is ongoing fighting, so we must be very careful. The UN agencies and NGOs are all very conscious of that.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, can the Secretary of State take the matter further? How many NGOs are involved in helping and with what success?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Baroness about the number because it changes daily. I

133
shall be very happy to do that. I think we can report some success. There is clearly an issue with respect to co-ordination. As I said in response to previous questions, the security situation remains a matter of some concern. That limits what some of the NGOs can do. I shall be happy to write to the noble Baroness and give her further information on this issue and to put a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections and Periods of Suspension) Bill
3.5 p.m.
Brought from the Commons on Monday last and printed pursuant to Standing Order 51, and read a first time.
Then, Standing Order 47 having been dispensed with:
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill, as your Lordships will know, provides for the deferment of elections for the Northern Ireland Assembly that were due to be held on 29th May. We believe that deferring elections should be done only in exceptional circumstances. However, it is clear that this is the course of action most likely to sustain the Belfast agreement and to restore the devolved institutions.
On 6th May I set out the advances that we, the Irish Government and the political parties in Northern Ireland, have made over the six months following the suspension of devolved government in October last year. We arrived at a comprehensive set of proposals for full implementation of the agreement, which were published on 1st May in the form of a joint declaration, together with two further texts on monitoring and on the question of on-the-run terrorist suspects. Paragraph 13 of that joint declaration states:
"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".
The IRA published statements last week. The clarifications offered by the President of Sinn Fein were significant developments, but were not sufficient. They did not give the clarity needed in response to the single crucial question: will there be an immediate end to all paramilitary activity? We judge that lack of clarity to be a fundamental obstacle to the operation of the Good Friday agreement.
In order for Northern Ireland institutions to work there must be a widespread willingness to participate. That is itself dependent on trust. That trust was fractured last October. Until there is clarity that trust will not fully be rebuilt or regained.
134
Without that trust an election would not be an election to the institutions prescribed by the agreement because those institutions would not work. It would have been an election to a set of non-functioning institutions. There would have been administrative chaos and early further elections.
I turn briefly to the provisions of the Bill. Clause I provides for the setting of a new election date. We hope that it will be possible to hold an election by the autumn. A number of noble Lords and speakers in the Commons yesterday have expressed concerns that the Bill sets no fixed date for an election and that the power for the Secretary of State to set a further date is not limited in time.
In our view, which I have expressed to your Lordships on earlier occasions, to set an election date now would not advance the process. It would risk impaling it on a hook. We believe that is more likely to lead to polarisation rather than a willingness to make accommodations and reach compromises.
I am grateful to the Delegated Powers Committee and its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, for the speed with which it was able to consider the Bill and also to deliver its report.
There were two aspects about which the committee were troubled. The first was that there was no time limit—what might be described as a quasi-sunrise clause. The Secretary of State and I obviously listened carefully to what the report stated and what was said in the House of Commons. We think that those are legitimate concerns.
Accordingly, I shall propose an amendment—which I hope, will commend itself to your Lordships—by way of a new clause. It will provide—I think that I paraphrase fairly that the power to call an election shall fall if not exercised before 31st December this year. That period can be extended only for a period of up to six months and those renewals would have to be by affirmative order in both Houses. I hope that we have honourably met the concerns referred to in the House of Commons and also particularised in the report of as the Delegated Powers Committee. I should add that I am especially grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Smith, for our helpful private discussions, which enabled us to arrive at what I hope is a reasonable outcome.
A further question, which is also mentioned in the committee's report, is that of the mechanism by which the Secretary of State's power to call elections should be operated. I approach the matter in this way: one understands the concerns about Henry VIII powers of any sort. On one analysis, that would not be removing a right from the citizen—which is the real vice of Henry VIII clauses. In fact, it would be restoring to our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland their democratic right to have an election to the Assembly.
So on one basis, our first view is sustainable. However, I think that your Lordships know that there has not been an occasion on which I have had anything to do with a Bill when I have wanted to go against the recommendations of the committee. Accordingly, the second amendment that I have proposed for

135
consideration in Committee tomorrow is to the effect that there should be a draft affirmative procedure whereby the Secretary of State could make the order but, if it were not approved within 28 days—fewer than the usual 40; I hope that my judgment is right on that—the order would fall.
I therefore hope that we have now been able to meet your Lordships' concerns as I anticipated them, and as they have been expressed to me in conversation by a number of your Lordships. The amendments have now been tabled—I think that they were tabled about three minutes ago—so your Lordships will be able to read them in ample time for consideration before Committee tomorrow, but I think that I have paraphrased them accurately.
Having set out my intention to meet those concerns, perhaps I may continue. Clause 2 annuls steps taken towards the 29th May elections and provides for return of deposits. Clause 3 provides for reimbursement of money spent both by political parties and individual candidates in preparation for the scheduled elections.
A widely expressed view, not least within your Lordships' House, has been that Northern Ireland political parties and individuals ought to be reimbursed for genuine expenditure related to the election campaign. The Secretary of State therefore has power to make such payments. He intends to do so in line with a scheme to be developed by the Electoral Commission.
There have also been difficult questions about those 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. Again, I know that your Lordships—in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain raised that in earlier discussions. We cannot avoid the fact that the Assembly is dissolved, but we hope that those who have been Members, many of them, gratifyingly, new to public life in Northern Ireland and who have often made great sacrifices in order to take part in the political process, will want to remain in democratic politics and to continue to represent the interests of those who were their constituents.
We therefore believe that it is right to pay a continuing salary, rather than a resettlement allowance. But it would not be acceptable either for the salary to be at the rate payable before the election, or for it to last indefinitely. Clause 4 therefore gives the Secretary of State power to fix salaries and allowances. We intend to consult on the detail during the next week or so, but in the light of our belief that the previous rates would not be appropriate in the new circumstances. We intend to review those levels in six months.
We also intend to pay a limited office cost allowance, to enable some degree of presence to be retained in constituency offices. I also 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 allows the Secretary of State to continue to pay party allowances. Again, we intend to consult during the next week on those. The rest of Clause 5 contains technical provision.
136
Clause 6 is designed to permit changes in electoral law necessary to ensure the successful running of the election. That power could be exercised only in line with the Bill's provisions. To take an example, an autumn election would coincide with the annual canvass. At present, the Chief Electoral Officer, who, with his staff, has discharged his duties with great professionalism, is required to publish the new register on 1st December. It is sensible to make provision to delay that slightly if it proves necessary.
Obviously, that is not a step that the Government have taken lightly, but it is the only proper course if we are to remove violence from Northern Ireland's society for good and move forward on the basis of inclusive, democratic government.
I hope that I have summarised the Bill to your Lordships' satisfaction. It was a difficult decision for the Secretary of State to make, which was not entirely without controversy. I know that your Lordships have previously expressed concerns, and I hope that the form of the Bill, but especially that of the proposed amendments, meets those legitimate concerns. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
3.16 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for explaining to the House the provisions of the Bill in his customary, clear style; but perhaps more so for his courtesy and openness in the discussions that colleagues and I have held with him during the past week or so about Northern Ireland matters, and the Bill in particular.
Sadly, that stands in contrast to the total discourtesy with which the Government treated the House of Commons yesterday. In railroading the Bill through on a guillotine, the Government ensured that there was no Committee stage, no Report stage and no Third Reading. No time at all was allowed to discuss amendments to the Bill in another place. All I can say is: thank God for your Lordships' House.
That is an outrageous way for the Government to treat Parliament but, regrettably, as some of us know only too well, typical of the arrogance and highhandedness—I go so far as to say contempt for Parliament—that we saw yesterday in another place. Let us hope that there will soon be change. I suggest that your Lordships would not tolerate that once, let alone regularly.
As the noble and learned Lord made clear, the Bill is straightforward. Its purpose is to postpone indefinitely the elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly that were due to take place on 29th May. Of course, that follows the legislation in March postponing the original date for elections, 1st May, as prescribed by Section 31 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
Before I comment on the Bill and my party's attitude towards it, it is worth reminding the House exactly why we are here at all. The noble and learned Lord has covered some of this ground. At the beginning of

137
March, intensive discussions took place at Hillsborough Castle between the pro-agreement parties in Northern Ireland, along with the United Kingdom and Irish Governments. The purpose was, of course, to try to find a basis for restoring the devolved institutions that the then Secretary of State had been forced to suspend last October as a result of the activities of Sinn Fein/IRA, which have become known as Stormontgate. Stormontgate was the culmination of a series of breaches that included Florida gun-running, Colombia, Castlereagh and ongoing paramilitary activities such as shootings, beatings and so on.
When the Hillsborough talks concluded, the Government were optimistic that a "shared understanding" had been reached on a number of issues, such as the future stability of the devolved institutions, policing, security normalisation, human rights, so-called "on-the-runs" and, of course, future IRA activity.
It was then envisaged that after a short period of internal discussion and consideration within the parties, the British and Irish Governments would publish their joint declaration setting out how they intended to implement all the outstanding elements of the Belfast agreement. Crucially, at around the same time, the IRA was to issue a statement in which it was widely anticipated—I shared some of that optimism from this Dispatch Box at that time—that it would commit to completing decommissioning and ending paramilitary activity and would declare that the so-called "war" was over. It was, of course, to facilitate that process that Parliament agreed to the first suspension of the elections in March.
However, as we approached the deadline for the dissolution of the Assembly it became clear that the IRA statement. which was shown privately to the British and Irish Governments, fell way short of what is required. I have to tell your Lordships that subsequent publication of that statement, and the attempted clarifications by Gerry Adams, have totally vindicated that judgment.
For all the IRA-speak about not engaging in activities that are inconsistent with the peace process and the Belfast agreement, there is still no commitment to end the shootings, the beatings, the exiling of people from their homes and other forms of paramilitary activity. There is not even an acknowledgement that the full implementation of the agreement means the closure of the conflict. As Mr Adams's response to the Prime Minister revealingly stated, full implementation of the agreement will provide only a basis for the closure of the conflict.
That inevitably begs the question: just when will closure occur? The suspicion has to be, judging by Mr Adams's answers to the Prime Minister's questions, that closure will occur only when all republican objectives have been achieved, up to and including a united Ireland. I hope that I am wrong because if that is the case the process will be condemned to lurch from crisis to crisis.
138
Once again, all of us have been let down by the republican movement. It still refuses to end the ambiguity over the commitment to what the agreement calls exclusively democratic and peaceful means.
Five years after the agreement was made in Belfast there can simply be no justification for being what the Prime Minister described as,
"half in and half out".
of the process. We need to be certain that decommissioning is going to be completed. We need to be certain that all paramilitary activity will cease. And we need to be certain that the conflict is once and for all at an end. Until all of those things happen, it is difficult to see how the executive can be re-established on the same inclusive basis as before.
That does not, however, mean that we agree entirely with what the Government are doing today. At the time of that first suspension, we made it clear that we regarded it as a one-off and not as something that we could support a second time. I said that myself from this Dispatch Box. It is not my intention to go over all the arguments again but that fundamentally remains our position.
We do not sit comfortably with Bills to postpone elections in a part of the United Kingdom. In our view, the Government should have held elections, called the Assembly and seen if an executive could be formed. At the same time, they should have taken the power—as we have been urging for two years—here at Westminster to enable the Secretary of State to exclude from the executive any party that is in default of the agreement or the ceasefire. That would enable an executive to be formed without Sinn Fein until such time as the IRA actually does what is required and engages in what the Government call "acts of completion".
That said, we will not oppose the Bill today. Given the circumstances in which we currently find ourselves, if we were to defeat the Bill it would plunge Northern Ireland into further chaos by forcing an election in a little over two weeks' time for which nominations have closed and for which the parties are not prepared. It is not the function of your Lordships' House deliberately to go around creating chaos and I do not intend to go down that path.
However, I listened with interest to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal said about the amendments that the Government have tabled for tomorrow's Committee stage. They seem to go quite a long way towards helping our problems with the Bill. As he knows, one of our chief concerns has been the open-ended nature of the Bill and the arbitrary powers it hands to the Secretary of State. Those concerns are obviously shared by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, as the noble and learned Lord said. I sincerely hope that the two amendments will satisfy members of that committee and those in my party—and perhaps those in the Liberal Democrat Party.

139
The Lord Privy Seal has now suggested that if an election has not been held by 31st December the legislation will fall and that if the Government want to extend it they must come hack to Parliament with an affirmative resolution. That is a very sound proposition.
This is obviously a Bill that none of us wanted and do not pass with any pleasure. Yet, as I have set out, the circumstances that have brought it about are entirely the fault of the republicans, who still seem to think that democracy is compatible with the retention of a private army. It is not. Until they understand that, there should be no place for them in ministerial offices in Northern Ireland. On that point, I hope that the Government and the Opposition are totally at one.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for his explanation of the Bill but I must say that it is a wretched and quite unnecessary measure. It is true that the failure of Sinn Fein to answer the Prime Minister's third question unambiguously was and remains a major problem. But it should not have been used as the excuse by the Government to call off the Assembly elections that were due on the 29th of this month.
Whatever the intense frustration and exasperation provoked by Sinn Fein's lack of candour, shared by all people of good will, that should not have been allowed to trigger the precipitous decision to cancel the elections. The decision is one that no party on the island of Ireland has endorsed, save for the UUP, and, to judge from last night's debate in another place, even its ranks are divided. That debate, frankly, was shambolic, acrimonious and severely truncated; it was not a good parliamentary occasion.
Even the Taoiseach disagreed and publicly expressed the view that the elections should have proceeded as planned. The truth is that the speed with which the decision was made and the abrupt change of direction caught almost everyone by surprise, including, I suggest, key members of the Cabinet. It was utterly baffling in view of the Government's repeated assurances that elections would be held at the end of May at the latest. There must be a better reason for this volte face than has so far been given. There appears to have been a sudden rush of blood to the head for the Government to abandon their undertaking in that unilateral manner. One cannot avoid the suspicion that an element of what might be called "Baghdad bounce" had suddenly penetrated the collective psyche of No. 10.
It is amazing that no other option appears to have been considered or even given a moment's thought. Instead, the Government borrowed yet again from the repertoire of Thatcherism: they deployed the TINA tactic. Stating that there is no alternative is simply government by assertion. It is the direct antithesis of democratic dialogue, still less does it encourage the maintenance of bipartisanship. Miss Clare Short's strictures on the style and stance of the Government are amply validated by the Government's inconsistency over the Assembly elections.
140
As I said a week ago, there was at least one other option that should have been explored and, preferably, adopted. The elections should have gone ahead, not least to renew the mandate of the Assembly and its Members. If, say, after a month, the parties in the Assembly could not agree to form the executive, the Assembly would be given the task of reviewing the workings of the Belfast agreement. Such a review—to include the two governments—is, in any case, due by December. There are three precedents for adopting such a deliberative process: the Constitutional Convention of 1975, the Northern Ireland Forum of 1996 and the discussions over many months by the first Assembly prior to the formation of the executive.
As it is, we are where we are: left with this wretched Bill. As almost everyone from all parts of Westminster noted when the Bill appeared, it contained an extremely serious flaw: the calling of any future elections was left completely open-ended. There must be a specific end-date for the governments and parties to work towards. As I said last week, amañana policy is totally inappropriate for the circumstances of Northern Ireland. The momentum must be quickly restored and then maintained.
As accurately reported in last Saturday'sFinancial Times, I have every intention of tabling a sunset clause amendment to the Bill, first, to hasten the call of elections, and, secondly, to ensure regular parliamentary monitoring of the process. We cannot give a blank cheque to the Secretary of State, which, in reality, means leaving it to No. 10 to call the shots. In that regard the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and I are as one.
I was very relieved, therefore, to hear from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal that the Government have reconsidered their policy, and that he is to table amendments to that effect. I notice that, when the Secretary of State said that he hoped that elections would be held in the autumn, he was careful not to specify the year. It is to be hoped that the proposed amendment will increase the chances of elections taking place this year. If it proves necessary to review the election provisions in the Bill by affirmative order, can the Minister give an assurance that it will be done on the Floor of the Chamber in another place and not in Standing Committee? That is an essential requirement in our view.
A further cause of concern arises from an article in last Thursday'sIrish Independent. David Trimble is reported as saying that, in his view, it may not be possible to revive the devolved institutions later in the year because Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness might not be able to "muster sufficient authority" to persuade the IRA to move. Such observations are not helpful at this time; they simply up the ante. Does that not reveal an attitude that poses the question whether any future assurance from Sinn Fein, whatever it said, would prove acceptable to the UUP leader? I should like an assurance from the noble and learned Lord that, if the two governments found acceptable a future statement on all acts of completion, they would disallow any UUP veto.

141
On other features of the Bill, Clause 3 provides for the reimbursement of expenses already incurred by political parties and individual candidates in anticipation of a May election. That is right and proper, but I advise a very strict invigilation of claims. Quick reimbursement, which is also needed, may not be easily compatible with the need to closely audit claims. What is the timescale for the Electoral Commission to deal with the matter, and when will it be expected to report?
Clause 4 concerns the very difficult issue of continuing payments to Members of the Assembly. That is especially difficult as MLAs now have no mandate. Last October, when Stormont was suspended, a small reduction of salaries was made. The Secretary of State undertook to review the matter before last Christmas. Apparently, he did, but it was not reported to the House that he had decided against any further reduction. I have heard him say that it is necessary to sustain the political class in Northern Ireland. I suppose that some sort of case can be made for that; but it is highly debatable at what rate and for how long that can happen.
The noble and learned Lord said today, and the Secretary of State said last night, that they intend to consult the Northern Ireland parties on the issue. With the best will in the world, they will not be the most objective contributors to any such negotiations. Can the noble and learned Lord say whether the parties in Westminster will also he consulted before a decision is made? In that regard. I commend the wise words of David Ford. the Alliance Party leader, who said last week:
'"It appears that the Government is proposing to keep former MLAs in suspended animation and pay them a salary. This could only be justified if it were for a short time until an election date is defined in law … if not. the Government should make payments in line with a redundancy package. There is no justification for extended payments if devolution is not on the way back."
I conclude by reiterating that bipartisanship—or should I say tripartisanship?—on Northern Ireland can work only if is nurtured by consultation before decisions are taken. Issues of national security apart, there should he no case for precipitate, unilateral decisions of the kind that led to this wretched Bill.
Let us hope for a quick resumption of the electoral process. which is the only democratic way forward. I fear that, if elections do not take place this year, the devolved institutions will, to all intents and purposes, be dead in the water. With a very heavy heart, Liberal Democrats will support the passage of the Bill if it is satisfactorily amended on the lines outlined by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, the Government will find my verdict on the Bill more charitable than that of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. We must be grateful that the Asquith government in 1914 postponed further consideration of Home Rule developments and legislation until the Great War was over. I speak as a member of the Select
142
Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, which published its 20th report of this Session on this Bill, to which all speakers have already referred.
I wish to carry out some small pieces of ground-clearing. I read the whole report of the Commons debate yesterday. As is characteristic of debates on Northern Ireland affairs, it was both vigorous and wide-ranging. As my noble friend Lord Glentoran intimated, I, too, regret that, under the new Commons procedure there was no time for remaining stages after Second Reading, especially a Committee stage.
Chronologically earlier, in Manchester last year and in Kilkenny at the end of March this year. I attended the plenary sessions of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body. On both occasions, we debated the political situation at the time with our Irish colleagues. Having consistently believed that the elections should be postponed if Sinn Fein's attitude to the use of violence was not clarified beyond peradventure, my own position has been steady throughout. I have followed the conspiratorial arguments about the potential results of the elections, and why people might change the dates because of them. I was not convinced by those arguments—and I said so in Manchester—on the grounds that, at some stage in Northern Ireland's evolution, the DUP and Sinn Fein could become the dominant parties in the Assembly. It would be better to face that dilemma as soon as it arrived, however early that might be, not least since it might well be unexpectedly productive.
Returning briefly to the 1998 referendum, Labour Back-Bench Members of Parliament taking part in the referendum campaign—obviously, in support of a "Yes" vote—signalled to No. 10 that unless the Prime Minister became directly involved in the campaign it was conceivable that, among Unionists at any rate, the referendum would not be carried. The Belfast agreement was founded on non-violent agreement. But the road map for securing that, whether with or without Ordnance Survey churches, which are always important in the Northern Irish landscape, was a little less explicit on how transition and de-escalation would occur. It was therefore no surprise to some of us that the Prime Minister was unable to deliver on one of his five hand-written points—the one on decommissioning—that were issued at the time of the referendum, because the agreement did not afford him adequate leverage to achieve that.
There have been intelligence rumours in the past five years—I have not been in receipt of official intelligence for more than a decade—about the discussion going on between the IRA and Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness. The implication of those rumours was that the IRA army council was prepared to allow Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness to conduct their political initiatives and experiments, provided that decommissioning was not pressed in the council itself. Of course, there was external pressure on Sinn Fein concerning decommissioning, and there was that important episode a year or two back, when even the Boston Herald withdrew its support from Sinn Fein because it was

143
behaving so obdurately about decommissioning. In turn, that made the IRA realise that it had to change its position, at least to some degree.
There was, however, less pressure, other than that mounted by individual Members of your Lordships' House and of another place—I cite particularly my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth and Mr Harry Barnes from another place—on the issue of paramilitary beatings and exilings. In the previous Parliament, a report on the subject was published by a Select Committee in another place, which I chaired. We published that report on paramilitaries sending fellow citizens into exile, but the fact remains that it has been a relatively low-key issue in the past four or five years, other than the work done by the two parliamentary champions whom I mentioned. I acknowledge that paramilitary activity of that sort happens on both sides of the community, but I have heard a Sinn Fein spokesman say that the issue is one for the community at large, even though the legal process by which people are sent into exile takes the form of kangaroo courts.
I can remember one of our earlier debates on the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, and I discussed his belief that the gun had disappeared from Northern Ireland affairs. I had to disabuse him by referring to the statistics. The valuable and timeous document that has been produced by the Commons Library to accompany the Bill gives evidence of growing activity in the past live years, even by comparison with the previous five years, during not all of which a ceasefire applied in Northern Ireland. The issue remains a live One.
I have not seen the final verdict on who was responsible for the break-in at Castlereagh police station—there is an irony that that police station shares its name with the Irish peer who provided the political leadership to get through Metternich's statesmanlike constitutional proposals at the Congress of Vienna, which effectively provided Europe with a hundred years of peace—but, before that event and before Stormontgate, to which my noble friend Lord Glentoran referred, there was no clear sign that a line in the sand would be drawn with regard to the commitment of Sinn Fein/IRA to non-violence. A new situation was created by those episodes.
As I said at a late hour in your Lordships' House last Tuesday, the position of both Governments, in insisting on a comprehensive commitment, was a good product to arise from a bad business. I supported the principle of the Bill, although I am, of course, conscious that the question of the on-the-runs still lies ahead of us.
The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, at whose deliberations I was present, raised the two issues set out and explained in its report. The noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House indicated the Government's attitude to those recommendations. I applaud the Government's reaction to the first recommendation, to which the Minister spoke and which my noble friend Lord Glentoran welcomed. I am, at this juncture, more uneasy about the response to the second recommendation. We will have to see the detail and the rationale in Committee tomorrow.
144
As one who once held office in the Northern Ireland Office, I realise that the two observations by the Select Committee were liable to make the Government's life and tasks more difficult. I am not insensitive to how difficult their life and tasks already were in such matters. However, Parliament has a role in the constitutional evolution of the case. The significance of the rule of law and of parliamentary scrutiny has been rendered more salient by the Stevens report, to which there was reference at Starred Questions an hour or so ago. Whatever additional inconvenience the Select Committee has created for the Government was justified, in the interests of transparency.
In my time as a Northern Ireland Minister, the cruces of public immunity certificates with security implications always required and warranted close attention and scrutiny. Those hours of internal debate were just as necessary to the rule of law and its application to human rights as the extra hurdles that the Select Committee put down yesterday. I look forward to the remaining stages of the Bill, for which my general support in principle is unstinting.
My noble friend Lord Glentoran was not wholly precise about the Official Opposition's attitude to the Government's second concession on the Select Committee's report. As I say, I remain uneasy about the detail of the latter concession, but that is tomorrow's business.
3.46 p.m.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, it is with great regret that we find ourselves in this position today. We are debating a further postponement of elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Although not personally seeking office, I was very much looking forward to the buzz and excitement of an election campaign and to canvassing across Northern Ireland with my party colleagues. The Government, however, had adequate warning that this situation would arise, yet they chose to make a decision at the latest possible moment, causing tremendous confusion among candidates and the electorate in Northern Ireland at large.
The crucial point to remember in all of this is that we have been denied the opportunity for one reason and one reason only: the continued refusal of the IRA to declare that its war is over and to stand down as an active paramilitary organisation. I shall put it another way. We face the continued refusal of Sinn Fein/IRA to turn their back on terrorism once and for all—to lay down their weapons, to stop sanctioning punishment beatings, issuing threats, intelligence gathering and all forms of paramilitary activity—and enter fully into the democratic process. The Government asked for a clear and unambiguous statement from the IRA to that effect. They had to go back repeatedly and ask for clarity. None, however, was forthcoming. That is why we are here today and not in the throes of an election campaign in Northern Ireland.
The Assembly was suspended on 15th October 2002. Again, I remind noble Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, did, that that suspension followed

