Sitting of 19 May 2003

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

    Iraq
    Harry Cohen: If she will make a statement about cultural objects recently stolen from Iraq. [113826]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): The Government deplore the criminal looting and theft of Iraq's cultural heritage. The treasures belong to the Iraqi people and form a vital part of their democratic future. With other countries, we are engaged in a range of measures to safeguard against further theft, to see the return of stolen artefacts and to develop an international database of stolen items. We also support domestic legislation, introduced by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), to create a new criminal offence of dealing in stolen treasure.
    Harry Cohen: I welcome that response, but the Secretary of State will be aware that the director of the British Museum, Neil MacGregor, wrote in the New Statesman this week that he frantically telephoned No. 10, the Secretary of State for Defence and herself before the war to say that measures should be in place to protect Iraq's cultural heritage. He said that the response was nothing in particular and his calls did not lead to any action. Will the Secretary of State give the House an account of the response? Can we now have a co-ordinated worldwide effort to recover the artefacts? Has she spoken to her US counterpart about US citizens, including soldiers, who may have stolen these items? Could they be prosecuted under UK law?
    Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for his continuing interest in this important issue. Having read the director's interview, rather than the authored piece in the New Statesman, I simply do not recognise the attributed comments from the many conversations that I have had with him, or from the collaboration with the Government that he has so fulsomely praised. Yes, there is an international effort to achieve the restitution of stolen artefacts, to repair the destroyed treasures and to support the Iraqi teams in Baghdad and other parts of
    668
    the country to restore the cultural heritage. We are wholly committed to that purpose and we will do everything necessary to achieve it. As part of that effort, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for undertaking to ensure that a new draft resolution under discussion includes proper protection, in the event of sanctions being lifted, for stolen and looted treasure.
    Mr. Boris Johnson: In view of the heavy lobbying before the war by powerful organisations representing American collectors for what was euphemistically called a "less retentionist" policy towards treasures in Iraq—and given the vital importance of the treasures in rebuilding the Iraqi tourist industry after the war—what steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that we have a policy of 100 per cent. retention of Iraq's treasures, whether stolen or not?
    Tessa Jowell: I hope that the House can unite in affirming that artefacts from the Baghdad, Basra or Mosul museums are the property of the Iraqi people. Where, by whatever route, they have been removed from Iraq—either before or since the conflict—they should be returned. At the international level, action is being taken, particularly through UNESCO, to secure that outcome. Measures are being taken to produce a database of stolen artefacts, and we shall soon have in place domestic legislation that closes an outstanding loophole and makes dealing in stolen or looted artefacts a criminal offence.
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: What protest has the Secretary of State made to the US Administration about the way in which American troops burst into the great museum in Baghdad, making its contents a prey for looters, organised art thieves and—if precedents following the second world war and the invasion of Grenada are anything to go by—American troops? If that is George Bush's new world order, what hope is there for civilised values?
    Tessa Jowell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. In fact, the account of the events that led up to the looting of the Baghdad museum is slightly different from the account that he provides. The account by Donny George, the director of the Baghdad museum, sets out three material facts. First—it is worth recording this—something like 90 per cent. of the 170 artefacts taken from the museum were removed for safekeeping before the action started. Secondly, there was clear evidence of theft by organised criminal gangs of a number of the remaining treasures. Thirdly, of course, there was the despicable looting, and it will be for history to judge whether sufficient steps were taken to protect the museum during those critical days. We are now where we are, though, and I hope that the House will accept the assurances that I have given and the undertakings, given through UNESCO, that the world is united in its determination to repatriate stolen artefacts and to support the Iraqis in the restoration of their cultural heritage—a crucial part of a free Iraq in the future.
    Nick Harvey: I welcome the steps that the Government have taken, and in particular the

    669
    positive response to the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), but will the Secretary of State pursue further her dialogue with the Treasury about our Customs precautions? In particular, will she urge officials to contrast the steps being taken in America, where a lot of information is coming from the Government about the import or smuggling of cultural artefacts, with our own precautions, as it seems to be assumed that passengers are responsible for acquainting themselves with the regulations? More vigilance is needed.
    Tessa Jowell: We will pursue the case for vigilance in any areas where it is shown that loopholes still exist, and I have written to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to raise precisely the importance of vigilance by Customs and Excise in the event of attempts to import stolen artefacts into this country. Similarly, the British Art Market Foundation and the trade organisations have promised their unstinting collaboration, but where loopholes exist we will seek to close them.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What is the truth or otherwise of reports that the 6,000-year-old ziggurat at Ur has been sprayed with paint? Is not the uncomfortable truth that, whereas British forces have been very disciplined, American forces have often behaved like yobs?
    Tessa Jowell: We are in the process of securing reports and feedback from those on the ground about what has happened, not only to Baghdad museum but to other museums and sacred sites. An official from my Department is already based in the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance to help to ensure that that co-operative assessment is undertaken. This is a matter of great concern to many in the House, and I will take all the steps that I can to ensure that, as more information becomes available, I keep the House informed.
    Mr. Hugo Swire: I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests. The Secretary of State has talked about establishing a database. Given the fact that the ministerial advisory panel on illicit trade recommended, back in December 2000, that there should be such a database and given the fact that, in March 2001, that was accepted by the then Minister of State, does she not feel that her Department could have done something more between then and now? Can she assure the House that she has sufficient resources and the determination to see this through? Does she not believe that if she had done something earlier we could have done something to avoid this cultural catastrophe in the aftermath in Baghdad?
    Tessa Jowell: No, I do not think that the action that the hon. Gentleman outlines would have prevented what Neil MacGregor describes as a catastrophe in Baghdad. Yes, I think that more progress should have been made in establishing the domestic database to which he refers, but we are in negotiation with UNESCO and the other countries represented in UNESCO to secure the establishment of an international database. I simply reiterate that we have moved very fast, both domestically and with other
    670
    countries, to take the necessary measures to safeguard the Iraqi treasures leaving Iraq and to ensure that we have the necessary mechanisms in place to maximise the chances of their being returned if they turn up here or in any other country that is a member of UNESCO.
    Kevin Brennan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a cross-party group of Back Benchers recently visited the British Museum to see some of the Iraqi treasures that it acquired at a period when the policy may have been less retentionist and that, during that visit, the director of the museum expressed particular concern about the lack of co-operation with UNESCO from the Americans in Iraq, especially their refusal to allow access to the site at Ur? Is UNESCO now being granted full access to all cultural sites in Iraq?
    Tessa Jowell: I am not aware of any obstacles to UNESCO's access, but as I said earlier, the situation is constantly developing as more facts become clear. I shall ensure that I keep the House informed of both problems and progress, as they occur.

    Lottery Funding
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: What proportion of lottery funding has been spent on projects and good causes in the constituency of Chesham and Amersham in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [113827]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): The following figures are the amounts awarded for the hon. Lady's constituency in each of the last five years. In 1999, the amount was £1.775 million; in 2000, it was £423,000; in 2001, £1.272 million; in 2002, £398,000; and in 2003, £380,000. That puts her constituency 134th from the bottom of the per capita table of constituencies.
    Mrs. Gillan: I thank the Minister for that answer, but is he aware that smaller charities in Chesham and Amersham find increasingly that bureaucracy and the length of time that it takes to leap through the hoops set up by the various distributing bodies are a positive disincentive to applying for lottery funding? Will he consider our proposal, which would give a fair deal to smaller charities by allowing players to specify a local charity on their lottery ticket, or by turning it into a gift token that could be given to a local charity of the player's choice? I hope that the Secretary of State is giving the Minister the inspiration that he needs to answer my question.
    Mr. Caborn: I do not need inspiration, as it was my right hon. Friend's idea and we put it out for consultation some months ago. Indeed, we have pronounced on the matter on several occasions and we shall report to the House in due course. While I am on my feet, I can point out that the hon. Lady's constituents did far better under Labour than under the previous Administration; between 1995 and 1998, the figures were considerably lower.
    Mr. John Whittingdale: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's

    671
    remarks, but does he accept that one of the problems is that people purchasing lottery tickets in Chesham and Amersham, as elsewhere, are losing confidence that the money for good causes will actually reach genuine good causes? Our proposal is that people should be able to indicate specific local charities, rather than the tick-box scheme that the Government were suggesting, so that people can have complete confidence that they know where the money is going. I hope that he will give that proposal some consideration.
    Mr. Caborn: We will give the proposal consideration, just as we have given consideration to the wide-ranging consultation and the responses to it. As I said, we shall report back, and I hope that hon. Members will engage in constructive debate. I think that all Members appreciate the institution of the lottery for the role that it plays, so I hope that we can have constructive dialogue and discussion about how to proceed when we make our report to the House.

    Libraries
    Mr. Anthony D. Wright: What action she is taking to encourage public lending libraries to open at times suitable for (a) working people and (b) parents of school age children. [113828]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): On 10 February, we published the first ever national strategy for public libraries, "Framework for the Future". The whole thrust of that strategy is that local authorities must ensure that they meet the needs of their local communities and that consultation takes place. Opening times are always a prime concern of users.
    Mr. Wright: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Norfolk county council has recently announced a package to increase access for working people at some libraries in the county, which is welcome. However, will he join me in condemning that same council for announcing the imminent closure of Bradwell parish council library, which will take away access not only for working people but for the elderly, the young and the disabled? Bradwell parish council has set up a steering committee in an attempt to reopen the library, but the county council appears constantly to be moving the goalposts. For example, the county council has informed us that it has removed not only the computers and books but the shelving, too, leaving the building an empty shell.
    Will my right hon. Friend join me in making a last-minute plea—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Caborn: I answered a similar question from my hon. Friend previously. I must repeat what I said then: the responsibility for the operations of libraries is with the local authority. We have looked at the case that he has raised, and it is not in contravention of its legal responsibilities. We are trying, however, through "Framework for the Future", to make sure that we can respond to the needs of his constituents and others in
    672
    ensuring that the library service is flexible and meets their requirements. I hope that the county council will revisit its decision.
    Mr. Peter Luff: Does the Minister agree that public lending libraries now do a great deal more than lend books? Evesham public library, for example, is home to one of the Learn Direct centres, which is intended to help mothers of school age children who may wish to return to work and retrain. Against that background, will he do all that he can to ensure that county councils and other library authorities throughout the country understand the importance of offering the kind of hours that enable such people to attend?
    Mr. Caborn: I very much agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, which is absolutely true. Many local authorities have taken the opportunity offered by the ideas in "Framework for the Future" and are using them extremely creatively. For example, in Stockton-on-Tees, the library service is helping to break the cycle of offending by working with inmates and their families on reading skills. That is very important in enabling them to come back into society. A number of libraries are now opening on a Sunday, too, to fit in with the communities that they serve. Many good examples exist, and I hope that libraries examine those, as they are doing through the various professional bodies, so that we have not only libraries in the conventional sense but major resource centres for the communities that they serve.

    Arts Funding
    Mr. Peter Pike: What support her Department is giving to arts centres and theatres in smaller towns in the north-west. [113829]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): My hon. Friend knows that this Government have done more to support the arts in this country than any of our predecessors. He also knows that Arts Council England North West will see its overall allocation increase from £20.8 million to £28.4 million by 2005–06, which is an increase of 37 per cent. That new money will benefit a wide range of artists, organisations and communities across the region, including those in Burnley.
    Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he accept, however, that it is important that not only big cities but small non-unitary authorities, such as Burnley, have arts centres and theatres? We find it difficult to preserve what we have: an excellent theatre, the Mechanics, and the Mid-Pennine Arts Centre. With small budgets, non-unitary authorities have extreme difficulties in that regard.
    Dr. Howells: Yes, there is a problem, and it is often a problem of knowing how to frame bids and having the aspirations to bid in the first place. Knowing what support is available, and ensuring that the expertise exists to help excellent small theatres such as those in my hon. Friend's constituency to make those bids is a real problem, which we recognise. We are making sure that

    673
    the organisation is aware of those deficiencies in some areas and that it does all that it can to help people to make those bids.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: Will the Minister go further and share my concern that in many places, in small towns such as Macclesfield and Burnley and the surrounding areas of those towns, a huge wealth of artistic talent exists that is not able to display itself because of the lack of adequate theatres to put on amateur productions? Cannot the Government act directly, or through the lottery, to provide more funds for the establishment of adequate theatres, so that the United Kingdom can display its huge wealth of talent?
    Dr. Howells: That was a passionate defence of some of the excellent theatres in the north-west. I remind the hon. Gentleman, however, that there has never been as much money for theatres, whether in the regions, in rural areas, in small towns or big cities, as is available at the moment. Combined with that is the fact that many of those theatre companies have recognised that they have a great task in trying to tap the talent, about which he has spoken so eloquently, in our schools and in our communities generally. That is where much of the money is being directed. It is not simply about being able to put on great performances in theatres, or even about the upkeep of the theatres themselves. It is also about trying to nurture that talent so that the next generation of actors, directors and writers can emerge. If we do not do that, we kill great theatre at birth.
    Geraldine Smith: Will my hon. Friend offer his full support to Friends of the Winter Gardens theatre in Morecambe, who have been campaigning for years to restore the town's theatre? Does he accept that it is important for a seaside resort to have a theatre? I know that he is aware of the Winter Gardens theatre, because he visited it when he visited Morecambe recently.
    Dr. Howells: The theatre is a magnificent building and has been kept in that state mainly by the work of volunteers. I know that my hon. Friend has been active in that respect. The theatre is also in a unique position, with a magnificent view across to Lakeland. Nevertheless, all funding agencies have to be extremely careful about the allocation of large amounts of capital money, in view of the record of buildings being financed in the absence of plans to build up audiences and make performances sustainable. If the theatre in Morecambe could be rejuvenated in every sense, it could be one of the great attractions of a town that has been one of the north-west's great resorts over the years. I know that my hon. Friend is speaking to a great many people about how it can be part of a more holistic approach to redeveloping that resort, which she has the privilege to represent.

    Licensed Premises (Children)
    Dr. Brian Iddon: What recent discussions she has had with child welfare organisations about children's access to licensed premises. [113830]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): In March I convened two meetings with
    674
    children's organisations, including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Children's Society, and the police, to discuss children's access to licensed premises and the implications of the Licensing Bill. Officials from my Department held a further meeting with the relevant organisations. The outcome of those meetings was an agreed way forward on an issue that everybody regards as sensitive. That is reflected in the Bill as currently drafted, and also in the statutory guidance that will accompany the Bill. In practical and effective form, it achieves a means of protecting children from harm—one of the four key objectives of the Licensing Bill.
    Dr. Iddon: Traditionally, many political and social clubs, including Labour clubs in my constituency, welcome families with children on Sundays. I am sure my right hon. Friend knows that some of those clubs are in financial difficulty. Is she aware that the statement that she has just made will be welcomed by those clubs if it means that that tradition is not in jeopardy?
    Tessa Jowell: I can assure my hon. Friend that that tradition is not in jeopardy. It would be extraordinarily unlikely that, for any pub or club where there have not been any problems in the past, there would be any greater restriction on the terms of licensing in the future. I hope that he will be reassured by that.
    Mr. John Bercow: As a modern and socially liberal Tory, may I put it to the right hon. Lady that it is modernisation and social liberalism taken to absurd lengths to suppose that children should be allowed to enter licensed premises entirely unsupervised?
    Tessa Jowell: I think that the hon. Gentleman is making a long journey to cross the Floor of the Chamber. He will be welcome on the Government Benches whenever he chooses to join us.
    It seems that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the present situation. Any child of five or over can enter, unsupervised, any licensed premises as long as that child does not go into the bar area. Some of the absurdities of the existing regime that we are seeking to address include, for instance, the circumstance where a young child can go unsupervised into a pub and then be bought by an adult a gin and tonic, a whisky, or anything else that would be unsuitable to be consumed by a young child. Such instances do not happen more often because at present, and in future, admission of children into a pub is at the licensee's discretion.
    We have worked hard with children's charities and with the police to develop the right sort of statutory framework that addresses the need for different approaches in different circumstances. There needs to be a different regime to protect children in pubs or clubs in the middle of Soho, as opposed to children who may live next door to a country pub. The regime that we have proposed reflects precisely that discretion and that flexibility.
    Mr. Malcolm Moss: In the Licensing Bill as it stands, and as the Secretary of State has said, the presumption is in favour of allowing children of any age unaccompanied access to licensed

    675
    premises unless the licensee is either unwilling or unable to guarantee their protection from harm. Should it not be the other way round?
    Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman must understand that in the licence application the licensee must make it clear how he will protect children if they come into his pub or other licensed premises. In the statutory guidance, as I have already stated, we have proposed four different sorts of premises, ranging from those where there should be a presumption by the licensing authority that unsupervised children will not be allowed access, to those where there is an expectation that children will be welcome. It is precisely that sort of flexible approach that will ensure that children are properly protected.

    Press Complaints Commission
    Mr. Clive Soley: If she will make a statement on her meeting with the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission to discuss its work. [113831]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): I met Sir Christopher Meyer, the new chairman of the PCC, on 7 April, and we discussed a number of ways in which the PCC might improve self-regulation. Sir Christopher has recently announced a list of eight proposals, which I am glad to say broadly concur with the issues that we discussed, including areas for reform. He has made clear his open-mindedness on the case for reform and his wish to canvass opinion on that and other suggested areas for improvement.
    Mr. Soley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the efforts that she has made. Did she tell Sir Christopher that the PCC will continue to fail to inspire public confidence until such time as it changes the committee that writes the code so that we no longer have it made up of 100 per cent. newspaper employees? Secondly, does she agree that the commission should develop a proactive stance so that members of the public can begin to have a reasonable expectation that what they read in news columns will have at least some accuracy and some impartiality, with creative literature being kept to the comment columns?
    Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to him for his staunch and long-standing defence of press freedom, and for the way in which he has campaigned over many years.
    My discussion with Sir Christopher Meyer was broadly in the terms that my hon. Friend suggests. It took place within a context that recognises clearly that self-regulation is just that. The Government have no intention of seeking to interfere with the self-regulation of the press—that is a matter for the press—but in parallel with that, as my hon. Friend describes, is the importance of public confidence and trust in self-regulation. Sir Christopher took both those points seriously.

    Creative Partnerships Scheme
    Mr. Michael Clapham: What plans she has to extend the creative partnerships scheme. [113832]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): The creative partnerships programme is giving children and teachers in 16 pilot areas in England the opportunity to develop their creative talents by working on sustained projects with creative professionals. The programme has been warmly welcomed both by schools and the cultural community, and more areas are eager to join in. We have pledged to double the size of the programme by 2006, and investment in creative partnerships is set to grow from £25 million in the current year to about £50 million in 2005–06.
    Mr. Clapham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. As he knows, Barnsley is at the forefront in putting creativity at the very centre of the educational experience for children. May I very quickly tell him about three projects in my constituency? At Worsborough primary school, children are designing a learning environment extending from the classroom to the playground; at Hoyland, children are working with the Barnsley performing arts department to increase and improve communication; and at Springvale in Penistone, a multi-faceted approach has been taken in which children are working with film, sculpture and storytelling to explore the ideas and life of a man called Saunders, a 17th century mathematician from the area. That clearly shows that creativity at the centre of educational experience is worth while. Will my hon. Friend therefore work with the Department for Education and Skills to ensure that creativity is bedded down in the curriculum so that it can give all children the benefit of such experience?
    Dr. Howells: I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend is so enthusiastic about those projects, which are very important. I heard some sneers from the Opposition Benches as he spoke, but the creative industries in this country are responsible for hundreds of thousands of jobs and for earning billions of pounds of revenue. Opposition Members might sneer at that because they are living in the 19th century, not the 20th century. [HON. MEMBERS: "21st."] We are in the 21st century; they are not even in the 20th. Like my constituency, Barnsley has suffered enormously as a result of the decline of heavy industry, but is rebuilding its own future. It is doing much of that on the basis of creative industries. I congratulate teachers, pupils and parents in his constituency on embracing this great programme and taking it forward very successfully.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: What about some lessons in creative brevity?
    Dr. Howells: I was waiting for somebody to say that, but I did not think that it would be the hon. Gentleman. The cheap cracks are always the ones that get into the news, and I expect that that is why he made that one.
    John Mann: Bearing in mind the success of Barnsley, will my hon. Friend consider rolling out the

    677
    project to areas such as Bassetlaw, which are crying out to redress the balance in terms of the lack of creative input in schools over recent decades and could happily mirror the brilliant success of the partnership in Barnsley?
    Dr. Howells: I have no doubt that the brilliance of Yorkshire will carry that success forward out of Barnsley and into Bassetlaw.

    Olympic Games
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: If she will make a statement on the Government's policy on a London bid for the Olympic games. [113833]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I made a statement to the House last Thursday announcing the Government's wholehearted backing for an Olympic bid to bring the games to London in 2012.
    Mr. Wiggin: I welcome that and I think that we are all looking forward to a successful Olympic bid, but there will be huge opportunities across the rest of Britain, as countries competing in the Olympics will need training camps. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that those camps are spread across the UK? May I recommend Herefordshire and Worcestershire as excellent places where they may be situated?
    Tessa Jowell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Had he been in the House for my statement last Thursday, he would have heard me say that we want the whole country to benefit from the Olympics. One of the practical ways in which the whole country can benefit is to locate training camps in different parts of the United Kingdom for athletes before the games, which will benefit their communities afterwards.
    Mr. David Watts: May I inform my right hon. Friend that not all Members are jumping for joy at the idea of an Olympic bid? Many of us are concerned that areas such as the north-west will lose out because of the bid, so can she assure me that sports funding will be maintained in those regions during the course of the bid?
    Tessa Jowell: The opinion polling that the Government undertook before announcing the Olympic bid showed a wide measure of support, including in the north-west, for bidding for the Olympics. However, my hon. Friend has underlined the important point that although the games would be held in London they must be games for the whole United Kingdom. That is why, in our costing of the Olympics, we took care to ensure that, in addition to the development of elite facilities in London, all parts of the country would benefit from facilities for their grass-roots sports.
    Mr. John Greenway: May I reiterate the support of the Conservative party for the bid? Can the Secretary of State say anything further about the cross-party ministerial group that I suggested to her some weeks ago? Is she prepared to authorise briefings to
    678
    shadow Ministers about the bid, and when does she expect to introduce legislation specifically to provide for a new lottery game? If the House gave its support to such a game, that would demonstrate to the country and the world at large that our bid is a serious one.
    Tessa Jowell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We will introduce at the earliest opportunity legislation for a new lottery game, some details of which Camelot have announced today. The hon. Gentleman or one of his hon. Friends raised the issue of a cross-ministerial group with me on Thursday but I am sure that he accepts that in the intervening three days I have had a heavy reading load, provided by the Treasury, of 18 studies on the euro. However, as a matter of priority, I shall certainly turn my attention to the important issue of ensuring that cross-party support for the Olympic bid is maintained as much as possible.
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I am delighted that we are going ahead with the bid, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her decision. Given that we have the only royal harbour in the country and also have expertise in hosting world championship sailing events, can she assure me that she has already pencilled in Ramsgate for the sailing?
    Mr. Tony Banks: The sailing will be in the royal docks.
    Dr. Ladyman: In the event that the Secretary of State has not yet done that, how will decisions be made about the ancillary events? Will that be done behind closed doors or will there be an opportunity for the public to express their own ideas and for local communities to make bids?
    Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend, and am struck by the number of hon. Members who have world-class sailing facilities in their constituencies. I am sure that my hon. Friend will ensure that the facilities in his constituency are considered, when the time comes, as part of the array of Olympic facilities that will have to be put in place. He made an important point about the transparency of decisions, which will be an important part of ensuring that the games are not just for London but involve the constituents of right hon. and hon. Members across the country.
    Mr. Banks: Dream on.