145
the discovery of an IRA spy-ring at the centre of the Northern Ireland Office. The institution, therefore, technically does not exist at present. To hold elections to the suspended Assembly, is, as my party leader David Trimble spelt out in another place yesterday, to do the work of Sinn Fein/IRA.
Electing representatives to the Assembly would, in the event of its restoration, allow Sinn Fein to take their seats once again with little or no incentive to put pressure on Sinn Fein/IRA to deliver the necessary acts of completion. Without such acts, there would be no prospect of an executive being re-constituted and, in all likelihood, devolution in Northern Ireland would effectively be at an end. The work of the Government and their Irish counterparts—of all the parties involved in the negotiations over the past six months—would have been in vain. That is how grave the current situation is.
I, and my Ulster Unionist Party colleagues, would, of course, prefer to see the political process in Northern Ireland functioning. We want to see the Belfast agreement implemented in full and the institutions up and running and fully operational. But we want to see all this achieved by exclusively peaceful and democratic means. We simply cannot have a situation where one party, Sinn Fein/IRA. is able to hold the democratic process to ransom, as it has done for far too long. I regret the fact that this legislation has been deemed necessary, but without it I fear that the consequences might well have been worse.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for responding so quickly to the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, of which I declare that I am a member, and also for taking the trouble to send to those of us whom he could reach copies of the draft amendments. I am not sure that I am able to curtail what I had thought I might impose upon your Lordships in this speech in consequence of the amendment that deals with the subordinate legislation by which the Bill proposes that the Secretary of State shall be able to specify the renewed date for the elections.
That is because I am not sure—I would welcome the earliest opportunity to learn from the noble and learned Lord—whether this actually permits the Secretary of State to make an order which would take effect and be able to be acted upon so that an election would take place before Parliament would have an opportunity to decide whether to give its approval. I shall come to that in a moment, but I do not think that it is improper to deal with this, although we shall be dealing with it tomorrow, because it is fairly crucial.
By way of introduction, I warmly agree with the attitude taken by the Government to the inadequate response of the IRA to the questions that were put. Simplicity and unambiguity are certainly required. At least on one of the three questions perhaps the most important—which the Prime Minister has put, that is
146
wholly lacking. Therefore, I entirely agree that the Government have been justified in the course that they have taken in seeking to bypass or nullify the statutory requirement for an election on 29th May.
The original suspension was rightly done by way of primary legislation. When I looked at the Bill I was therefore particularly perturbed to see that the Government were proposing, not just by secondary legislation or delegated legislation but by delegated legislation with no parliamentary control over it whatever, to enable the Secretary of State to restore the elections, restore the institutions and fix the date for the elections. It was that which motivated the report of the Select Committee yesterday.
I had at first thought when the noble and learned Lord was explaining the amendments half an hour ago that the mischief which the Select Committee perceived would be wholly remedied by the draft amendment. That mischief was this: that Parliament would not be able to express its opinion and would not be able to test the political development upon which the Secretary of State would have relied in order to reach the conclusion that elections could now be held. There would have had to be a reversal of the attitude of the IRA. It would have to have provided not only words but, as the Secretary of State said in his Statement on 6th May, deeds as well.
I believe that Parliament rightly would expect—certainly should expect—to test the Government's interpretation and assessment of those words and deeds to establish whether they justified and gave rise to the confidence among the people of Northern Ireland that is rightly said to be the test. I also think that it might look fairly odd to quite a large number of people in Northern Ireland if the Westminster Parliament was to wash its hands of the issue of whether devolved government was to be restored to Northern Ireland by agreeing to deprive itself of any control over the relevant order.
I am concerned about the text of the draft amendment. It seems to me—I am indeed open to correction of course. as always, on matters of procedure—that it would be open to the Secretary' of State to make his order on, say, 28th July, when we are in Recess, to specify a date for an election—say, 20 or 24 days or whatever it might be—before the House returns on 8th September with an opportunity to give or withhold its approval. If that were the case, of course the mischief would not be remedied at all.
I am hoping that the noble and learned Lord can give either an explanation that shows I have been completely wrong—which would not surprise me—or, in the alternative, that he can give an undertaking that the Government would not act in such a manner as to deprive both Houses of the ability to express their view before the campaign for elections were to commence. That is the point. I am fortified in this by going back to the 2002 Act whereby the restorative orders had to be by affirmative resolution before they could take effect. Perhaps that is not a particularly coherent speech but I hope that I have made clear the character of my anxieties.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, when the Northern Ireland Executive was suspended and we realised that we were going to have legislation such as this before this House, it was known that it would be a very acrimonious debate. It was known that there were very bitter feelings among the political parties in Northern Ireland. On realising this, one would have thought that the Government would have done whatever they could to pour oil on troubled water and make the situation a little more acceptable. But yesterday they did exactly the opposite.
In the House of Commons yesterday, the Government took a decision to limit the debate by way of a guillotine Motion whereby the elected representatives from Northern Ireland were limited to a debate of three or four hours. We, the unelected House, were given today and tomorrow to debate the ramifications of this Bill.
Anyone who knows anything about politics in Northern Ireland would and should have known that this would cause tremendous difficulty in Northern Ireland. The Government were very foolish. There was no need for a Statement on Iraq yesterday. That took up quite a lot of time. I left this House yesterday and watched the proceedings of another place on the Parliamentary Channel. I thought that possibly I could see the debate as it took place through the eyes of people in the United Kingdom, who are not very involved with Northern Ireland. As 1 watched the debate, I became very depressed, as I am sure did anyone else watching in the United Kingdom.
During the debate. it became very evident that aside from the debate taking place between nationalism and unionism—between Seamus Mallon of the SDLP and the various sections of unionism—that there was a war going on between the forces of unionism—between the DUP and the UUP. They are fighting tenaciously for every single vote at any future election. On the nationalist side, although the Sinn Fein Members were not there in person to put forward their case, the SDLP put it forward for them.
Two questions were hurled across the Floor repeatedly yesterday by the SDLP and the Unionist parties. Seamus Mallon of the SDLP asked Jeffrey Donaldson, the Member for Lagan Valley, whether the Unionist Party would be prepared to sit with Sinn Fein in a power-sharing executive in Northern Ireland if, for example, the IRA issued a statement saying that it was prepared to comply with paragraph 13, wherein the Government were demanding that it cease all violent activities. There was no answer to that question. The answer should have been a resounding "Yes".
Jeffrey Donaldson, speaking for the mainstream of the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland—although I do not know whether he really does so—then asked Seamus Mallon the following: "If we did have a power sharing arrangement and the IRA still maintained its violent activities, would you then vote for its suspension from the executive?". Seamus Mallon could not answer that question either. although again there should have been a
148
resounding "Yes". If those two questions had been answered with a "Yes'', then perhaps the Assembly would not have been abolished.
I can understand the dilemma in which the Government find themselves. The questions are all about trust, but from what we heard in the House of Commons debate yesterday, anything but trust was being discussed. In fact it was made quite clear that at present there is no possibility of trust existing between the political parties.
In justification of the abolition of the Assembly and the suspension of the elections, the Government said that they did it to save the Good Friday agreement. Let us take a moment to analyse that statement. The Government suspended the Assembly and the political parties in Northern Ireland, saying that it was necessary to do so in order to save the Good Friday agreement. Does it mean that, if elections had been held in Northern Ireland and the outcome of those elections had resulted in a majority for Sinn Fein and a majority for the Democratic Unionist Party, that that would have meant the end of the agreement? Possibly it would have meant that, although I cannot be sure. 1 t may be that the majority nationalist party, in the form of Sinn Fein, and the majority unionist party, in the form of the DUP, could have reached an accommodation that the existing political parties have been unable to achieve.
Should we now have an election to an Assembly, wherein there is no executive, and after the elections to that Assembly, could we reach an accommodation that would lead to the installation of an executive? Again I shall repeat what I heard yesterday: I am not optimistic that that could be done.
There is talk once again of a political vacuum and how dangerous the situation is when there is a vacuum in Northern Ireland. We have to have an election and people must be brought back into the Assembly at all costs. I have been in this place long enough to recall the debates held in the House of Commons. When Northern Ireland was set up it was given Stormont. In the Stormont parliament, there were 52 seats, along with 12 parliamentary seats here in Westminster. When Stormont was abolished in 1972, it was felt that since there was no longer a local parliament or executive, the number of Westminster seats would have to be increased. A Speaker's Conference was held, at which I took a view that did not agree with that held by everyone else; namely, that an increase in the number of parliamentary seats at Westminster would not decrease the problems of Northern Ireland. By the conclusion of the convention in 1976, the seats had increased to 18.
Was that a political vacuum? At the time, people did not believe that there was any kind of political vacuum, because they had secured an increase from 12 seats to 18 seats at Westminster, while Stormont with its 52 seats was no longer in place. At this point I am going to say something that will probably get me into deep, deep trouble in Northern Ireland. When the legislation was being debated in this House, I was in my place beside the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, a former

149
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He asked me, "How many seats are they going to have in the new Assembly?". I said that there would be 108 seats. "How did they arrive at that figure?", he asked. "When you were there, the chamber had only 52 seats". I replied, "It has all changed over there, with 18 constituencies, each having six MLAs". "By the time they're all in there", he said, "it'll take all the Semtex in the IRA's armoury to get them out". There is some truth in that.
Out of all the political parties, including the SDLP, the DUP and the UUP, Sinn Fein most desperately wants to get back into the executive, because it will aid its claim that it is acting as a legislator and playing its part in the effort to lead to a united Ireland.
How can Sinn Fein get back? As I have recently commented in private to a number of noble Lords, in paragraph 13 the Government have made it clear that there are certain conditions that Sinn Fein must fulfil: an end to violence, an end to shootings and an end to targeting. If Sinn Fein wants to get back into the legislative Assembly, one would have thought that it would not find it too difficult to comply with paragraph 13. I said then and I say again now: I hope that the Government will not back down from paragraph 13. Along with thousands of people in Northern Ireland, I remember listening with great hope to the Prime Minister's speech made last October in the Custom House in Belfast. He said that there had to be acts of completion. Sinn Fein will have to comply with paragraph 13.
Turning to the Policing Board. there are further ramifications in regard to the agreement. The Government have made every attempt to force or cajole Sinn Fein into taking up its seats on the board. I do not think that that will be an easy undertaking. I recall saying a few months ago in this House that Sinn Fein is in control of certain areas of Northern Ireland, such as Ballymurphy. Turf Lodge in Belfast and South Down. Once Sinn Fein takes up its seats on the Policing Board, it would in effect be giving up control of those areas, which at the moment are in its grip. Are the Government insisting on that demand before Sinn Fein can join the executive? If so, it will result in a long-drawn-out argument.
Sinn Fein is the only party in Northern Ireland that says it does not want sanctions. It does not want to be told, via a committee set up to monitor levels of violence, that it could be thrown out if the IRA decides to engage in a campaign of violence. If such a monitoring committee is established, then it will be made up from the Irish Government, the British Government, the Assembly and possibly someone from America. However, we shall have to be careful about the political allegiances of those serving on the committee. If a member of that committee has any kind of allegiance to the SDLP, then under no circumstances will he vote for the exclusion of Sinn Fein, even if it has been engaged in violence. That is because Sinn Fein and the SDLP are in the nationalist camp. If the committee has a member from the
150
unionist majority, then he will probably want to go hell for leather to exclude any Sinn Fein representatives. Thus there are many obstacles to be overcome.
As soon as the Government suspended the Assembly, Sinn Fein issued a statement to say that it would call off its discussions with General de Chastelain; in other words, it would not carry on with decommissioning. What does that mean? It means that Sinn Fein is going to hold on to its arms for some future date and circumstance in which those arms may have to be used. In any language, that is a threat. Sinn Fein is threatening that it will hold on to its arms in order to defeat the government.
I do not know whether the Government will engage in discussions with Sinn Fein between now and the autumn. As someone suggested in another place yesterday, it will not be autumn; it has already been extended until the end of the year. Some people think that it will be July/August or August/September, but it is now not until the end of the year.
I desperately want to see a resurrection of a democratic Assembly in which all the political parties are represented—but only by democratically elected politicians without private armies to bolster them if they do not get their own way. I am not optimistic that that will happen, but I desperately hope that it will.
I understand why the Government suspended the Assembly. From what I saw on television yesterday and from what I hear when I go to Belfast at weekends, the existing atmosphere will not allow the two major communities to come together. I will not vote against the Government on this. They were right to do what they did in very difficult circumstances—but I regret that they had to do so.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, as ever, one learns more about Northern Ireland from listening to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, than one does from many other sources.
I underline what has been said already by other noble Lords, particularly in regard to the regrets that many of us have over the manner in which the legislation was handled in another place. When Clare Short read in Hansard yesterday's proceedings in the House of Commons on the Northern Ireland Bill, she must have looked back to what she said in her resignation statement about the growing authoritarianism and the contempt in which the Prime Minister holds the House of Commons and reckoned that she had been well and truly borne out in a matter of a few hours.
I noticed that the Secretary of State spoke for 52 minutes and the spokesman for the Opposition for, I think. 46 minutes. That contrasts rather well with our experience here. But I do not think that the shortness of the speeches in your Lordships' House indicates any lessening of content compared with those made in another place.
When the noble and learned Lord announced the amendments that he hopes to bring forward tomorrow, he was conceding with grace what should have been conceded with grace yesterday in another

151
place. It is most regrettable that the concessions were not made there. Fine, it underlines that, as the House of Commons seems to get worse in its consideration of such matters, we manage to maintain some standards, but overall in the reputation of Parliament it is regrettable that those decisions were not announced yesterday.
I welcome the sunrise clause. I am still puzzled about the affirmative order and the 28 days, as I am about one other aspect of Clause 6. I hope that this is not too much of a Committee point and that the noble and learned Lord will be able to comment on it. I notice that according to subsection (1), the Secretary of State may by order make—and there is there a misprint in the Bill—by statutory instrument such modifications of other Acts as he needs. Subsection (5) states:
"An order under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the order has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament"
Subsection (6) states:
"Subsection (5) does not apply to an order under subsection (1) if the order declares that the Secretary of State considers it to be expedient for the order to be made without the approval mentioned in that subsection".
What exactly are the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might consider it expedient not to comply with subsection (1)? What will be the implications of that? In particular, how will it relate to the ability of the Government to call an election during the period before an order has been approved by the House? This is the point to which my noble and learned friend Lord Howe referred.
Noble Lords: Lord Mayhew.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: No such luck.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, how right you are. One thing that does not improve when one comes to this House is one's memory for names—at least mine does not.
I cannot say that I welcome the Bill in that its cause is most unwelcome. However, having said that, I welcome it in the sense that it deals with a most unwelcome problem. The Government had little alternative and they are right to bring it forward.
My noble friend Lord Glentoran is right. The cause of the problem is Sinn Fein/IRA. It is a pity that the Government did not take powers to exclude the IRA's spokesmen from Government and allow the elections and devolved government to go ahead.
Many years ago the late fain Macleod, when referring to a Labour Chancellor who brought forward a Budget which did not raise taxation as much as normal, said that one should welcome even a one-legged Father Christmas. It is in the same spirit that I offer my salutations to the Secretary of State, Mr Murphy, who has at least drawn a line over which he says he will not be dragged by the IRA; a line over which he says he will drag the IRA. I hope that he stands by that. It is a most welcome change.
152
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said that in Northern Ireland there is no trust between the nationalist and unionist communities. That is certainly true. I welcome the glimmer of a sign that there is now no longer much trust between the Government and the IRA—for the IRA has certainly betrayed the trust in which the Government engaged with it.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I declare an interest as an endangered species. I am the only Member of your Lordships' House who is fighting the present election in Northern Ireland as a properly nominated candidate, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, having decided not to stand again.
I am not, of course, the only person nominated in Northern Ireland. I hold before me the nominations of some 200 people who are presently legally nominated as candidates in the elections which the Bill, if approved, will suspend. Those candidates come not only from my own party, the Ulster Unionist Party, but also from the SDLP, Sinn Fein, the DUP, independents and candidates from minority parties. In other words, right across the political spectrum in Northern Ireland there was interest in getting involved in the elections of 29th May. Then, for reasons that I still do not really understand, the Government have decided to suspend those elections.
I agree with those who have said that the proceedings in another place were an abomination. I wish to place on record my appreciation that the Leader of the House has decided that, first, we should have two days to debate the Bill in your Lordships' House; and, secondly, that he has already responded to some of the points made in another place and brought forward amendments. We appreciate that. However, the Bill itself is deplorable.
It represents, of course, another stage in the sad history of the island in which I live; an island which has been troubled since the Irish invaded our island of Scotia many, many years ago. They drove the Scotis out across the water and created a new land called Scotland, which got its name from the Scotis who lived in Scotia. The Irish then changed the name to Hibernia and so the troubles went through the centuries. In the 17th century, the Scots returned to Northern Ireland—to what was then Ulster—and created a British majority in what is now Northern Ireland. I am a member of one of those original Scots families who returned to the parish of Kilclooney in South Armagh which is, to this day, a Scottish settlement.
Then we had partition. The great problem in Northern Ireland was how the British majority in Northern Ireland could accommodate and work with the Irish minority who remained in Northern Ireland. Strangely enough, Northern Ireland is becoming more British by the day, as a considerable number of people are moving from Britain to Northern Ireland to live because they assume that the quality of life there is now better than in many other parts of the United Kingdom. I noticed in the recent census in Northern Ireland that almost 10 per cent of people in Antrim

153
town were born in Great Britain and not Northern Ireland. Even in my own constituency of Strangford in Newtownards, some 7 per cent of people were born in Great Britain and not in Newtownards or, indeed, Northern Ireland.
The great challenge to us, the British majority, was to accommodate this Irish minority in Northern Ireland. As one of the three negotiators for the Ulster Unionist Party who brought about the Belfast agreement, I believed we had an answer which would have made a success of devolution in Northern Ireland, given us the advantage of having local Ministers deciding on local issues and involved Catholics, Protestants, atheists, Unionists, nationalists and republicans in the government of Northern Ireland.
The Government, the Prime Minister, my own party and others, sold the idea of the Belfast agreement in that referendum as a basis for peace in Northern Ireland and, above all, the end of paramilitary and terrorist activity in Northern Ireland. But I am sad to say that five years later, that is not the case. Paramilitarism on both sides, loyalist as well as republican, exists today in Northern Ireland and, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, there is no trust between the British majority and the Irish minority communities in Northern Ireland. Why is that? It is because the IRA has simply failed to respond to the challenge from the Prime Minister, the Government, the Irish Government, the SDLP and the Unionists. It has failed to say, "The war is over". That is necessary for trust to begin to be restored in Northern Ireland.
The IRA has been condemned for this failure by the Dublin and Westminster Governments and most of the political parties in Northern Ireland. What has been the response of our own Government? Has it been to impose sanctions against Sinn Fein/IRA? No. They have proposals for further concessions to Irish nationalism within Northern Ireland. In this context, I was very interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. I recommend that people give some thought to the schedule and timetable that he recommended rather than what is in the Bill. I am one of those who believe that the election should have been held on 29th May. People have been nominated, deposits have been made, 200 candidates are in the field. By the end of this week, they will no longer be candidates.
Alongside the Bill there is the joint declaration from the two Governments. It is proposed to implement much of the declaration without any prior response from Sinn Fein/IRA—yet again a concession. The Government move ahead even though Sinn Fein/IRA have not responded to the requirements that the Government have laid down. I regret to say that in proceeding with the implementation of this declaration without any movement by Sinn Fein/IRA, the Government will further erode Unionist support for devolution in Northern Ireland and especially for the Belfast agreement. I say that as one of the authors of that agreement. I know how our people in Northern Ireland think and I know that this will be resented strongly by the majority community in Northern Ireland.
154
One of the other proposals is the monitoring of parties and individual members of the Assembly. Notice the word "parties". Will the Lord Privy Seal let us know whether, in that declaration—I know it is not part of the Bill but it was issued in parallel with the Bill—the word "parties" includes the IRA or is it yet another word game in which it only means Sinn Fein? If it only means Sinn Fein, we have lost the argument yet again, and the monitoring committee will not be effective. It is supposed to be an independent monitoring body, but it is not a United Kingdom monitoring body. It includes a representative from republican Ireland—from the Republic of Ireland. That is a total denial of the basis on which we reached agreement on the Belfast agreement.
Those involved in the Belfast agreement and those who know what was in it will recall that there were three strands. In strand 1, the Dublin representatives were excluded, kept outside the building. They were not allowed to take part in any matter affecting strand 1, which was devolution at Stormont. Yet what are the Government agreeing to now? They are agreeing to Dublin being involved in strand 1, in the Stormont Assembly and its operation. That is a rejection of one of the principles of the Belfast agreement which the people supported in the referendum. Yet again, that will damage support for what the Government are trying to achieve.
On the rejection of Dublin's involvement in devolution and Stormont, I want in passing to mention the recent comments by the Prime Minister of Southern Ireland, Mr Bertie Ahern, in his public attack on the leader of my party, Mr David Trimble, last week. That, yet again, is a damaging intervention by Dublin which has not helped the restoration of devolution in Northern Ireland. Mr Ahern should not be involving himself in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland and he should not be attacking the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party on the role he plays at Stormont. Megaphone politics were supposed to end with the signing of the Belfast agreement. Sadly, Dublin seems to be resuming them.
I have one or two questions for the Lord Privy Seal. I refer first to Clause 2. After the Assembly was suspended, we were told that it would probably be to the autumn—now it appears to be 31st December. How does that work with the review of the Belfast agreement? When will that review begin? When is it likely to end? Is it really advisable to have an election before the review has been completed? How can you fight an election to a devolved Assembly when that Assembly will be reviewed and changed shortly after the election? We need to know more clearly how these dates work with each other.
Clause 3 contains the proposal to compensate parties and candidates for expenditure on the present election campaign. Of course expenditure has been considerable. Printing work has been done and election broadcasts have gone out on the BBC. The whole election machinery has been going ahead in Northern Ireland, and it is quite incredible that we are now suspending it. So I agree that there has been expenditure and that it should be compensated.