    Libraries
    Helen Jones: What plans she has for improvements in library services. [113834]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): I note in passing that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) asks that the sailing should be in the royal docks.
    We want to help library services transform themselves to meet the needs of the public and prospective users in the 21st century. Many public libraries are developing new ideas and offer an excellent service. As I said earlier, we want to spread good practice. Public libraries now

    679
    offer computer and internet access for everyone, and are ideally placed to help deliver improvements in reading and other skills. As I said when answering an earlier question, they can be major resource centres for the communities in which they are located.
    Lynne Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. I acknowledge the progress that has been made, especially in providing internet access, but coming as I do from a town that had one of the first public libraries in the country, I still believe that libraries are primarily about books. Does he agree that owing to years of underinvestment, most of the book stock is in a very dilapidated and unattractive condition? What can be done to encourage more investment in providing a good book stock in libraries to encourage all the people who are attracted in to do more reading?
    Mr. Caborn: It is up to local authorities to dispense the moneys that are available. Some £780 million is invested annually into our library service, and it is incumbent on local authorities to make judgments on where that money should go. I accept what my hon. Friend says. However, within the resources that they have available, some libraries are trying to ensure that they present a first-class service—for example, by using the internet and other developments to access books that are out of publication. As I say, three-quarters of a billion pounds annually is invested into our library service.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Redundant Churches
    Mr. Tom Cox: How many redundant churches there are in the Greater London area. [113816]
    Second Church Estates Commissioner (Mr. Stuart Bell): Since 1969, a total of 131 churches have been declared redundant in the diocese of London, 72 in the diocese of Southwark, 27 in the diocese of Chelmsford and five in the diocese of Rochester.
    Mr. Cox: I note my hon. Friend's reply. In many parts of London—certainly in my constituency—there are religious groups that are extremely popular within our communities, but the sad fact is that it is often very difficult for them to find suitable premises to follow their beliefs and to develop their congregations. Will my hon. Friend stress to the Church Commissioners that instead of letting empty and redundant churches stay in that condition for long periods, they should offer them to our religious groups? That would be greatly appreciated by those groups, by their local communities and most certainly by the local Members of Parliament.
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will be happy to know that more than 900 former churches have been found new uses. More than two-thirds of those continue to serve the community by providing facilities for worship, social facilities, educational
    680
    opportunities or low-cost housing. Uses by another Christian body or for wider community purposes are generally regarded as the most suitable. I shall be happy to consider whether we can be helpful in that respect in my hon. Friend's constituency.

    Employment Tribunals
    Andrew Selous: If he will make a statement about the use of employment tribunals for clergy. [113817]
    Second Church Estates Commissioner (Mr. Stuart Bell): At present, the jurisdiction of employment tribunals does not apply to the majority of clergy, because they have the status of office holders in law and are not employees.
    Andrew Selous: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Can he give me an assurance that employment tribunals will not get dragged into ruling on doctrinal matters in disputes between clergy and churches? Can he also assure me that clergy will not have to stay in parishes where there has been a clear case of pastoral breakdown, which would be inappropriate both for the parish and for the clergy concerned?
    Mr. Bell: The question of pastoral breakdown is probably not for the Church Commissioners, but I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's question and view to the Archbishops Council. On the point about employment tribunals and any review of employment law, the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal took the view in the past that clergy were ecclesiastical office holders, not employees. We welcome the review under the auspices of the Department of Trade and Industry. The cure of souls in parishes and employment rights are not mutually exclusive, and the Church will do what it can to bring the two together.
    Mr. Ben Chapman: Employment tribunals are only one aspect of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that does not apply to the clergy. Many hon. Members believe that that should be corrected as soon as possible. When is the McClean committee, which the Archbishops Council set up, likely to report? Will the hon. Gentleman accept that many of us would like it to be soon?
    Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend knows that I pay close attention to those matters. I also take account of the campaign that he has maintained since 1997. The McClean committee will provide its conclusions soon; it has already been made a submission to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I am confident that we will reach some conclusions that take into account the unique role of a parish priest and employment rights and tribunals.
    David Taylor: I welcome my hon. Friend's answer. Does he agree that an excessively rigid contractual relationship for the clergy could damage the sense of vocation and duty that is so important to many ministers?
    Mr. Bell: That is certainly the case, and the Church is dealing with that problem through its review group and subsequently the Department of Trade and Industry.

  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE
  The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—
  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

    Turnout
    Kevin Brennan: What recent representations the Electoral Commission has received on voter turnout at elections. [113819]
    Mr. Peter Viggers: In conducting its statutory reviews of the conduct and administration of elections, the commission has received representations from a range of organisations, academics and individuals on turnout and what might be done to improve it.
    Kevin Brennan: Is the hon. Gentleman and the commission aware that on Wednesday, the Hansard Society is holding a seminar to examine the difference in attitudes between people who are interested in politics but do not watch "Big Brother" and those who watch "Big Brother" but have no interest in politics to ascertain whether there are any lessons on turnout in the fact that fewer people voted in the recent local elections than in many reality TV game shows? Do the Electoral Commission or the hon. Gentleman have any views on whether we have anything to learn from reality TV game shows in trying to improve turnout in elections?
    Mr. Viggers: An interesting question. In its statutory report on the 2001 general election, in which it tried to learn lessons from the turnout, the commission presented the view that the main responsibility for persuading the public of the relevance of voting must rest with politicians. They must make it interesting and attractive for individuals to vote.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: Before we follow the route of reality TV shows, in which one can vote once or 100 times for the same contestant, can we consider improving voter turnout through more traditional means, including postal votes and holding elections on other days such as Saturdays and Sundays and siting polling stations in non-traditional places such as supermarkets? Surely that would help improve the turnout, which was low in the recent Welsh Assembly elections.
    Mr. Viggers: Indeed, the purpose of the pilots that took place in local government elections is to test the way in which different voting systems can encourage turnout and thereby participation. The commission believes that changes in process have a role in making voting more convenient. However, it is important to be realistic about what that can achieve on turnout, given that many other factors have an impact on that.
    Mr. Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman draw to the Electoral Commission's attention the experiment in Chester-le-Street and Derwentside in the recent local elections? Turnout increased by 20 per cent. through a postal ballot. An experiment in electronic counting meant that the count was covered in less than half an hour. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the Electoral Commission evaluates the experiments?
    Mr. Viggers: The Electoral Commission will present its conclusions on the pilots that were held in the May elections. It will publish the results on 31 July.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my hon. Friend agree that the integrity of the electoral process is even more important than the turnout, and will he bear in mind that large-scale postal voting is open to abuse?
    Mr. Viggers: Obviously the risk of abuse is one factor that the commission takes into account, but there has been no evidence of widespread abuse.

    Postal Voting
    Martin Linton: What comparative research has been commissioned by the Electoral Commission on the levels of postal voting in (a) local and (b) parliamentary elections (i) in this country and (ii) overseas. [113821]
    Mr. Peter Viggers: The commission has examined levels of postal voting at local and parliamentary elections, and its report "Absent voting in Great Britain" was published in March. A copy has been placed in the Library. No detailed research into comparisons with overseas levels of postal voting has been undertaken, partly because the legal framework of postal voting varies significantly between countries.
    Martin Linton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since the publication of that report in March the May local elections have shown a dramatic increase in turnout, from around 30 per cent. to 50 per cent. in areas with all-postal ballots—including Derwentside, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones)?

    683
    Although the level of postal voting has nearly doubled, from about 4 per cent. to 8 per cent., there is scope for a far greater increase—in some countries it is over 30 per cent.—through the simple expedient of allowing people to vote wherever they are in the country on polling day, at a local post office.
    Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman has made some good points. There has been a significant increase in the uptake of postal voting since it first became available in Great Britain early in 2001. At the 2001 general election, the number of postal votes issued was almost double the number issued at the 1997 election, as the hon. Gentleman said—rising from less than 1 million to more than 1.75 million. At the 2002 local elections some 7.7 per cent. of the electorate cast their votes by post. That is almost double the proportion of such votes in England in the 2001 general election, and probably three times the proportion at the previous local elections.
    Mr. Steve Webb: I unreservedly welcome the greater availability of postal voting, but will the commission bear in mind that all postal ballots deny the electorate the opportunity to choose how to convey their votes? Some will want the privacy that they may not necessarily have in their own homes. Can my hon. Friend assure us that the commission will not just take account of a higher turnout?
    Mr. Viggers: I am confident that the commission will bear that in mind. A number of factors are involved: for instance, any move to all-postal voting would no doubt change the pace of a general election, which would no longer reach a climax at the end of the campaign.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: I hope the Electoral Commission will not go over the top with postal voting. There should be as common a system as possible in the United Kingdom, but in Northern Ireland, because of fraud problems, there has been a move towards photo-identity cards at polling stations. Should that not be taken into account within the general pattern?
    Mr. Viggers: Indeed. Let me repeat the timing of the Electoral Commission's plans. It will produce its report on the local election pilots on 31 July. That will give the House, and all who are interested, an opportunity to consider carefully whether it is appropriate to table the primary legislation that will be needed if changes are to be made.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Can my hon. Friend assure us—or, if that is not possible, pass the question to the appropriate quarters—that come the next general election, whatever method or process is used will be uniform throughout the 659 parliamentary divisions in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Viggers: My hon. Friend's comments will be noted.

    Parliamentary Constituencies
    Andrew Mackinlay: What plans the Commission has to discuss with the boundary commissions the population sizes of parliamentary constituencies. [113822]
    Mr. Peter Viggers: None, because, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the commission has no responsibility for the matter at present. Section 16 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 provides for the transfer of the boundary commissions' functions to the commission, but those provisions have not yet been implemented.
    Andrew Mackinlay: The commission will eventually have this power, though. We should look forward 10 years. Is it not about time that—in the review that follows what is now being enacted—we did away with the disproportionate effect that the geographical criterion has on our constituency boundaries? Surely there should be just one commission for the United Kingdom, rather than four for the four nations. How can we justify the existence of constituencies with 100,000 voters along with others with only 21,000 or 33,000? Surely everyone's vote should be of equal value in the ballot box. We really should not have the disparities that are caused by some spurious geographical consideration. If a person represents a large area, he should be given more sledge teams and dogs.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could apply for an Adjournment debate.
    Mr. Viggers: As I have already explained, the Electoral Commission currently has no responsibility in this field, but that did not prevent the hon. Gentleman from making his point forcefully in his usual way.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: On the population of constituencies, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the identification of constituency boundaries is most important, so that the electorate can identify with certain boundaries and therefore take a greater interest in the activity of the constituency in question? Does he therefore accept that the Boundary Commission should take greater cognisance of constituency boundaries when reviewing constituencies?
    Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman has expressed his point of view on this issue before, and I know that we all very much value the cohesion of the areas that we represent.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Church Repairs (VAT)
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent discussions the Commissioners have had with the Government on revision of the sixth VAT directive. [113823]
    Second Church Estates Commissioner (Mr. Stuart Bell): As the hon. Lady knows, we have made a detailed
    686
    submission via the Churches Main Committee to the European Commission and we have had briefings with interested MPs, MEPs and EU officials.
    Miss McIntosh: Could the hon. Gentleman possibly move things along a little further, because, as yet, we have had no decision? As he has explained, the churches are being put off by the mountain of bureaucratic paperwork involved in applying for the grants relating to this measure. Will he please press the Chancellor to act quickly to reduce VAT on church repairs?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's tenacity. All I can say is that, if the European Commission had such tenacity, we would be further along the road than we are now.

Point of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Simon Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, parliamentary awaydays are all the rage at the moment. Could you possibly organise an awayday for Cabinet Ministers, so that they can learn how to be a bit more succinct in their responses to questions in the House? In that way, more Back-Bench Members could contribute to Question Time, which might also improve the turnout in the House.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps when the Ministers have an awayday, they will invite the Speaker along. I can tell them that we are not getting through the questions fast enough. May I say that they are far too long-winded? Sometimes the questioners can also be too long-winded. We have to get down the Order Paper; it is only fair to those who have bothered to put their names into the ballot and who appear on the Order Paper that they should be called. I hope that the awayday takes place in the not too distant future.

Criminal Justice Bill (Programme) (No. 5)
3.32 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Paul Goggins): I beg to move,
That, in accordance with the Resolution of the Programming Committee of 14th May, the Order of the House of 2nd April 2003 (Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill) be amended by omitting the entries in the Table for the second and third day and inserting the following:

TABLE

Day

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

Second day

New Clauses relating to Part 1, Clause No. 7, Clauses Nos. 9 and 10.

One and a quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order.

New Clauses relating to Part 2, Clauses Nos. 11 to 17, New Clauses relating to Part 5, Clauses Nos. 27 to 34, New Clauses relating to Part 9, Clauses Nos. 50 to 62.

Two hours after the commencement of those proceedings.

New Clauses relating to Part 7, Clauses Nos. 36 to 43.

Four and a half hours after the commencement of those proceedings.

Clause No. 63, Schedule No. 4, Clauses Nos. 64 to 81, New Clauses relating to Part 10.

Six and a half hours after the commencement of those proceedings.

Third day

New Clauses Nos. 30 to 39 and 46 to 51.

Two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill.

Remaining New Clauses relating to Part 12, Clauses Nos. 127 to 163, Schedule No. 7, Clause No. 164, Schedule No. 8, Clauses Nos. 165 to 171, Schedule No. 9, Clauses Nos. 172 to 176, Schedule No. 10, Clauses Nos. 177 to 201, Schedule No. 11, Clauses Nos. 202 to 206, Schedule No. 12, Clauses Nos. 207 to 211, Schedules Nos. 13 and 14, Clause No. 212, Schedule No. 15, Clauses Nos. 213, to 221, Schedule No. 16, Clauses Nos. 222 to 246, Schedule No. 17, Clause No. 247, Schedule No. 18, Clause No. 248, Schedules Nos. 19 and 20, Clauses Nos. 249 to 251, Schedule No. 21, Clause No. 252, Schedule No. 22, Clauses Nos. 253 and 254, Schedule No. 23, Clauses Nos. 255 to 258, Schedule No. 24, Clause No. 259, New Clauses relating to Part 6, Clause No. 35, Schedule No. 3, Clauses Nos. 260 to 265, Schedule No. 25, Clauses Nos. 266 to 268, Schedule No. 26, Clauses Nos. 269 to 273, Schedule No. 27, Clause

Four hours after the commencement of those proceedings.

689

No. 274, Schedule No. 28, Clause No. 275, Schedule No. 29, Clauses Nos. 276 to 280.

Remaining New Clauses, New Schedules, any remaining proceedings on the Bill.

Five and a half hours after the commencement of those proceedings.

It is probably good advice for new Ministers speaking in that capacity for the first time to keep their contributions short. The House will be pleased to know that I intend to follow that advice, not just for the obvious reasons but because I believe that we need to get on and debate the many important issues before us over the next two days. Indeed, the proposed programme has been drawn up to help the House make the best use of the 13 hours of debate on the Bill that we shall have today and tomorrow. These 13 hours follow the six and a half hours on 2 April, as well as 32 sittings in the Standing Committee. In that connection, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in recording our appreciation for the part played in those deliberations by the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn).
I am reliably informed that few Bills have had as many days as this on the Floor of the House on Report. It is important, therefore, that we should use the time wisely to debate the substance of the Bill, rather than lingering on procedure. The Government have tabled several new amendments and policy provisions. In some cases, the timing was unavoidable—for example, the murder sentencing provisions respond to a court ruling at the turn of the year. In others, the amendments respond to the valuable and constructive points raised on both sides of the Standing Committee. I am thinking here, for example, of measures relating to the Sentencing Guidelines Council and to retrial for serious offences.
I believe that the programme motion strikes the right balance, and I commend it to the House.
3.34 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve: First, I welcome the Minister to his appointment and congratulate him on it. If he can conduct his relations with the opposition parties in the manner of his predecessor, amicable relations in all parts of the House will be maintained.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn) will be missed very much. We certainly appreciated his approach to consideration of the Bill and the conciliatory way in which he dealt with timetables and matters in Committee. With a certain note of sorrow, therefore, I have to say to the Minister that, despite fully accepting that the Government have sought to cooperate with the Opposition in allowing time for proper scrutiny, so many more proposals have been tabled by the Government that, perhaps inevitably, the allocation of three days for consideration on Report, which was a generous offer when it was made, is, I am afraid, insufficient.
After considering the number of amendments before us and the number that we have to debate tomorrow, I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge that, in
690
reality, we have a grossly overloaded timetable. I might say that that is no fault of the Government Whip, who has done his very best throughout to squeeze the quart into the pint pot, but the truth is that the quart will not go into the pint pot. There is insufficient time to do justice to the legislation.
In particular, one has only to consider the diversity of the amendments to realise that tomorrow, as will be the case today, we face a situation in which very different proposals are grouped, which will inevitably result in a lack of focus during the debate. I regret that because there are important matters to discuss. Therefore, although we have sought to co-operate with the Government in managing the Bill's timetable, this is an occasion on which we part company with them. I do not want to take up much of the House's time as I want to get on with the debate, but we shall oppose the timetable motion.
3.37 pm
Mr. David Heath: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) in his welcome for the Minister and his comments on the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), who did an excellent job in Committee. I wish him well in his new responsibilities.
Having said that, I entirely accord with the view that the programme motion is an admission of defeat by the Government in that it is clear that this important measure—what we are told is the flagship criminal justice Bill of this Parliament—will not receive the scrutiny it requires. It was already a substantial Bill of 280 clauses and 29 schedules, so it was always going to be difficult to give these important matters proper scrutiny, even in the three days originally allotted. Since then, the Government have come back to the House, with the result that there are nearly 500 amendments before us, and 28 Government new clauses.
These are not lightweight matters of detail. They include fingerprint and DNA samples, sentencing for murder, gun crime, increases in the penalty for causing death by dangerous driving, membership of the Sentencing Guidelines Council, abolition of committal proceedings, reporting restrictions, jury service, outraging public decency, the Criminal Records Bureau and extending powers of detention without charge. Those are matters of life and liberty. They deserve the House's proper attention, which is precisely what they will not receive under the programme motion.
Like the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, I do not want to take up valuable debating time, but the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) was absolutely right last Monday when she referred to
"increasingly poor policy initiatives being rammed through Parliament".—[Official Report, 12 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 38.]
QED, this is an example of exactly the tendency to which she drew attention, and we must do everything we can to resist it in this Chamber.
3.39 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Last Thursday, at business questions, the Leader of the House made it plain that he was willing to look again at programming. He said that there should be a little more time for consideration, so as to reflect on our

691
experiences. I hope that when he comes to do that, he will reflect on what will happen with this Bill, which incidentally will replicate what happened with the Finance Bill last week.
It is inevitable that many important new clauses and amendments will not be discussed in this place; they will go to the other place wholly undiscussed. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) have said, those matters are of considerable importance. They include, and I will cite just three, jury trials, the way we deal with those sentenced for murder, and corporate manslaughter, the latter being the subject of a Back-Bench amendment.
Apart from the general points that I usually make on these occasions, there are others points that we should keep in mind. For many of us, this is the first opportunity to participate in debate on the detail of the Bill. It will perhaps be revealing a secret when I say that I volunteered to serve on the Standing Committee. The Whips did not find my offer very attractive and I do not wholly blame them. I was one of those who was willing, on my own terms, to serve on the Standing Committee and I was rejected, but now I would like to participate fully in the debate and I find that the Government timetable motion prevents me from doing so.
Mr. John Bercow: As one who was similarly underprivileged and down-trodden to the extent that I was denied a place on the Standing Committee upon the Bill, and in view of the importance of the public understanding why we are inveighing against the programme motion, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, even if we were to have six and a half hours uninterrupted debate without a single vote, which is wholly implausible, there would be under two minutes to debate each of the almost 200 amendments and new clauses today?
Mr. Hogg: I am sure that my hon. Friend will not misunderstand me when I say that I do not suppose that six and a half hours would entirely accommodate my hon. Friend. I see why our Front-Bench team was uneasy at the prospect of a Hogg-Bercow axis. None the less, we are here today and we want to participate in the debate.
There are other serious points. I do not think that it is right to allow the Executive to determine the business of the House. They are entitled to come before the House and to place legislation before it, but what they are not entitled to do is to regulate the timetable. That seems to be a matter for us. I hope that, in the fullness of time, a business committee of the House, not the Executive, will regulate the timetable.
While I recognise that there are discussions between the Front-Bench teams as to what particular clauses and new clauses people want to focus on, Back Benchers do not always agree with Front Benchers. Therefore, it is important when the timetable is being regulated, that the interests of all hon. Members, Back Bench, Front Bench and minority parties as well, be properly taken into account. That is not happening in these timetable motions.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are going to call me to order in a moment. I come back directly to the question. A lot of important matters will remain unaddressed. We
692
will send them to the other place undiscussed. That is a denial of democracy. Ultimately, we bring democracy into disrepute.
3.45 pm
Lady Hermon: My colleagues from the Ulster Unionist party are with me in spirit, although not in reality. On this occasion, they are united with me. I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box and am delighted to see him here today. However, I wish to commend warmly his predecessor, now the Minister of State, Department for International Development, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn). When we began the 30 or so sittings in Committee—for which I had the great privilege to be selected—I was not familiar with the criminal law, but I came away from it greatly educated on double jeopardy, hearsay evidence and other matters, thanks to the Minister's predecessor.
My concern with the motion relates to the amendments on Northern Ireland. Five months ago in Committee—plus two or three days—the then Under-Secretary said:
"I confirm … that Northern Ireland Ministers intend that the Bill should apply to Northern Ireland".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 16 January 2003; c. 390.]
As I understand it, only part 10 of the Bill will extend to Northern Ireland. It grieves me terribly, on behalf of the 1.6 million people of Northern Ireland, that we are only today—five months later—seeing the amendments extended to Northern Ireland, and done so selectively. I urge the Home Office to think about joined-up government, involving Northern Ireland Ministers and Home Office Ministers. Other parts of the Bill should be extended to Northern Ireland and should have been extended to it in good time.
3.47 pm
Mr. Mike Hancock: Unlike the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), I did not volunteer to serve on the Standing Committee, because I fully expected, as a Back Bencher, to be given the opportunity to talk about the Bill, the 500 amendments and 25 Government new clauses. To be denied that, means that Back Benchers have been denied the opportunity of voicing the criticisms and concerns of constituents on vital issues that will affect many of them for years to come.
Surely it is to neglect the responsibilities of the House towards the general population to have the debate curtailed in such a way and for so many important issues to be squeezed out. As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, many of the amendments will not even be discussed in this place. That cannot be doing justice to the Bill. If the Bill is to do justice to the nation, the House should at least be given the courtesy of doing justice to it.
3.48 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: This brief debate has already produced three rather interesting contributions. The first—from the Minister, whom we all welcome most warmly—was extremely brief, concise and to the point. My right hon. and learned Friend the

693
Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) then revealed something of which I was not aware: that there are occasions on which Whips can be truly discerning. There was also a remarkable contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), who revealed something even more unusual; that there are occasions on which the Ulster Unionist party can be united. I suspect that that is because she spoke for them; the others are all absent.
We are debating an extremely serious matter this afternoon; the Government's timetable, which was never generous, but has been transformed into a guillotine of severe proportions. The subjects that the House will be called upon to debate today and tomorrow are so important that none of us should speak in this debate for more than a few seconds or minutes. However, we will not be able to go back to our constituents this weekend and say that there was a proper discussion on trial by jury and the other important matters, a litany of which were read out by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) in his pertinent contribution.
Frankly, this is a disgrace. The Executive should not be able to put the Commons in a straitjacket in this manner. In future, if we are to have proper programming of Bills that allows adequate discussions of important issues, the timetables must be properly agreed. There must be flexibility if the Government subject us to an avalanche of extra amendments. Otherwise, we are going to turn this place into a total non-entity, which it is close to being already.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 160.

Division No. 202]

[3:50 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Alexander, Douglas

Browne, Desmond

Allen, Graham

Bryant, Chris

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Burden, Richard

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Burgon, Colin

Burnham, Andy

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Byers, rh Stephen

Atherton, Ms Candy

Cairns, David

Austin, John

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Bailey, Adrian

Caplin, Ivor

Baird, Vera

Casale, Roger

Banks, Tony

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Battle, John

Challen, Colin

Bayley, Hugh

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Beard, Nigel

Chaytor, David

Beckett, rh Margaret

Clapham, Michael

Begg, Miss Anne

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Bell, Stuart

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Benn, Hilary

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

Berry, Roger

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Blackman, Liz

Blears, Ms Hazel

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Blizzard, Bob

Clelland, David

Blunkett, rh David

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Boateng, rh Paul

Coaker, Vernon

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Bradshaw, Ben

Cohen, Harry

Brennan, Kevin

Coleman, Iain

694

Colman, Tony

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cooper, Yvette

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Corston, Jean

Hutton, rh John

Cousins, Jim

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Ingram, rh Adam

Crausby, David

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Cruddas, Jon

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

Jamieson, David

Jenkins, Brian

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Dalyell, Tam

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Jowell, rh Tessa

Davidson, Ian

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Dean, Mrs Janet

Keeble, Ms Sally

Denham, rh John

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Dhanda, Parmjit

Kemp, Fraser

Dismore, Andrew

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Khabra, Piara S.

Donohoe, Brian H.

Kidney, David

Doran, Frank

Kilfoyle, Peter

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

King, Andy (Rugby)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

King, Ms Oona Bethnal Green & Bow)

Eagle, Maria (L"pool Garston)

Efford, Clive

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Etherington, Bill

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Farrelly, Paul

Lammy, David

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Fisher, Mark

Lazarowicz, Mark

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

Linton Martin

Love, Andrew

Foulkes, rh George

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

McAvoy, Thomas

Gardiner, Barry

McCafferty, Chris

Gerrard, Neil

McDonagh, Siobhain

Gibson, Dr. Ian

MacDougall, John

Gilroy, Linda

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Goggins, Paul

McIsaac, Shona

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

McKechin, Ann

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McNulty, Tony

Grogan, John

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Hain, rh Peter

Mandelson, rh Peter

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Hanson, David

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Martlew, Eric

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Meacher, rh Michael

Merron, Gillian

Michael, rh Alun

Healey, John

Miliband, David

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Miller, Andrew

Hendrick, Mark

Moffatt, Laura

Hepburn, Stephen

Mole, Chris

Heppell, John

Morley, Elliot

Hesford, Stephen

Mullin, Chris

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Munn, Ms Meg

Heyes, David

Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Hodge, Margaret

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Olner, Bill

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

O'Neill, Martin

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Pearson, Ian

Perham, Linda

695

Pickthall, Colin

Steinberg, Gerry

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

Plaskitt, James

Pollard, Kerry

Stinchcombe, Paul

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Pound, Stephen

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Stringer, Graham

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Purnell, James

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Quin, rh Joyce

Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

Quinn, Lawrie

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Rammell, Bill

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Raynsford, rh Nick

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Timms, Stephen

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

Tipping, Paddy

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Trickett, Jon

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Rooney, Terry

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Ruane, Chris

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Ruddock, Joan

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Salter, Martin

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Savidge, Malcolm

Wareing, Robert N.

Sawford, Phil

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Sedgemore, Brian

Watts, David

Shaw, Jonathan

White, Brian

Sheerman, Barry

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Shipley, Ms Debra

Wicks, Malcolm

Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Winnick, David

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Woodward, Shaun

Woolas, Phil

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Wright, David (Telford)

Soley, Clive

Southworth, Helen

Tellers for the Ayes:

Squire, Rachel

Mr. Jim Murphy and

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Charlotte Atkins

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Cash, William

Allan, Richard

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Ancram, rh Michael

Arbuthnot, rh James

Chidgey, David

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Chope, Christopher

Bacon, Richard

Clappison, James

Baldry, Tony

Conway, Derek

Barker, Gregory

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Baron, John (Billericay)

Cotter, Brian

Bercow, John

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

Boswell, Tim

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Brady, Graham

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Djanogly, Jonathan

Brazier, Julian

Doughty, Sue

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Evans, Nigel

Browning, Mrs Angela

Fabricant, Michael

Burnett, John

Flight, Howard

Burns, Simon

Flook, Adrian

Burstow, Paul

Forth, rh Eric

Burt, Alistair

Francois, Mark

Butterfill, John

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Gidley, Sandra

Cameron, David

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Carmichael, Alistair

Gray, James (N Wilts)

696

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Pickles, Eric

Greenway, John

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Grieve, Dominic

Pugh, Dr. John

Gummer, rh John

Randall, John

Hague, rh William

Redwood, rh John

Hammond, Philip

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Hancock, Mike

Rendel, David

Harvey, Nick

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Hawkins, Nick

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Heald, Oliver

Rosindell, Andrew

Heath, David

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Sanders, Adrian

Hendry, Charles

Sayeed, Jonathan

Hermon, Lady

Selous, Andrew

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Hogg, rh Douglas

Simmonds, Mark

Holmes, Paul

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Horam, John (Orpington)

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

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

Jack, rh Michael

Spicer, Sir Michael

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Spink, Bob (Castle Point

Jenkin, Bernard

Spring, Richard

Keetch, Paul

Stanley, rh Sir John

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Streeter, Gary

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Stunell, Andrew

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Lamb, Norman

Syms, Robert

Lansley, Andrew

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Leigh, Edward

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Letwin, rh Oliver

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Lidington, David

Tredinnick, David

Lilley, rh Peter

Trend, Michael

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Loughton, Tim

Viggers, Peter

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Walter, Robert

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Waterson, Nigel

Mackay, rh Andrew

Watkinson, Angela

Maclean, rh David

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Whittingdale, John

Malins, Humfrey

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Wiggin, Bill

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Wilkinson, John

May, Mrs Theresa

Willetts, David

Mercer, Patrick

Wilshire, David

Moss, Malcolm

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Wishart, Pete

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Young, rh Sir George

Öpik, Lembit

Page, Richard

Tellers for the Noes:

Paice, James

Hugh Robertson and

Paterson, Owen

Mr. Desmond Swayne

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Criminal Justice Bill
  [2nd Allotted Day]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

  Criminal Justice Bill
    Government New Clause 14

      TAKING FINGERPRINTS WITHOUT CONSENT
      (1) Section 61 of the 1984 Act (fingerprinting) is amended as follows.
      (2) For subsections (3) and (4) (taking of fingerprints without appropriate consent) there is substituted—
      "(3) The fingerprints of a person detained at a police station may be taken without the appropriate consent if—

      (a) he is detained in consequence of his arrest for a recordable offence; and

      (b) he has not had his fingerprints taken in the course of the investigation of the offence by the police.

      (4) The fingerprints of a person detained at a police station may be taken without the appropriate consent if—

      (a) he has been charged with a recordable offence or informed that he will be reported for such an offence; and

      (b) he has not had his fingerprints taken in the course of the investigation of the offence by the police."

      (3) In subsection (3A) (disregard of incomplete or unsatisfactory fingerprints) for the words from the beginning to "subsection (3) above" there is substituted "Where a person mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) or (4) has already had his fingerprints taken in the course of the investigation of the offence by the police".
      (4) In subsection (5) (authorisation to be given or confirmed in writing) for "subsection (3)(a) or (4A)" there is substituted "subsection (4A)".
      (5) In subsection (7) (reasons for taking of fingerprints without consent) for "subsection (3) or (6)" there is substituted "subsection (3), (4) or (6)".'.
      —[Mr.Bob Ainsworth.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.3 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      Amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, in subsection (3)(a) after "offence', inserts
      'and an officer of at least the rank of inspector authorises them to be taken'.
      Government new clause 15—Taking non-intimate samples without consent—

      '(1) Section 63 of the 1984 Act (other samples) is amended as follows.

      (2) After subsection (2) (consent to be given in writing) there is inserted—

      "(2A) A non-intimate sample may be taken from a person without the appropriate consent if two conditions are satisfied.

      (2B) The first is that the person is in police detention in consequence of his arrest for a recordable offence.

      698

      (2C) The second is that—

      (a) he has not had a non-intimate sample of the same type and from the same part of the body taken in the course of the investigation of the offence by the police, or

      (b) he has had such a sample taken but it proved insufficient."

      (3) In subsection (3)(a) (taking of samples without appropriate consent) the words "is in police detention or" are omitted.

      (4) In subsection (3A) (taking of samples without appropriate consent after charge) for "(whether or not he falls within subsection (3)(a) above)" there is substituted "(whether or not he is in police detention or held in custody by the police on the authority of a court)".

      (5) In subsection (8A) (reasons for taking of samples without consent) for "subsection (3A)" there is substituted "subsection (2A), (3A)".'.

      And the following amendments thereto: (a), in subsection (2A), after 'appropriate consent if' leave out 'two' and insert 'three'.
      (b), at end of (2C) insert
      '(2D) The third is that an officer of at least the rank of inspector authorises them to be taken.'.
      New clause 20—Arrest without warrant for arrestable offences—
      '.—After subsection (5) of section 24 of the 1984 Act there is inserted—
      "(5A) Any person may arrest, without warrant, any person who is accused by an apparently credible witness of having committed an arrestable offence shortly before the accusation is made.".'.
      New clause 55—Destruction of fingerprints and samples—
      '(1) Section 64 of the 1984 Act (destruction of fingerprints and samples) is amended as follows:
      (2) In subsection (3) the words', except as provided in the following provisions of this section,' are omitted.
      (3) Subsections (3AA), (3AB) and (3AC) are omitted.'.
      Amendment No. 122, in page 5, line 18 [Clause 7], leave out "and' and insert—

      "(ba) The Law Society of England and Wales,

      (bb) The Bar Council,

      (bc) The Institute of Legal Executives, and'.

      Amendment No. 167, in page 5, line 18 [Clause 7], leave out 'and' and insert—
      "(ba) the Home Affairs Committee'.
      Amendment No. 54, in page 5, line 21 [Clause 7], at end insert—
      '(6) No code or revised code issued under this section shall have effect until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
      Amendment No. 55, in page 5, line 36 [Clause 7], at end insert—
      '(7A) No code or revised code issued under this section shall have effect until approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
      Amendment No. 169, in page 6, line 2, leave out clause 9.
      Amendment No. 57, in page 6, line 7 [Clause 9], leave out second "a' and insert 'such'.
      Amendment No. 58, in page 6, line 7 [Clause 9], leave out second "drug' and insert 'drugs'.
      Amendment No. 59, in page 6, line 8 [Clause 9], at end insert—
      "as are identified as cannabis or cannabis resin'.
      Amendment No. 170, in page 6, line 41 [Clause 10], leave out 'different' and insert 'higher'.
      Government amendments Nos. 231 and 109.
      Mr. Ainsworth: I shall speak mainly to Government new clauses 14 and 15 and Government amendments Nos. 231 and 109, and deal with the other amendments in a diverse group as briefly as I can.
      Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the police may currently take fingerprints from all those charged with, informed that they will be reported for, or convicted of, a recordable offence. With the authority of an inspector, the police may also take fingerprints from those suspected of a criminal offence where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the fingerprints will tend to confirm or disprove the suspect's involvement.
      PACE also permits the police to take a person's fingerprints when they have reason to believe that they will confirm, disprove or assist in ascertaining the suspect's identity. An inspector's authority is required and the person must have refused to identify himself or herself or the officer must have reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is not who they claim to be. So the police can miss the opportunity to establish a detained person's true identity if they lie about who they are and the police have no reason to suspect that they have lied.
      The problem presents itself even more acutely now that we have the new Livescan technology, which can check a fingerprint against national records while the detained person can be reasonably expected to be in custody. New clause 14 will enable those who seek to evade justice by giving the police a false identity to be properly identified and dealt with through the due process of law. There will be a link to the police national computer, which may reveal whether the person is believed to be a danger to themselves or to others, or perhaps requires medication or an appropriate adult to be present during an interview.
      New clause 14 has been welcomed by the police. The power to take fingerprints pre-charge has civil liberties implications. I recognise those concerns, but the intrusion on personal liberty is both necessary and proportionate to the benefits for the victims of crime and society generally, in detecting crime and protecting the public from criminals.
      The Court of Appeal has recently considered those issues in a judicial review brought by a juvenile known as S and an individual known as Michael Marper against the chief constable of South Yorkshire. Both had their fingerprints and a sample of DNA taken when they were charged and each asked the chief constable to destroy their fingerprints and DNA samples and to remove their DNA profile from the national database. When proceedings against them had finished, the chief constable decided to retain the fingerprints. The Court of Appeal found that, although limited interference under article 8(1) of the European convention on human rights took place, it was proportionate to the benefits that accrue to the victims of crime and society as a whole and to the prevention and detection of crime.
      700
      New clause 15 would allow non-intimate samples to be taken from anyone arrested for a recordable offence and detained in a police station. A non-intimate sample is defined by section 65 of PACE and includes hair, mouth swabs, saliva and skin impressions. Currently, the police may take non-intimate samples from all those charged with, informed that they will be reported for, or convicted of a recordable offence. On the authority of an inspector, a non-intimate sample may be taken from those suspected of a recordable offence where reasonable grounds exist to believe that the sample will tend to confirm or disprove the suspect's identity.
      The new power to take non-intimate samples from people arrested for a recordable offence and detained at a police station will enable a DNA profile to be obtained and a search to be made on the database for matches with a crime-scene stain.
      Mr. Humfrey Malins: If this problem has been known for some time, why was not such a clause included in the original Bill or introduced in Committee?
      Mr. Ainsworth: New clauses 14 and 15 have been introduced after discussions with the police. I have talked about the new fingerprinting technology that is now available, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree, if he agrees that the proportionality is reasonable, that we should not delay introducing these changes because they will clearly help in the detection of crime.
      Mr. Graham Allen: So that hon. Members on both sides of the House are clear about this, may I say that this issue was raised in Committee? I did so myself, and the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn)—who conducted himself so superbly in Committee—agreed that the Government would consider it, so I am very grateful to them for introducing the proposal.
      Mr. Ainsworth: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He had the benefit of serving on the Standing Committee. Of course I did not do so. Knowing that the issue was discussed with some concern in Committee adds to my argument for us to get on and deal with it.
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: Are there not two issues? The first is the propriety of taking samples, whether DNA or fingerprints, from someone who has been arrested but not charged, for the purpose of checking whether they might be wanted for, or implicated in, some other offence. The second is the decision to add that material to a national DNA database. If what we are really doing is extending the criteria for addition to the DNA database to people who have been arrested and not charged, would it not be better simply to say that it is the Government's view that everybody in the country should provide fingerprints and DNA samples for crime-prevention purposes? That is in fact what the Government are slowly moving towards by stealth.
      Mr. Ainsworth: There is no justification for saying that. I read out the decision taken by the Court of

      701
      Appeal on the retention of fingerprints. I see no reason, in principle, why the same decision would not be reached on DNA. There is a good case for taking samples, whether DNA or fingerprints, in the circumstances that have been described. Having taken them, should they be destroyed? Other evidence gathered in the course of an investigation is not necessarily destroyed. It would be a big step to move from that to the hon. Gentleman's idea that there should be a complete database with everybody's fingerprints and DNA. There are wholly different issues to think about in that regard.
      Mr. John Bercow: In a completely non-partisan context, may I raise a different matter that relates to the experience of one of my constituents? My constituent lost his daughter in a road accident in 1984 as a result of reckless driving. On the occasion of the accident, the person who was subsequently proved to have been the culprit was, for a relatively brief period, unconscious. Under the law, was it right—my constituent does not think so—that there was no subsequent opportunity to breathalyse the defendant, who was subsequently convicted of dangerous driving? My constituent will never know whether, as he suspects, the man concerned was under the influence. I am not saying that that is the point of the provision, but is there any intention to address that issue?
      Mr. Ainsworth: We have talked about such issues and tried to deal with them. I am not insensitive to the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman, but we have only a relatively short time to debate this group of amendments, after Opposition Members discussed the programme motion and voted against it. I have taken interventions, and I do not want to extend the debate to an issue that is not covered by the amendments and new clauses that we are discussing.
      Simon Hughes rose—
      Mr. Ainsworth: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman but then I must make some progress, as other Members want to contribute.
      Simon Hughes: May I take the Minister back to an earlier point that is central to the debate? Will he explain why someone who is not convicted of a criminal offence, and someone who is arrested but against whom no further action is taken and who is thus also not convicted of a criminal offence, should be treated differently in the criminal justice system? Why should the state record details in one case where a person who is completely innocent and not in the other? What is the logic?
      Mr. Ainsworth: The logic is to provide proportionality and to deal with crime and to protect our communities from crime. The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening when I read out the Court of Appeal decision in the judicial review of decisions to retain the DNA and fingerprints of the two individuals concerned. The Court of Appeal does not find that
      702
      problem insurmountable, even if he does so, there is no huge matter of principle. The point is whether it is proportionate to the size of the problem to allow those records to be kept. I believe that it is, and that a clear case can be made for keeping both DNA samples and fingerprints. For the reasons that I set out in relation to the new clause on fingerprints, the extension of police powers to retain DNA samples is both necessary and proportionate.
      4.15 pm
      I now turn to the Opposition amendments to new clause 14. In response to amendment (a), it is important that the police can act quickly and systematically, and the amendment would introduce an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. The same applies to amendments (a) and (b) to new clause 15. Imposing a restriction whereby the taking of a sample must be authorised by an inspector or above could result in crimes going undetected and introduce an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy.
      On Opposition new clause 55, which deals with destroying fingerprints and samples, it is important for the police to be able to retain all the information assembled during an investigation of an offence, not least to enable them to investigate a possible miscarriage of justice in the future. The police can already retain other information gathered as part of an investigation, such as witness statements, photographs and so on, and samples and fingerprints taken from a person who has been arrested during an investigation are not fundamentally different from those. Samples will be available to the police in the event of that suspect committing an offence in the future. Law-abiding citizens should have nothing to fear, as they will be used only for the prevention and the investigation of crime.
      Mr. Mike Hancock: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Ainsworth: I have given way a great deal, and I need to get on and deal with this group of amendments, to allow other Members, perhaps including the hon. Gentleman, to speak.
      In relation to new clause 20, on citizen's arrest, it seeks to extend the circumstances in which a citizen may make an arrest. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 already allows a citizen's arrest in circumstances in which an arrestable offence has in fact been committed. The new clause could be interpreted as extending that scope for arrest to cover circumstances in which there is no certainty that an arrestable offence had been committed, but only a believable accusation. Powers to arrest when there is merely a suspicion are best left to the judgment and experience of a police officer.
      Amendment No. 54 would require the retention of the affirmative resolution procedure for new and revised PACE codes. I understand that there was extensive discussion of the issue in Committee, and following that discussion, trying to take into account the views of the Home Affairs Committee, we have considered the procedural options for dealing with new and amended codes. We accept that the affirmative procedure is justified for new codes and for significant amendments. We have been trying, however, to devise a quicker route for handling minor and straightforward changes. We

      703
      have looked at the scope for involving the Home Affairs Committee in advising on whether specific changes warrant detailed parliamentary scrutiny, but substantial difficulties exist in terms of specifying a role for the Committee in the Bill.
      A more workable alternative might be to amend the legislation so that there is effectively a choice between affirmative resolution and merely laying any proposed changes before Parliament. Ministers could then undertake in Parliament to seek to be bound by the Home Affairs Committee advice in each individual case. That might effectively ensure that the Committee had oversight of which procedure should be adopted, without referring to the Committee in the Bill, and might be a way of resolving the conflict between the need for flexibility and the need for proper scrutiny. It is therefore a difficult problem, which needs more consideration. We would be grateful to hear further views in the light of what I have just suggested, and against that background I would ask that the amendments be withdrawn, although we would be happy to return to the issue to deal with other Members' views in another place.
      Amendment No. 55 would require the affirmative resolution procedure for analogous codes covering the work of military police forces. Currently, such codes are subject only to negative resolution. They tend to follow the PACE codes, and we think that there is a good case for exempting them from specific parliamentary procedure. I therefore ask the Opposition to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Minister says that the military code tends to follow PACE. If so, I follow his points, but given the degree to which it diverges from PACE, it seems that the Minister is on a bad point.
      Mr. Ainsworth: I have said that, by and large, the code tends to follow PACE. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman considers it useful to take up the time of the House discussing what are effectively duplications in most cases. I shall be happy to listen to views on that. However, we do not believe that there is a case for the affirmative resolution procedure to be used, certainly in regard to analogous codes.
      Mr. James Clappison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has repeatedly adverted to the inadequacy of the timetable motion. Is there any way in which the Minister and the Government can return to a further programming committee to seek more time so that we can properly debate the Bill? The Minister keeps saying that inadequate time is the reason for not debating matters in this place. That is the message that is coming from the horse's mouth. Can you help the Government out of the fix of their own making?
      Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter for the Minister because the House has decided to agree to the programme motion, and therefore it is the property of the House.
      Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) should listen to what I say. I was talking
      704
      about whether it would be useful for the House to spend time discussing changes to the military codes in future. I was not talking about the time that we spend dealing with the Bill now. We would have had a little more time today if Members had not spoken against the programme motion and divided on it. We would have had an extra hour and a quarter to discuss these matters rather than the truncated debate that will now take place.
      As for amendment No. 122, we believe that it is sensible to extend the consultation requirements to the Law Society and the Bar Council but that it is unnecessary to extend them to the Institute of Legal Executives. The Law Society and the Bar Council adequately represent a broad range of legal perspectives. The institute could be consulted where a particular need arose.
      Amendment No. 167 relates to consulting the Home Affairs Committee. That needs to be considered in line with what I said earlier about potential changes to the code.
      Mr. Grieve: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Ainsworth: I would like to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but Conservative Back Benchers are demanding that I take less time at the Dispatch Box. The hon. Gentleman speaks for the Opposition Front Bench, and I will give way to him if he wishes me to do so. However, I hope that I do not get—
      Mr. Grieve: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Ainsworth: I will not give way. I shall make some progress.
      I move on to the amendments to clause 9, which deals with powers of arrest for possession of class C drugs. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced his intention to bring forward reclassification of cannabis from class B to class C under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. In conjunction with that, my right hon. Friend announced that the police would continue to be able to arrest persons for offences of possession of cannabis where public order was threatened.
      Under guidance issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers, for most offences of cannabis possession, a police warning will be sufficient along with confiscation of the drug. However, where there is a public order problem or where children are at risk, the result could be an arrest. We do not believe that clause 9 sends mixed messages. The message that we are sending is that cannabis is harmful, but not as harmful as other class A or B drugs. That is reflected in law enforcement. The power of arrest for possession of cannabis will be used sparingly, and the penalties are different.
      On amendments Nos. 57 to 59, it would be inconsistent with the principles underlying the classification structure of the Misuse of Drugs Act to have a specific law for cannabis. The Government believe that it is right that cannabis should be in class C. The power of arrest would be used only in limited circumstances. In practice, we envisage very few cases