155
Clause 4 is more controversial. As I have already declared an interest, I shall speak on it openly. The clause deals with the question of remuneration and payments to staff. The provisions in the original Bill on remuneration were ridiculous. Obviously, it is right that the salary should be reduced for MLAs, but the idea that that should have gone on indefinitely until there was an election was quite unbelievable. Now I assume that it will proceed only until the 31st December this year.
I agree that there should be a significant decrease in the salaries of former MLAs. However, as Members of your Lordships' House will understand, some MLAs were not going to stand again in this election. What is their position? Are they to get a renewal of a salary until the end of December this year, even though they are not to be candidates—or does the provision apply only to those who intend to be candidates? How is that matter to be cleared up?
I am much more sympathetic on the subject of office cost allowances. First, Members have staff, who are important to the officers, the service and to the electorate in all 18 constituencies. I refer to the staff for all parties and for all former Members of the Legislative Assembly. However, those staff have contracts; they are not like MLAs, who are elected one day and rejected at the next election, the next day. The staff are different: they are employed, have contracts and will have the right to redundancy payments. If the delay in the election lasts until the end of December, it might be wiser to retain the staff rather than get involved in labour or employment legislation or contests about what redundancy payments should be paid. A multitude of problems need to be addressed before any decision is made on the payment of staff.
To overcome the various problems that could arise with MLAs, I should have preferred a resettlement allowance for all MLAs and to forget about any salaries hereon in, depending on what happens next year and whether there is an election.
Finally, I want to ask a question about the Northern Ireland Policing Board, on which I presently serve. Incidentally, the political members of the Northern Ireland Policing Board are not the ones who have been asking for increased expenses. They do not get expenses—it is the other members who have been demanding it. I read in newspapers in Belfast this week that all the members of the board were looking for increased payments, but the political members do not get payments. What is their position?
When the Assembly was suspended, the Government introduced new rules whereby MLAs in the suspended Assembly could continue their membership of the Northern Ireland Policing Board as if they were still MLAs. However, we are now in a different situation because it is not just a suspended Assembly—it is a dissolved Assembly. Since the dissolution, what is the position of the former MLAs who presently serve on the Northern Ireland Policing Board?
I must conclude by saying that I am very pessimistic about the present situation. I see no possibility of devolution in Northern Ireland this year if IRA/Sinn
156
Fein do not come out openly and say, "The war is over". Getting an agreement is very problematical in any case, because of the oncoming review of the Belfast agreement that will take place this autumn. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. I would love to see devolution succeeding in Northern Ireland, and that is why I supported the Belfast agreement. However, the way in which things have developed and the intransigence of IRA/Sinn Fein mean that it is very unlikely that there will be devolution for many years to come in Northern Ireland, and that we will therefore resort to British rule from London of that part of the United Kingdom.
4.34 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, this is a Bill that no one with the best interests of Northern Ireland at heart wanted to see. However, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, it is not a wretched Bill. It is a sad Bill, but it is evidence of a commitment to the future of Northern Ireland.
The Belfast agreement raised expectations, and to give in at this stage would be tantamount to giving up. It is obvious that neither the UK nor the Irish government wanted to make last week's announcement of the suspension of the election for the Assembly. It was, indeed, a bitter blow to all who have worked so hard for peace and stability in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, stated that the Taoiseach did not want suspension: but no one wanted suspension. However, the Taoiseach stood firmly by as one with the Prime Minister, and both were resolute that the conditions for the removal of suspension had not been met. Let us not forget that the joint declaration by the British and Irish governments describes how the majority of people in Northern Ireland want to live in a society that is,
"normal, peaceful and secure; is inclusive of all its members, irrespective of their religious, political or cultural affiliations: demonstrates equality of opportunity and full respect".
I shall not repeat what paragraph 3 of the joint declaration goes on to say. But it bears reading, or rereading, by all with an interest in Northern Ireland. It expresses what so many people want and what so many people have worked for tirelessly in the past five years, and even before the Belfast agreement.
The "wants" described in the joint agreement might seem a wholly unobtainable wish list if one still thinks of Northern Ireland as a place where almost none of those aspirations were met in the past 34 years—or, indeed, the past 83 years, or even since the Battle of the Boyne in the 17th century. As an aside, I relish the historic review of the whole history of Northern Ireland offered us by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney. However, when he said that the major problem facing the British in Northern Ireland after partition was how they would deal with the minority, he should probably have looked over the border. In my lifetime, there has never been a problem with the Irish in the Republic dealing with the British minority—at least, riot according to my mother, who was British.

157
Huge strides have been made in the past five years, although "strides" is probably not the right description. Agonising, tiny steps have been made by successive governments and by the people of Northern Ireland themselves. Too often we look for and find the bad things; on the other side of the scale, there has been a huge improvement in almost every area of political, social and economic life in the Province. However, good news does not make the news.
Recent dialogues have led to much of the wish list that I mentioned being in the grasp of Northern Ireland. At its simplest, the main remaining obstacle that needed to be overcome was the commitment to bringing an end to paramilitarism and violence. Of course, that is a tall order. Nobody ever expected it to be easy, but both governments demanded that it should be delivered. Sinn Fein/IRA gave a strong impression that it would be delivered, and there was certainly no indication that it would not be delivered. At the very last moment, we were all let down. The question must be asked, "Can they deliver, or are they unable to do so?"
The significance of the inability to deliver cannot be underestimated. A vacuum exists; politics goes out the window; and the bounce in the step vanishes. Paragraph 13 of the joint declaration, quoted by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal, makes it crystal clear what was required. It was not achieved and I personally believe that until it is, the suspension of the Assembly is inevitable. Above all, trust has to be present, real and apparent in Northern Ireland. How can there be trust if Sinn Fein/IRA will not commit to cease immediately all paramilitary activity?
If the sanction of no Assembly—and that is what it is, a sanction—is given up, what incentive is there for Sinn Fein/IRA to cease their murderous, terrifying activities? They would win on all sides and be seen to win and the hopes of long-term peace and stability would vanish. They need to be confronted by the reality that they cannot expect to be partners in peace while still running their gangs involved in violence and intimidation of the most horrific kind, not to mention racketeering and smuggling.
We have come so far. We cannot throw away five years of painstaking discussion, consultation, bridge-building and trust generation. The prize is too important. I implore those who feel that we should "give in" to "get a grip". If we told Sinn Fein/IRA that we were prepared to put off elections for a few weeks or a few months they would just play along with the rest of us as they have done until now. A firm hand is needed. It has been shown and it needs to continue to be shown.
I realise that it is relatively easy for me to say all of this here in the confines of Westminster, a world away from the streets of Belfast. I realise also that the power to call elections is a significant one, and I welcome the fact that the Government have recognised the feeling, both here in your Lordships House and in another place. that the power to call an election should be subject to further scrutiny by Parliament. I certainly
158
subscribe to the proposal that the Government should return to Parliament to seek an extension of the power if it is not exercised by the end of this year.
We were told last week that it is the Government's expressed wish that there should be a sufficient rebuilding of trust by the autumn for an election to be held then. But if there is not, then surely it is right that we should have further opportunity to debate these issues when the moment comes. As the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, mentioned, we were also promised a review in the autumn. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal whether it will be possible to have the review if the elections have not taken place.
I make a strong plea that, in the interim, every effort should be made to implement as much as possible of the joint declaration in those areas not dependent on the delivery of the commitment by Sinn Fein/IRA—namely, in the area of human rights, policing and normalisation—in effect carrying on with as much of the reform agenda as possible. In that way there will be a visible sign that our determination to achieve the goal of peace and stability is still on course. The thugs must not prevail. Such determination could, at best, put more pressure on Sinn Fein/IRA from whatever wavering support they might have. We are almost there. We must wish all the parties involved all success and continue to give support. I certainly give support to the Bill.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, is she aware that notwithstanding the happily favourable experiences of her mother, academic research has recently revealed that 34 per cent of the minority population south of the border, amounting to almost 104,000 people, were driven out of the south between 1918 and 1924? It was ethnic cleansing, in other words. I should be happy to give her chapter and verse if she is interested.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I should be very grateful to see that academic research. I thank the noble Lord.
4.44 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I had not considered speaking, but there are a couple of things I should like to say in the gap. The requirement for this Bill is a sad state of affairs, and the debate has been extremely gloomy. Perhaps that should not be so, but it is difficult to see how we can move forward. However, two factors offer a glimmer of hope. First, the Prime Minister, the Government and the government of the Republic have finally stood firm. Paragraph 13 lays it out. It seems to me that for the first time they have accepted in writing that the full scope of paramilitary activities must stop. Previously—all too often for those of us living there—the demands from government seemed to be a cessation of the violent activities, the shootings and the bombings. Paragraph 13, however, itemises all the activities in addition to violence which have continued over the past few years while Sinn Fein/IRA have gained concession after concession. It is very welcome. The Government have to stand fast on paragraphs 12 to 17.

159
The second glimmer of light comes out of the delay of the election, sad as that may be. It is this. Day by day, people in the Province and worldwide are learning and accepting to a far greater extent that we are where we are now as a result of the intransigence of Sinn Fein/ IRA. The blame is beginning to land in the right place and there is more recognition of it daily. We should not be ashamed of that. Even round the Province, many people are not saying, "Why have the Government done this? We should not have this". Some of those whom one might expect to make such remarks are not doing so. Instead they are asking, "What are Sinn Fein/IRA doing? Why have they not come up with the goods?".
As a result, if Sinn Fein/IRA do not come clean on those paragraphs and we have to have an election in the future—and I hope that we do—it will be far more acceptable to the world at large, to the people of this country and to the people in the north and the south of Ireland to have an election and, if necessary, to exclude Sinn Fein/IRA from the executive.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I was hoping that in concluding this debate I would be able to say that the debate had not ranged any further back than this century. But then we had the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney. Unusually in Northern Ireland debates, however, the discussion has been largely about the Bill before us. The noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House said that this was to be a deferment in exceptional circumstances. I think that all who have spoken have expressed regret about the deferment of the election. My noble friend was more robust in his regret than many. Nevertheless, everyone has regretted this deferment.
Several noble Lords referred to the guillotine issue in the Commons and to how the Bill was not dealt with last night to the satisfaction of many Members of another place. I have been asked to raise an issue with the noble and learned Lord. Reference has already been made to whether an affirmative resolution will be presented to the Commons. Perhaps because of yesterday's events, those in another place wish to be clear that the matter will be dealt with on the Floor of the House and not in a committee room. I have no idea whether the noble and learned Lord can deal with that point, but, after yesterday's events, those in another place are keen to have an answer.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, referred to the conflicts within unionism. I am very much in favour of political parties being a broad church, but I cannot believe that having two tendencies within the Unionist Party is helping to resolve the issues. The word "trust" has been mentioned by so many speakers, but I worry about the level of trust between even the tendencies.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, referred to the fact that 10 per cent of people now living in Northern Ireland were horn in Britain. I thought that it was a good point in that it shows that people have the confidence to go and live in Northern Ireland and that there has been a relative peace in the past five years for
160
them to enjoy. I understand his concern about the staff of Assembly Members, and his point about the Police Authority representatives appointed by the Northern Ireland Assembly. Although the authority is dear to him and to other Members of your Lordships' House, it would not be surprising to learn that, during its five years of operation, the Assembly has also made several other appointments to various other bodies. Therefore, although the Policing Board point may be particularly important to the noble Lord, there is also the whole issue of appointments by an Assembly that is now to be stood down.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, made a useful contribution. She gave us an insight into the feelings of those with a British background—certainly those who presently live in the Republic of Ireland.
An election gives a renewed legitimacy and a forum for discussion. Everyone here is regretting this move. We want to see a situation where such a election can take place. Three words have been mentioned many times: clarity, trust, confidence—and, I would hope, honesty. Is it only Mr Blair's famous third question? If that is so, can there be clarity that that third question is the one to be answered to satisfaction?
Mr Trimble's reported comments as to whether Sinn Fein or the IRA can be trusted seem to suggest another problem. Clarity as to the way out of the impasse will be an important position for the Government to take. Noble Lords on these Benches look forward to an early announcement of an election, so that there can be renewed legitimacy and a proper forum for discussion in Northern Ireland.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, your Lordships will know that I have led a hitherto entirely blameless life. I am grateful for the confirmation from the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, for those words. However, some noble Lords are not in that category; indeed, some were formerly Members of the House of Commons. It is true that the ameliorative and civilising effects of membership of this House, as t he noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said, sometimes take a Kittle while to produce demonstrable results. So noble Lords with those previous convictions know that the House of Commons is a foreign country: they do things differently there.
My work—in so far as I have any useful, detectable function—is to attend to the interests of this House. I have to make sure that we have plenty of time for debate and, if the Government intend to make amendments. I must give as early notice and have as full a consultation process as possible.
Many questions were asked about what will happen in the House of Commons in the foreseeable—or, indeed, not foreseeable—future. I do not know. With the best will in the world, it is not really my business to try to impose conditions on an elected Chamber—at the moment.
I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, coming as I do from a small country far away that has been subject to a succession of alien invasions, many of

161
them by English speakers. All noble Lords were correct to say that this was a reluctant judgment, but it was a necessary one. I believe that it was a judgment due in duty and in scruple to our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, asked about the sunset clause. I have already said that how the House of Commons deals with that is entirely a matter for the House of Commons. I take the noble Lord's point about scrutiny of expenditure. I know the Secretary of State has this very much in mind. The noble Lord also asked for the end date of the consultation process. My advice is that that will be 12th June, which will give a reasonable, but not extravagant, opportunity.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, asked about the Policing Board. The membership of the board is not affected by the dissolution of the Assembly. It is only the restoration of devolved government that will affect that membership. In the citation that he gave, the noble Lord also asked a question about parties. The monitoring body will have its remit in respect of paramilitary activity and as regards claims that parties from the Assembly have failed in their obligations. The body will be independent. I know that the noble Lord is displeased about its membership. However, I put that to one side because it seems to me that we shall not persuade each other of the virtue of our respective positions.
The links between Sinn Fein and the IRA are widely spoken of, not least in this House. It will be a matter for the body to come to its judgment about whether any paramilitary activity is properly to be attributed to a political party—which, of course, the IRA is not. I daresay that we shall deal more fully with that question when the legislation comes forward. The Government have indicated that the monitoring body will require a specific Act, as, indeed, will the question of those accused of various offences who are currently on the run.
The noble Lord also asked about MLAs who plan to retire from politics. If one such MLA was intending, or proposing, to retire from political life after 29th May and gave that notice, we would consider sympathetically the question of the resettlement grant mentioned by the noble Lord. It is important to have consultations; but, equally, the Secretary of State said—I repeat this on his behalf—that we are talking about consultations in the next week or so. Therefore, they should not be long, drawn-out processes.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, asked questions about the review. In principle, as both speakers said, it ought to begin on the fourth anniversary of devolution in December. As noble Lords will know, the agreement does not set an end date. If, unfortunately, there has been no election by that time—our hope and our purpose is to have one before then—we shall have to consult all the parties to see how we can take the review forward, not least bearing in mind the difficulties identified by the noble Lord.
162
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, asked about Clause 6. Essentially, this provision is intended to permit amendments to the electoral law. The most obvious example is to be found in subsection (2), which parallels the power to call an election in advance of approval. Some amendments to the law may be necessary for the holding of an early election. It is right to say that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—as always, I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, in his place—put its mind to these questions. One finds evidence of that under the rubric "The Delegated Powers" in its 20th report. With the exception of the two that I have dealt with—I hope, eventually, to the satisfaction of your Lordships—in paragraph 3 the committee specifically says:
"The other delegations in the bill are, in our view, both appropriate and subject to an appropriate level of parliamentary activity".
I was certainly heartened by that.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked about the consequences of the amendment that I have already tabled in my name and hope to discuss in Committee. The noble and learned Lord is quite right. It would be possible for the Secretary of State to come to a conclusion to call an election, but if there is no approval within 28 days by both Houses of Parliament that decision would fall.
The noble and learned Lord also raised the question of recesses or adjournments of either House. One finds that dealt with in subsection (2D) of my amendment, which states:
"In calculating the period of 28 days … no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days".
I hope that that is a partial answer to the question. I accept the noble and learned Lord's observation that this is a Committee point, and one to which we shall return in more detail tomorrow. However, I did not wish to appear discourteous in not replying immediately to the question about a possible lengthy period of time when Parliament was not sitting.
I cannot give the noble and learned Lord a specific undertaking in the terms requested. However, I can say that we have no wish to circumvent parliamentary scrutiny. As I outlined in my opening remarks, it would have been possible for us to go to for a generally conventional period like 40 days, but I felt strongly that that would not be pleasing to your Lordships. Therefore, we looked at 28 days: but that is a maximum. I cannot give undertakings, but it would not be honourable to go against what I had said in determining the timetable. The noble and learned Lord was not only Attorney-General but Secretary of State, so he will know much better than I do that, in Northern Ireland, if agreement miraculously arises, it is very often important to move promptly, before that agreement evanesces as soon as the sun rises. I hope that what I have indicated is the Government's attitude will therefore be satisfactory when we come to look at the matter in more detail tomorrow.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will understand that this is an example of the old adage

163
that hard cases make bad law. Although we would not think for a moment that the provision would be abused, I do not like to think of someone coming along the road in some years, saying, "Well, there's a precedent", and introducing a similar clause into another Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there are ample precedents. When the noble Lord was in government, I am sure that he never even dreamt of putting his hand to such a thing. The procedure is actually called the draft affirmative order procedure. I shall develop another observation made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. Under the Northern Ireland Act 2000, suspension and restoration orders are exercisable and were exercised last October in advance of parliamentary approval.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, is correct. Other things being equal, we ought to do our utmost to have as full parliamentary scrutiny as possible. Casting no clouts at the House of Commons, I think that we can say without unduly unctuous self-congratulation that, in the Northern Ireland context, we rightly spend a good deal of time and trouble on discussing such difficult matters.
I think that I have dealt with the specific questions. I shall come back for one moment to explain the rationale, which we originally had by way of analysis, that the affirmative procedure was not necessary to reinstate elections. That was because we were returning to the citizens of Northern Ireland something taken away from them. The normal criticism of government and delegated powers on a Henry VIII basis is that one is taking things away from the individual. That was our stance, and I do not think that it was illegitimate. Having had many representations from noble Lords around the Chamber, I thought it reasonable to come to that conclusion.
It is true that the concessions might have been made late last evening in the House of Commons, but noble Lords will concur that we have a much more civilised atmosphere in which to have rational debate. I know that that comment will not appear in Hansard. We have drafted rather quickly, and full tribute goes to parliamentary counsel and the officials in the Northern Ireland Office, because we had to work quite hard to get the provisions in appropriate form.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I indicated that I was uneasy about the second amendment. My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew, and subsequently my noble friend Lord Tebbit, were much more explicit. Am I correct in understanding from the answer that the Minister gave to my noble and learned friend that the election could almost be concluded before Parliament had the opportunity of passing the affirmative resolution? That was fundamentally what caused the unease in the Select Committee.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, certainly that is theoretically possible, although the margin—28 days—would be very tight. However, I would not regard it as a proper way of conducting ourselves if the Secretary of
164
State made an order and, on the 27th day, with the election campaign having virtually concluded itself, then came to Parliament. That would not be a proper way to approach matters.
I constantly remind myself and my colleagues that resolutions may well go through the House of Commons with a large majority, but the recent death rate in this House means that I now have 27 per cent of the available votes, not 28 per cent. If principle does not work, arithmetic may do. However late it was, noble Lords could reject something. I am not inviting them to do so, but if they thought that the behaviour of the Government had not been decent and honourable, they have the sanction. I do not think that we shall come to such apocalyptic days, because there is no purpose in our volunteering to come forward with amendments if then we do not abide by their decency and spirit.
A number of noble Lords said that the elections had been put off until 31st December. No, my Lords, no. They must occur before 31st December. We would prefer the autumn, if possible. The Government will not have the open-ended mandate, as it were, identified by the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, because there will have to be an extension of up to but not exceeding six months, and that will have to be by affirmative procedure of both Houses.
By and large I hate to be optimistic, but I detect a vague feeling of agreement. On that basis, I shall sit down.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Sexual Offences Bill [H.L.]
5.6 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Thomas of Walliswood) in the Chair.]
Clause 54 [Paying for sex with a child]:
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 290:
Page 25, line 18, after "intentionally" insert "or knowingly"
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group. Amendment No. 290 inserts "or knowingly" into Clause 54(1), so that the offence of paying for sex with a child is committed if a person either intentionally or knowingly obtains for himself the sexual services of a child. The other amendments do the same for the other offences in Clauses 55 to 59, which deal with prostitution and child pornography.

165
The amendment was suggested to us by the Metropolitan Police, which has provided very helpful briefings to a number of noble Lords and suggestions for several parts of the Bill, all based on its thorough professional knowledge of the subject matter. The Metropolitan Police says that it can often prove, through painstaking investigation, that a person had knowledge of prostitution and was gaining financially, but that it may be more difficult to prove intention—the state of mind of the person.
The example that the police pose is of a pimp who says that he knew that a person was working as a prostitute, but that he did not intend that to happen. Would he get away with it under the offences? They tell us that that is not fanciful, and say that pimps are likely to make such statements. For example, a man drops a woman off in a red-light district, goes home and waits for her to return with the money. He says that he knew that she was working as a prostitute and giving him money, but that she wants to do it. It was not his intention for her to do it. The Minister looks sceptical, but that is what the police have told us.
The police's concerns were in particular in relation to the prostitution offences—those in Clauses 55 to 59. I have also added "knowingly" to Clause 54, possibly unnecessarily, but for good measure in case there were people who might say that they knew that they were paying for sexual services with a child but did not intend to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Baroness puts the case very clearly. I find it quite difficult to see how the activities covered in the relevant offences could in practice be committed knowingly without being committed intentionally. For example, is it really likely that a person who knows that he is obtaining sexual services for himself in return for payment will not be intending to obtain sexual services? That is perfectly easily dealt with. Similarly, is it likely that a person who knowingly controls the activities of a prostitute will not be intending to do so? Again, I find that quite difficult.
The only situation in which I can conceive of a person having the requisite knowledge but not the intention is where he is not acting with free will. For example, where a person makes his house available for prostitution as a result of a threat, he would knowingly be facilitating prostitution, but he would not intentionally be facilitating it. But such a person should not face criminal liability, especially criminal liability carrying high penalties.
However, I will think about the examples given by the noble Baroness. I say that without giving rise to any expectations. Subject to considering the examples, our present view is that not much would be added to the existing offence.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply and for being prepared at least to think about the matter further. In turn, I will consider carefully what he has said, in particular whether one
166
can control without knowing about the matter. That is a satisfactory basis on which to proceed and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouthmoved Amendment No. 290A:
Page 25, line 23, leave out "either"
The right reverend Prelate said: I shall speak to the amendments in two groups because they are not specifically related. I shall speak first to those in the 290s and then to Amendment No. 303A and those following.
I begin by acknowledging the great progress that the Government have made in advancing recommendations made in the sex offences review Setting the Boundaries. Clauses 54, 55, 57 and 59 comprehensively set out in law for the first time the range of offences related to the abuse of children through prostitution and pornography. The proposed offences properly acknowledge that all children, as defined by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Children Act 1989, up to the age of 18 are victims of abuse. In this respect, I wholeheartedly welcome these clauses.
However, as it stands, Clause 54 makes a set of distinctions in relation to the age of a child who has been abused which I regard as flawed and to which I fundamentally object. The clause proposes that in cases involving under-16s, the maximum sentence available to the court should be imprisonment of 14 years. However, for cases involving 16 to 17 year-olds, the maximum sentence available to the court would be seven years regardless of the particular circumstances of the case.
I submit to the Committee that such distinctions do not reflect the reality of the lives of children who are abused in this way. The age limit seems to me to be arbitrary. It is difficult to gauge things at that particular age in the development of growing children/adults.
The clause as it stands appears to establish a blanket assumption in law that in all cases the gravity of the offence and the effects upon the child are lessened where the child is over 16, whatever the evidence or the circumstances of the crime committed. Research evidence produced by, among others, the Children's Society and Barnardo's demonstrates the highly complex range of factors that can result in the abuse of children in prostitution. For many children, problems may have begun very early on in their lives that have led to them presenting a high level of vulnerability. We must remember that vulnerability at any age is identified and targeted by abusers.
Although the offence may have been committed when the child was 17, the child's engagement with abuse through prostitution was more often than not begun at a much earlier age. I am not suggesting that the defendants in cases involving 16 to 17 year-olds should be held responsible for previous incidents of