      705
      indeed where the power of arrest would be appropriate in relation to other class C drugs. The problem is more apparent than real.
      Mr. Grieve: With regard to new clauses 14 and 15, the Opposition fully understand the concern of the police that it may be a powerful tool in the detection of crime if they have the opportunity, when somebody is arrested and brought into the police station for another matter, to obtain, prior to charge, non-intimate DNA samples and to take fingerprints, so as to check whether that person might be wanted in connection with some other, possibly far more serious, matter. It is a pragmatic approach, but it is based on the knowledge that often, when police officers pick up somebody for some minor matter, something far more serious may be lurking behind.
      If that were the sole purpose of the new clauses, we would be willing to go along with it. But the Government are seeking through the new clauses to add to a mischief that they introduced in the 2001 Act and to provide that, although somebody may have no criminal conviction against their name and may never even have been charged with any offence, the material collected from them by way of a non-intimate DNA sample or by way of fingerprint when they are brought into the police station will be retained and added to the national database. That potentially involves a very large number of people. Some 1.2 million people per annum are arrested for possible recordable offences, although that does not mean that that number are charged.
      The Minister seemed to miss the point when he answered the intervention earlier. There may well be a thoroughly sound argument that matters have moved on so much in the possibilities of scientific analysis and detection that the time has come when, for the sake of the prevention of crime, all of us, law-abiding and non-law-abiding, should voluntarily or compulsorily provide our DNA and our fingerprints to the state, so that if an offence is committed, rapid checks can be carried out. There are some who would oppose that on civil liberties grounds. It would undoubtedly be a considerable intrusion into civil liberties, but it is perfectly capable of rational justification, if that is what the Minister wishes to do.
      However, what is being done through the new clauses is yet again to create a new category of—excuse me using the word—Untermenschen, a sort of sub-people who, although they may have done nothing wrong, must figure in the national database, whereas other people are excluded from it. I find that, as a philosophical position, deeply unsatisfactory and offensive. The Conservatives objected to the 2001 extension for that reason. Whatever the Court of Appeal may say or do, I disagree with it. The court is there to interpret the law. Parliament passed the law. In this context, it was a thoroughly bad law, and now the Minister's proposals would compound the matter.
      Law-abiding people who have never been in trouble with the police in their life, who were taken into the police station for some minor matter from which they may be totally exonerated half an hour or 45 minutes later, will find, to their deep resentment that their DNA and fingerprints have been added to the national
      706
      database. The opportunities for abuse of the measure are obvious. The police can easily arrest somebody and release them afterwards. The chances of anybody having some subsequent recourse or bringing proceedings are slight. People do not normally act in that way. I say to the Minister that there will be a new class of people who are dissatisfied and discontented with the way in which policing is carried out in this country. As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) recently pointed out, the state is good on the easy cases—it arrests and criminalises people who are usually law-abiding—but poor at dealing with those whom society requires should be dealt with. For those reasons, we object to the new clause, and if the Government are not prepared to accept an amendment ensuring that the DNA and fingerprints would be destroyed, we will oppose it.
      4.30 pm
      Lady Hermon: As the hon. Gentleman, too, was present at the many Standing Committee sittings, he will recall clearly that the Minister who was then responsible for the Bill frequently prayed in aid experience, practice and procedure in other common-law jurisdictions. Is he aware of any other common-law jurisdiction in which such provision is the practice or procedure?
      Mr. Grieve: I am not aware of any such jurisdiction. Indeed, on normal common-law principles, the provision is highly offensive. It runs contrary to every aspect of our national tradition, because law-abiding individuals who do not bring themselves into trouble by being successfully prosecuted and convicted should not have any personal details about them retained on police files—in particular, their fingerprints and DNA.
      I object fundamentally to the proposal and I do not understand the rationale behind it. Indeed, when I met the Association of Chief Police Officers to discuss the proposal when it was first raised, it did not suggest that such material had to be retained. It wanted power to obtain fingerprints and DNA to make the comparison, but there was no suggestion that it wanted to add those data to the national database.
      Mr. Hogg: Might I suggest what may be a motive and is undoubtedly a vice? On recognising that the new clauses allow the acquisition of non-intimate samples and/or fingerprints, the police might go on a fishing expedition and make an arrest for which there is no adequate justification in order to use the powers and obtain the samples to further their inquiries. While there may be a case for such an approach, if it is to be taken, it needs to be made overt. The provision is a panacea for fishing.
      Mr. Grieve: I agree entirely with my right hon. and learned Friend. Indeed, I sought to make that very point earlier. The system could be open to abuse and lead to claims that people have been persecuted for the sake of getting them into the police station under a pretext of arrest.
      In the limited time available, I shall not speak any further about new clauses 14 and 15, except to say that we oppose them and will press new clause 15 to a vote.

      707
      I wish now to turn to the other matters that have been touched on, as there are other very important matters to be considered, although, frankly, we do not have the opportunity to do them justice.
      I am delighted to hear from the Minister that he is in favour of consultation with groups about any changes to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. He specifically mentioned the Bar Council and the Law Society. Am I to take it that the Government propose to table an amendment in another place specifically to provide that they should be consulted? I see the Minister nodding, but he had better put it on record.
      Mr. Bob Ainsworth: I make it clear that, if the hon. Gentleman does not press his amendment, we will table an amendment to do precisely that.
      Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister. I appreciate the point that he makes, but the reason why we seek to add the Institute of Legal Executives to the list is that those who attend at police stations for the interview of suspects are frequently members of that organisation and not qualified solicitors. In those circumstances, people in that single category probably have the most experience of the way in which the police operate PACE on a daily basis. Of course, the Bar may be involved in unravelling the problems of PACE if there is a challenge in the courts afterwards, and there will be occasions when solicitors attend. We will not press the amendment to a vote. I am grateful to the Minister, but I urge him to think about the Institute of Legal Executives. I think that the Government will find that they have to consult it during any revision of the codes, because it plays an important part in their operation.
      Mr. David Cameron: As my hon. Friend is talking about reviewing the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, does he agree with new clause 20, which is in my name and would ensure a proper review of security guards' powers of arrest? It is clear that they have the power to arrest someone when they see an offence committed, but it is not clear whether they would be able to do so if another security guard saw it on closed circuit television. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an important issue? If we are to crack down on shoplifting, the Government should give my new clause a fair hearing, not the time that we have been allowed this afternoon.
      Mr. Grieve: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I did not take his new clause in sequence, because I wanted to leave it to the end and take more time over it. As he has raised it, I might as well deal with it now.
      My hon. Friend raises an important point. We talk about the police officer being a citizen in uniform, but we give the police very great powers reasonably to carry out an arrest on suspicion. We are very short of police officers at the moment—
      Ian Lucas: There are more now than there have ever been.
      Mr. Grieve: We are very short of police officers who can carry out the necessary work of policing, but we are
      708
      disempowering individuals so that they cannot take perfectly reasonable action to prevent crime or apprehend criminals.
      My hon. Friend's new clause merits serious consideration. It would certainly make it easier for someone to carry out a citizen's arrest. After all, the Minister and the Government have been extending the categories in which hearsay evidence is allowed in court. Oddly enough, however, if one's granny says that she has been mugged, but one was not at the scene and did not witness the mugging, one's ability to arrest the individual will be limited. That is an important matter, and we cannot do justice to it in the time available.
      John Mann: In one of his amendments, the hon. Gentleman wants to give powers of consultation to his own trade union—the Bar Council. Would he like to extend such powers to the shop workers' trade union—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers?
      Mr. Grieve: That needs to be debated at greater length, which shows what a mockery the timetable is. However, let me move on, because I want to give other hon. Members time to speak.
      On the approval of the codes, I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the strong representations that the Opposition made in Committee on the need for the affirmative procedure. I am delighted about that, and I shall say no more about the issue. We shall look at the details when they appear in the other place.
      Finally, I turn to the question of class C drugs. I do not want to get bogged down on whether cannabis should be a class B or a class C drug. The Government have made their decision, which has been both criticised and approved, depending on people's standpoint. What is extraordinary, however, is that by moving cannabis into the class C category, the Government have made all offences involving class C drugs arrestable. That is complete nonsense because those offences encompass such banal things as walking around in the street with ordinary prescription drugs or, indeed, drugs that may be banned nationally, such as steroids, which are not exactly abused on a large scale. There is absolutely no justification for making such things arrestable, when the Government accepted in Committee the fact that other class C drugs were not arrestable and had never caused a problem. Indeed, in the last year for which figures were available, there were only, prior to cannabis being made a class C drug, 450 prosecutions for possession of a class C drug in England and Wales. The problem is minute, and the Government are taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
      Mr. Ainsworth: Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that we are giving a power of arrest that will have to be limited in its use by guidance to be drawn up by ACPO. The problem that he raises is an apparent problem only, in that I cannot envisage circumstances in which the power of arrest will be used for any other class C drug. He should address the reality of what is being done, not seek to dress it up differently.
      Mr. Grieve: The Minister is doing something that the Government do all the time nowadays. They say, "This

      709
      is a power that we need to have, but it will be exercised in a particular way." I see no reason why they should take a power that they do not intend to exercise. The class C list includes 117 substances other than cannabis and cannabis resin, and more have been added in the past week or two. Having moved cannabis and cannabis resin to class C, the Government are completely distorting the mechanisms of class C to accommodate it. Much better than that ludicrous tinkering would be simply to make cannabis and cannabis resin a discrete drug that is arrestable within class C.
      Mr. Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that what the Minister said—namely, that the power of arrest shall depend on ACPO, an unaccountable body—is deeply offensive to this House?
      Mr. Grieve: I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. That is why we would have sought, but probably will not have the opportunity, to put our amendments to the vote.
      Mr. David Heath: The folly of the timetable is clearly demonstrated by the fact that we have six minutes left with many hon. Members wishing to contribute to the debate on a group of amendments that covers fingerprints, citizen's arrest, retention of DNA samples, consultation, the important disputed issue of drugs—about which we should like to say a great deal more—and the rules under which PACE will operate.
      The Government may have a case for testing prior to charge for DNA samples or for fingerprints. They do not, however, have a case for retaining that evidence solely for those who happen to have crossed the portals of a police station under arrest, but not for the rest of the population. One is either innocent or not innocent: we cannot establish a new category of people whom we do not like the look of and on whom we will retain evidence sine die for use on a future occasion. The problem is that the police will inevitably use that provision, which is on a par with those in the rest of the Bill. Increasingly, someone who has been convicted of an offence that may or may not be relevant, accused of or charged with an offence, or arrested is considered to be the likely suspect and no longer has the same standards of liberty as the rest of the population. I know that the Home Secretary has a somewhat Laodicean view of human rights, but that is not good enough, and it is time that the House made that clear. If a national database is to be established, let the Government come clean and say that that is what they intend.
      Mr. Allen: Would a national database established under independent auspices, rather than the auspices of the state or the police, allay some of the hon Gentleman's fears? Would he consider allowing voluntary entries to the DNA database so that people could be checked when necessary? I hope that he would concede that a lot of good has come from DNA testing.
      Mr. Heath: Of course I would concede the latter point. We need to have a debate about the matter. It is
      710
      interesting that when it was first raised in 2001, police officers were invited to provide DNA samples. A great number did not wish to do so: perhaps that tells its own story. I do not accept, however, the halfway house that the Government propose.
      The group covers other important matters. We have already debated future procedure for amendments to codes of conduct under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The Government are moving in the direction that we wanted, for which I am grateful. I look forward to the outcome of those deliberations. The Minister rejected my view that an inspector's agreement should be required for taking samples in a police station. That is the position under PACE. The Minister claims that it is bureaucratic and unnecessary, but I believe that it may be a useful safeguard.
      4.45 pm
      I want to speak briefly about amendments Nos. 169 and 170, which Liberal Democrat Members tabled. They relate to the point that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made about the unholy mess that the Government have made of their position on drugs law. Irrespective of one's views on cannabis reclassification, it is especially absurd that at the same time as the Government do that, they introduce it as an arrestable offence together with possession of a variety of other substances that should never be included in that category.
      We support a clearly defined drugs policy, with objectives that people understand, that is not undermined by inconsistency but that points people in the direction of the treatment that they need. The Bill does nothing to help that process. If we have the opportunity, we should like to test hon. Members' opinion of amendment No. 169. The debate has been wholly inadequate on such an important subject. It underlines the inadequacy of today's programme motion.
      Mr. Allen: We need a national debate on DNA and whether there should be a national database. We should also hold a further debate, which I hope the Government will sponsor, on whether we can extend DNA databases on a voluntary basis.
      Mr. Hogg: I want to reinforce the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) on new clause 15, which will enable the police to go on fishing expeditions. When I first became a Member of Parliament, there was much debate about the vagrancy Acts and the power to arrest people on suspicion. We are now giving the police precisely the same sort of power, which they will use to obtain fingerprints and/or intimate or non-intimate samples from people against whom there is insufficient evidence.
      It being one and a quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Orders [4 February, 5 March, 2 April and this day] put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
      MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Amendment proposed: No. 169, in page 6, line 2, leave out Clause 9—[Mr. Heath.]
      The House divided: Ayes 40, Noes 317.

      Division No. 203]

      [4:47 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Burnett, John

      Öpik, Lembit

      Burnside, David

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Burstow, Paul

      Rendel, David

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Sanders, Adrian

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Shepherd, Richard

      Chidgey, David

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

      Cotter, Brian

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Doughty, Sue

      Stunell, Andrew

      Gidley, Sandra

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Hancock, Mike

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Harvey, Nick

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Heath, David

      Willis, Phil

      Holmes, Paul

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Keetch, Paul

      Mrs. Annette L. Brooke and

      Lamb, Norman

      Mr. Alan Reid

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Ainger, Nick

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Alexander, Douglas

      Casale, Roger

      Allen, Graham

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Challen, Colin

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Chaytor, David

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Austin, John

      Bailey, Adrian

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Baird, Vera

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Banks, Tony

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Barnes, Harry

      Battle, John

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clelland, David

      Beard, Nigel

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Coaker, Vernon

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bell, Stuart

      Coleman, Iain

      Benn, Hilary

      Colman, Tony

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Berry, Roger

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Blackman, Liz

      Cooper, Yvette

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Blizzard, Bob

      Corston, Jean

      Blunkett, rh David

      Cousins, Jim

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Crausby, David

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Cruddas, Jon

      Brennan, Kevin

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Browne, Desmond

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Bryant, Chris

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Burden, Richard

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Burgon, Colin

      Dalyell, Tam

      Burnham, Andy

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Davidson, Ian

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Cairns, David

      Dawson, Hilton

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      712

      Denham, rh John

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Doran, Frank

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Edwards, Huw

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Efford, Clive

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kidney, David

      Etherington, Bill

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Farrelly, Paul

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Fisher, Mark

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Follett, Barbara

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Foster, rh Derek

      Lammy, David

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Foulkes, rh George

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Linton, Martin

      Gardiner, Barry

      Love, Andrew

      Gerrard, Neil

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gilroy, Linda

      McCabe, Stephen

      Godsiff, Roger

      McCafferty, Chris

      Goggins, Paul

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McDonnell, John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      MacDougall, John

      Grogan, John

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hain, rh Peter

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McKechin, Ann

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McNulty, Tony

      Hanson, David

      McWilliam, John

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Healey, John

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Heppell, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hermon, Lady

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hesford, Stephen

      Martlew, Eric

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Heyes, David

      Merron, Gillian

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hinchliffe, David

      Miliband, David

      Hodge, Margaret

      Miller, Andrew

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Mole, Chris

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Morley, Elliot

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Mullin, Chris

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Olner, Bill

      Hutton, rh John

      O'Neill, Martin

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Organ, Diana

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Pearson, Ian

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Perham, Linda

      Jamieson, David

      Picking, Anne

      Jenkins, Brian

      Pickthall, Colin

      713

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Plaskitt, James

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Pound, Stephen

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Stringer, Graham

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Purnell, James

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Rammell, Bill

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Timms, Stephen

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

      Tipping, Paddy

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Trickett, Jon

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Truswell, Paul

      Rooney, Terry

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Ruane, Chris

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Salter, Martin

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Sawford, Phil

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Watts, David

      Sheerman, Barry

      White, Brian

      Sheridan, Jim

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Singh, Marsha

      Wills, Michael

      Winnick, David

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Woolas, Phil

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Worthington, Tony

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Soley, Clive

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Southworth, Helen

      Spellar, rh John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Squire, Rachel

      Charlotte Atkins and

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Mr. Jim Murphy

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 15

      TAKING NON-INTIMATE SAMPLES WITHOUT CONSENT
      "(1) Section 63 of the 1984 Act (other samples) is amended as follows.
      (2) After subsection (2) (consent to be given in writing) there is inserted—
      "(2A) A non-intimate sample may be taken from a person without the appropriate consent if two conditions are satisfied.
      (2B) The first is that the person is in police detention in consequence of his arrest for a recordable offence.
      (2C) The second is that—

      (a) he has not had a non-intimate sample of the same type and from the same part of the body taken in the course of the investigation of the offence by the police, or

      (b) he has had such a sample taken but it proved insufficient."

      (3) In subsection (3)(a) (taking of samples without appropriate consent) the words "is in police detention or" are omitted.
      (4) In subsection (3A) (taking of samples without appropriate consent after charge) for "(whether or not he falls within subsection (3)(a) above)" there is substituted "(whether or not he is in police detention or held in custody by the police on the authority of a court)".
      (5) In subsection (8A) (reasons for taking of samples without consent) for "subsection (3A)" there is substituted "subsection (2A), (3A)".".
      —[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 323, Noes 178.

      Division No. 204]

      [5:02 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Ainger, Nick

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Allen, Graham

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Clelland, David

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cohen, Harry

      Austin, John

      Coleman, Iain

      Bailey, Adrian

      Colman, Tony

      Baird, Vera

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Banks, Tony

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Barnes, Harry

      Cooper, Yvette

      Battle, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bayley, Hugh

      Corston, Jean

      Beard, Nigel

      Cousins, Jim

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Crausby, David

      Bell, Stuart

      Cruddas, Jon

      Benn, Hilary

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Berry, Roger

      Blackman, Liz

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Blunkett, rh David

      Dalyell, Tam

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Davidson, Ian

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Dawson, Hilton

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Denham, rh John

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Browne, Desmond

      Dismore, Andrew

      Bryant, Chris

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Burden, Richard

      Doran, Frank

      Burgon, Colin

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Burnham, Andy

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Cairns, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Efford, Clive

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Etherington, Bill

      Caplin, Ivor

      Farrelly, Paul

      Casale, Roger

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Fisher, Mark

      Challen, Colin

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Chaytor, David

      Follett, Barbara

      Clapham, Michael

      Foster, rh Derek

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      715

      Foulkes, rh George

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Gardiner, Barry

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Linton, Martin

      Gilroy, Linda

      Love, Andrew

      Godsiff, Roger

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Goggins, Paul

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Grogan, John

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hain, rh Peter

      McDonnell, John

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      MacDougall, John

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McKechin, Ann

      Hanson, David

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      McNamara, Kevin

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      McNulty, Tony

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      McWilliam, John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Healey, John

      Mallaber, Judy

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Hendrick, Mark

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Heppell, John

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Heyes, David

      Martlew, Eric

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Hinchliffe, David

      Merron, Gillian

      Hodge, Margaret

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Miliband, David

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Miller, Andrew

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mole, Chris

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Morley, Elliot

      Mullin, Chris

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hutton, rh John

      Olner, Bill

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Organ, Diana

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Pearson, Ian

      Perham, Linda

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Picking, Anne

      Jamieson, David

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jenkins, Brian

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Pound, Stephen

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Purnell, James

      Kemp, Fraser

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Rammell, Bill

      Kidney, David

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Rooney, Terry

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lammy, David

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      716

      Ruane, Chris

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Salter, Martin

      Timms, Stephen

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Tipping, Paddy

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Sawford, Phil

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Trickett, Jon

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Truswell, Paul

      Sheerman, Barry

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Singh, Marsha

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Wallely, Ms Joan

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      White, Brian

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Soley, Clive

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Southworth, Helen

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Spellar, rh John

      Wills, Michael

      Squire, Rachel

      Wilson, Brian

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Winnick, David

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Woolas, Phil

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Worthington, Tony

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stringer, Graham

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Charlotte Atkins and

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Mr. Jim Murphy

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Cameron, David

      Allan, Richard

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Amess, David

      Cash, William

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Chidgey, David

      Bacon, Richard

      Chope, Christopher

      Baldry, Tony

      Clappison, James

      Barker, Gregory

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Barrett, John

      Conway, Derek

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Bellingham, Henry

      Cotter, Brian

      Bercow, John

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Boswell, Tim

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Doughty, Sue

      Brady, Graham

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Evans, Nigel

      Brazier, Julian

      Fabricant, Michael

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Fallon, Michael

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Burnett, John

      Flight, Howard

      Burns, Simon

      Flook, Adrian

      Burnside, David

      Forth, rh Eric

      Burstow, Paul

      Francois, Mark

      Burt, Alistair

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Butterfill, John

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Gidley, Sandra

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      717

      Goodman, Paul

      Paterson, Owen

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Pickles, Eric

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Greenway, John

      Randall, John

      Grieve, Dominic

      Redwood, rh John

      Gummer, rh John

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Hammond, Philip

      Rendel, David

      Hancock, Mike

      Robathan, Andrew

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Harvey, Nick

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Hawkins, Nick

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Heald, Oliver

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Heath, David

      Selous, Andrew

      Hendry, Charles

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Hermon, Lady

      Shepherd, Richard

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Holmes, Paul

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

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hunter, Andrew

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Spring, Richard

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Streeter, Gary

      Keetch, Paul

      Stunell, Andrew

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Syms, Robert

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lamb, Norman

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Leigh, Edward

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Tredinnick, David

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Lidington, David

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Viggers, Peter

      Loughton, Tim

      Walter, Robert

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Waterson, Nigel

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Watkinson, Angela

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Maclean, rh David

      Whittingdale, John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Malins, Humfrey

      Wiggin, Bill

      Maples, John

      Wilkinson, John

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Willetts, David

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Willis, Phil

      Mercer, Patrick

      Wilshire, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Young, rh Sir George

      Öpik, Lembit

      Ottaway, Richard

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Page, Richard

      Mr. Desmond Swayne and

      Paice, James

      Hugh Robertson

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

    New Clause 52

      ABSCONDING BY PERSONS RELEASED ON BAIL
      "(1) For paragraph 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the 1976 Act (defendant need not be granted bail if having been released on bail he has been arrested in pursuance of section 7) there is substituted—
      "6 (1) If the defendant falls within this paragraph, he may not be granted bail unless the court is satisfied that there is no significant risk that, if released on bail (whether subject to
      718
      conditions or not), he would fail to surrender to custody; but this does not require the court, if so satisfied, to grant bail (disregarding other considerations).
      (2) Subject to subparagraph (3) below, the defendant falls within this paragraph if—

      (a) he is aged 18 or over, and

      (b) it appears to the court that, having been released on bail in or in connection with the proceedings for the offence, he failed to surrender to custody.

      (3) Where it appears to the court that the defendant had reasonable cause for his failure to surrender to custody, he does not fall within this paragraph unless it also appears to the court that he failed to surrender to custody at the appointed place as soon as reasonably practicable after the appointed time.
      (4) For the purposes of subparagraph (3) above, a failure to give to the defendant a copy of the record of the decision to grant him bail shall not constitute a reasonable cause for his failure to surrender to custody."
      (2) In section 6 of the 1976 Act (offence of absconding by person released on bail) after subsection (9) there is inserted—
      "(10) Section 127 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 shall not apply in relation to an offence under subsection(1)or(2) above.
      (11) Where a person has been released on bail in criminal proceedings and that bail was granted by a constable, a magistrates' court shall not try that person for an offence under subsection (1) or (2) above in relation to that bail (the "relevant offence") unless subsection (12) or (13) below applies.
      (12) This subsection applies if an information is laid for the relevant offence within 6 months from the time of the commission of the relevant offence.
      (13) This subsection applies if—

      (a) subsection (12) above does not apply,

      (b) none of the events mentioned in subsection (14) below occurs during the period mentioned in subsection (12) above, and

      (c) no later than 3 months from the time of the occurrence of the first of those events to occur after the end of that period, an information is laid for the relevant offence.

      (14) Those events are—

      (a) the person surrenders to custody at the appointed place;

      (b) the person is arrested, or attends at a police station, in connection with the relevant offence or the offence for which he was granted bail;

      (c) the person appears or is brought before a court in connection with the relevant offence or the offence for which he was granted bail.""

      —[The Solicitor-General.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5.15 pm
      The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      The following amendments to the proposed new clause:
      Amendment (a), in proposed new paragraph 6(1), leave out from 'custody' to the end of the paragraph.
      Amendment (b), leave out proposed new paragraph 6(4).
      Government new clause 53—Supplementary amendments to the Bail Act 1976.
      Government amendments Nos. 443 to 448, 232 and 449.

      719
      Amendment No. 171, in page 12, clause 16, line 20, leave out 'not' and insert 'only'.
      Amendment No. 172, in page 12, clause 16, line 20, leave out 'unless' and insert 'if'.
      Government amendments Nos. 450 to 454.
      The Solicitor-General: It is not as bad as it sounds, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall speak to new clauses 52 and 53, together with a number of consequential and technical Government amendments, and comment on the relevant Opposition amendments.
      New clauses 52 and 53 tighten up bail for people who have been granted bail but breach it. They are being introduced at this stage because this issue has been raised under the street crime initiative and brought to the fore by those considering how to tackle street crime. I know that hon. Members are familiar with the issue and that it will have been raised with them.
      The problem is that people feel strongly when someone is granted bail by the court but then breaches it. Nearly one defendant in four offends while on bail, and one in eight fails to turn up in court. That wastes time and resources, but more importantly it leads to delays that frustrate and often upset victims and witnesses. Victims, in particular, find it hard to understand how, despite all the efforts invested by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service in apprehending and charging the alleged perpetrator of a crime, he can fail to appear and yet be given bail again. Basically, they turn up but he does not, which undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system.
      At the moment, a defendant arrested for breach of bail loses the usual presumption in favour of bail, but the Government believe that it is necessary to send a more powerful deterrent message to defendants who, for no good reason, do not turn up in court. New clause 52(1) therefore goes one step further than the current position by creating a presumption against bail in those circumstances. It requires the court to refuse bail to an adult defendant—this applies only to adults—who fails without reasonable cause to surrender to custody in answer to bail in the same proceedings, unless the court is satisfied that there is no significant risk that he would again fail to surrender if released on bail.
      Conscious as we are of our obligations under the European convention on human rights, the Government are satisfied that the proposal is compatible with those obligations.
      Mr. Allen: My right hon. and learned Friend says that the measure relates to adult offenders; will she take evidence from me, as it were, on this issue? I met senior police officers on Friday and asked them what their most frustrating experiences with the criminal justice system were. In particular, they named young offenders who refuse to attend, or for some other reason do not attend, a court hearing when everyone else is present and ready to go, and the fact that such offenders can laugh at the court and just be given another date.
      The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is well aware of the challenge of young offenders as he raised it on many occasions in Committee, in which he played an active part. Like other hon. Members who served in
      720
      Committee, he will know that many parts of the Bill seek to deal with the difficulty of tackling offending behaviour early on in a young person's life. However, we though it right to apply this new clause, which reverses the presumption of bail and requires the court to make a presumption that bail will not be granted, to adults and leave the situation as it is in respect of breach of bail for under-18s.
      Mr. John Gummer: Will the Solicitor-General explain why it is necessary to make that distinction? I find it very difficult to understand why a 17-year-old should not be expected to behave in exactly the same way as an 18-year-old in this regard. It is all very well saying that the Government think it right, but I cannot understand on what possible grounds they can do so; perhaps she might explain to the House why she thinks it right. I think it wrong, and that the measure should apply to all persons who are given bail.
      The Solicitor-General: The point that the right hon. Gentleman raises—it is the same as that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr.Allen)—is an important one. All I can say is that no amendment before the House now would have that effect, but the Bill will go to the other place and it might be possible to consider the point there. For the moment I want to make it clear that the proposals currently before us deal with adults. If an amendment to make the bail regime much tougher on juveniles were necessary, my ministerial colleagues in the Home Office would want to reflect on it: it might then be available for discussion in the other place.
      Mr. Allen: Would my right hon. and learned Friend allow me to write to her so that she can advise me on the best way to proceed—perhaps, for example, by a pilot scheme for young offenders on bail? It might be helpful to develop the policy in that way.
      The Solicitor-General: I am sure that my colleagues in the Home Office would welcome a letter from my hon. Friend, putting forward that point for their consideration.
      Mr. Bercow: The Solicitor-General will know that I am a parliamentary virgin on this matter, because, as I explained earlier, I did not have the good fortune to sit on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill. I am flummoxed, but I am sure that the Solicitor-General is about to release me from my state of ignorance. Did the Government not consider the position of 17-year-olds, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) referred, or did they consider the matter and not think it worthy of inclusion? I am perspiring to know which is the case?
      The Solicitor-General: The Government considered it, of course, but decided to introduce the new clause in its current form, which does not apply to juveniles. Provisions on juveniles have not been brought before the House, but that does not mean that further consideration cannot be urged in future. I say no more than that.

      721
      Refusal of bail will not be automatic, because the court will still have to consider the risk that the defendant will again fail to appear. A previous failure to surrender to custody is not, of itself, reason for refusing bail, but it is highly relevant to assessing that risk.
      It may be convenient to deal with amendments (a) and (b), tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), who has yet to speak.
      Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the Solicitor-General for taking another intervention. I listened carefully to her introductory words, in which she said that, when people do not appear after being released on bail, it undermines public confidence and that a more powerful deterrent message should be sent out. I could not agree more. In those circumstances, given that we have again—quite rightly, in my view—suspended elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, making it impossible to devolve criminal justice and policing to the Assembly in the foreseeable future, will the Solicitor-General give an assurance that the bail provisions will be extended to Northern Ireland?
      The Solicitor-General: I shall have to come back to the hon. Lady on that. She has made her point and I shall try to be forthcoming with an answer in due course.
      John Mann: Before the Solicitor-General moves on to the most important amendments, she described other amendments, such as amendment No. 232, as "tidying-up" measures? Amendment No. 232, which deals with drug offenders on bail, would add "(or both)" to "assistance or treatment". Is not such tidying up sheer nonsense, because the term "(or both)" is already contained in the meaning? What is required is the replacement of the word "or" with "and", because any drug offender requires medical treatment. Leaving the probation service or other qualified persons with an option not to incorporate medical treatment will only make re-offending more likely.
      The Solicitor-General: I shall deal with my hon. Friend's points when I come to the amendment in a moment. For the sake of those who are not as deeply cognisant of the issues as my hon. Friend, I shall continue with questions surrounding the presumption of bail, and return to his points later.
      Mr. Grieve: Will the Solicitor-General assist the House by giving the Government's estimate of the increase in the remand prison population that will result from the amendments restricting access to bail? That information would be useful, if the Government have made such an estimate—and I hope they have.
      The Solicitor-General: The intention is that fewer people will be on remand, because the message will be clearly sent out that people cannot take a risk by not turning up to court, because it will be one strike if they are out, so to speak. There will be no misunderstanding in the minds of defendants, because it will be clear that
      722
      if they have been granted bail by the court to return on a certain day, they have to return on that day. Otherwise, when they are later arrested and brought before the court, they will be remanded in custody. The aim is that people will be clear about the need to turn up to court. The aim is to bring offenders to justice so that the courts can deal with cases, instead of having more people on remand in custody.
      We do not want a situation in which the police witnesses, the lay witnesses, the victim and the prosecution are all present, and the only person missing is the defendant, so the case has to be adjourned. That undermines public confidence in the system, which is why we have brought the provision before the House. Those who advise clients can be clear that the presumption will be that the defendant will not get bail, unless they can show some good, overriding reason why they were not able to attend, such as being locked up somewhere else. With a really good reason, the person may escape being remanded in custody; otherwise, failure to appear will be an offence that is dealt with by imprisonment.
      Amendments (a) and (b) were tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and others. It might help if I explain the Government's view, although I anticipate that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) will speak to the amendments. I hope that I do not pre-empt him too much by saying that the amendments are modest, but—without wishing to exaggerate matters—they would certainly do some damage to the Bill.
      Amendment (a) would remove words that are designed to make it clear that when a court is satisfied that there is no significant risk of a defendant failing to appear, it is not under an obligation to grant bail irrespective of other considerations. That must make sense. If there are reasons for refusing bail other than the question of absconding—for example, a risk of interference with witnesses—the provision as it stands makes it clear to the court that it retains the power to refuse bail, notwithstanding that the defendant is not considered likely to abscond again. We did not want to create a situation in which, on clear evidence, it was apparent that a defendant was not likely to abscond again, and the court therefore felt that it should grant bail, irrespective of other issues that should have led it to refuse bail.
      Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for giving way, because this may be the only opportunity that I have to speak on the amendments. We have some sympathy with what the Government are trying to do, but we wanted to retain at least some vestige of the presumption in favour of bail and give the courts the discretion to make the decision. The problem with the Government's interpretation is that it reduces the discretion to a nugatory amount.
      The Solicitor-General: Clearly, if the hon. Gentleman's desire is to retain the presumption in favour of bail, I shall disappoint him because the whole point of new clause 52 is that, if someone is arrested, charged, brought before the court and bailed to appear on another day but simply fails to turn up, they will not have the presumption in their favour that bail will be granted. At that point, the presumption will be that bail will not be granted.

      723
      5.30 pm
      The hon. Gentleman also mentions the court's discretion. Of course the court will still have discretion. If the defendant can show reasonable cause for his not turning up, he can rebut that presumption. So the presumption is rebuttable, but it must be included in the Bill. That is what new clause 52 will do, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman must think that that is right. People find it very undermining when the same issue is simply played over and again, but the presumption is still in favour of granting bail.
      Amendment (b) would remove the provision that states:
      "a failure to give to the defendant a copy of the record of the decision to grant him bail shall not constitute a reasonable cause for his failure to surrender to custody."
      Those words merely replicate those already used in section 6(4) of the Bail Act 1976 and are intended to avoid technical arguments that a defendant could not have been expected to know his bail date because the court had failed to give him the required copy.
      New clause 52(2) deals with a technical obstacle to proceeding against defendants who fail to answer to bail granted by the police. In those cases, unlike those involving police bail, section 127 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 applies. That prevents summary proceedings from being instituted more than six months after the commission of an offence, so if a Bail Act offence is committed and the offender manages to stay out of sight of the police for more than six months, it is not possible to prosecute that Bail Act offence. Surely that cannot be right. Therefore, subsection (2) will disapply section 127 in respect of offences under section 6 of the Bail Act 1976 and apply a new limitation period of three months from the defendant's surrender to custody, arrest or court appearance. So the time limit is three months from when the person is apprehended.
      Amendment No. 445 would insert into clause 12 a new provision—
      Mr. Grieve: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I believe that time has now run out for this group of about 40 amendments, most of which are Government amendments, but the Solicitor-General has not even been able fully to explain important Government amendments to the House, leaving aside the amendments tabled by the official Opposition or the Liberal Demorats. Can any protection be provided to the House to enable us to give some rudimentary consideration to important measures, rather than being left with this complete pantomime, which brings the House into disrepute?
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall respond to the point of order, but I am required under the programme motion to put the Question at this time. My reply to the hon. Gentleman is that, of course, I am governed by the
      724
      programme motion, which was duly agreed to by the House, and I must therefore follow the directions in that motion.
      Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must put the Question now, but I will come back to the hon. Gentleman afterwards.
      It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Orders [4 February, 5 March, 2 April and this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.
      MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

    Clause 11

      GRANT AND CONDITIONS OF BAIL
      Amendments made: No. 443, in page 8, line 11, leave out subsection (3).
      No. 444, in page 8, line 19, leave out '2' and insert "2(1)".—[Mr. Heppell.]

    Clause 12

      OFFENCES COMMITTED ON BAIL
      Amendments made: No. 445, in page 8, line 36, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
      '(1) For paragraph 2A of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the 1976 Act (defendant need not be granted bail where he was on bail at date of offence) there is substituted—
      "2A (1) If the defendant falls within this paragraph he may not be granted bail unless the court is satisfied that there is no significant risk of his committing an offence while on bail (whether subject to conditions or not); but this does not require the court, if so satisfied, to grant bail (disregarding other considerations).
      (2) The defendant falls within this paragraph if—

      (a) he is aged 18 or over, and

      (b) it appears to the court that he was on bail in criminal proceedings on the date of the offence."'

      No. 446, in page 8, line 41, after 'defendant' insert—

      (a) is under the age of 18, and

      (b) it appears to the court that he'.

      No. 447, in page 8, line 43, leave out '2' and insert "2(1)'.—[Mr. Heppell.]

    Clause 16

      DRUG USERS: RESTRICTION ON BAIL
      Amendments made: No. 448, in page 11, line 22, at end insert 'Part 1 of'.
      No. 232, in page 11, line 41, after 'treatment' insert "(or both)'.
      No. 449, in page 12, line 10, leave out paragraph (a).
      No. 450, in page 12, line 22, after 'bail' insert—
      "(whether subject to conditions or not)'.
      No. 451, in page 13, leave out lines 25 to 27.—[Mr. Heppell.]

    Clause 28

      DEFENCE DISCLOSURE
      Amendments made: No. 72, in page 18, line 26, after 'evidence', insert—
      'or an abuse of process'.
      No. 73, in page 19, leave out lines 1 to 3.
      No. 74, in page 19, line 9, after 'prosecutor', insert "either—
      (a)'.
      No. 75, in page 19, line 10, at end insert
      ", or
      (b) a statement of the kind mentioned in subsection (3A)'.
      No. 76, in page 19, line 14, at end insert—
      '(3A) Instead of an updated defence statement, the accused may give a written statement stating that he has no changes to make to the defence statement which was given under section 5 or 6.'
      No. 77, in page 19, line 16, after 'give', insert "either'.
      No. 78, in page 19, line 16, after 'statement', insert—
      'or a statement of the kind mentioned in subsection (3A)'.—[Mr. Heppell.]

    Clause 29

      NOTIFICATION OF INTENTION TO CALL DEFENCE WITNESSES
      Amendments made: No. 79, in page 19, line 26, leave out
      "give or call any evidence at'
      and insert—
      "call any persons (other than himself) as witnesses at his'.
      No. 80, in page 19, line 28, after 'each', insert "such'.
      No. 81, in page 19, line 29 leave out
      "(other than the accused himself)'.
      No. 82, in page 19, line 32, at end insert "such'.
      No. 83, in page 19, line 41, after 'person', insert "(other than himself)'.—[Mr. Heppell.]

    Clause 31

      FURTHER PROVISIONS ABOUT DEFENCE DISCLOSURE
      Amendments made: No. 84, in page 20, line 23, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
      '(1) Where an accused's solicitor purports to give on behalf of the accused—

      (a) a defence statement under section 5, 6 or 6B, or

      (b) a statement of the kind mentioned in section 6B(3A),

      that statement shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to be given with the authority of the accused.'.
      No. 85, in page 21, line 7, at end insert—
      "(c) where he has given both an initial defence statement and a statement of the kind mentioned in section 6B(3A), to the initial defence statement.'.
      —[Mr. Heppell.]

    Clause 34

      FAULTS IN DEFENCE DISCLOSURE
      Amendments made: No. 93, in page 23, line 47, at end insert—
      '(iii) where he has given both an initial defence statement and a statement of the kind mentioned in section 6B(3A), to the initial defence statement;'.—
      No. 86, in page 22, line 30, after 'give', insert "either'.
      No. 87, in page 22, line 30, at end insert—
      'or a statement of the kind mentioned in subsection (3A) of that section'.
      No. 88, in page 22, line 32, after "statement', insert—
      'or a statement of the kind mentioned in section 6B(3A)'.
      No. 89, in page 23, line 3, leave out "giving'.
      No. 90, in page 23, line 15 after "witness', insert "(other than himself)'.
      No. 91, in page 23, line 21, at end insert—
      '(5A) Where—

      (a) this section applies by virtue of subsection (2)(f)(ii) (including that provision as it applies by virtue of subsection (3)(b)), and

      (b) the matter which was not mentioned is a point of law (including any point as to the admissibility of evidence or an abuse of process) or an authority,

      comment by another party under subsection (5)(a) may be made only with the leave of the court.'.
      No. 92, in page 23, line 36, at end insert—
      '(9A) Where the accused has given a statement of the kind mentioned in section 6B(3A), then, for the purposes of subsections (2)(f)(ii) and (iv), the question as to whether there has been a breach of the requirements imposed by or under section 6A or a failure to comply with section 6A(2)(a) or (b) shall be determined—

      (a) by reference to the state of affairs at the time when that statement was given, and

      (b) as if the defence statement was given at the same time as that statement.'.

      No. 93, page 23, line 47, at end insert—
      "(iii) where he has given both an initial defence statement and a statement of the kind mentioned in section 6B(3A), to the initial defence statement.'.
      [Mr. Heppell.]

    Schedule 27

      FURTHER MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 103, in page 302, line 22, at end insert—
      '33A (1) Section 77 (orders and regulations) is amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (5)—

      (a) after "No", there is inserted "regulations or" and

      (b) after "section" there is inserted "6A or".

      (3) In subsection (6)(b) after "regulations" there is inserted "(other than regulations under section 6A)".'
      Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You kindly said that you would revert to me when you had gone through the proper course of action.

      727
      In view of the fact that there were no fewer than 46 Government new clauses and amendments in the category that has just been discussed, which fell into two subdivisions, and that the Solicitor-General, despite her considerable eloquence and succinctness, had the opportunity to speak on only four of them, are you, Madam Deputy Speaker, able to advise me and other Members whether, in the history of our programming arrangements, there is any precedent for the violence to parliamentary opportunity that has been done today?
      Mr. Gummer: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, would you also bear in mind your important role of defending the rights of Back Benchers? This Back Bencher was hoping to speak on one particular amendment as it was the only one on which I do not find myself opposing the Government from the left, which is very embarrassing for me. I thus wanted at least to be able say that I thought bail ought to be extended to those aged under-18.
      Mr. Heath: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I understand entirely the fact that, for one brief second, you thought that we had not yet addressed part 5, because in fact we have not addressed it. Part 5 deals with the important matter of disclosures in trials. Not only do we seek to defend the rights of Members of the House, but, more important, we seek to defend the rights of those who are arraigned in our courts. Is there no way in which a Committee of the House could have the opportunity even to see an explanation from the Government of the amendments before they go to another place, which is not elected?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I regret to say that I can save hon. Members from neither embarrassment nor from disappointment at being unable to contribute to the debate. I am governed by the programme motion, which, as I said earlier, was agreed by the House. I must, therefore, follow the instructions of the House.

    New Clause 29

      RULES OF COURT
      "(1) Rules of court may make such provision as appears to the authority making them to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of this Part.
      (2) Without limiting subsection (1), rules of court may in particular make provision for time limits within which applications under this Part must be made or within which other things in connection with this Part must be done.
      (3) Nothing in this section is to be taken as affecting the generality of any enactment conferring powers to make rules of court.'.—[Mr. Blunkett.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 1—Applications by prosecution for complex and lengthy trial to be conducted before a jury of experts—
      This section applies where one or more defendants are to be tried on indictment for one or more offences.
      728
      (2)The prosecution or the defendant may apply to a judge of the Crown Court for the trial to be conducted before a jury of experts.
      (3) If an application under subsection (2) is made and the judge is satisfied that both of the following two conditions are fulfilled he must make an order that the trial be conducted before a jury of experts, but if he is not so satisfied he must refuse the application.
      (4) The first condition is that the complexity of the trial and its length—

      (a) is likely to make the trial so burdensome to the members of a jury hearing the trial that it is necessary in the interests of justice for the trial to be conducted before a jury of experts.

      (b) would be likely to place an excessive burden upon the life of a typical juror.

      (5)The second condition is that the complexity and length will be attributable—

      (a) to the fact that the issues likely to be material to the verdict of a jury hearing the trial relate to arrangements, transactions or records of a financial or commercial nature or which relate to property, and

      (b) to the likely volume of evidence relating to those issues.

      (6) In deciding whether or not he is satisfied that both of those two conditions are fulfilled, the judge must have regard to any steps which might reasonably be taken to reduce the complexity or length of the trial (or both).
      (7) But a step is not to be regarded as reasonable if it would significantly disadvantage the prosecution or the defendant.'
      New clause 2—Expert jursies—
      '(1) A jury of experts shall be constituted by 12 members drawn from the following professional bodies—

      (a) The Royal Institute of Chartered Accountants;

      (b) The Society of Actuaries.

      (2) The Lord Chancellor may by order amend the list of professional bodies from which expert jurors are drawn.
      (3) The Lord Chancellor shall maintain a list of eligible persons willing to serve as expert jurors.
      (4) The Lord Chancellor may pay to any expert juror such remuneration as he may determine.'.
      New clause 23—Application by defendant for trial to be conducted without jury—
      "(1) This section applies where one or more defendants are to be tried on indictment for one or more offences.
      (2) The defendant, or any of the defendants, may apply to a judge of the Crown Court for the trial to be conducted without a jury.
      (3) The judge may make an order that the trial is to be conducted without a jury if satisfied that subsection (4) applies.
      (4) This subsection applies if the judge is satisfied there is a substantial risk that the defendant will not receive a fair trial if tried by a jury.
      (5) When deciding whether the subsection (4) applies the judge shall give consideration to the following—

      (a) the nature of the case;

      (b) any submissions made by the prosecution or the defence;

      (c) any other relevant factors.