167
abuse of a child. However, I ask Members of the Committee to consider in this respect that the effects on the child and the seriousness of abuse cannot be so strongly, and in my view arbitrarily, linked to age. Control and coercion begin at a much younger age and most 16 to 17 year-olds will have been conditioned into a lifestyle of sexual exploitation which means that they are not able to make informed choices whether they are 13 or 17 years of age.
That brings me to the question of a link between the age of consent and the distinctions in sentencing that the clause makes. The lower maximum sentences that are available to the courts for 16 and 17 year-olds imply an assumption that the child being old enough to consent to sexual intercourse is relevant to the offence of paying for sex with a child. The suggestion is that on some level the child can consent to his or her involvement in prostitution. I simply do not believe that this approach is consistent with that set out in Setting the Boundaries. The House must acknowledge that this perception of children's involvement in prostitution is an outdated one which the Department of Health has sought to address in its 1999 guidance to local authorities setting out how they should treat children as first and foremost in need of protection and support. This came about as a result of campaigning by organisations such as the Children's Society.
Such guidance has resulted in better responses to children abused in this way and a decrease in the number of proceedings taken against children and young people. But the situation lacks consistency across the country. Children are still liable to prosecution related to their abuse in this way through existing offences in the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and the Street Offences Act 1959, which this Bill does nothing to address.
Latest Home Office figures show that in 2001 there were eight cautions, 14 prosecutions and six convictions of children under the age of 18 under Section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959. The majority of those children had been between the ages of 16 and 17. We have a duty to protect 16 and 17 year-olds and I am concerned that the clause as currently drafted falls short of this need and sends out the wrong message to abusers. I am also concerned about the possible abuse of the distinction the clause makes by the defence in trying to secure a lesser sentence by arguing that the child was believed to be over 16. I seek the Minister's reassurances on that.
To some extent, Members of the Committee have already looked at this matter in earlier debates on the clauses relating to the sentences of care workers, when the need for the application of the principle of proportionality was highlighted. I agree that there is a need for sentences to be proportionate to the offence that has been committed and for the circumstances of the case to be fully considered. However, I am concerned that as the clause is currently drafted sentencers will be prevented from matching the offence to the sentence by the arbitrary bar being, placed on the maximum limits according to age distinctions. As legislators, surely we must aim to set broad parameters
168
that are reasonable and workable, based on evidence, and leave it to the Lord Chief Justice and the judiciary to decide on the length of sentence they believe to be appropriate.
These amendments would ensure that the judiciary have at their disposal the power to give sentences of up to 14 years where a person is convicted of paying for sex with a child. These amendments are supported by the Children's Society, Barnardo's, Childline and the NSPCC. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: I support the amendments standing in the name of the right reverend Prelate and myself. I, too, will address my comments first to the 290s and latterly to the 300s. I strongly support the principle of the amendments. I believe there should be no less protection for 16 and 17 year-olds than for under-16s.
Some while ago, I was at a shelter for homeless young people between the ages of 16 and 23 and I saw a young girl speaking with her neighbour in the dining area. She was talking about her visit to Ibiza and about the dancing, the sex and the drugs involved. Later I spoke to the volunteer worker who sat next to her. He described to me how she had had her leg very close to his as she had been describing those incidents.
I remember another time when a young woman wanted to ask my advice on laundry. She held up an undergarment made of leather with steel studs and asked my suggestions for cleaning it. When I looked at the garment, it clearly stated "dry clean only". I discussed this later with another staff member. He had had an identical conversation with a girl about this matter.
My point is that young girls who have had very poor experiences in the family and perhaps later on in care often try to find a way to add value to their lives by securing the sexual attention of adults. I certainly believe that we must do all we can to protect those children against being used by adults. Any child making the transition from adolescence to adulthood may lose his or her way. That could happen even to one of your Lordships' children. We all know that the transition from adolescence to adulthood is a difficult time. We need to be as protective of these children as we can.
In addition, we need to be aware of the health risks involved. This matter was very much brought home to me recently by visiting sufferers of HIV/AIDS. One man had experienced the disease for six years and had lost his wife through HIV/AIDS. Another young woman had lost her child the previous week from AIDS. That brought home to me the risks associated with sexually transmitted infections, in particular HIV/AIDS. We know that incidences of many of these infections are now rising. Experienced sex workers are normally aware of the risks and take the necessary protections. Newcomers are less likely to be prepared, in particular children. At the moment when the client and the girl have to negotiate practising safe sex and

169
the use of a condom, immaturity and inexperience puts children at a considerable disadvantage. Those are my concerns. I look forward to the Minister's response. Finally, on the latter group of amendments I should also welcome his making clear how he intends to implement the legislation to make it effective.
Lord Monson: Notwithstanding the obviously excellent intentions of the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Listowel, I think the Government have got it about right and that the amendments go too far.
First, there are many girls of 16 and 17 who look 19 or 20. If a 16-year old happens to be a professional prostitute it is even more likely that she will look older than she is. But Clause 54 does not cover only prostitution. As drafted, if a man says to a girl of 17, "Let me buy you a couple of drinks and then I expect something in return", or, will take you to a pop concert", or something of that kind, "in return for sex", he would be caught by it. Is it seriously suggested that such men should be sent to prison for 14 years? Incidentally, if he were to say to the girl, "Let me give you a ride in my powerful sports car", I think he would be safe because no money or notional financial transfer would have taken place. As I said, I think the Government have got it about right. This is a difficult issue: I should be interested to hear the Minister's response.
Baroness Blatch: Notwithstanding the difficulties envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I rise to support the right reverend Prelate in these amendments. It seems to me that there is here a question of vulnerability and the old word "intimidation" comes into play again. Often we are talking of young people who do not have the security of support at home. Many young people who come out of care at the age of 16 and are left to the mercies of the streets are particularly vulnerable. We know that far too many end up in some form of prostitution, whether on their own account or inveigled into working for others and offering sex for money. For someone who does not have any, there is also the attraction of money. Therefore, this concerns a particularly vulnerable age group.
Picking up on some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and the examples given, this applies also to 15 year-olds. It is a particular problem in this country and I suspect in other developed countries that 14, 15 and 16 year-olds could be taken for any age. It is difficult to discern their precise age. However, that should not prevent us from considering the age at which young people should be protected from this kind of violation of their bodies.
The problems of this particular age group—16 to 17 year-olds—is a theme I have supported throughout the Bill. The irony is not lost on me. The people who have supported the amendments, which I too support, are the very people who agreed to lower the age of consent to 16, by which all of these problems arise. In a number of different contexts in debates on the Bill we have concerned ourselves with the very young age group of
170
those between 16 to 18 who, because the majority of people now stay on at school after 16, are schoolchildren. Some are extremely unworldly, others are very streetwise and there is everything in between. I want to stand up in this Chamber and fight for some protection for those young people, and in particular those who are very vulnerable and who do not enjoy the love and care of a supportive home.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The protection given by the provisions—not the amendments but the basic provisions which the right reverend Prelate's amendment seeks to protect—is for 18 year-olds and under in relation to child prostitution and child pornography. The issue addressed by the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Earl is whether distinctions should be drawn by reference to age in relation to the "mistaken and reasonable belief" defence and in relation to the sentence which should be passed depending on the age of the victim in the case. Life is the maximum sentence in the case of a victim aged 13 or under; 14 years if the victim is aged 13 to 16 and seven years if the victim is aged 16 to 18 years. Mistaken and reasonable belief is a defence if the victim is over 13 but not a defence if he or she is under 13. This is a difficult issue. One has to get the balance right. We believe we have got it right.
I shall deal with all the amendments in the original group because the noble Earl has dealt with all of them. However. I do not in any way want to prevent the right reverend Prelate coming back later on amendments by separating them.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 290A. 290B. 295A, 295B, 303A. 303B, 312A and 3 I 2B is to remove the defence of mistaken belief in age from the child exploitation cases at Clauses 54. 55, 57 and 59. The offences in this clause are designed to tackle the exploitation and abuse of children through prostitution and pornography.
However, in some circumstances a person might exploit a child in that way thinking that the child is an adult over 18. It is right that, where the court considers that belief reasonable, the person would not be guilty of this offence. For example, if a person were to pay for sex with a child he knew was in the same class at school as his 14 year-old sister, obviously the court would be very unlikely to consider it reasonable that the offender thought the child to be 18 or over. However, were he to meet a 17 year-old girl in a night-club, for example, which admitted only those over 18, he might genuinely and reasonably have believed her to be 18 or over. It would be wrong in that situation to have a strict liability offence. Having said that, the mistaken belief in age defence available here does not apply to cases where the child victim is under 13. In those situations the offences carry strict liability. Any age distinctions necessarily are arbitrary to some extent. However, we think we have the matter about right.

171
Behaviour that involves causing, inciting or controlling prostitution, even where the offender reasonably believes the child is 18 or over, might still constitute an offence under Clauses 56 or 58. That is how we deal with the mistaken belief issues.
As far as concerns the penalties, the purpose of Amendments Nos. 290A and 290B is to remove one of the penalty tiers for the offence of paying for sex with a child in Clause 54. As drafted, the offence carries a maximum penalty of life where a child of under 13 is involved and where penetration takes place; 14 years for all other behaviour with a child under 13 and any sexual activity with a child aged 13 to 15; and seven years for any sexual activity with a child aged 16 or 17.
In England and Wales the age of consent is 16. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is right to refer to that as a factor—and it must be—that one takes into account. Sex per se with a child over that age is not illegal; therefore, it is the nature of the exploitation involved with prostitution and pornography and not the sex per se that we seek to tackle in this situation. So a lower penalty than that applied where the child is below the age of consent is appropriate.
That is the basis upon which we have drawn the distinctions in age. They are carefully thought through. I am sure that not everyone will always agree with them. However, a difficult course must he taken on these age levels. We think we have got the situation about right.
5.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply. I apologise for slightly misleading him earlier. In this debate my priority lies with Amendments Nos. 290A and 290B. They concern the age distinction. I do not regard the other amendments as a priority and should like to withdraw them.
I was always told that when one makes a nuisance of oneself one should be gracious. Therefore, I shall be gracious by not pressing all my other amendments, but I want to press Amendments Nos. 290A and 290B because I am unpersuaded by what has been said about the age aspect. I do not know whether I can actually make a nuisance and test the opinion of the Chamber, but I am minded so to do.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel): The Question is Whether Amendment No. 290A be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary. "Not-Content". I think the Not-Contents have it.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: I challenge that. I am content with the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Clear the Bar.
5.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 290A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 157.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ashcroft, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Biffen, L.

Listowel, E.

Blatch, B. [Teller]

Lucas, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Lyell, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Marlesford, L.

Crickhowell, L.

May of Oxford. L.

Denham, L.

Palmer, L.

Elles, B.

Peterborough, Bp. [Teller]

Elton, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Geddes, L.

Sandwich, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Sharples, B.

Greenway, L.

Weatherill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Evans of Parkside. L.

Addington, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Alderdice, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Alli, L.

Falkland. V.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Andrews, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Barnett, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Bassam of Brighton. L.

Gale, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gavron, L.

Berkeley, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Billingham, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Blackstone, B.

Goudie, B.

Blood, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Borrie, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Haskel, L.

Bragg, L.

Hayman, B.

Brennan, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Brett, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Brookman, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hoyle, L.

Burlison, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Carter, L.

Chandos, V.

Jacobs, L.

Christopher, L.

Jones, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Judd, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Cobbold, L.

Lipsey, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Crawley, B.

Lockwood, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

McCarthy, L.

David, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Desai, L.

Dholakia, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Dixon, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Dubs, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Eatwell, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Erroll, E.

McNally, L.

173

Maddock, B.

Sawyer, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Marsh, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Sheldon, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Methuen, L.

Simon, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Mitchell, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Molyneaux of Killead. L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Monson. L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Newby, L.

Strange, B.

Northover, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean. B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Orme, L.

Temple-Morris. L.

Parekh, L.

Thornton. B.

Patel, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Pendry, L.

Tordoff, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Tugendhat, L.

Plant of High field. L.

Turnberg, L.

Puttnam, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Radice, L.

Walmsley, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Walpole, L.

Razzall, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Rea, L.

Whitaker, B.

Redesdale, L.

Whitty, L.

Rendell of Babergh. B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Rennard, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Rogan, L.

Russell, E.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.43 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouthhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 290B:
Page 25, line 24, leave out from "18" to end of line 26.
The right reverend Prelate said: With relief for the noble and learned Lord, the amendment is not moved.
[Amendment No. 290B not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 291:
Page 25, line 28, at end insert "(including sexual services)"
The noble and learned Lord said: These government amendments—Nos. 291, 315 and 317—make explicitly clear in the definitions of "payment" and "gain" in Clauses 54 and 60 that where reference is made to the provision of services, it also includes the provision of sexual services.
The amendments would make it clear that the prostitution and child pornography and trafficking offences cover the situation where the offender committed the act in return for, or in the expectation of, sexual services. In the case of the offence of paying for sex with a child, the amendments make it clear that a person can pay for sex with a child by providing or promising to provide sexual services.
The police have reported cases to us in which paedophiles provide children for their acquaintances sexually to exploit in return for being able to have sex with other children to which the exploiter can provide them access. The amendments would cover such situations and enable us to prosecute such people.
Although it is possible to argue that it would be harder to prove that type of "payment" or "gain" than, for example, a direct cash or goods transaction, in some cases it may be possible to prove it by way of witness testimony, written e-mails, letters or other communications. For that reason, it is important that the provision is included specifically. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 291A to 292 not moved.]
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 55 [Causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography]:
[Amendment No. 293 not moved.]
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 294:
Page 26, line 9, leave out from "to" to end of line 10 and insert "be abused through prostitution, or to be involved in the making or production of abusive or indecent images,"
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 314. Amendment No. 294 would amend Clause 55 by replacing some words in subsection (1)(a), so that the offence would become one of intentionally causing or inciting another person to be abused through prostitution, or to be involved in the making or production of abusive or indecent images. The inspiration for the amendments is again the Metropolitan Police Service, which, sadly, has so much experience in the misery of child prostitution and pornography.
There are two aspects to the amendment. First, it would replace,
"causing or inciting another person to become a prostitute".
with,
"causing or inciting another person to be abused through prostitution".
The police point out that there is no doubt that children are abused through prostitution. They believe that it would be clearer for juries if the offence was specified in those terms. They say that there is a difference between adult prostitutes who willingly and freely ply their trade and child prostitutes, who are always victims.
Secondly, Amendment No. 294 changes the words, "involved in pornography", to,
"involved in the making or production of abusive or indecent images".
Amendment No. 314 amends the definition of pornography in Clause 60 in a similar manner.
The Metropolitan Police believe that a clearer distinction should be made between child and adult pornography. They are concerned that adults may associate pornography with the kind of adult pornography that usually involves willing participation. It is different with children. They are not willing participants in pornography. The images are the result of children being abused—either sexually or through the abuse of trust. My widened definition is intended to capture that abuse.
The current definition focuses on the indecent end-result—the still or moving image—but does not convey the awfulness of the process for the child. The

175
police want to be sure that juries understand the offence before them. They are genuinely concerned that by using language that has a meaning for adults that usually involves free participation, we shall not convey the seriousness of the offence when children are involved. They therefore suggest moving to a different language, so that juries can be in no doubt that we are talking about a different and nastier kind of offence. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support this amendment because it appears to cover wider dimensions of abuse and it does so in a more specific form. Therefore it is apt to tighten up the drafting of the Bill.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I support the amendment and want to make an additional point to those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. For many years, children's organisations have struggled to change the nomenclature used in relation to children suffering this form of abuse from prostitution. This offence involves not young prostitutes but children suffering abuse. Although I am critical of the Bill for failing to have any therapeutic content, the approach would have a great emotional effect on young people, who would see that abuse, not prostitution, was referred to. That would be hugely helpful.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: I support much of what has been said, particularly the final remarks of the noble Baroness. I press the Minister to give the amendment his sympathetic consideration.
Lord Hylton: I support the thrust of the amendment and commend to the noble and learned Lord the Minister the recent report from the NSPCC, which was published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and carried out in collaboration with a university research department. It studies 55 cases of persons under 18 who have been severely abused.
Baroness Walmsley: From these Benches, we, too, support the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made a very good case and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, has experience par excellence in this field. Her reference to the fact that young people of the age involved are not prostitutes but abused children was very pertinent. We support the amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We all agree on the principle in relation to the amendment and we all agree that there is an absolutely clear distinction between people who are adults who go into prostitution and the children whom we are seeking to protect in this regard. I completely sympathise with the noble Baroness's comments.
The advice that I am getting, which seems entirely right, is that the amendment would make it harder rather than easier to get a conviction in the courts. If one added the words "abused" or "abusive", they would need to be defined for the purposes of the charge. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, supported the change because it "tightened up" the
176
definition. I fear that that is right. There would need to be not only an element of prostitution but also an element of abuse. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is nodding.
I fully appreciate the principle of the amendment but I assure those noble Lords who support it that it would have precisely the opposite effect to that which they intend. The provision would make it much harder rather than easier to get a conviction in this regard. I am sympathetic to the amendment's intent but I strongly urge the noble Baroness to think again about it.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that; I am glad that he is sympathetic to the amendment's aim. There is something to be said for the words used in defining the offence. I was trying to make that point, and we discussed it at length on our first day in Committee in relation to the offence of rape—we discussed whether that had a meaning that should not be changed by the Bill. I shall reflect on what the noble and learned Lord said.
I should have thought that with regard to children it will not be any more difficult to prove abuse because the situation of child prostitution or child pornography is, by definition, abusive. That was my point. The amendment would ensure that juries understand that we are dealing with the abuse of children, not with something that they may associate with what adults do freely.
I shall reflect again on the amendment but I may return to it on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 295:
Page 26, line 11, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to the other amendments that are grouped with it. The amendments have one common purpose: to remove the requirement that offences relating to prostitution and child pornography be done for or in the expectation of gain for the defendant or a third party.
Two thoughts lie behind the amendments. The first is that requiring the prosecution to prove that the defendant acted in the expectation of gain would simply add an unnecessary hurdle. With regard to Clause 55, is it not enough that the person intentionally causes the child to become a prostitute or be involved in child pornography? Why does the expectation of financial gain also have to be proved? What if the person acts in that way for no more than the perverse satisfaction of seeing a young life ruined? Would we say that no offence had been committed?
My second reason for the amendment is that confining the offence to financial gain is unnecessary and potentially wrong. Paedophiles get children involved in pornography partly so that they can trade the resulting indecent images for yet more indecent images. The common currency of paedophiles often is not money; it is the disgusting material that feeds their

177
sick minds. I do not believe that the Bill as drafted, even with government Amendments Nos. 315 and 317, covers that. The report,Shifting the Boundaries, said that we thought that introducing or facilitating the sexual exploitation of a child was so harmful and potentially damaging to the child and his or her future that the offences should not require any financial reward.
The amendments are intended to find out from the Government why they believe that gain is an essential part of the definition of the offence and, from a public policy perspective, what it adds to the offence. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the amendment. I shall be very brief. If one takes the pornography branch, what does "gain" mean? It can mean two things. It can mean financial benefit or it can mean a form of sexual gratification. As it stands, that appears to be quite unnecessary. The evil that the clause is supposed to prevent would be better dealt with if the amendment were accepted.
Lord Hylton: The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made a good point. If the noble and learned Lord the Minister consults the Metropolitan Police and other police forces, he will find that they will tell him that having to prove gain will mean fewer convictions. While I am on my feet, I put down the marker that we shall return to the subject of gain when we reach the clauses on trafficking.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I support the amendment. It is another illustration of the confusion between abuse and prostitution, particularly in relation to young people. If one is seeking to prove prostitution—I speak having worked in the adult field and dealt with sex lines and other issues, and I know a great deal about the law about gain in relation to prostitution—I understand why the provision is written in that way from the point of view of the law. However, if one considers the matter from the point of view of trying to protect children, all of this is child abuse. All of Clause 55 relates to children in abusive situations. That is why I am so concerned about the drafting of the Bill in this way.
6 P.m.
Baroness Blatch: I, too, support my noble friend's amendment and what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. The amendment is an improvement on the offences involving prostitution and child pornography—it would remove the requirement on the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator or third party had gained financially. I hesitate in saying "gain financially", because my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway raised the issue of the definition of "gain". What is "gain"? Proving expectation of gain might also be an onerous burden for the prosecution. It could require forensic accounting evidence or access to papers carefully concealed by the defendant.
178
The requirement to prove that the action was for gain might also provide a bizarre defence. Some defendants may escape conviction by arguing that they committed the offence, not for gain, but for purely sexual gratification—the point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. Therefore, it is important that "gain" is properly defined.
It would be unjust to leave the clause as it is. That is why I regard it as vital to support my noble friend in this matter. If the noble and learned Lord cannot give us a definition today, it is very important for us properly to understand the ease with which it can be proved, whether for sexual gratification or financial gain. Very seriously abused young people will have no protection in the courts simply because it will be nearly impossible to prove "gain", by whatever means, as it is defined.
Baroness Walmsley: We, on these Benches, are inclined to support the amendment. It is very difficult to define "gain" and to prove the expectation of gain. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said, it is child abuse, whether or not the perpetrator gains financially or otherwise; therefore, it is a very serious offence. Will the Minister clarify the meaning of "gain" and how it would be interpreted in the courts? It would be very helpful to the Committee.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: These Benches also support the amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: Will the Minister remind us of the existing law on controlling prostitution, and whether the word "gain" is used in it? I suspect that it has been used without any difficulty since the previous century.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: This is an important and difficult amendment that raises a point that we need to consider very carefully. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said from the Cross Benches, we will come to the matter again in relation to trafficking. We have decided to delete the reference to "gain" from the provision on trafficking. If we are going to retain the reference in this clause, we will need a reason for that difference.
I shall set out the position and undertake to return on Report with a more detailed one. I do not want to give rise to any expectations, but it is a very difficult issue. The definition of "gain" used in these clauses is found at Clause 60(3). It is wide enough to capture, not just those who receive direct financial gain through their activities relating to the sexual exploitation of others, but also those who receive drugs or who are allowed to miss a debt payment, for example, in return for their deeds. It covers benefits that may or may not materialise. It also covers situations where the gain is not for the offender but for a third person. It is very wide.