      (6) Before making any submissions under subsection (5)(b) the prosecution shall take into consideration the wishes and interests of any witnesses.
      (7) If two or more defendants are to be tried and any of them opposes an application under subsection (2) then subsection (4) will not apply.'.—
      Amendment No. 1, in page 24, line 12, leave out Clause 36.
      Amendment No. 2, in page 25, line 10, leave out Clause 37.
      Amendment No. 3, in page 25, line 38, leave out Clause 38.
      Amendment No. 128, in clause 38, page 26, line 1, leave out 'satisfied' and insert 'convinced'.
      Amendment No. 5, in clause 39, page 26, line 20, leave out from 'applies' to end of line 24 and insert—
      'to any application under section (Applications by prosecution for complex and lengthy trial to be conducted before a jury of experts) above.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 203 and 204.
      Amendment No. 6, in clause 39, line 42, leave out
      "section 36, 37 or 38'
      and insert—
      "section (Applications by prosecution for complex and lengthy trial to be conducted before a jury of experts)'.
      Government amendments Nos. 205 to 207.
      Amendment No. 7, in page 27, line 17, leave out
      "section 36, 37 or 38'
      and insert—
      "section (Applications by prosecution for complex and lengthy trial to be conducted before a jury of experts)'.
      Amendment No. 8, in line 28, leave out '(or partly because)'.
      Amendment No. 9, in line 28, leave out 'appears to have' and insert 'has'.
      Government amendments Nos. 208 and 209.
      Amendment No. 10, in clause 40, page 27, line 35, leave out from 'must' to end of line 36 and insert "terminate the trial'.
      Amendment No. 11, in line 37, leave out subsection (4).
      Amendment No. 12, in line 39, leave out '(4)' and insert '(3)'.
      Amendment No. 13, in line 41, leave out from 'that' to end of line 44 and insert—
      'if the retrial were to take place with a jury there is a real and present danger that jury tampering would again occur and that either,

      (a)(i) the danger of jury tampering is such that it would be necessary to provide police protection for the members of the jury hearing the trial and

      (ii) the level and duration of that protection would be likely to place an excessive burden upon the life of a typical juror, or

      (b) notwithstanding any steps (including the provision of police protection) which might reasonably be taken to prevent jury tampering the likelihood that it would take place was so high to make it necessary in the interests of justice for the trial to be conducted without a jury.'.
      Amendment No. 14, in page 28, line 3, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
      '(7) Any new trial by judge alone must take place in front of a different judge.'.
      Amendment No. 15, in clause 42, line 31, leave out subsection (1).
      Amendment No. 16, in line 33, leave out 'trial' and insert 'retrial'.
      Amendment No. 17, in line 34, leave out 'be continued' and insert 'take place'.
      Government amendments Nos. 210, 211, 214 to 222 and 213.
      Mr. Blunkett: First, may I take this opportunity to welcome officially my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins)? I am convinced that this will encourage other Parliamentary Private Secretaries to believe that there is life after bag carrying. I sincerely hope so, as we approach the possibility of a forthcoming reshuffle.
      On Third Reading, I shall say a word about my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), who is now the Minister of State, Department for International Development. He did a splendid job in the Standing Committee and I shall come back to that point tomorrow evening.
      May I also wish the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Home Secretary, a happy birthday? It is a miserable way to spend it. It looks as though I shall be spending my birthday in Cabinet discussing the euro, and I shall not take bets on which is worse—discussing trial by judge only or being judged on our decision on the euro.
      New clause 29 provides a standard power to make rules of court in respect of procedural matters relating to applications and appeals under part 7. One such matter is time limits for applications. That concern was raised in Committee and we wanted to address the issue to ensure that, under clause 36, individuals had no opportunity to undertake what has been described as "judge shopping", which is an entirely new phrase to me. That raised the fear, however, that without proper time limits and additional requirements and restrictions, which exist already in clause 36, opportunities may exist for people to pick and choose judges in the way that, as we shall discuss in a moment, some people, by intimidation, pick and choose the jury that they want. We hope that this measure will allay people's fears.
      In relation to clause 36, to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) has tabled an amendment, fears were expressed in Committee that there may not be proper equality or opportunity for those with particular ethnic or gender needs to be dealt with fairly by jury, which is why some people would choose judge-only trials. We reject that proposition. We do not believe that new clause 23 is either necessary or desirable. I can confirm from discussions that Lord Falconer and I had with the Judicial Studies Board last week that substantial changes have been put in place for the training and choosing of judges in specific cases in which there may be concern. That is true of those who need proper training and sensitivity in relation to rape cases, and of those undertaking cases in which there may be racial undertones. That should be sufficiently trustworthy, in terms of the steps that have been taken, for us to acknowledge that judges would not place themselves in a position in which defendants would be at risk in that way.
      Mr. Andrew Dismore: Another issue that arises in relation to this Bill, but which may not be selected for debate, is corporate manslaughter. Of course, emotions can run high in relation to that issue,

      731
      especially if there has been a major disaster. Assuming that the press coverage today is accurate that the Government are to honour their commitment to bring forward legislation on corporate manslaughter, how does my right hon. Friend envisage such trials taking place? Would they take place with judge and jury or on an indictment in this way?
      Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend tries in an ingenious way to get me on to a subject on which I will say only one thing: we have made a decision that we should publish a draft Bill. We believe that it is right to have extensive discussions on the issues in relation to corporate manslaughter, and that it would be right and proper to listen to the strongly held views of those on all sides, including those most affected, and we will do that as soon as possible. I will not give either a timetable for the publication or an assurance about what mode of trial such cases would be dealt with under. I shall refine my English by the time that I have finished this afternoon.
      Clearly, this group deals with clauses Nos. 37, 38 and 40, and with new clauses 1 and 2 tabled by the Opposition. I shall take the opportunity briefly to address those matters so that I do not take up the time of the House later. I shall be brief, as I know that, even with the time that we have available, many Members will want to address what I consider to be an extremely important issue.
      In the last Parliament, we had two of what were described as mode of trial Bills. Some have suggested publicly—I hoped that we had overcome this—that with the proposition under consideration this afternoon, relating to less than 100 trials a year, we were returning to the mode of trial Bill and threatening trial by jury. I thought that we had got over that, until the shadow Home Secretary was quoted in two newspapers on Saturday—misquoted, I hope—as saying that
      "the home secretary believes that being tough on crime inevitably involves undermining institutions that have protected our fundamental liberties."
      I do not believe that at all. I have said in the House on a number of occasions, as well as publicly, that this is not a zero sum total: by protecting the interests of victims, witnesses, the justice system and truth, we do not in any way do damage to the rights of the defendant to a fair trial or to the vast majority of cases, which are not dealt with in a magistrates court, which will be heard by jury. We do not seek to undermine anyone's rights. Instead, we seek to extend them.
      The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
      "We believe that trial by jury is an institution well worth preserving and the bulwark of liberty in this country."
      Taken alongside Parliament, I believe that as well. I have no intention of returning to the propositions that were debated in the House and defeated by Parliament as a whole on two occasions previously.
      We are not debating the withdrawal of the right to trial by jury. We have no intention of doing so. It is wrong for Members in this place or in the House of Lords, or for barristers who should know better, to imply that that is what we are doing.
      Simon Hughes: I accept what the Secretary of State says but the propositions clearly propose the restriction in certain cases of trial by jury. Will the right hon.
      732
      Gentleman tell the House whether he believes that jury trial is not working or whether it still has his whole confidence? If we end up with certain cases in the higher courts being tried by judge alone and certain cases being tried by jury, do not we inevitably have a two-tier justice system, the people deciding in one instance and the professional judges deciding in the other?
      Mr. Blunkett: No, I do not. Given the limited number of instances that we are addressing where we should have trial by judge only, to suggest that my confidence in the jury system as a whole is undermined is entirely fallacious. We have a variety of hearings throughout our system from district judges through to the Court of Appeal and judges sitting in trio. We do not suggest that their right to hear appeals on jury trials undermines the previous trials that were undertaken by jury. It would be fallacious to suggest that it does.
      5.45pm
      Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Mr. Blunkett: I will.
      We need to address the issues as they really are. I am always pleased to give way to my hon. and learned Friend, and I look forward to his pearls of wisdom.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the gracious way in which he has given way.
      However small the number of cases, if we are giving to judges the right to decide whether someone should have a jury trial or not, how can we say that we are not removing the right to jury trial?
      Mr. Blunkett: In the thousands of cases that are currently held in front of a jury, and will continue so to be heard, there will be no change. The limited number of cases to which I have referred—somewhat fewer than 100 a year—are affected because they involve serious fraud or complex financial issues, or where there has been jury interference. We are suggesting that in those cases there can be a decision by the judge, having examined the cases, that it would be in the best interests of justice and of gaining the truth, and therefore getting to the root of the problem, that such a course should be taken.
      I make the case strongly that protecting the integrity of jury trials by not allowing others to destroy that integrity—by not allowing others to undermine confidence in jury trials and by not allowing others to use manipulation and interference to damage jury trials—we are strengthening the credibility and wellbeing, and the confidence in, jury trials and the criminal justice system.
      Mr. Heath: By the Secretary of State's comments earlier, in saying that he is now not seeking to introduce the provisions set out in a previous mode of trial Bills, is he accepting that the Government's arguments in support of introducing those Bills were erroneous and that the Opposition parties were right in their objections to them?
      Mr. Blunkett: I do not accept that the arguments put by my right hon. and hon. Friends were erroneous. I

      733
      believe that they put their case with conviction, and that there was a substantial argument to be put. Parliament overturned those mode of trial Bills. We were prepared to listen. That is a strength, not a weakness. I took a further look at the issue, along with the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General, and we concluded that it would be better to proceed as I am describing. I make no apology whatever for that.
      On the evidence that we have, trials that have lasted months on very difficult cases involving complex financial issues have often led to considerable difficulty in dealing with the logistics and recruiting the jury. Over and over again, the same examples are thrown up, because they are excellent examples. In the Maxwell case, 700 jurors were called and 550 excused, with a range of arguments and reasons given for people withdrawing or being withdrawn, reflecting the inability of people to hold down their jobs or conduct their lives in such circumstances.
      Here we are, asking people to do that or, in the case of the Opposition's new clauses, to believe that there is another way of arranging matters—not through normal juries, not by drawing on 12 stout men and women and true, but by developing an expert jury service. It is an extraordinary way round the problem, to say that there is a major problem—I admit there is; that we need to deal with it—and we do; that we cannot continue with the present system because it does not work—and it does not; and that we will invent a new system, which is not jury service but effectively an expert panel. It is not quite the same as the proposal for expert assessors, which was debated some years ago when these matters were dealt with by the Roskill Committee and later by Lord Justice Auld.
      The proposal is for a coterie, not quite of our fellow men and women, but of some of them who would be able to develop their expertise in a way that would allow them to deal with cases that the official Opposition accept could not be dealt with adequately in the normal way, for the very reasons that we have enunciated and which led us to introduce these changes to the law, so that we can ensure that trials are fairly heard and fairly dealt with, in a way that does not make a mockery of the system, the collapse of trials or the inability to gain convictions where convictions would otherwise be justified.
      Simon Hughes: I gather that last year there were 31 cases that lasted more than six months. Did the Home Secretary consider alternatives to removing jury trial—for example, smaller juries consisting of eight members, or jurors who had indicated that, because they were unemployed, retired or able to free, they would be available willingly to serve on longer cases? There is an argument for a more flexible system, but no case has been made for getting rid of the principle of a representative group of people judging cases.
      Mr. Blunkett: The whole argument for jury trial is its representative nature. It falls where it falls, so there is no way, we hope, that it can be manipulated. In some cases, as I shall explain in a moment, we are concerned about interference. We believe that there is a danger that
      734
      people have learned how to do the job of interfering with the process of a fair trial. Anybody who has read John Grisham's excellent book—what was it called?
      Mr. Malin: "The Runaway Jury".
      Mr. Blunkett: Thank you. That was an excellent book—[Interruption.] I am glad to hear that John Grisham's latest book is excellent. I may one day have a chance to read a book again, rather than Bills and policy documents.
      The John Grisham book demonstrates clearly how we must avoid falling into the traps entailed in long jury trials. I shall answer the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) straight. Yes, of course we had to consider other options. Roskill and the debates around that led us to consider whether it would be sensible for assessors to sit with a judge. Once one gets beyond the discussion about having a normal jury trial, one has abandoned the jury and invented a new proposition, which is what the official Opposition are advancing.
      Mr. Peter Lilley: Rather than calling upon fiction to find evidence for his case, will the Home Secretary look to facts and accept that although serious fraud cases may impose difficulties on jurors, they do not seem to have resulted in difficulties in securing convictions, since over the past four years the Serious Fraud Office has had a 92 per cent. success rate in obtaining convictions, as against 57 per cent. on average for contested trials?
      Mr. Blunkett: Such success is achieved only after a trial has been put together and a jury obtained. We are all painfully aware of that, because we are debating the best way forward for the investigation and presentation of serious fraud, and the best way of ensuring that we get more cases to trial, as well as getting more trials to successful conviction. They are two separate processes, but the right hon. Gentleman rightly and mischievously suggests that we address reality, rather than a mythical jury. I agree. That is the basis for our proposals. There have been instances of real difficulty in obtaining and maintaining a jury that is truly representative, picked from across the nation, not consisting of the unemployed or the long retired—
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: What is wrong with that?
      Mr. Blunkett: Nothing at all is wrong with the long retired or the unemployed, so long as the jury is not made up only of those who are retired or unemployed, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey suggested. That is what I was responding to.
      Lady Hermon: In introducing the proposal for non-jury trials in specific cases, could the Home Secretary enlighten the House and say whether his decision was informed by the experience in Northern Ireland of non-jury trials in serious criminal cases, which we have had for 30 years, and the moon and stars did not fall out of the sky during those years? In particular, would he consider two features of the Diplock courts? First, and

      735
      importantly, there is a right of appeal not only on points of law, but on points of fact; and secondly, and importantly, the judge, who sits alone in those courts, must give a statement of his reasons for coming to his conclusions. That is why we have rarely had bad decisions from the Diplock process of non-jury trials in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Blunkett: No, the stars have not fallen from the sky. There are obviously specific circumstances in Northern Ireland, which we should weigh. We have taken account of the range of experiences, including those that the hon. Lady enunciated, and we have learned a great deal from the Diplock courts, as I said 18 months ago when we debated the development of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. The House had reflected on these matters in 1997, when it unanimously determined that way forward. I am grateful to the hon. Lady.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: When dealing with the constitution of juries in serious fraud cases, the Home Secretary points to the fact that people who are unemployed, either voluntarily or because of misfortune, form some part of those juries. Does he also accept that it is the universal experience of those who practise in such trials that the juries contain rather more women and rather more disabled people, both of whom are extremely desirable in our juries? Thus we arrive at a more, rather than less, representative jury than we otherwise would. While I have got the Secretary of State, may I also ask whether he is suggesting that a single judge is more representative than any jury in the circumstances?
      6 pm
      Mr. Blunkett: I am not putting that argument. Those arguing against me are saying that they want a representative jury, but undermining that argument by talking about changing its representative nature. That is the simple fact. I am suggesting that once one does away with the presumption of a jury drawn from the population as a whole in the normal way, one has reached a different argument and is on a different wicket all together.
      I did not get into the argument about retired people or women. I answered a question from the Liberal Democrat spokesman that presumed that we should be free to retain jury trial, but not the method of drawing on the population for such trial. That is what I am dealing with. Once we have moved away from the presumption of drawing freely on the population as a whole, we are arguing about a different sort of hearing.
      Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether his primary reason for seeking to do away with jury trials in specialist cases is the complexity of cases relating to financial matters, or the fact that their likely length is such as to be intolerable for a typical juror? They are not the same point. Which one is he making?
      Mr. Blunkett: I did not confuse those two issues or suggest that one cancelled out or overrode the other. Indeed, I did not say that I was relying on one, but not the other. I do not know whether there is a text
      736
      somewhere that I am not following, but on whose basis the right hon. and learned Gentleman intervened. If so, it was not mine and I have not said it. It is very difficult to answer a question that I have not addressed.
      Mr. Bercow: I am worried about the Home Secretary. I am not a lawyer—I say that as a matter of pride—but it seems to me that he thinks that he can make his case purely by sweeping assertion, rather than by any sort of reliance on evidence. Why does he think that the contrast is between the total representativeness of the established jury and the complete unrepresentativeness, as the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) put it, of the single judge? Why is the choice not between a more or less imperfect group of people—more than one person and probably several people—and the dependence of the defendant on the views of one individual?
      Mr. Blunkett: I think that the argument is very interesting, and it will be put by the right hon. Member for West Dorset from the Front Bench, but it is not the argument about retaining the normal jury system. That is the point that I have been making, and it has to be made because the attacks on our proposition publicly have been about the destruction of the jury service. I read out the views of the right hon. Member for West Dorset from The Independent and the Financial Times on Saturday, and he has enunciated them on radio since.
      We need to be clear on what we are arguing about. If we are not arguing about retaining the normal jury system and its selection for particular trials, we are arguing about something entirely different. So let us argue about whether a panel or a wider set of assessors with expertise and training to deal with financial matters is the right way forward, presumably on the grounds that wider jury selection does not allow that to happen. Alongside that, let us argue the question of how much time people can devote to jury service without destroying their lives or undermining their jobs so that they seek to withdraw from the jury. I said earlier that more than three quarters of those called for jury service had chosen to find a way of getting out of it.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will forgive me if, as I am not a lawyer, I do not follow some of the more esoteric arguments. To me, the issue is very simple. What we are suggesting is taking away from people an ancient right to be tried by however motley a crew is gathered in a court and giving that role to one person, professional though they may be. Is it not a principle in this House that we do not make laws that rely almost entirely either on exceptions or on the convenience of the Executive?
      Mr. Blunkett: I do not think that we should ever rely on the convenience of the Executive, and there is nothing convenient for the Executive about any of this. We are seeking to find a solution to a problem that now appears substantially to be acknowledged across the House. One option is to draw on a limited number of people, assessors or otherwise, who are financially expert in the areas in question. That is an option, and it is about to be put by the right hon. Member for West Dorset. We are not presuming that there is something clever about this; we are trying to find a solution to a

      737
      genuine problem. Of course, there is nothing exceptional about judges either in magistrates courts or, as I have illustrated, in higher courts. I thought that I heard the world around me suggesting that we should be defending the rights, position and integrity of judges.
      Simon Hughes: Yes.
      Mr. Blunkett: I commend the hon. Gentleman—I do not demur from that.
      Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I am much obliged to the Home Secretary for allowing me to intervene. The traditional role of the judge is to interpret the law. Juries have always interpreted the facts. That is the truth of the matter and that is what we are talking about.
      Mr. Blunkett: Yes, and in the vast majority of cases they will continue to do so.
      I want now to make my case about jury interference. If the principle at stake is that no trial at such a level should be conducted without a jury, the same principle would apply in relation to jury interference. I put the case that there are instances—again, there are only a few—in which it is necessary in the interests of justice, and not esoteric arguments, to protect ourselves from the jury interference, alteration or disbandment of juries and jury tampering that exist at the moment.
      In Committee, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who used to serve on the Front Bench, referred to a drugs case that had taken place in Liverpool not many months previously. It had lasted six weeks. On the first day of the judge's summing up, one juror had been followed home and offered money to produce a verdict sympathetic to the defendant. He told the judge about it the following day and the judge said that he would discharge him and that the trial would continue. The next day, two more jurors were followed home. They were badly threatened and came into court trembling the following day. The jury had to be discharged and a new trial had to start. The hon. Gentleman said that that cost a lot of money—I think that he referred to £270,000—but much more expensive trials have arisen in very similar circumstances. A recent trial cost £1 million.
      I am arguing the case not on the basis of cost, but on the grounds of sheer intimidation and interference, where the process of justice is so damaged that it is not possible for either a fair trial to take place or for us, the public, to be assured that those who have committed offences are being held to account and that the interests of the public and the victims are being secured. That is what the House has to address this evening.
      In a limited number of cases, where there is felt to be a problem, it is right that the judge should respond, although a right of appeal is of course built into the provisions. When I was in Liverpool two weeks ago, I talked to the chief constable, who enunciated again and again the difficulty that he faced. The issue is not confined to Merseyside, but 80 per cent. of such cases collapse there. He told me that we needed to ensure that, once the police and the Crown Prosecution Service had
      738
      done their job, it was possible to believe that interference would not damage the chance of getting a fair judgment and, therefore, of getting to the truth.
      Mr. Malins: I had a bit of a shock when the Home Secretary quoted me. I recall talking about jury nobbling, and I understand the difficulty of juries being severely threatened. Let me tell my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) through the Home Secretary that I hope that I was in accordance with party policy on the issue. However, I have always maintained that long and complex trials can be handled by a jury entirely satisfactorily. That is an entirely separate issue from jury nobbling.
      Mr. Bercow: Well, that's shot your fox, hasn't it?
      Mr. Blunkett: No, it has not, because I entirely accept what the hon. Member for Woking says. When I was dealing with complex trials, I quoted him on the issue that he describes as nobbling—interference with due process and the jury—so I am not at all abashed.
      A moment ago, I said that we were arguing that it was juries for everything or juries for nothing. I am not making that argument, but others are. Either there is a principle that holds the Executive to account for its particular nature, or there is not. Clearly, we are not making that argument. The hon. Member for Woking and I disagree. He believes that his party policy, adapted to provide expertise, is right. On balance, I believe that it is not. I believe, as he does, that where there is interference, there should be an opportunity—spelled out very carefully, and available only in the limited circumstances enunciated in the Bill—to protect the jurors and the public. That is what we are doing.
      To give another example, the Metropolitan police spent £9 million in 2001–02 protecting jurors in circumstances where intimidation would otherwise have damaged the process so greatly that it would have been impossible to ensure that those who undertook the intimidation were properly dealt with or sentenced. People interfere with juries not as a game, but because they want to get themselves or their friends off for something that they believe they will be convicted for. Some trials have taken place in interesting circumstances. One that took place in Birmingham just a few months ago, again about drugs, has been drawn to my attention. The defendant was found not guilty, but it is strange that the jurors should all have been invited to a lavish party in the city centre just two weeks later. As I told the Police Federation a few days ago, we all have to live in the real world.
      Vera Baird: I can easily see a distinction between clause 38 and clauses 36 and 37, and I do not agree with the proposition that it is all in or all out on juries. If clause 38 is to be utilised only as a last resort, as we were assured it would be in Committee—the steps in it are very steep, at any event—I can see its purpose. However, will my right hon. Friend help me with two points? First, the prosecution must convince the judge that there is a real risk of jury tampering. By implication,

      739
      that will have something to do with the defendant in most cases. How will the same judge then go on fairly to try that defendant? Secondly—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. and learned Lady cannot make a speech in an intervention.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Blunkett: I am sympathetic to the point that my hon. and learned Friend made, as well as the one she was about to make. If a trial such as the one originally described by the hon. Member for Woking has been materially interfered with, there is clearly a presumption, given what happened to the first jury. In such circumstances it would be sensible for the judge to recommend that a different judge sit alone on the case. Where sufficient evidence has been presented to a judge, they should make a presumption that had they heard evidence prejudicial to a fair trial they should stand down. I have no problem enunciating that this afternoon.
      Vera Baird: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Blunkett: I will oblige my hon. and learned Friend, who was cut off in her prime.
      Vera Baird: I am glad to be regarded as in my prime by almost anybody.
      I should like to press my right hon. Friend on a related matter. Inevitably, it will be in the public interest to keep from the defence much information that has to be put to a judge to persuade him of the threat to the jury. How will that be accommodated? How can it be fair to allow the prosecution to pour such information into the judge's ear to get an outcome that the defence will not want? How can the defence be protected from the police simply deciding that they want this chap sent down so badly that they will get trial by judge alone?
      Mr. Blunkett: If there is a suggestion of trial by judge alone, there will be a right of appeal, which is right and proper. Let us not assume that there are not instances now in which representations are made by counsel to the judiciary behind the chair. My hon. and learned Friend will know a lot more about that than me, because no doubt she has experienced it. However, I am not sure that it could be described as pouring matters prejudicial to the defence into the judge's ear.
      Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the right of appeal, but he will know that that can only be exercised with leave. Will he tell the House the circumstances that would restrict the right to grant leave? To return to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), how will the defendant be able to challenge information privately communicated to the judge that the jury has been nobbled?
      Mr. Blunkett: The defendant, of course, is claiming that he has nothing to do with the jury or the nobbling, and let us assume that they have nothing to do with him at all. However, in the real world, some people engaged
      740
      in criminality have a great deal to lose from the way in which a trial proceeds. I think I am right in saying that the right hon. and learned Gentleman used to practise—[HON. MEMBERS: "Still does."] Forgive me, I live in a world where we only practise politics, but I am surrounded by people who continue to practise law. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that there are rare occasions in organised criminality when an individual acts alone and that there are people whose interests are affected by the outcome of a trial. We should therefore ensure that we get the right result by getting to the truth and ensuring that justice is done.
      We are clutching at straws if we argue that those who are trying to interfere with juries and change the nature of juries by doing so—we heard earlier about a jury that was disbanded—are not interfering with the course of justice. There may be esoteric arguments that that does not matter and it is for the wider good of us all to ignore it, but I do not believe that for a moment. Victims of crime do not believe it; those who are trying to tackle organised criminality, which is growing, do not believe it; and those who see what is happening in relation to cross-border crime and international organised activity, using the most modern techniques, do not believe it. I do not believe that the people whom we represent think that we should live in fairyland or be somewhere other than with our feet firmly on the ground. We can argue until we are blue in the face. So long as we are not taking away the right to a fair trial, and so long as we are ensuring that people have the right of appeal—of course, that right will depend on the grounds on which the appeal is lodged—the safeguards will be in place.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I want to make an allied point to the Home Secretary. It is not a pejorative point: it relates to a matter that concerns us all very much. Not in jury-tampering cases, but in complex cases, long cases and cases involving property, very often—indeed, almost always—judges will hear in secret public interest immunity evidence that is brought to them by the prosecution, and rule upon it, after which the case goes through to the jury. How can a judge who has heard such evidence from the prosecution in secret possibly then continue to hear the case as a judge of fact and decide on guilt or innocence? In those circumstances, there cannot be two judges because the same judge must be in charge of public interest immunity from the beginning to the end of the case.
      Mr. Blunkett: I have established from my hon. and learned Friends the Members for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and for Redcar that the prosecution often pour information into the ear of a judge, and that they are concerned that that will bias the judge or that he will direct the jury in a way that he would not have done had it not been done in secret.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Blunkett: I will, of course, but I am trying to establish what he is against—the pouring of information into the ear, its being done in private, or the judge being unable to make a judgment about whether it is material

      741
      to the continuance of the trial. It is interesting how many lawyers and barrack-room lawyers are barracking me this evening; we are obviously getting somewhere.
      Ian Lucas: I speak as a lawyer, but a humble one—a mere solicitor. I hope to assist my right hon. Friend by pointing out that in the magistrates court, when a solicitor makes a submission on a point of law and seeks to exclude evidence, he must do so to the bench that tries the case. Therefore the bench that decides whether the evidence should be excluded is the same bench that goes forward to determine the case. The process that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) presents as a difficulty is exactly the process that goes on in the magistrates court every day of the week.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: It is not done in chambers.
      Ian Lucas: It is not a situation that is regularly dealt with by barristers, which is why it causes them so much difficulty.
      Mr. Blunkett: I thank my hon. Friend for that continuation of my excellent relations with the Law Society, for which I am grateful, as I need to have someone in the legal profession on my side.
      My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway barracked from his seat that it is not done in chambers. I do not mind where it is done, so long as it is done fairly, the proper judicial process is undertaken, and the judge makes a sensible judgment on the validity of the evidence.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will the Home Secretary give way?
      Mr. Blunkett: Of course, given that I named my hon. and learned Friend.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: At the moment, the pouring into the ear of information that is heard only by the judge and the prosecution is validated by the fact that it is the jury who decide the issue of guilt and innocence. Where, however, a judge is privy to information that is known only by him and the prosecution, and he is to decide guilt or innocence, cannot the Home Secretary recognise, first, that that is completely different, and secondly, that it will inevitably contravene the European convention on human rights, because the two sides will not be even?
      Mr. Blunkett: No, I do not accept that it contravenes the European convention on human rights. Surrounded as I am by barristers and solicitors, those who would wish to be, and those who used to be, let me say this: we are here to represent the best interests of our constituents by ensuring that the course of justice finds the guilty guilty and acquits the innocent. That is what we are all here for. We have no desire whatsoever to have, even in a limited number of cases, a situation in which, despite evidence to the contrary, intimidation is shown and the case goes wrong. That would not be in
      742
      anyone's interests, and it would have to be put right on appeal. We are all interested in finding solutions to real problems.
      Vera Baird: My right hon. Friend has taken in very well the fact that one of the problems is that of secret information going into the judge's ear that the defence cannot challenge. To avoid any risk of injustice from that, would he consider making available special counsel of the kind with which he will be familiar through Special Immigration Appeals Commission proceedings?
      Mr. Blunkett: I am reluctant immediately to rule out such a possibility, even though it has already been discussed at length. I am reluctant to rule it out completely because I am keen to explore all areas and to find solutions wherever we can—I hope that we will be able to address problems in the House of Lords—rather than have a situation in which the Government put up a solution to a problem, then everyone gathers round to denounce it as the end of trial by jury and the end of justice as we know it. In their amendments, the official Opposition propose an alternative solution. I respect that, although I do not agree with their solution. On the serious issue of a small number of cases involving the most difficult criminality, we should try to unite to find a way forward.
      David Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Blunkett: Given that my hon. Friend, who is normally not—
      Simon Hughes: Backward in coming forward.
      Mr. Blunkett: Indeed. Given that he wishes to intervene, I shall give way once more.
      David Winnick: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Speaking as a non-lawyer serving on the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I went along with the recommendation that was made, which was more or less broadly in favour of the views that the Home Secretary expresses. Nevertheless, I am concerned that this may be a slippery slope. If the arguments against juries that are advanced are valid, perhaps in future we will be told that virtually all criminal cases should be heard by a judge alone. A system that has been part of our legal set-up for centuries should be defended. Although I am willing to go along with the Home Secretary's arguments to some extent, I am worried about the slippery slope.
      Mr. Blunkett: I am aware of the real dangers of the slippery slope. That is why we should listen to any suggestions about confining ourselves to dealing with tampering and interference with juries and to ensuring that we do not let the worst criminals get away with the worst abuse of the criminal justice system.
      I shall draw to a conclusion to allow the House to debate the issues. We are talking about the worst elements of society deliberately setting out to destroy the very system whose credibility we seek to defend and for which hon. Members are honourably arguing. We must not undermine that credibility or create a slippery slope

      743
      that takes us away from the system that has stood us in good stead over the centuries. I accept that that is the case in relation to jury trial as a whole. I merely ask that we address the situation in the real world as regards the worst of society and what those people will do to innocents abroad in terms of destroying a system that otherwise serves us well.
      I hope that the right hon. Member for West Dorset will one day treat me to the Badger beer of Hall and Woodhouse—almost P.G., one would have thought—in the leafy lanes of West Dorset. I believe that it is known locally as "skunk ale". Perhaps when he and I have supped together, possibly after a Police Federation conference somewhere on the south coast, we will put our foot in it together.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Oliver Letwin: It may surprise the Home Secretary to know that I want to speak mainly about the topics that amendments Nos. 2 and 3 cover. He tried to present an interesting argument, which took the following form: the Opposition must have acceded to the general principle that something needed to be done but since they suggested an implausible or ineffective alternative or set of alternatives, the Government's proposals should stand. That neatly ignores amendments Nos. 2 and 3, which would remove the Government's proposals entirely. They are our first preference. I shall deal later with new clauses 1 and 2 and amendment No. 13, which move in the general direction that he advanced. The problem with his argument is that it did not tackle some points, with which I am about to deal.
      I am grateful for the Home Secretary's statement that the preservation of trial by jury is extremely important because it is true. Although that is a matter of agreement between us, it is important to set out for the record the extent of its significance and the reason for that. At first sight, the importance of trial by jury is not obvious. One could easily take the position that it has no intrinsic superiority over trial by judge. For reasons that I shall advance shortly, I believe that that is the Government's view. However, I believe that trial by jury is intrinsically superior. Its superiority arises from the relationship between the citizen, the state and the law.
      Trial by jury involves the participation of the ordinary citizen in the business of the law, thereby preventing the court from becoming a matter of the state opposing the citizen. That is critical to the deepest foundations of our liberal democracy. I do not say that that applies to any liberal democracy. Others do not have the system of trial by jury, but at least my hon. Friends—and perhaps some hon. Members on the Labour Benches—agree with the conservative sentiment that when we remove one of the foundation stones of our system of liberal democracy, we cannot expect the whole to survive simply because others have found different methods of supporting such a system.
      Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman knows that my colleagues and I support the view that he outlined. Does he accept an additional element that reflects the same constitutional principle: the importance of lay magistrates, especially when they deal with guilt and innocence in the lower courts? They are ordinary, non-
      744
      professional members of the public. It is regrettable that the number of lay magistrates has decreased and the number of paid judges who do the job has increased. The public would have more confidence if matters were moving in the opposite direction.
      Mr. Letwin: I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because he brings me to my next point. I wholeheartedly agree with him. The principle of the layperson and the exercise of common sense in our courts is important. I agree that the lay magistracy is at least almost as important an institution as the jury in protecting the principle of the operation of common sense. I fear that although the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor have aimed in the Bill and elsewhere at a genuine drive for efficiency, they thereby sacrifice the cause of common sense. In justice, when the chips are down, common sense matters more than straight efficiency.
      Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friend pointed out that the jury or the magistrate is representative of ordinary people. That is the key part of the representation. The Home Secretary suggested that if the representation does not comprise a mixture that ranges across the board, it is not sufficiently representative. Of course wide representation is best, but the key point is that members of juries and lay magistrates are not professional paid people but ordinary people with whom the mass of the public can associate themselves and thus recognise that the system is not set up by authority against them.
      Mr. Letwin: I entirely agree. My right hon. Friend better expresses the point that I was trying to make. Trial by jury reinforces to the general public the fact that justice in this country is a system not of the state opposing the individual but of society gathered to find out the facts. The jury represents society and finds the facts.
      Mr. Hogg rose—
      Mr. Blunkett rose—
      Mr. Letwin: I give way to my right hon. and learned Friend.
      Mr. Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend follow up his point and face the fact that the proposition to which he has committed himself contradicts the new clause that he tabled? If we are considering judgment by one's peers, providing that a person charged with a financial offence can be judged only by actuaries or chartered accountants denies that person a trial by his peers.
      Mr. Letwin: I shall deal with that at the tail end of my remarks. However, I stress for my right hon. and learned Friend's edification, and in seeking his agreement, that the first choice must be the preservation of trial by jury as we know it. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 would provide for that. I hope that my hon. Friends will vote for them. The proposals in the new clauses are very much second best.
      Mr. Blunkett: I am especially glad that the right hon. Gentleman took the intervention of the right hon. and

      745
      learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) first because it was enlightening. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he does not believe that the judiciary is the instrument of the state? He implied that he believed that it was.
      Mr. Letwin: There is an important difference between reality and appearance. The appearance matters as much as the reality. It is true, thank goodness, that the judiciary remains independent of the Executive in Britain today.
      Mr. Blunkett: Very.
      Mr. Letwin: The Home Secretary has cause to know that that is true. I celebrate the fact. Long may it remain so, but—an important but—the ordinary citizen does not perceive a judge in all his grandeur in the same light as a jury. The jury is representative of the ordinary citizen in a way in which a judge neither can nor should be. Judges are endowed with the majesty of the law and in that sense, although independent of the Executive, they represent the state. There is a difference.
      Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about procedure rather than anything else. He speaks of common sense. Is he more interested in the right decisions, or in mere appearance? Is he saying that judges are less capable of reaching the right decision than juries, or is he just saying that that is how it appears?
      Mr. Letwin: I think that there are two answers to that question. Like, I suspect, the House as a whole, I am interested both in the right decisions and in the way in which the law in general is seen by the citizenry. The House certainly needs to be interested in both those things. If what we are interested in is a criminal justice system that works, public confidence is critical. What counts is not merely the individual case, but the way in which the system is seen by the citizen.
      Vera Baird: Is it not self-evident that the calibre of a jury decision will be higher than that of the decision of any individual? Twelve diverse, randomly selected people are listening, and have all the time in the world to debate and to cancel out each other's prejudices.
      Mr. Letwin: I will not argue with the hon. and learned Lady about the term "self-evident", but it is clear that the system of applying 12 minds to a question of fact, operating on the basis of common sense, is a good system that has worked. We would at the very least be taking a risk by moving, on a large scale, to trial by judge alone.
      My next question is: do these proposals contain real threats to the prevalence of trial by jury? An important part of the Home Secretary's argument is his claim that he is not really undermining trial by jury. The problem with that argument is that it is wrong.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Is it not a testament to the genius of juries that, especially in complex cases involving property, they currently convict in 86 per cent. of cases?
      Mr. Letwin: Yes. I shall deal with that later, and when I do I will—if I may—cite the hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention.
      746
      Are the Government's proposals really so different in effect, if not motives, from the earlier mode of trial legislation? That is an important question. If the Bill constitutes a minor adjustment to the jury system, we shall have one kind of debate; if it constitutes a wholesale attack on that system, we shall have quite another.
      Let us take the case of a jury that is held to be about to be tampered with. Let me point out to the Home Secretary—I am not saying that he did not know this, but he glossed over it in his speech—that we are making a critical distinction between two sets of circumstances. In one, a jury has been tampered with: amendment No. 13 deals with that. In the other, the jury has not yet been tampered with, but the prosecution successfully argues that it might be. The Home Secretary wants to let the prosecution argue that the jury might be tampered with, and, under his proposals, if the prosecution persuades the judge of that proposition, trial by jury will fall, subject to appeal.
      What means will the prosecution adopt to argue that the jury might be tampered with? It will allege that the crime of which the defendant is accused was very serious, very well organised, very violent, or something of the kind. Unless it has evidence of previous tampering on the part of the defendant, it will argue that the case should not be dealt with by a jury because such tampering might take place. I have just listed the most serious cases. In the most serious cases, the prosecution will be most likely to argue that the jury should not remain.
      6.45 pm
      Simon Hughes: Is not this the real strength of the argument about tampering with juries? It is not just that certain cases lend themselves to such intervention; one thing we are all trying to do in the criminal justice system is persuade people to give evidence in the first place. Many people do not come forward because of threats and fear. In each of those cases, the jury might be interfered with because the first attempt to prevent the case from reaching the court failed. There are many such cases in many courts every year.
      Mr. Letwin: I think that the prosecution will advance the argument that I have described in a fairly wide range of cases, not all of which will be the most serious; but it is an important part of the argument that I am about to advance that the prosecution will tend to present the judge with that proposition in the most serious cases. The hon. Gentleman and I need not be at odds about that.
      What about complex trials involving financial or property-related matters, often mis-described by the Government as fraud trials? I am not saying that fraud trials do not fall into that category, but the category is much wider. A major health and safety trial involving corporations will typically be finance-related, complex and involve property. It will presumably qualify. A strong attack by the criminal justice system on a serious drug-dealing gang may well involve complex financial and property-related issues. I am thinking not least of cases that we discussed in the context of another Bill.
      Of what variety are the cases I have just described? They are among the most serious cases. What pattern is emerging? We can anticipate from the Government's

      747
      proposals, I think plausibly—I am at pains not to put this in hyperbolical or overblown language—that, in many of the most serious cases, the prosecution will persuade the judge that the jury should be removed. That will bring about a bizarre situation. I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) that this will not be the sole outcome, but I expect a large number of relatively minor cases to go on being tried by juries, while a preponderance of the most serious will not be.
      What will the Government tell the House then? They will say, "If we do not need jury trial for the most serious cases, why on earth do we need to preserve it for minor cases? Why should we be so inefficient"—I use the term of which the Lord Chancellor is so fond when referring to lay magistrates—"as to preserve the jury system for minor cases, having accepted that it is not necessary for major ones?" I fear that it would be difficult to resist that logic. This is not merely the slippery slope rightly described by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey; the Home Secretary is taking us well down the slippery slope.
      Mr. Hogg rose—
      Ian Lucas rose—
      Mr. Letwin: I am spoilt for choice. I give way to the hon. Gentleman first.
      Ian Lucas: Is the right hon. Gentleman not ignoring the fact that the vast majority of minor cases—if I may so describe them—are dealt with in the magistrates courts, without a jury, and that that will continue to be the case? The vast majority of criminal cases dealt with in our courts will therefore continue to be heard without a jury.
      Mr. Letwin: That is precisely my point. There will be a bizarre situation in which a large number of very minor cases will be dealt with increasingly by district judges, and a large number of very major cases will be dealt with by judges in the superior courts. Sandwiched between the two will be cases that are rather more major than the most minor, but rather more minor than the most major. They will be dealt with by juries. The Government will tell the House, "This is nonsense. We can do without the juries in the middle section." I know that that will be true—if the Government think about it, they will know that it is likely to be true—but I hope to prevent us collectively ever from finding out whether it will be true, because it is too dangerous to contemplate.
      Mr. Blunkett: If we are going to argue the case rationally, as the right hon. Gentleman has been doing, we should not go into a kind of never-never land. We are dealing with a very specific group of cases—fewer than 100 a year—so we should not make presumptions that we did not make before, when 95 per cent. of cases were dealt with in the magistrates courts, higher courts dealt
      748
      with cases on appeal without a jury, and the remainder were dealt with by jury trial. The removal of a few dozen cases does not materially change that position one iota.
      Mr. Letwin: I had intended to deal slightly later with the Home Secretary's repeated claim relating to fewer than 100 cases, but I shall deal with it now in response to his intervention. If I may say so, I think that that figure is accurate and phoney. It is accurate because it is a reflection of the number of cases in which there was jury tampering or that involved fraud trials. My argument is that the Bill—the provisions in print are what will govern this matter, not what is in the Home Secretary's fondest imagination—allows for a far wider application of the principle than that restricted number of cases.
      Mr. Hogg: Would my right hon. Friend allow me to reinforce his point by drawing to his attention the fact that, if we look carefully at clause 37—which I know that he has—we see that the grounds for securing a non-jury trial are the complexity or length of the trial? It is perfectly true that the Bill then attributes a cause for that complexity or length, but once we accept that complexity or length per se are grounds for a non-jury trial, why have the additional requirement? The Government will in due course ask the House to dispense with that additional requirement.
      Mr. Letwin: That is another point relating to the slippery slope, and I can only gently complain that it was the next point that I was going to make. My right hon. and learned Friend is right. I will not labour this point further. There are three or four other grounds for supposing that this is a slippery slope. The point here is clear: jury trial matters. It matters because of the structure of justice in its relationship to the citizen, and this is the beginning of a slippery slope away from it. Perhaps it is more than the beginning.
      The next stage of my argument is also simple and clear. We have to ask whether any great gains will result from this great step. If the proposals were to result in great gains in the cause of justice—[Interruption.]—and if, as the Home Secretary suggests from a sedentary position, large numbers of criminals who would not otherwise be convicted were to be put behind bars because of these changes, without any significant risk of the innocent being convicted, I can see that there would be an opposing argument.
      But the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), who reminded me that there is a very high conviction rate in the relevant sorts of trial, is right. The 92 per cent. conviction rate that has been adduced in relation to cases involving the Serious Fraud Office is also right. The evidence from jury-tampered trials is that, on the whole, people have been good at picking the problem up and defending those who are on the juries, and that the conviction rates that attend subsequently are high. I know of no serious empirical base for supposing that moving so far down such a slippery slope is justified by any great and immediate gain. There will perhaps be some gain, but it will not be so great as to be proportional.
      David Winnick: I am not sure whether it will give the right hon. Gentleman any satisfaction to learn that I might vote with the Government tonight. I was on the

      749
      Home Affairs Committee, we made our recommendation and I went along, with it. But if I do, I shall simply be giving them the benefit of the doubt. The doubt remains, however, and the more I listen, particularly to the fine argument being advanced by the right hon. Gentleman—after all, if an Opposition spokesperson is making a good argument, why not say so—the more that doubt reasserts itself in my mind.
      Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who might be the sole example of anyone ever being persuaded by an argument of mine in the House of Commons.
      John Mann: And the last.
      Mr. Letwin: Perhaps so.
      Lady Hermon: I have to admit to the right hon. Gentleman that I am not persuaded by his arguments this evening. I would be more sympathetic to his point of view if, in the light of the fact that his party supports the Belfast agreement, which we have had for five years, and that the IRA has been on ceasefire for the six years since 1997, he could assure me that it was now Conservative party policy to campaign for the restoration of jury trials throughout the United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland is a vital part.
      Mr. Letwin: Much as I should like, for all sorts of reasons, to buy the good will of the hon. Lady, I am astonishingly clear that, mercifully, my remit extends to England and Wales—not that I have any actual remit; that lies with the Home Secretary, but even my shadow remit covers only England and Wales. I ask the hon. Lady to contact my esteemed colleague, the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who will have his own views on that difficult matter.
      Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. I find myself offended. He began his remarks by saying that the jury was a critical part of our liberal democracy and that if we removed it, we would have removed one of our democracy's foundation stones. I do not accept that he can simply shift the burden to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). The shadow Home Secretary must address the question this evening. As someone who gave an interview to The Independent in which he stated that jury trial was the bulwark of 800 years of our democracy, he cannot allow part of the United Kingdom not to have that pleasure.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ensure that the debate remains within certain bounds.
      Mr. Letwin: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have never been more grateful to you.
      The final stage of my argument is also clear and simple. The House must obviously take the Government's proposals seriously, and we must therefore ask whether there are any balancing arguments. Are the Government pointing out things to which we need to pay attention? I have already
      750
      explained why I do not believe that the Government are justified in making any change on the basis of the purported gains from the proposals—I stress this for the benefit of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), among others—and that is why we shall press to a vote amendments Nos. 2 and 3, if you will allow us to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and why that is our first preference.
      We have tried to identify the evil that the Government believe exists. We have also tried to produce constructive alternatives to deal with that evil, or, indeed, those two evils. We have done that in the spirit of compromise, and I want to explain to the Home Secretary quite personally the reason why. We will not compromise on the general principle. I shall ask my noble Friends in the other place to fight to the last breath on these matters, and if that means cratering the Bill, I am prepared to see it cratered.
      Because I am taking that position, I have sought every means at my disposal to ensure that there is an escape route, so that much that is good in the Bill can get through without a confrontation between the two Houses. That is why my hon. Friends and I tabled new clauses 1 and 2, incurring the odium of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, whose purity of mind I admire. That is also why we suggested the possibility of an empanelled, expert jury, and why we tabled amendment No. 13, which provides for the abandoning of a jury when there has actually been jury tampering. We did those things in the spirit of seeking a compromise solution that could avoid the Bill falling and which would preserve, in each case, the existence of the jury—I admit that, in the first, it would be an unsatisfactory jury—and point up the attachment of the House and of Parliament as a whole to the principle of jury trial, thereby preventing the descent of the slippery slope.
      7 pm
      I accept that the solution we are suggesting is second best and not fully satisfactory, but trying to prevent us from rolling down the slippery slope is better than allowing us to roll down it. For the sake of avoiding a confrontation between the two Houses, we are prepared to move to that compromise. That is the only basis on which we have put it forward.
      We will not press those proposals to the vote tonight, but I hope that the Home Secretary will see the light and accept the purport of amendments Nos. 2 and 3 when, as I profoundly hope, they are sent back to the House by the other place. I give notice now, however, that if he will accept neither those amendments when they return nor the compromise position, we are prepared to crater the Bill and force him to use, a year later, the Parliament Act so as to take a stand on what I continue to regard as one of the fundamental principles of this country's criminal justice system—our adherence to and belief in the jury system.
      Mr. Chris Mullin: I shall be brief. The Home Affairs Committee addressed these issues in its report on the Bill, and we started by welcoming the