179
Our intention with those offences is to catch those engaged in exploitative relationships with adults who are prostitutes and children abused through prostitution and pornography.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: May I finish my remarks and then return to the noble Lord's point? We do not want to cover people who are not engaged in exploitative relationships, but who may, for example, he attempting to help someone or to act in their best interests.
I shall give two examples of that. The first is the potential case of a mother whose 16 year-old daughter is working as a prostitute. She has tried to dissuade her from doing so, but without success. Fearful for her daughter's safety and unable to stop her from selling sexual services, the mother provides a room or flat in which her daughter can work. In that way, the mother can at least feel that she has provided an added element of safety for her daughter. If the requirement of "gain" were removed from that situation, the mother could be charged with facilitating the prostitution of a child. I do not think that Committee Members would regard that as particularly desirable.
Research carried out by ECPAT showed that many young people involved in prostitution felt unable to exit prostitution until they had found someone supportive to turn to, or somewhere safe to go. We would have thought it inappropriate to criminalise those, such as the mother in the example that I gave, who try to make things better or safer for such children, for no gain, until the child feels able to exit prostitution.
When considering adult prostitution, which is not illegal, removing "gain" from the scope of the offences would mean that where, for example, a prostitute encouraged her friend to become a prostitute for whatever reason, and she stood to gain nothing from that encouragement, she would commit a criminal act. That applies to the adult situation. We think that that would probably be excessive.
The word -gain" is included because of that situation and others mentioned earlier, which involve people genuinely trying to help someone. I see the force of the arguments on the other side. A difficult balance must be struck. In response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, yes, the requirement of "gain" is part of the make-up of the offence under current law. I am not aware that that causes difficulty, but I have not asked about it. No doubt, the noble and learned Lord, sitting as a judge, has had some experience in that respect. We must reflect very carefully on what is said to see whether our approach is consistent with our decision to delete the word "gain" from the provisions on trafficking.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: Without wishing to disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, who I always admire and listen to, the situation with adults is significantly different. I have no issue with adult gain. I am familiar with that in other areas. I simply hope that we can find another vehicle to ensure
180
that children who are now called prostitutes are no longer so called, but are seen as abused children. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord's ingenuity would find a way around the narrow examples in which we must give other protection. The width of the provision is unhelpful.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am sympathetic to that approach. The amendments suggest that we capture organisations and parents who, by helping someone out of the exploitation to which the noble Baroness refers, commit offences. I do not believe that that is the noble Baroness's intention. We seek to wrestle with that problem.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Does not the noble and learned Lord's reference to "gain" in Clause 60(3) as defined make the point that I was trying to make? We are really concerned with abuse, not with a definition of "gain". The definition of "gain", which applies to Clauses 55 to 59, is restrictive. Why should we have a restrictive definition if the concern is to inhibit abuse? Does that not make my point?
Baroness Blatch: I am pleased to hear that the Minister will reflect on what has been said. That is always very welcome. I was corrected by my noble friend on the Front Bench to the effect that "gain" is defined in the Bill. It is financial, or, in colloquial English, what appears to me as payment in kind; for example, remitting a payment or some such measure. But I agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. Under the clause as it stands, someone who abuses a young person for sexual gratification would walk free from court. The noble and learned Lord sounds as though he is in a very receptive mood to consider the amendment. I accepted that without prejudice to the outcome of his deliberations before the next stage of the Bill. But I ask him to reflect on what he has said.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The point that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, make about the definition of gain is something that I must take into account.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the noble and learned Lord for the way in which he received the amendment. The fact that he will think about it further gives me some hope, and I look forward to debating the issue again on Report, one way or the other.
The noble and learned Lord gave us some examples of situations that we would not want to catch. We have had that debate time and time again during the passage of the Bill. We have drafted legislation in a way that catches activities for which we do not intend people to be prosecuted. We had the case of sex between mentally disabled people and in the case of teenage sex. It is not impossible to draft a Bill that. in principle, catches things for which we would not people to be prosecuted. It is a matter of balance, and we have had the issue the whole time. I hope that, when the Minister

181
takes the amendment away, he will not be so obsessed with those particular examples that the Bill must be driven by them.
The real issue is whether we have an effective offence relating to the abuse of children. I am particularly concerned about children, rather than adults. There is also the question of whether the gain element should be there at all. If we are considering the need to have an offence for what is done to children, the question of whether we catch, theoretically, other cases in the margins is less important. I accept that that balance must always be debated.
I am more than grateful for the way in which the noble and learned Lord has received the amendment. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouthhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 295A:
Page 26, line 13, leave out "either"
The right reverend Prelate said: Amendment No. 295A is, with much reluctance, not moved.
[Amendment No. 295A not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouthhad given notice of his attention to move Amendment No. 295B:
Page 26, line 14, leave out from "18" to end of line 16.
The right reverend Prelate said: Amendment No. 295B is. with much reluctance but with graciousness, not moved.
[Amendment No. 295B not moved.]
[Amendment No. 296 not moved.]
Clause 55 agreed to.;
6.15 p.m.
Clause 56 [Causing or inciting prostitution for gain]:
[Amendments Nos. 297 and 298 not moved.]
Lord Faulkner of Worcestermoved Amendment No. 299:
Page 26, line 26, after "so" insert "using fear, force or fraud"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 299, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 308 and to the two amendments in the group tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
My purpose is to draw a distinction between, on the one hand, the section of the sex industry that is characterised by fear, coercion and violence and is frequently linked to illegal immigration and drug trafficking and, on the other, the section that, although disapproved of by many people—including, I am sure, a considerable number of Members of the House—is best described as the commercial exploitation of consensual adult sex. I stress the word "adult" because we are not talking about child pornography; we are talking about adult prostitution.
182
In the Bill, we have the opportunity to provide greater protection for vulnerable women and, at the same time, attack the evil smuggling into Britain of desperate young women from countries such as the new republics of eastern Europe and the exploitation of such women by gangsters who live by violence. In recent weeks, several newspaper articles have graphically described some of the horrors that go on in countries such as Romania. The amendments would help reduce such exploitation and, at the same time, avoid criminalising activities that are largely consensual and give rise to little public mischief.
The amendments would, for example, prevent innocent partners or teenage sons from being criminalised for living off immoral earnings. Under the present legislation, that happens even when the partners and sons do not want the women in their life to be involved in sex work. They would make it easier for the police to bring charges against those who use threats and would make the law simpler and clearer.
The amendments would also improve the legitimacy of the law. At present, because there is less clarity, the police use more discretion. The danger with that is that the law will be enforced inconsistently. I am concerned that, if the Bill is passed in its present form, England and Wales will finish up with the most punitive laws on prostitution at exactly the time when the rest of Europe is starting to address the vulnerability of women sex workers.
What research there has been into the sex industry—there is a strong case for the Government to conduct their own inquiry, alongside the excellent work of many academics, such as Belinda Brooks-Gordon of Leicester University—shows that it is safer for the industry to be conducted indoors, rather than on the streets. The incidence of violence against women who look for business on street corners or in alleyways is many times greater than when the business is done in indoor premises, such as flats, hotel rooms and massage parlours. The Economic and Social Research Council conducted research among street-working and indoor-working prostitutes in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Leeds, as part of its violence research programme. Among the findings was the fact that those working on Glasgow's streets were six times more likely to have experienced client violence than those working indoors in Edinburgh and four times more likely than indoor workers in Leeds.
On the assumption that Parliament does not intend to make criminals out of all prostitutes, would it not make sense to use the Bill to make life safer for women who work in the sex industry? Surely, the receptionist at a massage parlour who facilitates the booking of clients for women who work there as prostitutes is in a different league from the evil men who import vulnerable women from eastern Europe and force them to work under a regime of terror in the sex industry here. Criminalising more women and clients and imposing harsher penalties without safeguards will draw more women into the criminal justice system and then to prison. It is harder for them to get out of such a life later if they have a criminal record. The criminal record makes getting a job more difficult.

183
The time has come for a thoroughgoing review of prostitution and the sex industry generally.Setting the Boundaries said that it was needed. In the interim. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the amendments would put some fairness and common sense into the situation. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I oppose the amendment, for two basic reasons. First, I do not understand it. Secondly, for the reasons already given, subsection (1)(b) should come out. That view is shared throughout the Committee and is not only my opinion.
I do not understand the amendment. If someone "does so", he does so "using fear, force and fraud". What on earth does the amendment add? If he does so, he does so. It does not matter how he does it. There is no object or sense in the amendment.
I understand that, in any event, the amendment has been devised to deal with a review of prostitution. That is a good idea, but I do not understand what it has to do with the drafting of the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: It is with some reluctance that I rise not to support the amendments. I have supported the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and I sympathise and empathise with his concern for people in such a position. For those who experience fear, fraud or force in such situations it is a dreadful thing, but I am more concerned with securing a conviction. I am concerned that that would be made more difficult. rather than easier, by the amendments.
The noble Lord may want the law to reflect something of the dangers and pressures faced by those who suffer at the hands of pimps. Many would sympathise with that. However, there would be a lacuna that would result in unintended consequences. The noble Lord may also wish to make it clear that the law does not protect those who engage in prostitution entirely of their own volition, a point that, I think, he made. I am much less in sympathy with that, as it is difficult to tell whether someone is acting as a truly free agent, when he or she engages in prostitution. I fall back on the fundamental point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, which is that a crime has been committed anyway, regardless of whether one has to produce evidence of gain or of fear, force or fraud.
Amendment No. 299 imports the common law definition of what it takes to vitiate consent. "Fear, force or fraud" is a phrase that occurs throughout the case law on consent, not only in relation to sexual offences. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, made the point that there is a world of difference between adult prostitution and what we are now calling prostitution through child abuse. However, its addition here would make it more difficult to prove the offence of causing prostitution for gain. Its addition to Clause 58, by Amendment No. 308, would do the same for the offence of controlling prostitution for gain.
I am concerned because it imposes an added burden on prosecutors, which they will often find difficult to overturn. A person who is clearly a victim of
184
prostitution may be unwilling to give evidence. Prosecutors may be relying on other evidence, such as testimony from "clients". None of them may be able to address the issue of whether fear, force or fraud was ever used on a prostitute.
Therefore, it would be difficult to envisage a scenario in which a man who really was acting as a pimp would be unjustly prosecuted. The court would be unsympathetic to a claim from a pimp that, although he intentionally caused a person to become a prostitute in expectation of gain for himself, he does not really deserve to be punished because his prostitutes were all willing and it was never proven that he used fear, force or fraud.
I am sure that my noble friend Lord Lucas will speak to the amendments in his name in due course. However, I shall deal with them now to save time later. Simply by requiring proof of,
"force, coercion, deception or abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability".
the amendments place a hurdle before prosecutors which they may be unable to clear, even though an offence of the type which ought to be caught by this offence has clearly been committed.
I oppose these amendments because they would make it more difficult for the courts and they move away from the fundamental issue that a child below this age is being abused anyway. Looking for evidence of gain, fear, force or fraud is a diversion for the courts. A crime has been committed and it should be dealt with as such.
Lord Lucas: I return to the final point made by my noble friend Lady Blatch. My amendment has nothing to do with children; we are past that. It concerns adult prostitution. I understand her comments about making it more difficult. I favour the last group of amendments, which would eliminate "gain" entirely. If "gain" must be kept, maybe this is a useful adjunct for dealing with child cases whereby someone is making a child into a prostitute not for their own personal gain. Perhaps we can differentiate in the case of a mother looking after her child by inserting a phrase such as that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner.
However, I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, that we need a proper and consistent basis for the law on prostitution. In conversation, as it were, I think that we all know where we are at. In the general sense, we do not want it to be a crime. We want the women to be safe. We do not want prostitution to be thrust in our faces as we walk around most parts of most cities. But if it is carried on decently in private, as a reasonable and consensual contract between adult individuals, we are prepared for it to exist. Given what goes on in the industry, we are particularly concerned that it should be a safe occupation for the women who find themselves in it.
A very important part of that issue is re-educating the police. The police use the current laws to prosecute the boyfriends, children and husbands of prostitutes. That is entirely unreasonable. It is a complete abuse of the

185
intentions of Parliament and should not go on. Why is a prostitute not allowed to have a husband or a boyfriend? Because they happen to share accommodation or benefit in some way from the prostitute's earnings, why should that person be vulnerable to prosecution? But they are and they are prosecuted and persecuted by the police. That is an entirely unreasonable attitude. If a prostitute is carrying on her business in a manner with which we are content and she is not subject to abuse, force or coercion in any way, what she does with her money is up to her. If she chooses to support a fledgling who will not leave the nest or a boyfriend or a husband on the money that she earns, why should we seek to interfere with that?
Certainly, I address these amendments from the point of view of preventing the abuse of the current system by the police. I understand entirely the point made by my noble friend Lady Blatch about it presenting some difficulties in conviction. I think that if we are to have a system whereby prostitution is allowed to exist and women are safe in that occupation, we must bring an end to the persecution of their family arrangements by the police.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: The Minister has skilfully employed his Caledonian mind to resist amendments. I think that he will be hard put to defend why this amendment should not be included. I look forward to hearing from him.
Baroness Noakes: I have added my name to Amendments Nos. 299 and 308, so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. I hope that he will not regard me as a turncoat if I say that I now favour Amendments Nos. 299A and 308ZA tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas. I promise that this is not a party political issue. I consider that the formulation in the amendments proposed by my noble friend captures the element of exploitation which should be at the heart of any offences related to prostitution.Setting the Boundaries recommended that exploiting others by receiving money or reward from prostitutes should be an offence. It explains that that exploitation should relate to,
"abuse, pressure. force, deception and coercion".
Those are the concepts at the heart of the amendments tabled by both noble Lords.
In their response to Setting the Boundaries, the Government said that there should not be an offence of exploiting others by receiving money from prostitutes because that would, for example, criminalise people who sold groceries to a prostitute. I wonder whether the Government really understood the point being made, which was about exploitation of a person through force. It was not about exploitation in the financial sense of transactions in the ordinary course of business. The Government might want to look at that aspect again.
I am concerned that the offences in Clauses 56 and 58 do not sufficiently recognise that prostitution is itself legal and that some of the ills that surround prostitution are those relating to forcing a woman into prostitution. That is the aspect on which we should concentrate.
186
I echo the comment made by the noble Lord. Lord Faulkner of Worcester, in relation to a review of prostitution.Setting the Boundaries recommended a review but the Government only half agreed in their response and I am not quite sure how much they agreed. Will the Minister say whether there is to be a review of prostitution? If so, what will it entail and when might it occur?
Lord Monson: Unlike the noble Lord. Lord Campbell of Alloway, I find the wording of Amendment No. 299 perfectly clear and unambiguous. The words would be a highly desirable addition to the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out, Clause 56 refers to adult prostitution, unlike most of what we have been talking about today. Many of us will have read in the press during the past couple of months about respectable or respectable-seeming women in rural and suburban England turning occasionally to carefully-selected prostitution in order to pay their children's school fees. Of course, those who are doctrinally opposed to private education may consider this utterly shocking, but I doubt that the rest of us will worry too much about it. Clearly no force, fear or fraud is involved. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, it is ridiculous that the police should involve themselves in such matters. I heartily back these amendments.
Baroness Walmsley: I. too, have added my name to Amendments Nos. 299 and 308, although I would be perfectly happy if the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, were to be carried by the Committee. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, would be happy with that as well.
Both sets of amendments would enable genuinely voluntary sex workers to operate more safely and prevent them from coming into contact with the law quite so often, while at the same time enabling the police to bring charges against those who use threats and coercion. Violence is endemic in the sex industry and many very vulnerable women work in that sector. It is vital that we do all we can to protect them.
As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, pointed out, despite Recommendation 53 in Setting the Boundaries for a full review of the laws covering prostitution, we have not yet seen such a review. We still have a good deal of piecemeal legislation which puts women at risk every day. I am sure that we do not want to add to that through this Bill while we wait for the full review.
Lastly, I wish to echo the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. Can the noble and learned Lord reassure us that the review will take place before too long?
6.30 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The amendments tabled by both my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek in effect to limit the circumstances under which someone can be guilty of the offence of intentionally "causing or inciting" another person to become a prostitute. Clause 56 does not deal with the situation where someone is already working as

187
a prostitute, but rather where a person is caused or incited to become one. As regards Clause 58, to which both of the amendments would also apply, they do not deal with the situation legitimately raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. A person should not become liable for a criminal offence if they were married or living with someone who also worked as a prostitute and the earnings are shared. In those circumstances the partner of the prostitute would not be someone intentionally controlling any of the activities that relate to prostitution.
The two criminal offences that we are dealing with are, first, where a person intentionally incites someone else to become a prostitute and, secondly, where someone controls the activities of a prostitute for gain. If the words,
"the use of fear, force or fraud",
were to be introduced, then inevitably it would become extraordinarily difficult to prove either of those offences. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, made that case most effectively in her remarks.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out that we are dealing with adults in these clauses and that prostitution is not a criminal offence. However, we believe that it is wrong to incite people to become prostitutes—I stress that it is wrong for one person to incite someone else to do so—and we believe that it is wrong intentionally to control for gain another person who works as a prostitute. To add the words suggested in the amendment would make both of those offences extremely difficult to prove. However, I do not stand only on the point of proof, I stand also on the point that the circumstances I have already described should be criminal offences.
My noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester made several points about the problems that arise with regard to prostitution and all noble Lords are right to say that they need to be looked at. That is why in Protecting the Public, published on 19th November last, we said that we would look to see what the scope of an appropriate review should be in all the issues surrounding prostitution and particularly—although not limited to it—the relationship between drugs and prostitution. We think that that is very important. I am not in a position today to say precisely what the scope of the review will be, but I hope that when we come to the Report stage I shall be able to tell your Lordships.
Baroness Blatch: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his generous comments. Around three-quarters of the way through my remarks on this issue, my mind switched back to our discussions on children. I apologise to the Committee if I have caused any confusion. I stand by the arguments I made because I believe that they are still valid. However, I referred back to Clause 54 and I apologise for that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am sure that we all understood what the noble Baroness meant.
Lord Lucas: Do I understand from what the noble and learned Lord has said that the old concept of the
188
crime of "living off immoral earnings" is now dead as a result of this Bill, if it is not dead already? Can no prosecution be brought for that offence?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I must be careful in my response. Clause 58, covering the intentional control of a prostitute for gain, is the offence we are concerned with here. I think that the old offence mentioned by the noble Lord has gone, but I stand to be corrected. I shall write to the noble Lord to confirm the point.
Viscount Bledisloe: The noble and learned Lord talks of "controlling a prostitute", but Clause 58(1)(a) refers to controlling "any of the activities of" a prostitute. Let us suppose that a boyfriend takes bookings on the telephone for a prostitute, or organises her rate card, or fills in her tax return—if she makes one. Any of those activities would be very wide of what is set out in the Bill. If he is completely controlling the prostitute, then he would be doing what used to be known as living off immoral earnings. Is the response of the noble and learned Lord wholly satisfactory in relation to Clause 58, which refers to controlling "any of the activities"? That would cover even a very limited activity undertaken by a boyfriend or someone else living with the prostitute, but who in no way was driving her into prostitution.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Clause 56 deals with "causing or inciting", while Clause 58(1)(a) deals with controlling,
"any of the activities of another person relating to that person's prostitution",
which can include controlling her activities as a prostitute. However, the noble Viscount is right to point out that he can also control various activities relating to the other person's prostitution.
Lord Lucas: Would that person be committing a crime? Why would we want to criminalise someone who works out the accounts for his girlfriend?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The purpose of Clause 58(1)(a) is to cover, primarily, the control of prostitution. The way that is done is by reference to controlling the,
"activities of another person relating to that person's prostitution".
Usually that would mean the control of, as it were, the entire business enterprise, but it can also cover elements of the activities. Thus we shall avoid the situation where, simply to say that someone else deals with another element, it is not a crime.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: This has been an extraordinarily interesting debate. I am most grateful for the support that my amendment has attracted from every part of the Chamber, which I think may be unprecedented. Support has been expressed from the Bishops' Bench on my left, the Cross Benches on my right, and from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Benches opposite. My noble and learned

189
friend may be relieved to know, however, that I do not intend to press the amendment, but I shall read with great care what he has said in response.
One point that has come out of our debate on which I would ask him to reflect most seriously is the general view that Recommendation 53 in Setting the Boundaries, calling for a comprehensive review of the laws covering prostitution, needs to take place. Prostitution was not included in the terms of reference for the Setting the Boundaries team, although it did take a great deal of evidence on it. However, it is clear from the amount of legislation dealing with prostitution, from the Sexual Offences Act 1956 onwards, that we are in danger of simply putting an extra ratchet on to the sexual offences laws without thinking through properly what should be the situation relating to prostitution.
I certainly do not take exception to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for preferring the terms of the amendment tabled by her noble friend Lord Lucas. Had he tabled his amendment before mine, I would probably have added my name to it. I am as content with his amendment as I am with my own.
However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 299A not moved.]
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 299B:
Page 26. line 26, at end insert—
"(1A) No offence is committed under this section by advertising the availability of the services of a prostitute."
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 299B. I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 308B. If we are to have the industry or activity of prostitution based largely inside premises so that it does not greet our eyes on every street corner—we all agree that not only is that safest for the women concerned, it is also more pleasant for local residents and those travelling through the areas where prostitutes ply their trade—then those women must have some way of contacting their customers.
In that regard. in some areas the police can present a considerable obstacle. They will prosecute a newsagent who displays in a quiet corner of his shop a board containing prostitutes' advertisements, although the same newsagent cannot be prosecuted for having row upon row of disgusting magazines on the top shelf. The police will even prosecute a sex shop for displaying such advertisements. They have prevented the Yellow Pages from carrying advertisements for sexual services, while noises even seem to have been made in the direction of some magazines which carry such advertisements.
Prostitutes must be able to contact their clients in a way that does not cause offence. I fully understand why people object to stickers in phone boxes, but if we do not allow this to happen in a reasonable and regulated way then stickers in phone boxes is what we will get—and quite right, too, because they will have to find an outlet somewhere.
190
The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that advertising a sexual service, carrying advertisements or facilitating advertisements is not of itself an offence. The amendments will ensure that those who wish to provide advertising services to prostitutes are able to do so without fear of prosecution. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: I support the amendment. I was wondering whether to raise the issue of legal brothels but I am sure that the Government do not want me to do so in connection with this Bill. As to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, legalised prostitution may, if properly run, tend to save some of the child abuse that we are seeing today. The Government should at least consider carrying out research on the subject.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and I, too, support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. One of the objects of the Bill is to reduce the incidence of rape. A wise man once said to me that it is largely thanks to prostitution that our wives, mothers and daughters walk the streets in safety. I do not believe that they now walk with quite the safety that I enjoyed when I was young—we have to accept that—but it is very important that prostitutes are not persecuted and driven onto the streets. They should have the opportunity to pursue their industry, not only in safety but in reasonable comfort.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I do not support the amendment simply because of its width. I seek clarification. Having worked for 10 years as a regulator with ICSTIS, where premium rate industry sex lines could be advertised, I am concerned about being very precise about the kind of magazines in which you cannot have this type of advertising and those in which you can. If we introduce simply the broad category in the amendment, such advertisements will appear everywhere. There will be an outcry because people find them largely offensive. There are places where one can find these advertisements with no problems, but we have to be very precise.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I support the amendment. The noble Lord. Lord Lucas, is seeking to do what he and I sought to do with the previous amendment—that is, to ensure that if prostitution is conducted it is conducted in safe premises rather than dangerously on the streets. If women who work in the sex industry are able to advertise—and I see no reason why such advertising should not he severely regulated in order to counter the point made by the noble Baroness—I cannot see where any public mischief would arise.
As far as I am aware, the only research conducted into unauthorised advertising in pay phones was undertaken on behalf of British Telecom, in conjunction with the Metropolitan Police and Westminster City Council, in June 1994. The research dealt with the issue of cards in phone boxes. Curiously, the public response was far less condemnatory of simple advertising—a simple card with, perhaps, a woman's name and phone number on it—than many

191
would expect. For example, in the survey, only 10 per cent found those simple cards offensive and 58 per cent felt that prostitutes should be allowed to advertise their services.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is pursuing a cause that should be looked at. II there is to be the review of prostitution we called for in the previous debate, this is clearly an issue which would need to be covered in some detail.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I hope that I can set minds at rest. Advertising the availability of the services of a prostitute would not in itself constitute causing or inciting another person to become a prostitute, nor would it constitute controlling any of their activities relating to prostitution. It is possible, obviously, that advertising the services might be evidence, along with a variety of other evidence, used in support of a charge but it would not constitute an offence in itself. If, for example. a pimp advertised the services of a prostitute over whom he had control so that she received more clients and he got more money, that might be one of the many factors used in evidence for a charge of controlling prostitution for gain but it would not be an offence in itself.
I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that we should not make advertising of itself an offence. Neither Clause 56 nor Clause 58 does so. There is already provision—the noble Lord referred to this—in Sections 46 and 47 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 which makes it an offence to place cards advertising the services of prostitutes in telephone boxes. Anyone advertising the services of a prostitute in this way, whether or not excluded from the offences under this Bill by an amendment such as the one we are discussing, would therefore already be guilty of an offence under the earlier Act. I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas: I am quite happy to do so. If the noble and learned Lord could include in the letter he may already he sending me confirmation that there will be nothing left in the law that will enable the police to prosecute a newsagent for carrying prostitutes' cards—provided the cards are decent and conform with the law—I shall be most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 300 not moved.]
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography]:
[Amendment No. 301 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 302:
Page 26. line 35, at end insert "in any part of the world".
192
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 302, 306 and 311 make clear that the offences at Clauses 57 to 59 refer to the controlling, arranging or facilitating of prostitution, including that by children. and the involvement of a child in pornography anywhere in the world. This was always our policy intention when formulating the offences but it is not clear from the Bill as drafted.
We want to cover situations where an offender in this country arranges, facilitates or controls the prostitution and pornography of children and controls the prostitution of adults in other countries as well as here. The amendments seek to cover situations where someone in this country knowingly leases their apartment abroad to child pornographers to film in or, for example, where a pimp may direct a prostitute under his control to fly to a client abroad. It should not matter where the prostitution or pornography takes place if the control, arranging or facilitation is done from the United Kingdom. We should be able to prosecute those in this country who exploit others in that way. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 303 to 304 not moved.]
Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 58 [Controlling prostitution for gain]:
[Amendment No. 305 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 306:
Page 27, line 8, after "prostitution" insert "in any part of the world".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 307 to 308ZA not moved.]
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 308A:
Page 27, line 9, at end insert—
"( ) Two sex workers operating together for their mutual personal safety will not be deemed to commit an offence under this Part."
The noble Baroness said: In Amendment No. 308A, we return to the issue we debated only a few minutes ago. The purpose of the amendment is to protect the personal safety of sex workers and prevent them from falling foul of the Bill. As we have said, prostitution itself is not illegal in this country—it is all the activities surrounding it that. often bring sex workers into conflict with the law. That is why we have a duty to do whatever we can when a legislative opportunity arises to protect sex workers from the dangers with which their type of work is beset. We should also avoid a new piece of legislation unduly or accidentally criminalising them further. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and I have put down this amendment.
According to the Josephine Butler Society, a charity that works with prostitutes and their dependants, the safest place for a prostitute to work is in her own premises. However, if she works alone she puts herself in danger because if she is attacked by a client there is no one there to help her. Brothels are currently illegal and anyway, they could, if not properly regulated, lay

193
the way wide open for traffickers and drug dealers. The solution is for two women to work together. However, if they do so, they risk being caught by the provisions in Clause 58 on controlling prostitution for gain, as they might be seen to be controlling each others' activities in some way.
The Bill is not really about prostitution. Sadly, the whole spectrum of legislation that affects prostitution has been put together in a very piecemeal way, and that has become very clear this afternoon. It really is time the Government grasped the nettle and I hope they will do so very soon. However, the Bill will affect prostitutes, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, mentioned, in several ways—we will come to the matter of public places later. Unfortunately, neither sex workers nor those who work for their welfare have been consulted about it.
No country has ever been able to stop prostitution. Not for nothing is it called the oldest profession in the world. In a civilised society, we should be concerned with harm minimisation and welfare as well as human rights. Unless we give these sex workers a safe way of working, where they can be independent and not constantly run the risk of falling foul of the law, we are playing right into the hands of the pimps, traffickers and drug dealers who seek to control women by getting them addicted to hard drugs. This amendment offers them a way of achieving that safety. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: I entirely support what the noble Baroness has said. I have no wish to push the Government down the road towards legalising brothels in this Bill—it is road that I suspect I would not wish to travel myself. But the difference between one and two is the difference between being alone and feeling a great deal safer than that, between a partnership, or at least some form of support, and none at all. That is a step we can take without any fear of opening up the question of whether we are into the business of legalising brothels or, indeed, instituting "Ofbroth", or whatever the Government might choose to call it.
Baroness Noakes: If there is any doubt whatever that two sex workers working together would fall within Clause 58, this is a good amendment, for the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has given.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I understand exactly why the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has moved the amendment—she put the reasons very clearly—but we do not think it is necessary. It would amend a clause which makes it an offence to be controlling prostitution for gain. The clause is designed to cover exploitative relationships. Where two prostitutes are working together, consensually, for each other's protection—for example, standing on the same street corner, noting the registration numbers of the cars that their partner or friend gets into, which is quite a common form of mutual protection—it is very unlikely that either could be said to be "controlling" the other. It is also very unlikely that either could be said to be gaining from the prostitution of the other.
194
Where one prostitute is exerting exploitative control over the other—for example, where she is working with a pimp to help him control prostitutes or exercising by herself a pimping role over other prostitutes and is gaining from that control—that is obviously a different sort of offence. If we accepted this amendment, we would not be able to cover such a situation. We do not think it is necessary to cover the situation that the noble Baroness has identified. We think it is sensible not to have such a provision in the Bill, for the reasons I have indicated. I hope that in the light of that reassurance the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Walmsley: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the words of comfort that he has given to me from the Dispatch Box, which he of course realises is very significant in law. It will give comfort to sex workers who want to protect themselves in the way that I described. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 308B and 309 not moved.]
Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 59 [Arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography]:
[Amendment No. 310 not moved]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 311:
Page 27, line 18, after "pornography" insert "in any part of the world".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 312 to 313 not moved.]
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 60 [Sections 55 to 59: interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 314 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 315:
Page 27, line 37, after "services" insert "(including sexual services)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 316:
Page 27, line 38, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment designed to tease out what is meant by "goodwill" in this context. Clauses 55 to 59 require the prosecution to prove, as an essential element to the offence, that the activity in question is done,
"for or in the expectation of gain".
Gain is then defined in subsection Clause 60(2) in the terms set out.
I would like to know what the Government have in mind. Is it pleasing a potential employer or a superior, like Jack Lemmon did in providing a flat in which his boss could carry out an illicit assignation in the film "The Apartment"? That is not so far a criminal offence, as far as I know.

195
I have no particular objection to the concept, provided that it is clearly established what the limits of the proposed criminality are. I would be most grateful if the noble and learned Lord could clarify that.
Lord Lucas: The difficulty I have with this subsection is that it does not add anything. If somebody is doing something in the expectation of gain, surely the word "expectation" in the original clause covers anything that might be added by subsections (3)(a) and ( b) in Clause 60.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Subsection (3)(b) states that gain covers,
"the goodwill of any person which is or appears likely, in time, to bring financial advantage".
This provision has been included to cover those situations in which one person may undertake an activity in the hope that it will please somebody else. I do not have recent and detailed recollection of "The Apartment", but from the way in which the noble Baroness described it, the provision would cover precisely that situation where someone will, in time, return the favour, which is likely to bring financial advantage. For example, a person causes a child to become a prostitute in order to please the pimp who will derive an income from the child's involvement in prostitution in the expectation that in the future, the pimp may give him a share of those profits, a supply of drugs, or access to other child prostitutes.
I appreciate that in some cases there may be evidential problems about proving that goodwill, as defined, was the motivation behind such behaviour, but I would resist removing the ability to prosecute for this type of situation because in other circumstances it might he possible to meet the evidential requirements. There may, for example, be evidence of a defendant having told a third party of his motivation for causing the prostitution.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked whether the paragraph adds anything to the basic offence to which it refers. Yes, it does, because it is wider than the terms of the basic offence. There will be prosecutions in which goodwill can be a possible factor. On that basis, I resist the amendment, which I accept was a probing amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Lucas: If that was the Government's intention, why do we have the second part of paragraph (b)? Why not simply leave it as,
"the goodwill of any person'"?
The second part of paragraph (b) merely refers back to the gain that is already covered in the original offence, and limits it. I could understand it if it referred only to goodwill, which would expand the offence—but the
196
offence is cut back to a gain of a financial advantage. The financial advantage is already there in the original offence.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It is needed, because goodwill is at one remove from a specific financial advantage.
Lord Lucas: I still cannot see why goodwill is limited by the wording that it should lead to a financial advantage. If one does the godfather a favour, one may not know of what kind the benefit will be. It may be a benefit to some other member of one's family at some other time and in some other form completely. Why limit the goodwill to financial gain for oneself. especially given that that is already in the original offence?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The reason why the whole sentence is there is because it is one remove from "gain". The word "goodwill" is limited as it is because, if we did not limit it at all, it would be so vague as not to have any definition at all.
Baroness Walmsley: I thank the noble and learned Lord the Minister for his reply. However. I do not know whether he realises that he has just described a whole lot of offences of possibility.
Earlier in our discussions on this Bill, we were a little concerned about the possibilities of "thought" offences in relation to Internet grooming. I am satisfied that that is not the case. However, the offences that the noble and learned Lord has just described involve the possibility that the person gaining the goodwill might, at some unspecified time in the future, in some unspecified manner, actually gain in some way from the activity concerned. That is far too vague for any kind of criminal offence.
I shall read with great interest what the noble and learned Lord said, but it is something to which I may want to return. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 317:
Page 28, line 2, at end insert "(including sexual services)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 318:
After Clause 60, insert the following new clause—
"EXTENSION OF GENDER-SPECIFIC PROSTITUTION OFFENCES
Schedule (Extension of gender-specific prostitution offences) (extension of gender-specific prostitution offences) has effect."
The noble Lord said: The new offences to tackle prostitution and child pornography contained in Clauses 54 to 59 replace some of the existing offences relating to prostitution. For example, Section 30 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 relates to a man living off the

197
earnings of prostitution and Section 31 relates to a woman exercising control over a prostitute. However, they do not replace all existing prostitution legislation.
The provisions relating to kerb crawling and loitering and soliciting for prostitution, among others, are remaining on the statute books. That is because the area of prostitution itself, rather than the exploitation of people through prostitution, fell outside the remit of the sex offences review, which recommended a further review of matters related to prostitution. We have debated that point this afternoon. However, we are taking the opportunity to rectify one of the fundamental flaws with existing legislation—its gender specificity.
Much existing prostitution legislation is framed in terms of men committing offences against female prostitutes, whereas male and female prostitutes can both be exploited by someone of their own sex or of the opposite sex. The current framing of the law is outdated and government Amendment No. 318 introduces a new schedule—in government Amendment No. 362—to gender-neutralise the legislation.
Section 36 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, which relates to permitting premises to be used for prostitution; Sections 1 and 2 of the Street Offences Act 1959, which relate to loitering and soliciting for the purposes of prostitution, and application to a court by a woman cautioned for that; and the provisions in the Sexual Offences Act 1985 relating to kerb crawling, are all made gender neutral by these government amendments.
The structure of the offences and the penalties for the offences remain unchanged, but the amendments mean that we are able to prosecute offenders of either sex, committing offences against victims of either sex. That is important.
The offences in the Sexual Offences Act 1956 relating to brothels are not included in these amendments. Although they are gender specific, since brothels refer only to places where female prostitutes work, we do not need to gender neutralise these offences, as Section 6 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 applies the same provisions as the brothel offences to premises resorted to for homosexual practices. It is therefore unnecessary to include them here.
I urge the Committee to accept these amendments.
Also grouped with the amendment are the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. It might be convenient if I addressed his amendments now.
Amendment 362A seeks to remove the term "common prostitute" from the offence in Section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959, which relates to loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution. However, the term "common" in the expression "common prostitute" is important. The performance by a woman of a single act of lewdness with a man on one occasion for reward may be sufficient to make the woman a prostitute, but it does not make her a
198
"common prostitute" for the purposes of the Section 1(1) offence. It has been held that a common prostitute is a woman,
"who is prepared for reward to engage in acts of lewdness with all and sundry, or with anyone who may hire her for that purpose".
Amendment 362B would remove the ability for the courts to apply anti-social behaviour orders against prostitutes convicted for an offence under Section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959. ASBOs are not a punishment or penalty. Their purpose is rather different, as they are designed to protect individuals and, perhaps more importantly, communities from behaviour that causes harassment, alarm or distress. It is the responsibility of a court to determine whether an order should be made in any individual case. The police have discovered that using ASBOs against prostitutes, who can, unquestionably, cause harassment, alarm or distress to residents of an area, can act as a deterrent to others. The use of ASBOs on prostitutes in Lambeth for example has lead to a very noticeable improvement on Brixton High Street. We think it important that the facility to apply the order is retained and, for those reasons, we resist the amendments.
Lord Lucas: I shall speak to the two amendments tabled under my name. As regards Amendment No. 362A, I shall take into account the Minister's comments on the nature of the offence when I read Hansard, and shall decide what to do next. However, I shall describe the particular ill that I am aiming at.
The common practice is for a prostitute who is caught by the police to be cautioned. As the Minister will know, there is no court appearance and no easy appeal in such a case—it is just something that a person does in order to get out of custody. When that person has been cautioned twice, if she then comes up in court again, she is referred to as a "common prostitute" and is two-thirds of the way to conviction. She is labelled as a common prostitute in court when she has never been convicted of a prostitution offence. That is what I was seeking to avoid, but I understand from the Minister's remarks that I have gone broader than that without meaning to.
I shall consider the matter again, but I should very much appreciate the Minister's views on whether labelling people in such a way before conviction is really something that we wish to continue to do.
My second amendment seeks to address a specific issue. When we dealt with the laws on street prostitution, I thought we decided that we were not going to imprison prostitutes—we were not going to stuff them into prison—for the ordinary run of street offences. However, that is what ASBOs are being used for. They are being used to imprison people for prostitution offences. That is undesirable. The problem is caused not by the use of ASBOs as a technique, but by the targeting of ASBOs, or the breach of them, to imprison prostitutes. I thought that we had got away from that in the earlier Acts and had decided that that was not what should be done. That is the ill at which I am aiming. I appreciate that I may not have a sufficient understanding of the operation of ASBOs to have aimed precisely right. However, I should very much like to achieve a resolution that ensures that

199
Parliament's clear intention of not imprisoning prostitutes for these types of offences is adhered to in practice in relation to ASBOs.
Baroness Blatch: I am not sure whether this will come as too much of a shock to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, but I support government Amendments Nos. 318 and 362. It would be wrong for a male prostitute to be immune from offences that apply to female prostitutes. The noble Lord made some powerful points in speaking to these amendments. He also referred to the activity of kerb-crawling. A person who kerb-crawls should not escape prosecution because his targets were male rather than female. That is an entirely sensible change to the law, and it is surprising that it was not included in the Bill originally. I do not know why it was omitted. It has long been government policy to be "gender neutral"—not a phrase I like—on these issues. I thought that that was the thrust of the Bill. Surely it was a mistake not to include it in the Bill initially.
I have not thought deeply enough about the two amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, but his second point was on prison. Although I do not want to say that all prostitution is offensive to some people, prostitution offences run the whole gamut from deeply offensive in terms of public nuisance and the degree to which vast sums are earned to less offensive. I think that it must be for the courts and judges to decide whether imprisonment is the appropriate sentence. I do not believe that it is for us to take the principled position that prostitutes per se should not be subject to imprisonment. That seems very much a matter for the courts. The Bill should establish a framework that provides judges with great latitude to decide the appropriate sentence. However, I have not thought too deeply about the subject because I did not see the amendments at the previous stage.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for her support and warm words. I think we are making progress. However, I shall not dwell on it; I shall pick up some of the points that she and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made. As the noble Lord said, if there is a breach of an ASBO, the court can use the ultimate sanction of imprisonment. However, it is worth reflecting on precisely what surrounds the act of prostitution, including noise disturbance, such as the banging of car doors, and more general disruption for parts of our communities. For many, such behaviour is not only offensive but disturbing, discomfiting and distressing. I would find that distressing and I am sure that the noble Lord would also. In such circumstances, we think it absolutely right that the court should have the reserve position of penalising people for the breach of an ASBO.
As for the noble Lord's first point, I think he accepts that his amendment ultimately does not achieve what he seeks to do—to unpick aspects of labelling. However, if' the police have on record a consistent
200
pattern of behaviour by those who have indulged in a lewd act termed as prostitution, someone in that position ultimately will be described as a common prostitute, and that description will have a value in law.
We therefore have to resist both amendments. However, I understand the wider issues of concern that the noble Lord is seeking to raise in his amendments. I commend our amendments to the Committee and hope that he will not press his own.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61 [Trafficking into the UK for sexual exploitation]:
Lord Hyltonmoved Amendment No. 319:
Page 28, line 6, leave out from "if" to "he" in line 7.
The noble Lord said: The purpose of Amendment No. 319 and the two amendments grouped with it is to remove the need to prove' gain" or the "expectation of gain" in order to establish the offence of trafficking. That is not always easy to do, even if it is only an expectation or intention. I think that the police services across the country will be in agreement with that, as I mentioned on Second Reading. That probably provides one of the reasons why there have been relatively few, if any, prosecutions for trafficking since it first became an offence although it is well known that hundreds if not thousands of young women and some children have been trafficked, mostly into London. The type of case of a mother helping her daughter out of prostitution referred to earlier by the Minister is unlikely to occur in the case of trafficking. I realise that gain is widely defined in Clause 60, but I submit that the offence of trafficking would be better defined without it.
There is the further point that gain becomes almost academic if' the Government accept the words "force, coercion, deception" and so on as proposed in the next group of amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: In the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Astor, I should like on behalf of these Benches to support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I suspect that this grouping is somewhat larger than he originally envisaged. I should therefore like to say why we have joined in tabling the amendments.
I wish to probe further the phrase,
"for or in the expectation of gain".
Although it is clear that those who traffic human beings do so because of the material gains from the activity, I suspect that it is very often hard to prove such "gain". It is easy to envisage that difficulty causing a significant obstacle in securing convictions. For example, how does one prove that a person who has forced a child into prostitution has, or indeed will, also materially benefit from doing so? Removing the requirement of gain from the trafficking offence would therefore allow the police or prosecution to concentrate on proving the abuse suffered by the child regardless of whether anything was gained. Most traffickers are connected to criminal networks with

201
sophisticated methods of money laundering. Tracing the exact whereabouts of money made from trafficking can be both time consuming and costly.
I am also unsure about the advisability of "intentionally" as used in these clauses. It is often difficult to prove one's intention. The phrase "intentionally or knowingly", well trailed in legislation, might be a better reaction. I would welcome the Minister's views. On a general point, I wholeheartedly support all those groups that have lobbied us extensively on the need for comprehensive legislation to cover all types of trafficking, not just trafficking for sexual purposes. More resources must be allocated to social services, which provide accommodation, care and support to child victims of trafficking; for example, West Sussex social services which takes trafficked children from Gatwick Airport. However, these clauses are not only about the trafficking inwards; they deal also with trafficking in this country and trafficking from this country to other parts of the world.
We hope to see legislation introduced as soon as possible to deal with these outstanding issues, not least Articles 33, 34 and 35 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It may help if I set out the Government's position at this point. We accept in principle the amendments tabled by the noble Lord. Lord Hylton, in this respect. We do not believe that there is a justification for retaining,
"for or in the expectation of gain",
in the trafficking offences. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, there is a differential between these and the earlier sorts of offences that we discussed. However, we shall have to consider whether that differential is sufficient to justify such a change. We accept the amendments in principle but cannot agree to them at this stage because we need to amend the precise wording to cover Clause 64, which is not covered by the noble Lord's amendments.
I, too, welcome the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to the Conservative Front Bench. He will be a most welcome addition in our debates. He is very brave to join at Amendment No. 319 in this very interesting and enlivening debate. I hope that the noble Lord will remain on that Front Bench for many years to come.
Lord Skelmersdale: I cannot let that go without comment. I did speak to various amendments on the first day of Committee, which no doubt the noble and learned Lord will remember. Indeed, I rather suspect that my comments were received with approval, unlike those of other noble Lords who participated in the proceedings on that day.
Baroness Blatch: We should all like to be associated with the comments welcoming my noble friend back to the Front Bench, where I believe he belongs. I welcome the remarks just made by the noble and learned Lord. It looks as though these amendments will be accepted.
202
The noble and learned Lord will be relieved of what I might have said if he had not made that particular intervention. I am most grateful to him.
Lord Hylton: I am most grateful to the Minister for his response and for his reception of the amendment. I look forward to reviewing government improvements in due course. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who has served on many a Front Bench over many years. I beg to move—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I have given an undertaking that I shall bring forward amendments at a later stage. We cannot agree to the current group of amendments because Clause 64 is not covered by them. Therefore, I undertake to bring forward amendments on Report that will have the same effect, and go slightly wider.
Lord Hylton: In that case, I am even more grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendment No. 320:
Page 28, line 8, after "(B)" insert "using force, coercion, deception, or abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability"
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 320, 324 and 328 are very similar to Amendments Nos. 321A, 325A and 329A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, to which my noble friend Lady Noakes has added her name. Essentially, the point of principle is the same. However, I believe that Amendment No. 320, which would insert the phrase,
"using force, coercion, deception, or abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability",
at line 8, not line 9, is more inclusive and would by definition cover paragraphs (a) and (b). not just the former.
This group of three amendments is designed to complement the previous group of amendments. Trafficking for sexual exploitation is a sexual offence and therefore the focus should be on the harm done to the victim in terms of sexual abuse, assault, violence and violation. It is for this reason that we wanted to remove the issue of whether "gain" was involved. Indeed, we have just had a very helpful discussion about such wording.
Amendments Nos. 320, 324 and 328 would also alter the current definition of "trafficking" to reflect the definition adopted in the UN protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking and would supplement the UN convention against transnational organised crime. The protocol has been signed by over 115 countries, including the United Kingdom. The same definition is used in the EU framework decision on combating trafficking in human beings. Following this definition will ensure that the same definition of "trafficking" is used both domestically and internationally. That seems to us not only to make sense, but also to be vital if trafficking is to be tackled as a crime on an international scale rather than being viewed as a domestic problem.

203
Further, I believe that the insertion of the phrase,
"using force, coercion, deception, or abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability",
would add greater clarity to the clauses on trafficking. It would help to differentiate trafficking from the less serious offence of smuggling people into the country—though I am not sure the Home Office would agree with that. None the less, that is my feeling on the matter. It would identify some of the abusive and exploitative methods that are often involved in the trafficking process. It would also help to emphasise that even those who may agree to be trafficked are essentially victims, as they may agree to this under a false impression of the true nature of their eventual fate.
The amendments illuminate the trauma suffered by victims and perpetrated by offenders involved in trafficking. It is important that this should be apparent on the face of the Bill, which, I regret to say, is not the case at present. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: I support the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in this group of amendments. He is quite right to refer to the UN protocol and to the EU framework decision. As to smuggling, I should have thought—I hope that the Minister will agree—that that would be an offence under immigration law, and not covered by the provisions of this Bill.
Baroness Blatch: The whole issue of force, coercion and people being made to act against their will is a very real problem. I do want to detract from that in what I say. Where it is believed that a crime has been committed under these clauses, we should be focused on securing a proper conviction. Although the amendments are very well intentioned and extremely well understood, I believe that they would make the whole process more difficult. Therefore, for those reasons and those that I gave earlier in a different context, such provisions would just make it more difficult to secure a conviction.
Situations may arise where,
"force, coercion, deception, or abuse",
cannot actually be proved. Therefore, the case against someone who, nevertheless, has indulged in what I consider to be criminal activity might not be found. It could be proved in court that a person facilitated the arrival of the victim in the country; it could be proved that he intended that sexual offences would be committed against the victim; but, if there is no evidence of force, coercion or abuse, that person could escape conviction.
I am not sure whether the latter was the intended consequence, but, if my reading of the Bill is correct, I believe that could be the case.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Noble Lords from these Benches wish to be associated with the welcome extended to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, on his arrival on the Front Bench. He played a very important part in the proceedings on the first day of Committee. It is very nice to see him in his present position. However, I must
204
support the remarks just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. She is quite right. It is unnecessary to add further ingredients that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt. Why open up defences for a person to say, "Yes, I've done everything else in these clauses but I didn't use force, coercion, deception or abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability at all. Therefore, I'm not guilty"? I see no reason why that defence should be open to scheming defence lawyers.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. We oppose these amendments. We are all aware that some of those who are trafficked are often very vulnerable to intimidation and threats against themselves, or their families in their country of origin; and, indeed, to deception by the promise of good earnings, a better life, and greater opportunity. However, the actual conditions under which they are expected to work are very different from those that they are led to believe will be the case.
In the destination country, those who are trafficked may often be unable to speak the language, know no one and may be without legal immigration status. Their freedom of movement can be severely curtailed by the trafficker, their earnings and passports can be taken away, and they can be subject to debt bondage. They may be forced to service many men, have unprotected sex, or engage in perverse sexual practices once at their destination or even en route. There are considerable reports of violence and rape being used to subdue and control such victims.
Of those trafficked domestically, many are young, kept isolated from their friends and family, and misled by their trafficker into believing that they are earning money to build a future life together. When they become aware of the reality of their exploitation, fear of violence and the sense of stigma that derives from being a prostitute often inhibit their coming forward to report their situation. They are therefore potentially more vulnerable to exploitative practices.
Even where none of the abusive elements specified in the amendment is present, we none the less take the view that it should be an offence to move people from one place to another to exploit them in prostitution, or to commit a sex offence against them. That is why we have defined the offence in the way in which we have. To include "force, coercion" and "deception" as integral elements of the offence is likely to limit prosecution in cases where the only evidence as to the force, coercion or fear would come from the frightened victim. However, where there is evidence that, for example, violence, whether sexual or otherwise, has been used, as would be needed if the amendment were agreed to, that can be charged in its own right in addition to the trafficking.
The amendments reflect the language of the United Nations protocol, as has been said. However, we do not wish to limit the offences to those circumstances defined in the international agreements, in which the action is, to quote the protocol,
"carried out by threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, the abuse of power or a position of vulnerability".

205
We wish to offer a level of protection that does not depend on those factors being present.
We think we have got the definition of the offence about right. We believe that it provides more protection than that suggested by the noble Lord, so we resist the amendments.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to the Minister, and to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, but for totally different reasons. Clearly, I shall take on the chin the adverse remarks made from behind me, beside me and in front of me, and, in the words of Fagin, think it out again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 321 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 321A not moved.]
Lord Skelmersdalemoved Amendment No. 322:
Page 28, line 17, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: I can be extremely brief with the amendments. They seek to ensure that all trafficking cases are tried by conviction on indictment in the Crown Court rather than by a summary conviction before the magistrates' court.
As has been mentioned, trafficking is an offence based for the most part on professional or sometimes international operations involving long-term planning and substantial sums of money changing hands. It is not something that individuals often do as a one-off or on a whim; in fact, I have never heard of it done in those circumstances. Trafficking organisations are run as businesses, often to fund other criminal activities. I see no reason why it should not be mandatory for something as grave as trafficking offences to be tried before the Crown Court. I beg to move.
Lord Alli: I would like to speak to Amendments Nos. 322A, 322B, 326A, 326B, 330A and 330B, which are grouped with Amendment No. 322. The group of amendments deals with two specific sets of issues. The first is to ensure that all trafficking cases involving children are referred to the High Court and therefore attract higher sentences. The second is to set a minimum tariff for a second offence.
First, let me deal with the reasoning behind why I want trafficking cases involving children referred to the High Court. As the clause stands, offences involving children could attract the lower sentences given in the magistrates' courts of six months maximum or a fine. Research has shown that, over the past few years—in particular, the past seven years—children have been increasingly trafficked into the UK and forced into prostitution.
Trafficking is a serious abuse of human rights. On top of the exploitation that the child often suffers as a result of being trafficked, the experience itself often involves rape, and sexual and physical violence. As traffic victims are predominantly 13 year-olds to 17 year-olds, that
206
group has a particularly strong need for legislation that gives adequate protection. I know that the Minister has much sympathy with the issue, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say on the subject.
I shall move to a more difficult issue—the setting of a minimum tariff. I understand why courts resent Parliament putting tariffs in legislation, but what can the mitigating circumstances be of a second offence for a person trafficking someone aged under 18? There is the argument that minimum sentences take away the power of judicial discretion to pass the sentence that judges believe appropriate to a case. I am rather glad that a number of lawyers have left the Committee to have their dinner.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Some remain!
Lord Alli: I know. Believe you me, I am coming to you!
The sentencing and offences unit at the Home Office states that minimum sentences have to be issued for what it describes as,
"very serious offences which give rise to particular public concern".
I believe that the offences do just that.
Fundamentally, a minimum sentence still enables a judge to pronounce a different sentence where he finds that there are exceptional circumstances, either in relation to the offence or the offender. In such a case, a judge must explain to the open court what the exceptional circumstances are and why the minimum sentence is not being imposed.
I suspect that those are the very arguments that my noble and learned friend's colleagues are just about to deploy to justify minimum sentences in other circumstances. I hope that at least I will be consistent in voicing my support for those moves, and I hope that he will be consistent in showing his support for what I am proposing. But I know that he is a skilled lawyer, and no doubt he will come up with a finely tuned legal argument as to why minimum tariffs are acceptable when he thinks that they are right, and unacceptable when I think that they are right. Or perhaps he will surprise me and agree to all that I am proposing.
I am pleased, however, that the Bill attaches a maximum possible sentencing of 14 years to trafficking offences. However, the trafficking offences are predicated on the commission of a "relevant" offence as set out in Clauses 54 to 60. The offences are serious, and I hope that my noble and learned friend will look carefully at what I have had to say. I have put forward my arguments for the amendments, but in the end I believe that we have to send a clear signal that trafficking in children is at least as serious as trafficking in drugs.
Lord Monson: I am open-minded about most of the amendments in the group but, despite the persuasive arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, I could not support Amendments Nos. 322B, 326B or 330B. Members of the Committee with legal qualifications will correct me if I am wrong. but I believe that minimum sentences are essentially alien to our law.

207
Minimum periods of disqualification for motoring offences are a different matter, because they involve neither incarceration nor a drain on the public purse.
It is fashionable in liberal circles to deride the present Home Secretary, Mr David Blunkett. I do not join in that derision, but I strongly disapprove of his proposal to impose de facto minimum sentences for various, rather random, categories of murder, leaving minimum discretion to the trial judge. In a much more minor way, the amendments I specify fall into the same category and I certainly could not support them.
Baroness Walmsley: I support Amendments Nos. 322A, 326A and 330A, which acknowledge the seriousness of the crime of trafficking with regard to children. Such crime should certainly always go to the Crown Court. Throughout our proceedings on the Bill, I have argued for children to be treated differently, both when they are the abusers and when they are abused. Their extra vulnerability sets them apart from other victims, and the courts should recognise that when dealing with such crimes.
Trafficking of children is on the increase. We need a penalty that acts as a deterrent. We need to send a message that it will not be tolerated and, if detected, will be treated as a very serious crime. As the noble Lord, Lord Alli, said, to abduct a child is a serious abuse of its human rights, apart from the other abuses that often go with it. I want the Bill strengthened in terms of how it protects children, so I urge the Minister to accept Amendments Nos. 322A, 326A and 330A.
I am afraid that I do not agree with the other amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, because I do not believe that imposing minimum sentences is a good idea. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, knows that I will not support that proposal. I prefer to leave the matter to the judge. Aggravating factors—for instance, there being only one offence, rape, physical and sexual violence and so forth—will mean that the sentence given will be towards the top end of the range. I do not believe that we need to specify that. Anyone guilty of such acts should be given a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the crime, which is what normally happens in a court of law. I believe that we can leave it to the courts, within the framework of the sentencing guidelines, to make that decision.
Baroness Blatch: I support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Alli. I really am breaking all the moulds today! I do not believe that there is a more heinous crime than trafficking in children; passing children around the world like parcels for the gratification of, often, older men. It is too awful even to contemplate. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alli, that if someone has been proven in court to have committed the offence twice and is coming into court for the third time for that same offence, it is hard to envisage what should be more lenient than the minimum sentence set by the noble Lord.
I know of all the sensitivities which surround our having any view about minimum sentences, but it is for Parliament to set frameworks. That is our role. If, after full consideration of both Houses of Parliament and before the Bill receives Royal Assent, we genuinely
208
take the view that the crime is so serious that we want to do what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has advocated for many years in this House in relation to the trafficking of children for the sexual pleasure of people around the world, we now have the opportunity to do something about it.
I want to put a question to the noble and learned Lord, the answer to which could alter my view about whether I support the noble Lord, Lord Alli. which I want to do. What evidence do we have about how the cases are treated in court? Are there any historical records. As the noble Lord, Lord Alli, said, I trust the courts to impose a sentence of seven years upwards, depending on the seriousness of the crime. The offence of trafficking in children not once, not twice, but for a third time, is so serious that in my book seven years minimum is about right. The courts should be left to determine how much longer in addition should be imposed.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has just said and I support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alli. I added my name to the amendments as a result of a debate held in this House about 18 months ago. I was fortunate enough to win a balloted debate and I used it to raise the subject of trafficking.
Fortuitously, the debate falls during the week when we will commemorate the life of Lord Wilberforce. He spoke during that debate in your Lordships' House—one of the last speeches he made here—about this modern form of slavery. Standing as he did in the footsteps of his great ancestor, his words about the need to do something about the issue struck many of us most powerfully.
It was with great pleasure that I went with my noble friend Lord Hylton to see the Minister, who has been most receptive on the issue. I congratulate him and the Government on the responsive way in which they have dealt with the concerns raised during our debates over the past 18 months. The Bill therefore generally sends out the right signal, but as always those of us who want to see strenuous measures taken to deal with the issue will push a little harder. I do not support the Holy Grail, often expressed by many lawyers, that we should not indulge ourselves occasionally in minimum sentences.
It is not unreasonable to put such provisions on the statute book. After all, when my noble friend Lord Hylton—I was in the other place at the time—introduced a measure to make it a criminal offence prosecutable within this jurisdiction to abuse children overseas, we were told that we could not do that; it was without precedent. There was a precedent; it was torture. Eventually, despite the opposition of the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham, the measure was incorporated in statute.
I do not therefore believe that this measure will shake the foundations of your Lordships' House or of the legal establishment. It will instead send a useful signal. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, we need to send

209
signals about how serious we are about the issue. It involves the taking away of the innocence of children, a point made when with representatives of World Vision, Anti-Slavery and the Jubilee Campaign, I was able to see the Minister with my noble friend Lord Hylton. They were extremely grateful for the positive way in which he responded at that time.
The amendments are good and will add to what the Government are already doing. Even if they cannot be accepted today, I hope that between now and the Report stage the Minister will give further consideration to the representations made to him and to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, which should receive our support.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I want to address the question of minimum sentences. It should not be confused with recent pronouncements on the tariff where there is a mandatory life sentence and the recent pronouncements of the Home Secretary that the minimum period that a person has to serve before his sentence is considered by the Parole Board, but within the context that a life sentence has been passed on a mandatory basis. We should not get confused about it.
Even though these are heinous crimes, those who call for minimum sentences always have in mind the main conspirator; the person who is the organiser. Often tactically there is a reason for prosecuting the minnows in a conspiracy such as trafficking or in drugs. It may well be that if minimum sentences are imposed, prosecutions will not be brought against, say, the girlfriend of someone who happens to be peripherally involved but just can be said to be a party to the conspiracy.
Every case is different. Judges are not irresponsible people with liberal inclinations. I assure your Lordships that often they do not have liberal inclinations. They do not pass light sentences. Trust them and do not introduce minimum sentences in any aspect of our criminal law.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, to think again about the analogy that he has made with drugs. I heard only today about someone who is fighting an accusation of bringing drugs into the country. The person was stacking pallets on a huge lorry and it turned out that instead of one of them containing floor tiles it contained a large consignment of drugs. Whether the case is proven or not, it is possible to envisage that the person who imported those drugs into the country may well be entirely innocent. It is a possibility that he may be guilty, but that is a matter for the courts.
However, the case is different when it concerns human beings. Children are not hidden in luggage unwittingly. People wittingly bring children into the country and then their little bodies are used for the gratification of others. It is different from the importation of drugs.
Viscount Bledisloe: As regards minimum sentences, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I am also greatly relieved to hear his assurance that the majority of Her Majesty's judges do not have Liberal Democrat tendencies.
At the risk of being criticised by a lawyer, perhaps I may make one or two technical points about the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Alli, addressed. They increase the penalty if the victim of a crime is aged under 18. Clauses 55, 57 and 59 deal with people who are not only under 18 but who the criminal in question did not reasonably believe to be that age. It seems to me somewhat strange that in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, the higher penalty would apply if someone turns out to be 17 and 11 months even though the person appeared to be well over that age. I mention that in case the noble Lord, Lord Alli, is minded to return to this at another stage. He might like to consider whether he should adopt that test.
I thought the noble Lord, Lord Alli, said in relation to the minimum sentence that judges could in exceptional circumstances depart from that. I do not find that in his amendment and do not know where that power would come from. I was also puzzled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who seems to have added an extra offence. She talked of people who were coming up for the third time. As I understand Amendment No. 322B it would apply to a person coming up for the second time not a third time, which is a rather different situation.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: One has to be concerned when my noble friend Lord Alli and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, are on the same side even though, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, pointed out, it would appear that they are united on a totally different amendment from that on which they thought they were united.
That is a mere detail in relation to this matter. As regards the first part of this group of amendments—that is, whether trafficking offences should be triable only on indictment—the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, will know that an arrangement was reached whereby we would write to noble Lords in relation to each one of these points. I do not know how that slipped through the net but I shall certainly deal with it.
Clauses 61 to 63 include adult and child trafficking. These are incredibly serious offences. However, one must recognise, for example, in relation to an adult trafficking case that one could be guilty of this offence by providing food or water to people who are being trafficked. The CPS is perfectly capable of deciding how serious that particular case is. But should the Crown Courts have a large number of those kinds of offences or should the CPS be able to make up their own mind whether to start in the magistrates' court or the Crown Court, remembering that the magistrates' courts are able to say, "We do not think that this is suitable for the magistrates' court; it can go to the Crown Court"? I think that there are adequate safeguards in relation to that. Judgments have to be made, recognising that these are very serious offences.

211
The same arguments apply to Amendments Nos. 322A, 326A and 330A tabled by my noble friend Lord Alli in which offences have to be tried on indictment even where the victim is under 18. If we think of the peripheral figure and of the protections of the CPS and the magistrates' court, in reality I do not think that there is much to worry about as regards that.
As regards the minimum sentence, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, raised a legitimate point and asked what is the experience so far in relation to sentencing. I am told that it is too early for any patterns to emerge at present. Is it right to have a minimum sentence here? We think not. Yes, in some cases there will be an appropriate place for a minimum sentence. The most recent one that has been introduced or is about to be introduced is in relation to firearms where there are existing penalties. The crime has been there for a long tine. A particular problem has arisen in the context of a pattern of sentencing over a period of time. It is because the problem has arisen that it is right that the legislature sends a particular signal. But we think that there is no need for that in this case.
All around the Committee noble Lords have indicated their total abhorrence in respect of which these offences are held. There is no reason to suppose that the courts would not take the same approach. Therefore, although we are fully appreciative of the motives behind the particular amendment, we believe that it is not appropriate. No doubt the person on the telephone to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, would have enthusiastically embarked on that. Therefore, we would oppose minimum sentences.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I apologise to the Committee. "For whom the bell tolls". It tolls for me! In response to the noble and learned Lord. Lord Falconer, perhaps I may make this point. When it comes to guns we shall put forward exactly the same arguments when that Bill goes through. One can envisage a circumstance when the police burst into a nightclub and a man hands over a gun to his girlfriend who is found in possession of a firearm. I cannot remember the minimum sentence in the Criminal Justice Bill.
A noble Lord: Five years.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: She would be liable to five years because her boyfriend has handed her a gun. It is always possible to think of circumstances where sentences of that length are completely inappropriate. She is in possession and is guilty. Probably, she would not be prosecuted but why should we prosecute her on a lesser scale if she is involved to that degree? I give due warning that we shall return to that on the Criminal Justice Bill.
Lord Skelmersdale: In the circumstances, if the noble Lord, Lord Alli, wants to come back on any of the points raised it would be right to do so before I decide what I shall do with my amendment.
Lord Alli: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his advice. I shall read carefully in Hansard what he said.
212
However, he may have created an alliance the likes of which this Chamber has not seen before. I shall take my copy of Hansard. I shall walk down the corridor and sit with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and we shall contemplate what our next move will be on Report. Do not be surprised to find on the Marshalled List an amendment tabled in our names.
Lord Skelmersdale: I little thought when I introduced a modest probing amendment about trial on indictment that it would excite quite as much comment as the amendments which were grouped with it in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alli. which I support. I support both sets of amendments. The second set reminded me of a replay of those clauses on rape which we discussed on the first day in Committee when noble and almost learned Lords battled somewhat weakly at moments against the rest of us. Today we have had a little more of the same.
The point I really want to make is that these children are often plucked from their native countries, removed to the UK, abused, violated and used for prostitution. Children are particularly vulnerable. Any sexual offence where children are the victims should meet with a more serious penalty. Therefore, we support Amendments Nos. 322A, 326A and 330A as an alternative to introducing a second offence of the trafficking of children, which would be sensible to avoid if we possibly can. There are quite enough words on the statute book already. If we can get away with fewer additional words, that is a good thing. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 322A and 322B not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 61 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Skelmersdale: The clause stand part debates on Clauses 61, 62 and 63 have been grouped together. I hope the Committee will forgive me if I take a little time on these three clauses. I think that we should have a general debate on the subject of trafficking. I should very much like to stress from the start that this is not because we feel that no offences should be included in the Bill dealing with the problem of trafficking into, within and out of the United Kingdom for sexual exploitation. This is clearly a massive problem on an international scale and it is vital that the Government introduce legislation to tackle it. We not only welcome it; we praise them for it.
However, we have received a significant amount of briefing from organisations which are concerned with the problem of trafficking, such as UNICEF. It has several concerns that this legislation tackles only sexual trafficking and not trafficking in general. On a further note, it feels that the Bill lacks provision for the victims of trafficking and that that may well prove to undermine the effect of the newer offences and result in a lack of successful prosecutions. In terms of combating trafficking, police in the United Kingdom have stated that there are two major obstacles to prosecuting traffickers: first, the lack of a specific law

213
against trafficking; and, secondly, a lack of victims willing to testify against their trafficker. Clauses 61 to 63 will remove the first obstacle, but only in relation to sexual offences. However, the second and more significant obstacle remains.
The Government, as I mentioned previously, have an obligation under Articles 34, 35 and 36 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to provide protection for child victims of trafficking. That matter was ignored by the noble and learned Lord at the time. Provision of such protection would protect children's rights, as well as being a crucial part of an anti-trafficking strategy. Furthermore, it has been shown that the four countries that provide the most comprehensive protection for victims of trafficking are the same countries as have the most successful records for prosecuting traffickers.
I take the noble and learned Lord's point in his letter of 24th February to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that trafficking of children for non-sexual exploitation is outside the scope of the Bill. However, in this Chamber we have the opportunity which is denied in another place to alter the Long Title of the Bill. That is why we begin our Committee stages with a Motion to postpone the Long Title. Were the Long Title to include simply the trafficking of children, that would bring it within the scope of the Bill. Naturally, that would also require either a new clause or substantial amendments to Clauses 61 to 63. Do I see a frisson of horror piercing across the faces of Ministers? None the less, there would be the obvious advantage of implementing Articles 34, 35 and 36 of the convention without further delay.
I must be fair and say that there is also an obvious disadvantage. The Government's declared aim of gathering all the law on sexual offences into one Act of Parliament would be diluted. In fact, by their own admission this afternoon, that is already diluted because they are still studying the law in connection with prostitution. If the noble and learned Lord resists my proposal, will he at least give a commitment that the Government intend to legislate on the non-sexual part of the trafficking of children?
Furthermore, there is no doubt that the Government need to implement safeguards for victims entering the United Kingdom and to ensure that no child is returned to his country of origin, unless that is in his best interest. That needs to include the training of immigration officials so that they can recognise the victims of trafficking.
I have already referred to West Sussex Social Services, which deals with a large number of trafficked children due to its close proximity to Gatwick airport. It has used its knowledge to design an "at risk" profile for children entering the country. The profile highlights typical attributes of one group of victims of trafficking. A pilot programme run at Gatwick airport proved successful. If an immigration officer had reason to believe that the child was a victim of trafficking he referred the child to social services. Upon referral, social services were alerted that the child was suspected of being a victim of trafficking and the care and protection then afforded was
214
determined accordingly. The Government should place on record their commitment to the assessment and roll out of such schemes.
It is essential that social services staff also receive training on trafficking, the way in which a child can be controlled by the trafficker and how the child can be protected while within the care of social services. Trafficked children suffer horrendous abuses even before they are sexual exploited, as traffickers use various forms of physical, sexual and even drug abuse to keep the child terrified and under control.
Another point is that of specialist accommodation with supervision to stop traffickers snatching back their victims. There are occasional safe houses. West Sussex Social Services has one. It is a beacon project but may be closed down due to lack of funding. The possible closure reflects the need for social services to receive central government funding in order to cater specifically for the needs of trafficked children. Victim protection measures must include a period of reflection when he or she is granted leave to remain in the United Kingdom while his or her future options are considered.
I apologise to the Committee for speaking at such length on these important issues. But I believe that the Government should put on record their reaction to: first, what is happening in the Gatwick area; and, secondly, whether in the near future they intend to legislate on Articles 34, 35 and 36 of the United Nations convention.
Lord Monson: The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, talked of the horrors of trafficking in children when advocating his Amendment No. 322. I wholly agree with him, but Clauses 61 to 63 inclusive are not confined to children. In Clause 64, which is the interpretation clause, subsection (1)(a) refers to,
"an offence under this Part".
That is Part I of the Bill. This part contains numerous clauses which involve adults—for example, Clauses 56 and 58. So almost every clause in Part 1 of the Bill, which amounts to about 80 clauses, is included accidentally in Clauses 61 to 63 inclusive if indeed it is thought that trafficking is confined to children.
Lord Hylton: The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was quite right to draw attention to the omission in the Bill of trafficking for labour exploitation. I trust that it will soon become an offence. I know that the legislative programme is already very crowded, but I hope that the Government will not forget about that point.
However, on trafficking for sexual exploitation, I very much welcome the Government's intention to act decisively against it. That is shown by the way in which they have drafted Clause 61 and the next two clauses. It will. however, require the closest co-operation between immigration officers, police, Customs and Excise, the courts and the voluntary sector. The action needed will be over and above existing responsibilities of the department. Do the Government appreciate that, and will they provide significant extra resources?

215
I also welcome Home Office action in helping to organise and fund—although, so far, only for an initial six-month period—a safe house for trafficked adults, to be located in the region of south London. I have visited the housing association involved in that pioneer project and was well impressed by its approach to the problem. Of course, the numbers of trafficked women and children cannot be known, but they are significant. No doubt more individuals will come to light once it becomes known that exits are being provided from prostitution and pornography. The problems are not exclusive to central London, but are already cropping up in the suburbs and in other cities.
The situation for trafficked children appears less good. I appreciate that that is a matter for the Department of Health, but I trust that the noble and learned Lord will be able to answer for that department, as I gave notice of this question to his office. For some years past, the main burden of unaccompanied children arriving at Gatwick and Heathrow, some of whom have been trafficked, has fallen on West Sussex social services, as has been mentioned.
Although some children have disappeared from its care. a safe house has been provided, from which disappearance is much less likely. However, I understand that there is some danger that that house may have to close. Can the Government shed light on the up-to-date situation? I gather from a parliamentary reply from the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews reference number HL 2530—that a proposal has been tabled to close the safe house and replace it with training and support for carers for young people at risk of trafficking. Does that mean that they will be placed with foster parents? If those young people are to be fostered only in West Sussex, will they not require almost 24-hour police protection?
If, on the other hand, the children are to be dispersed nationally, there will still be a need for great vigilance. Who is to decide what is the most prudent course of action? Surely, it should not be left to one committee of one county council to decide such a matter. Care and protection of trafficked people—whether children or adult—is properly a central government responsibility.
On Second Reading, I urged that the burden should not fall largely on local authorities, which may be hard-pressed for many different reasons. Will the Department of Health provide for protection and care of trafficked children, wherever that is needed? Will it provide for better training of social workers about trafficking, and for counselling for child victims? Those things are necessary if intelligence is to be gained about the operation of traffickers and if evidence is to be given against members of very tough criminal gangs.
Both adults and children need a period of calm and time for quiet reflection before they can be expected to provide either intelligence or evidence. Sweden, Italy and the United States of America all provide for such reflection periods—usually for six months or longer. They are reaping the benefits in the form of improved conviction rates for traffickers. Customs and cultures vary between the various countries of origin. In some
216
cases, it may also be necessary to arrange protection for the families of trafficked people in their home countries to secure evidence in Britain.
As the noble and learned Lord did not mention the matter on Second Reading, will he tell the Committee what is the Government's policy about reflection periods? I am sure that he will acknowledge that that will involve extra costs for the important purpose of catching and convicting traffickers.
Finally, I ask the Government urgently to consider the evidence from police forces—for example, Bristol and Nottingham which has been accepted by voluntary organisations, that children aged from 13 to 17 are being trafficked from city to city within England. That can include English children. There are thus domestic as well as international aspects to that exploitation.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: I should like briefly to reinforce the points made by my noble friend Lord Hylton and by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. The Minister will recall that when the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and I came to see him, we raised the issue of West Sussex social services and the question of reflection periods. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, will recall that we have also had exchanges on the subject during Questions.
We should not be over-critical of West Sussex—an authority that, merely because of its proximity to Gatwick Airport, has had an unfair burden of responsibility placed on it. The problem is that any local authority close to an international airport is bound to have the lion's share of responsibility placed on it. Those extenuating circumstances mean that we must assist those authorities that are close to Gatwick and Heathrow when those circumstances arise.
In our discussion, the noble Lord showed considerable concern that so many children have simply disappeared from West Sussex and that we have no knowledge of where they have gone or what their fate was. I am sure that all noble Lords agree that once people have been placed in care, they should not disappear and we should not have no knowledge of their fate. Has it been possible to establish any more about the profiles of those children, their whereabouts and what happened to them? What can we learn from their disappearance? It is extremely worrying that, having been taken into a sanctuary, children should disappear in that way from any part of the United Kingdom. My noble friend Lord Hylton and I are concerned about the possibility that the provision that we are discussing might disappear from West Sussex and that the safe house provision might disappear altogether—we discussed that earlier today. Will the Minister share with us details about what provision will be made in future in West Sussex to look after those vulnerable children?
The second issue that my noble friend Lord Hylton raised was that of reflection periods. I have raised that separately with the Minister. We can learn from the experiences in Sweden and elsewhere—they have already been alluded to—in which the six-month

217
periods can be used as a way to track down the people who are responsible for organising the rackets that led to the trafficking of children. After all, our first priority should be to stop the trafficking.
Frightened children are unlikely to give information when they are picked up or taken to a safe house. They need time in which to stabilise and realise that there will be no retaliation against them and that long-term security will be provided for them. That is when the best information and intelligence is likely to be made available to us, and that information will enable us to break the circle that clearly operates from places such as west Africa and south-east Asia. That would allow us to end once and for all trafficking in vulnerable young human beings. Reflection periods are a good way forward. I hope that the Minister will not rule it out entirely and, if he cannot agree to it tonight, give it further consideration.
Another point that I wanted to mention was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and my noble friend. It concerns the extension of legislation to deal with non-sexual exploitation. Articles 34 to 36 of the UN convention have already been mentioned. I know from my discussions with the Minister that this is not the place in the Bill to make such a provision. However, it would be helpful to the Government and all those agencies that are rightly concerned about the use of children in any number of labour-intensive occupations and sweat-shops, where they are exploited in terms of employment. It would be useful to know that that is on the agenda and that the Government intend to deal with it in due course. I hope that he will take the opportunity this evening to say a few words about that.
8.15 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for providing us with an opportunity to hold this important debate.
I attended a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group for children, in which the director of the West Sussex safe house described her work to us. It was deeply concerning to hear how the children had often been terrorised and that they sometimes honestly believed that they were under some sort of spell and that, if they failed to do as they had been told, terrible things would happen to them. At the end of that meeting, the director of the establishment said that she was very concerned about the circumstances of returning children—or, when they reach the age of 18, adults—to their home country. I should appreciate an assurance from the noble and learned Lord I apologise for not giving him prior notice of this question—that there is proper liaison between the Home Office and such establishments about returning children to their home country. Perhaps he could do so before we reach the next stage. I know that a child should not be returned unless that is in their best
218
interests, but I understand that there is some concern that on occasion children are not returned when that is in their best interests.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I associate myself with the comments of my colleagues and thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for giving us the opportunity to make our points. Most of what I was going to say has been said, so I shall make one central point about coordination. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, pointed out how important it is that all the authorities work together to ensure, not only that they are identified when they enter, but that they are quickly allocated the right placement, that they are given the right kind of support. and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed out, that they do not then disappear. I refer particularly to children, as that is where my knowledge and interest lie.
The Minister may be aware that the Government have recently set up a project to look at the coordination of services to prevent illegal meat imports. I declare an interest as a member of the Food Standards Agency. The project looks at co-ordination between DEFRA, local authorities and the Food Standards Agency. If we can work so hard to ensure that illegal meat does not enter the country, we might work equally hard to ensure that children who enter the country illegally are cared for and co-ordinated to that high standard. I look forward to the Minister's response.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: This has been an extremely useful and informative debate on the Question of whether the clause should stand part. Obviously, the subject will continue to exercise us, as it has done over many years. I have much respect for noble Lords who have campaigned on all those issues, certainly during the years in which I have been involved with them at the Dispatch Box. I am aware that many noble Lords who contributed to the debate support strongly the introduction of more comprehensive legislation to tackle the appalling trafficking of people for sexual exploitation and labour exploitation generally.
Let us work through some of the issues raised. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, is not present, but he asked me to make plain that his absence is not through lack of interest or concern. He wishes the Committee to be aware that he shared the concerns that other noble Lords raised today. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his introductory comments, focusing on trafficking more generally, rather than on trafficking for sexual exploitation. He focused especially, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. did, on the support available for victims and the need to ensure that all services involved work well together, and, in particular, that they are led well by the Immigration Service.
The Government have a comprehensive strategy to deal with trafficking. We set it out very clearly in the White Paper Secure Borders, Safe Haven. That set out a four-pronged approach, which we said was needed, covering the creation of appropriate offences in legislation, enforcement, victim protection, and, perhaps

219
most importantly, the need for international cooperation. Only the first of those requires legislation, which is why the Government have acted quickly to include offences covering trafficking on to the statute book, first, in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, and now in this Bill. Provisions for victim protection and enforcement do not require legislation. We take the view that those measures should not be impeded by the progress of including those offences on the statute book.
The Immigration Service has a fundamental, critical role in combating trafficking of children. But, we argue, it must he seen in a multi-agency context. The Immigration Service has developed very close working relationships with social services and police, in locations including Heathrow, Gatwick and Dover, to identify children at risk and to ensure that they get help when most needed. A working group on unaccompanied children has been set up by the IND and the Department of Health. which are working together. It provides an active forum for social services and the Immigration Service to discuss identification and profiling issues. Furthermore, the Home Office has published a "toolkit" for practitioners in the field to help them identify and deal with trafficked victims. It offers guidance to, among others, immigration officers and the police on how to identify and deal with victims of trafficking. Although the recommendations are not obligatory, they are designed to raise standards.
Trafficking is a recent phenomenon. There is little hard evidence of the scale of the problem overall. There are various pieces of information of varying quality about adult and child trafficking. One of the key aims of the toolkit is to raise awareness of the issue of trafficking, so that police forces and social services recognise the warning signs. The best way of doing that is through that sort of awareness raising, rather than by making obligatory responsibilities that would place burdens on forces and local authorities in areas where there may be no trafficking problem.
Several members of the Committee rightly raised the issue of safe houses. As recently as last month, Beverley Hughes announced a pilot project. It focuses specifically on adult women in prostitution. That group has been targeted because there is no existing provision for them and they are recognised to be particularly vulnerable, on the basis of existing research on adult women. No such picture exists for child trafficking. It would be inappropriate to mix children with adult sex workers in a pilot scheme, and they are not included in the project.
Clear arrangements for children to be taken into local authority care already exist. They are set out, as the Committee will understand, in the Children Act 1989. That is in no way related to their giving evidence against traffickers. The provision of support and assistance to child victims of trafficking should be secured—directly or through specialist agencies—by local statutory services in response to identified needs. Child victims of trafficking are likely to need specific, specialist, well developed welfare services. As we all
220
understand, social services have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of such children, following an assessment of their circumstances.
Several noble Lords raised issues relating to the important work that West Sussex County Council undertakes by virtue of the fact that Gatwick Airport is within its boundary. West Sussex County Council is considering whether to close the safe house that it runs for trafficked children and replace it with training and support. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised concerns on that issue, as, I think, did the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. Understandably, they also raised the issue of the particular burden on West Sussex County Council.
The council is considering replacing its existing facility with training. Several noble Lords mentioned the importance of properly supporting training. It is also considering providing support packages for carers of young people assessed as being at risk of being trafficked. Obviously, it is for West Sussex County Council to decide how best to provide services for children in need in its area. It is closest to the problem and is most likely to understand its nature and extent.
Government funding is allocated to councils with social services responsibilities on the basis of the needs of their population. A weighted capitation formula is used to determine each body's fair share of available resources. It is for councils, working in partnership with the relevant local agencies and stakeholders, to determine their spending priorities on the basis of local needs.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: Can the Minister share with the Committee the number of children who have disappeared from care in West Sussex during the time that they were placed there? What does he know about their fate?
8.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord quite properly raised this earlier. I am not in a position from the Dispatch Box to give him that precise information. He has asked this question on other occasions. We have tried to supply as much information as possible.
Baroness Blatch: I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. What the noble Lord has just said is very serious. If the noble Lord, Lord Alton, had asked that question off the cuff today, as indeed he did, it would be entirely understandable for the Minister to say that he needed notice of the question and that he would seek the answer. But the noble Lord said that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, had asked for the information on a number of occasions. Is the Minister admitting that the department does not know, not just the number of children who have disappeared, but to where those children have disappeared, or their fate? Are we simply admitting that the children have disappeared and that we are not certain how many or to where?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Baroness is right to raise issues of concern. In this debate we are

221
looking and dealing with a whole range of general issues relating to trafficking. As I understand it, we have supplied information in the past. Of course, it is of great concern that a number of children have disappeared from the care of West Sussex County Council. Clearly that council has been involved, working closely with other agencies, in taking on its responsibilities and addressing the issues that, quite properly, have been raised.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry to press the point. The question is simple. Do the Government, West Sussex County Council or anyone know how many children have been taken into care and have disappeared? Are there any figures? If the answer is no, simply say, "No, we do not have the information and we cannot get it". If it is possible to obtain the information, the Minister should say that he will retrieve the information and let the Committee know.
Lord Hylton: Before the noble Lord replies, it seems to me that the Government should write to each Member of the Committee who has raised these points today. In addition to the points so far raised, they should say whether any of the children have been recovered in this country.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I appreciate the extreme concern that has been raised by Members of the Committee. Of course, I undertake to write to Members addressing the issues raised and to provide available information. I give that commitment.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: That would be helpful to the Committee. Following the meeting that we had at the Home Office, the noble and learned Lord provided some information at that time about the numbers. I want to put that on the record. My question is: do we have any further information about whether any additional children have disappeared? We are talking about approximately 70 children. The real point made by my noble friend, supporting the point made by the noble Baroness, is: what do we know about what has happened to the children? What can that teach us now about what to do about trafficked children? We cannot just lose 70 children who were in our care and learning nothing.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord is right. He will also appreciate that I was not privy to the discussions that he had with my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. Obviously, we shall continue to keep the noble Lord updated. That must be right. The noble Lord is also right that we should learn from this, as, no doubt, West Sussex County Council is learning a great deal from its experiences to date because it has an important responsibility.
Turning now to the point that I was making about support for victims, the whole point of the pilot project for adults, to which I referred, is to give women a safe environment in which they can make informed decisions about co-operating with authorities and
222
whether to give evidence and intelligence about traffickers. It is not a simple trade-off; namely, granting exceptional leave to remain in return for evidence that might act as an inducement. In some circumstances that might be unlawful and entirely inappropriate.
There have been calls today for an automatic reflection period for victims of trafficking. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in particular, made that point. The pilot project for adults includes a period to enable women to make an informed decision on whether to co-operate with police. Children have different considerations and will not be returned to their countries of origin unless robust arrangements have been put in place for their safety.
Obviously this is a difficult and highly sensitive area. It is true that the Government have consistently rejected proposals for a statutory reflection period for adults or children because we think that that is inflexible. Furthermore, in some circumstances it could act as an incentive for trafficking. We continue to be aware of and concerned about some of those approaches.
The police are already engaged in major operations to tackle traffickers. Alongside legislation, we have already put in place enforcement structures to support those operations. The Reflex task force co-ordinates intelligence and operations against trafficking and smuggling. Using intelligence to mount proactive operations can help to avoid an onus being put on victims to provide testimony, in recognition of the fact that often they are too intimidated to do so. The current high-profile Operation Maxim, which involves joint police and Immigration Service operations against trafficking in London, shows a high level of commitment to tackling this evil and exploitative crime.
I hope that, with the exception of some of our exchanges on West Sussex County Council, I have assured noble Lords, and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that these new offences are much needed. I hope, too, that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their opposition to Clauses 61 to 63 standing part of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked about trafficking for purposes other than sexual exploitation. The noble Lord rightly deserves a response to his question. Work is in progress on developing an offence of trafficking for labour exploitation. As yet no legislative vehicle has been identified for taking that forward, but it is very much work in progress. We recognise the importance of the point made by the noble Lord, but as I am sure he will appreciate, it is outside the scope of the Bill we are now considering.
I hope that I have been able to address all the issues and concerns that have been raised. We recognise the seriousness and the sensitivity of this area. The Government have a policy and a strategy to tackle these difficult issues and of course we are extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this

223
discussion and who continue to contribute to ensuring that this policy is taken forward with maximum political support.
Lord Monson: Further to a question I raised a few minutes ago, can the noble Lord kindly confirm that the clauses we are discussing, Clauses 61, 62 and 63, embrace the trafficking of adults and are not confined to the trafficking of children, as some noble Lords seem to imagine?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for omitting to respond to his point. I can confirm that he is absolutely right.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 [Trafficking within the UK for sexual exploitation]:
[Amendments Nos. 323 and 324 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 325 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 325A to 326B not moved.]
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Trafficking out of the UK for sexual exploitation]:
[Amendments Nos. 327 and 328 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 329 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 329A to 330B not moved.]
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clause 64 [Sections 61 to 63: interpretation and Jurisdiction]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroommoved Amendment No. 330C:
Page 29, line 20, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble and learned Lord said: I should make it clear that this is a probing amendment. As is explained at the start, this clause concerns the jurisdiction of the criminal courts of England and Wales and Northern Ireland, but not those of Scotland. I observe in passing that Clauses 61 to 63 are included in Part 1 of the Bill, and it is made plain by Clause 127(1) and (2) that this part extends to England and Wales and, in part, to Northern Ireland. The provisions do not extend to Scotland. That is clear from the provisions of Clause 127(3) which provide that only Part 2, with certain exceptions, and Part 3 extend to Scotland.
The effect, however, of Clause 64—in particular subsection (1)(e)—is to provide for anything done outside England and Wales and Northern Ireland. Paragraph (e) refers specifically to those two parts of the United Kingdom even though Clauses 61 to 63 extend to actions which arrange or facilitate trafficking into the United Kingdom, which could be anywhere within the United Kingdom: trafficking within the United Kingdom, which could be in Scotland; or trafficking out of the United Kingdom, which could be done from Scotland. Those are to be offences by virtue of having been committed outside
224
England and Wales and Northern Ireland. None of the offences listed in Clause 64(1)(b), (c) and (d). of course, affects the criminal law of Scotland.
The matter goes further because Clause 64(2) applies to anything done in the United Kingdom by a body incorporated under the law of a part of the United Kingdom—that is to say it encompasses a company incorporated under the law of' Scotland and an individual to whom subsection (3) applies. That of course extends to a British citizen. The word "British" appears throughout.
I fully understand and support the thrust of Clauses 61 to 63. It is intended to deal with an international problem which affects the whole of the United Kingdom and extends beyond its boundaries. I am concerned about the way in which the matter is to be dealt with by the criminal courts. In normal circumstances, where conduct is carried out within a part of the United Kingdom which has its own system of criminal justice, the courts there are seized of that matter—that is to say, it is perfectly possible for conduct of a kind which would fall within, for instance, Clause 62 to be carried out by a person who is resident in Scotland and who arranges or facilitates travel within Scotland by a person with the intention set out in the clause.
As I understand it, the effect of Clause 127. combined with Clause 64(1)(e), would make that an offence which would be justiciable not before the Scottish courts but before the courts of England and Wales or of Northern Ireland. The Committee will understand that the Scottish courts have their own system of criminal law and, indeed, of evidence in relation to that criminal law.
It would appear that what has happened is that what is sometimes called the "nationality principle" has been used to extend the criminal jurisdiction of the English and Northern Irish courts in a manner that I find unique. I may be corrected on this. I have always thought that offences which are intended to be dealt with on a United Kingdom basis and to extend to conduct abroad by British citizens or, indeed, by companies incorporated under the law of any part of the United Kingdom, would be dealt with according to where that conduct took place by the particular courts within the United Kingdom where that conduct took place. The noble and learned Lord will be aware that there are quite a number of cases in which Scotland has, as it were, been part of the criminal jurisdiction process by which such offences are dealt with in the United Kingdom.
I note that Clause 127(5) provides, in relation to the Scotland Act 1998, that,
"this Act is to be taken to be a pre-commencement enactment".
If that be so, I ask myself what would normally be done in a situation such as this. where we are dealing with what is, in effect, an international problem to he dealt with by the criminal courts in the United Kingdom. In the normal case, one would find that the offence created would extend to persons who commit an offence anywhere in the United Kingdom. As a result. the relevant conduct would be determined by the

225
courts which would initially be seized with jurisdiction over that person. One would use the nationality principle for the conduct by a British citizen abroad who could be brought to book in any of the courts within the United Kingdom which have criminal jurisdiction.
Taking the matter further, I am certainly aware of circumstances in which, for instance, in a Bill which extends only to England and Wales, there may be an undertaking that complementary Scottish legislation will be brought forward to run parallel with the provisions for the similar offences in England and Wales or, indeed, in Northern Ireland. That is not apparently what is in mind. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will let me know whether it is intended that the Scottish Parliament should pass similar provisions for offences of the character which are set out in Clauses 61 to 63 in order to enable the Scottish courts to have a similar jurisdiction to that which has been accorded the courts in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
I think I have made it abundantly clear what my concern is. What appears to be done here is to arrogate to the English courts and the courts in Northern Ireland conduct which was not carried out within the boundaries of their jurisdiction by use of the subsection to which I draw attention and in a way which, so far as I can discover, is perhaps not necessarily unique but certainly unusual. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will let me know about that. In circumstances in which one is dealing with the nationality principle, I find it very strange indeed that it has not been thought appropriate to bring within the content of Part 1 of the Bill offences which would apply to all the criminal jurisdictions within the United Kingdom but to only two out of the three. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: This gives me an opportunity to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom. There is confusion in the Bill about the way in which it will be enacted vis-à-vis the different jurisdictions. I raised that at an earlier stage and was promised a reply to a particular question.
For the purposes of our debate, we need clarification on whether this is a reserved matter, because that is pertinent to where one goes from here. If it is not a reserved matter, it raises one set of questions; if it is a reserved matter, it raises a different set of questions. One way or another, the matter will have to be resolved and there must be a proper understanding about the way in which the Bill will work in practice.
It seems strange that the Bill refers to the word "British" and even to the words "United Kingdom", yet this clause refers to only three parts of the United Kingdom—
"England and Wales and Northern Ireland".
226
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, who has very ably spoken to his particular amendment. However, there is a wider issue to he resolved once and for all—the way in which the Bill will be enacted vis-à-vis the different jurisdictions.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, for raising this matter and for giving me notice in writing some time ago about this provision. It is important, so I shall take a tiny bit of time to explain it. I shall also answer the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
Trafficking is defined in Clauses 61 to 63 as arranging or facilitating travel for the purpose of committing a relevant offence anywhere in the world. Clause 64(1)(e), which this amendment would remove, is needed because the relevant offence may be committed anywhere in the world. It explains what a relevant offence means when it is committed outside England, Wales or Northern Ireland.
I understand that the noble and learned Lord has concerns over the extent of the offences as they apply to Scotland. However, by removing the paragraph he also casts doubt on the scope of our trafficking offences as they apply abroad. I understand the essence of his concern. The Bill does not apply to Scotland—he is right about that. The criminal law is a devolved matter to be dealt with by the Scottish Parliament. "And yet", he is saying, "you could have an offence that was completely Scottish in every single respect that could be tried in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. Is that right?" That is the question that he is posing by his amendment.
As drafted, it would be an offence for a person in London to organise for a person to be trafficked to Nigeria to be forced into prostitution. Clause 64(1)(e) ensures that that is still an offence even though the victim will be forced into prostitution in Nigeria rather than in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. Removing the provision would prevent that from happening, which nobody would want.
As regards the specific position of Scotland and trafficking, the situation is complicated, but I do not see a problem with the provision remaining. Although it is true that the provision gives English, Welsh and Northern Irish courts jurisdiction over acts carried out anywhere in the UK, it is likely that, where appropriate, any acts carried out in or in relation to Scotland would be tried by the Scottish courts under their own trafficking provisions. Those provisions are contained in Section 22 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003, which stipulates in Scottish law that it is an offence to traffic someone into, out of, or within the UK for the purposes of exploiting them in prostitution or pornography. In keeping with our offences, that carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.
Like our offences, the Scottish offences take jurisdiction over acts committed anywhere in the UK and over acts committed extraterritorially by UK nationals and companies incorporated in the UK.

227
Therefore, the Scottish Parliament has adopted what the noble and learned Lord rightly described as a not very common approach. I cannot say whether it is unique. In practice, that means that we would expect prosecutors from both sides of the border to liaise as to the most appropriate place for a prosecution, taking into account where the act took place, where the defendant lives, where witnesses live and, as the noble and learned Lord will know, the usual sorts of issue as to where the appropriate jurisdiction lies.
So I entirely appreciate the concerns of the noble and learned Lord. He is right in his analysis of the legal position in relation to the Bill. However, in saying that, I am referring to his bare analysis and not to some of the adjectives that were occasionally applied. As there is this complementary provision under Scottish law, produced by the Scottish Parliament, the problem would be dealt with in practice.
Trafficking is an issue of international concern and extensive jurisdiction is essential for us to be able to address the problem effectively. It is right that in this climate of devolution the Scots have their own comprehensive legislation to tackle it also, but we must ensure that the UK as a whole is able to tackle this most abhorrent example of exploitation and abuse. I
228
hope that that helps to put the noble and learned Lord's mind at rest and that it specifically answers the noble Baroness's questions.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I am very grateful to the Minister for his reply. It is perhaps unfortunate that it could not have been made plainer that Scotland was excepted from the scope of Clause 64(1)(e). That might be a way through. Of course I did not intend to press the amendment. I was well aware of the much more general intention of the provision. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Administering a substance with intent]:
[Amendment No. 331 not moved.]
Clause 65 agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at three minutes before nine o'clock.

  House of Lords: Video-conferencing Facilities
  House of Lords: Video-conferencing Facilities
  Prison Suicides
  Prison Suicides
  Al Muhajiroun
  Al Muhajiroun
  Homeless Households: Temporary Accommodation
  Homeless Households: Temporary Accommodation
  Cyprus: Accession to EU
  Cyprus: Accession to EU
  Boris Berezovsky
  Boris Berezovsky
  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
  Seafarers' Welfare: ILO Provisions
  Seafarers' Welfare: ILO Provisions
  London Underground PPP
  London Underground PPP
  Disability Legislation
  Disability Legislation
  Leonard Cheshire Foundation: Disability Access Report
  Leonard Cheshire Foundation: Disability Access Report
  SARS
  SARS
  Iraq: Antiquities
  Iraq: Antiquities
  Unemployment
  Unemployment