      751
      Government's intention to retain jury trial in either-way cases. It is sometimes forgotten that they have form in this area, as they made a couple of attempts two years ago to abolish jury trial in either-way cases. I am glad to say that those attempts were seen off, and very wisely the Government dropped the proposal. I refer back to those attempts in relation to the argument on slippery slopes, because they are a sliver of evidence for the suggestion that something bigger—perhaps in the past, perhaps under another Home Secretary—might have been in the mind of the Home Office in respect of reducing the right to a jury trial.
      On balance, the Home Affairs Committee accepted the argument that, in cases of complex fraud, jury trial could be dispensed with, but we did so only on the basis that there was a difficulty in finding a suitably representative cross-section of jurors for a long trial. We did not accept that juries are incapable of understanding arguments in complex cases. We took the view that it is the job of counsel and the judge to make the issues simple enough for ordinary mortals to understand.
      Mr. Hogg: Is there not another conclusion, too? The Crown has an obligation to ensure that the indictment is fairly simple and short, and to avoid extended conspiracy charges.
      Mr. Mullin: That is absolutely right, and it is in everybody's interest—the interest of the defendants, quite obviously, as trials that go on for months are time consuming and debilitating for all concerned, and the interest of the public, as such trials are enormously expensive. I have long believed that even the most complex arguments can usually be reduced for ordinary mortals to a few simple concepts that ought to be readily explicable for people as articulate as those who practise in our courts.
      So, we did not buy the argument, and I am glad to say that, ultimately, at least when he appeared before us, the Minister, Lord Falconer, did not advance the argument that the purpose involves the difficulty of finding jurors capable of understanding the argument. The argument made to us was on the difficulty of finding a representative cross-section of jurors who would be available for a long trial. On those grounds, and those grounds alone, we accepted it, albeit reluctantly and albeit without unanimity.
      David Winnick: My hon. Friend says that we accepted the argument with some reluctance. Does he accept that although the majority, and that includes me, agreed to the recommendation, there was a general feeling of being somewhat unhappy and a wish that such agreement was not necessary? There was certainly no enthusiasm, and he has made that clear.
      Mr. Mullin: There was not unanimity. We thought about the issue carefully, although it is not for me to meter the degree of enthusiasm that existed during the discussion. The conclusion that we reached was an on-balance one on the lines that I have suggested.
      Mr. Heath: Is the hon. Gentleman, in saying that he rejects the arguments about a complex matter being too difficult for a jury to understand, saying also that he rejects clause 37, which provides for a jury being
      752
      discharged in certain complex or lengthy trials—either condition is sufficient—and an alternative being put in place?
      Mr. Mullin: We accepted the argument presented to us by the Minister on the difficulty of finding juries to deal with lengthy trials, but the complexity argument I do not buy.
      It is hard to argue with the Home Secretary's point that where there is clear evidence of jury tampering the possibility of a non-jury trial ought to be provided for, because it clearly is in the public interest that villains should not be able to tamper with juries. I have heard nobody seriously dispute that. I would say only that it ought to be demonstrated, not just alleged, that such evidence exists. The police sometimes want to impress on the jury how heavy the villains are who are on trial. They do that sometimes by over-egging the security around the court so that everybody who comes into court has to see armed guards en route and all that sort of thing. That, of course, makes an impression on juries.
      I say again that it must be clearly demonstrated that tampering has occurred. There must not merely be an allegation at which everyone throws up their hands and the jury is immediately dropped.
      Mr. Letwin: If the hon. Gentleman means what he just said and it was not a slip of the tongue, he supports amendment No. 13 rather than the clause, because the purport of that amendment is that tampering has to have occurred—the phrase he used—whereas the clause would allow the advancement of the argument that it might occur.
      Mr. Mullin: I believe that clear evidence has to show that tampering has occurred or that there is an extremely serious risk of it occurring. There has to be evidence, not simply an assertion.
      Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Mullin: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I do not want to get bogged down on this point. The safeguard is in clause 41—the right of appeal will be allowed in cases where a jury trial is denied in relation to fraud and jury tampering. No doubt that right of appeal will be exercised.
      I have a couple of queries. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) touched on the question of a judge having had to rule in private on public interest immunity and having heard things that will not be discussed in open court. I have high confidence in our judges' ability to distinguish between evidence given in open court and knowledge obtained privately. I certainly accept that all our judges, or most of them, are independent of the state, but in my experience judges, even the most intelligent, can be a mite gullible.
      I have sat through major trials over which some of the finest judicial minds in the land have presided. No issue of fact and no detail advanced by counsel on either side was too small to be examined forensically by them but they missed the big picture entirely. Observing such trials, it occurred to me—it is true in other walks of life, not just the judiciary—that it is possible to be extremely

      753
      clever and stupid at the same time. It is an observation that one could occasionally make about the profession of politics, too. Therefore, I have that reservation about the ability of judges to distinguish between what they hear and what is put to them privately.
      Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Mullin: I will in a moment.
      I think that the Home Secretary conceded that, in such cases, a judge should be ready to hand over to another judge, not only so that the evidence is not contaminated but so that the trial is seen to be fair. That reservation worries me. I accept the assurances of the Government that this is not a slippery slope and I am glad to hear Ministers reaffirm that proposition today.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, may I ask him to address what seems to many of us to be a central point? If a judge hears prejudicial evidence, or any evidence, in private with the prosecution, they are the only two people in the court who are seized of that information—the defence does not have it—so how can that person, as a matter of principle, sit as a judge deciding guilt or innocence, and how can one possibly avoid contravening articles 6 and 12, to take only two, of the European convention on human rights, which require that there shall be equality between the parties?
      Mr. Mullin: I am not qualified to pronounce on the point about the European convention. No doubt Ministers have checked that very carefully but, on my hon. and learned Friend's first point, I am very sympathetic. I think that, in a case where the judge is party to a lot of evidence or information—some of it would not qualify to be evidence, which would be a bit iffy to put it mildly—that has not been part of the prosecution case, there is a strong argument for insisting that the case be heard by a separate judge.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Mullin: Forgive me. I was in the process of winding up when my hon. and learned Friend intervened.
      I reaffirm the point on which I think everyone here agrees: these reforms, just about acceptable though they are, should not be carried further. There should be no further erosion of the right to trial by jury. We should go thus far and no further.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Mullin: I am sorry. I have finished.
      Simon Hughes: I am happy to take part in what is an important debate. My hon. Friends and I on the Liberal Democrat Benches are signatories to amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3. In relation to each of the Government's three proposals to change and to reduce jury trial, we do not believe that the case has been made. We do not oppose
      754
      the proposals because there is not a proper debate to be had; there is. We do not do it because there is no argument on the other side; there is. However, having seen the work by the committees that preceded the legislation—especially Lord Justice Auld's committee—having looked at the White Paper, having sat through the Committee that considered the Bill and having looked at the evidence, we do not believe that it would be right to do away with jury trial in those three cases. To use the obvious test, jury trial is so well established and works so well that the case would have to be made beyond reasonable doubt for that to be changed and it has not been, so we stand by the present position.
      7.15 pm
      The Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), referred to the fact that in the previous Parliament—my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asked the Home Secretary a very good question about this—this House and the other place fought very hard to resist a wholesale, full-frontal assault on the jury trial system and Parliament won, thank goodness. This is not a wholesale, full-frontal attack on the jury trial system. It is a staged attack of a lesser nature. It proposes a little less jury trial rather than a lot less jury trial but, like the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), his colleagues, many Labour Members and, more important, many non-politicians and non-lawyers out there whom we represent, we are persuaded that, once one starts to move away from such a well-tried and well-established system, it is very difficult to resist arguments for further change and there is little logic in going down a road so far and not going down it further.
      Roughly 29,000 people serve as lay magistrates in England and Wales and 200,000 people a year serve on juries—a significant cross-section of the British public, the like of which Parliament and the judiciary will never be. They are a very great protection to ensure that the criminal justice system is the people's justice system, not the professionals' justice system.
      I want to give six reasons why jury trial should be held on to, unless the case is so overwhelming that it should be changed. First, it works, and if it works we should not seek to replace it. In the cases that we are talking about, it also works. Figures have been cited in the Chamber about the conviction rates in the most difficult and most complex fraud cases, which arguably would be the least likely to secure the understanding of a jury such that it felt comfortable about convicting beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction rate in those cases is much higher than elsewhere.
      I represent a lot of people who have been defendants, and other colleagues will, to varying degrees, have done the same. No defendants have complained to me that they would rather have had a judge try their case than a jury. That has never been the cause of a queue at my surgery or a lot of letters in my postbag. In fact, I have had rather good reports of the jury system by those who participated in it. There are many criticisms of the criminal justice system, but the jury system has not attracted criticism. We should be careful to focus on the places where there is criticism.

      755
      Secondly—we referred to this and I will not elaborate—jury trial, like the lay magistracy, increases public involvement in the criminal justice system. Trial by judge self-evidently reduces the involvement of ordinary people in that system. The more people are removed from it, the less they feel comfortable about it and confident in it because the less they understand it.
      In that context, I pay tribute to my local Crown court, Southwark Crown court, which looks after Middlesex Guildhall, Blackfriars and the old Knightsbridge Crown court, which has moved. It opened its doors on a Saturday recently to explain to the public what happens. It had mock trials, mock pleas and quizzing of judges. It is hugely important that the public feel that it is their place. There were queues at the door to go in, to people's surprise. The public have an interest—[Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) smiles, suggesting perhaps that those people wanted to learn a few things in preparation for later life but they looked a law-abiding group to me.
      Thirdly, as we have said, jury trial is trial by the unpaid and the unprofessional but it is also trial by those who do not come with a reputation. The blunt truth is that judges have reputations—as a soft judge or a hard judge, a tough judge or a less tough judge. When one gets a jury, one cannot predict. One cannot say that it will come to a particular view because it is a cross-section. Judges do not have that lack of reputation, which is extremely important in terms of the confidence in each case.
      Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, in a very restrained way, he is telling the House that many judges are unduly sympathetic to the Crown case?
      Simon Hughes: There are certainly such judges, as there are stipendiary magistrates or district judges. The truth is that if one sits in court day after day, one's patience with defence cases may tend to wear thin. I could name a judge, but I will not, who used to sit in my local court and was the judge to avoid by any defendant, irrespective of their guilt or innocence. It was presumed that one would be lucky to escape that judge assisting the jury towards a conclusion of guilty. That does not apply to juries and never has done. The jury starts with a clean sheet, which is important.
      Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that some juries do not start with a clean sheet? He will be aware of my interest in sex abuse cases. For many of the accused in such cases, the opportunity to go into a court without a jury might be of positive benefit, given the predisposition of the public in relation to such offences.
      Simon Hughes: I do not accept the hon. Lady's view. There are proposals in the Bill that would make juries start their job without a clean sheet by allowing them to know of previous convictions and history, which would hugely prejudice them. It is proven that somebody with a previous conviction for a sex offence, whatever the new charges might be, will be thought much more likely to be guilty because the public, understandably, have a particular dislike of the offence. I do not accept what she says; juries do a good job when they start with a clean sheet.
      756
      The next point, importantly, is that when we have a jury, the case must be put in language that ordinary people understand. With trial by judges, the whole thing can disappear from the realm of the ordinary person. One of the tests of a good case is whether it can be put simply, and I have seen complex cases presented very simply. There can be acres of paper in a complex fraud case, when the issue is very simple. Did somebody fiddle the books? Were they honest or not? Did they tell the truth? The jury understands that if it is put to them clearly, as do the public and reporters.
      The collective judgment of character by 12 people from different walks of life is clearly a better test of guilt or innocence than the judgment of character by one person from a very particular walk of life. I served as a judge's marshal soon after I qualified as a member of the Bar, and sat next to a great judge in the Liverpool Crown court. However, Mr. Justice Cantley came to the court with one view. It was important that the collective view of the jury was there to pronounce on guilt or innocence, as opposed to the judge, who then decided on the punishment.
      Vera Baird: On complexity, an important allied point is that the presence of the jury requires that the whole of the case be capable of being understood and of being explained simply, not only for the benefit of the jury but for the benefit of the public. Anyone who goes to the Court of Appeal, where professionals are addressing professionals, will see that, very soon, it becomes difficult to follow the plot even if we do not descend into Latin, which lawyers do. The only words that might be understood if the proposals go through might be "guilty" or "not guilty" pronounced at the end. That is completely unacceptable.
      Simon Hughes: I endorse entirely what the hon. and learned Lady says. It is important not only that the 200,000 who serve in the jury box understand what is going on, but that the public who read the papers and sit in the gallery, as well as families, friends and relatives, also understand.
      Stephen Hesford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Simon Hughes: I will not at the moment. I am not trying to be rude, but we have until 8 o'clock because of the guillotine and I am conscious that others want to speak.
      Each of the proposals—first, that defendants be allowed to seek trial without a jury, at their instigation; secondly, that complex or lengthy trials be conducted without a jury; and, thirdly, the proposals relating to the consequence of jury tampering—is too widely drawn. For example. in relation to a defendant asking to be tried without a jury, the judge has to decide whether the matters concerned
      "give rise to exceptional circumstances which make it desirable in the interests of justice for the trial to be conducted without a jury."
      That gives rise to a lot of questions.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome said, it is not just complexity, but length that could trigger a jury being done away with.

      757
      That could be on the basis of
      "arrangements, transactions or records of a financial or commercial nature or which relate to property".
      All sorts of triggers could be involved and the decision in the interests of justice by the judge could mean that that matter comes out of the jury's control.
      The Government amendments on jury tampering are welcome, but we should not accept the principle; however, they seek to point out the deficiencies of the drafting. At the moment, there has to be a "real and present danger", which often occurs. The first of the other two tests—only one of which need apply—is that
      "it would be necessary to provide police protection".
      In the last two years, the Met alone spent £9 million on protection, so that hurdle could be got over quickly if there were a rumour of jury tampering. The second is that
      "the level and duration of that protection would be likely to place an excessive burden on the life of a typical juror."
      Others in this House—Ministers in particular—are under protection; I myself was for a period. If jurors are under protection, that imposes a burden. It would not be difficult for that test to be passed if the juror were trying to live a normal live while under protection.
      We must resist going down the road. One might say, superficially, that if a defendant wants trial by judge—the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) has argued this—they should be entitled to that. But that produces a two-tier justice system, and the decision of the judge as to guilt or innocence is far more likely to be open to criticism—including by the tabloid media—than the decision of a jury. I can think of many cases in which a jury trial has settled the matter where a decision by a judge would not have done; for example, a decision about a Member of the Houses of Parliament in front of a court but decided by a judge alone. Such cases, and many others, need the certainty that a jury trial would provide.
      Lady Hermon: I shall keep this intervention short, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman, in the past, has taken a considerable interest in Northern Ireland affairs and is familiar with our non-jury procedures. I refer him to an article in The Times on 18 July 2002 by Sir Donald Murray, a Lord Justice of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, who served in that capacity for several years. His conclusion about non-jury trials was that the possibility of an unsafe or unsatisfactory conviction being allowed to stand "is remote". I should add that our judges in Northern Ireland are clever and never stupid. Would the hon. Gentleman be persuaded to support the Government if they were to amend the Bill in line with what we have in Northern Ireland with regard to non-jury trials, with an appeal on points of law and points of fact and with the judge having to state the reasons for the decision?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. On brevity, the hon. Lady must see me afterwards.
      Simon Hughes: In mitigation, the hon. Member for North Down gets frustrated because we can never debate such matters in Northern Ireland Bills, and I
      758
      understand her frustration. That would be a less worse option than some of the present proposals, and I share her view. I understood why the Diplock courts came about, but we ought to be seeking to restore to Northern Ireland the system that we have had here. We ought to have the best system first, and only if that does not work should we go down another road.
      7.30 pm
      On the length and complexity option, the reality is that often, middle-class professional defendants would get a particular class of trial, while the rest would not. Long and complex cases involving fraud usually involve professionals. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) knows more about this issue than I do, although not through first-hand experience, I hasten to add. Those without such a white-collar background would not be in the same boat. So often, there would be a particular system of justice for one category and a different one for another.
      On jury tampering, in some ways the provision would be an encouragement to tamper, not a disincentive. That would be extremely dangerous. Colleagues on both sides of the Chamber know that it would provide a perverse incentive that could lead us in the wrong direction. Instead, we ought to draw a line and say that jury trial remains and will not be moved, however hard one tries. People who tamper with juries should be punished—taken to court, prosecuted and imprisoned—but the system should not be fundamentally changed.
      Mr. John Burnett: I hope that, like me, my hon. Friend takes no comfort in the analogy drawn by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) on jury tampering and magistrates. There is always an appeal—in fact and law—in terms of a magistrate's decision.
      Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend has saved me from the need to make that point.
      Mr. Bercow: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although his point is valid in itself, it is the stronger by virtue of the fact that the Government have worded the clause so loosely that a very low threshold has to be overcome before jury trial is scrapped? It is absolutely and chronically perverse.
      Simon Hughes: I accept that point absolutely. I understand the argument, advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), that if we are to go down this road we need much steeper steps. However, although the position that the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) takes, which is to suggest a compromise, is understandable in respect of some of these issues, it is the wrong one at the moment. The proposals are weak in terms of the width of the doors that they open; it would be far better to stand on the proven track record of the existing system. When we talk to our colleagues in the other place in the days to come, I hope that we discover that, on looking at the evidence, they share our view that the current system has much more merit than any of the alternatives.
      Mr. Letwin: For the avoidance of doubt, let the hon. Gentleman be assured that I shall ask my noble Friends

      759
      in the other place to take the same stance as we shall take tonight: to oppose these clauses as they stand. The compromise exists only if we reach ping-pong and the Government would otherwise fail to have an escape route.
      Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman must sometimes be less generous in providing escape routes for the Government. It is sometimes better to show them that there is no escape; that way, they might change their minds.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the hon. Gentleman reiterate the fact that this House must take decisions on principle? If this House is defeated on matters of principle, by all means it is perfectly correct for Her Majesty's loyal Opposition to make it clear what their actions will be. This is the place that ought to be deciding on what happens in the law courts, whatever happens in an unelected second Chamber.
      Simon Hughes: I should tell the hon. Lady, who knows that I respect her greatly, that that is absolutely our job. This is indeed an issue of principle, and somewhat unusually, we accord with the view of the majority of the people who send us here about the importance of it.
      I apprehend that we will have a debate tomorrow about the independence of the judiciary, and as I said to the Home Secretary earlier, some of us are going to ensure that we stand up for judges and their independence. Liberal Democrats are very clear that today's debate is about standing up for juries. Parliament should stand up for juries. They are tried and tested. They are one of the most popular institutions in the criminal justice system. If everything else in it were as successful and popular, we would not need legislation such as this. Nor would we have the difficulties or the disaffection that, sadly, much of the rest of our law and order policy provokes from the people whom we represent.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I am aware that many Members wish to speak, so I will be brief. I shall of course confine myself to clauses 37 and 38, and to amendments Nos. 2 and 3. These provisions represent, as we all know, the most serious attack on the most fundamental of our civil liberties—jury trial—since the previous most serious attack, which took place during the previous Parliament. Even in the short time available, it is impossible not to reflect on the exquisite irony before us. During consideration of mode of trial legislation, we were repeatedly told that our fears were groundless because the most serious offences would always be sacrosanct in terms of jury trial. Now., of course, we hear precisely the reverse. It is impossible not to draw the conclusion that the Government, having got their hands badly bitten twice on that occasion, are now applying themselves to the dog from the other end.
      This issue is relevant to the entire question of the slippery slope. If these provisions go through, the Government will return to mode of trial. I listened very carefully to the Home Secretary talking about the wisdom of penitence, and saying that the Government have learned their lesson. I am sorry to say that I do not accept or believe a word of it. I also listened very
      760
      carefully to the previous Home Secretary's speeches on mode of trial. If I were sitting as a recorder or Crown court judge, and if mitigation were being put forward—you will forgive a small incursion into parliamentary courtesy, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and someone came before me and said, "Jack doesn't believe a word of what he said then and he's very sorry," I would not accept a word of it. The plain fact is that jury trial is a shibboleth to this Home Office—and, indeed, to this Government—and it is time that we recognised that fact.
      Mr. Bercow: I entirely agree with the purport of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, which is that the Government do not seem to have learned their lesson. Does he recall, and think appropriate in this context, the observation of Kipling, who said:
      "And the burnt fool's bandaged finger goes wobbling back to the fire"?
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Indeed; in fact I was about to quote Kipling in that precise respect. [Laughter.] However, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who does it so much better than I could.
      I should declare an interest, in that I have prosecuted and defended serious fraud cases for many years, some of which were extremely serious. I like to think that I prosecute and defend such cases with equal vigour, and if I ever had the misfortune to prosecute the Home Secretary—for an offence unidentified at the moment—I hope that he would find that that was indeed so. I dislike losing cases when I am prosecuting as much as I dislike losing them when I am defending, so I am not a wet liberal in that regard.
      Much has already been said, entirely justifiably, about the Government's motives and reasons, and I shall cut that discussion short, save in respect of the representative nature of juries. The truth is that we have cracked this problem. In the vast majority of serious fraud cases, we take a day or sometimes two. We never have panels of 700 jurors. Sometimes we have 100, and we always find juries that are comfortable with sitting for the time involved in serious fraud trials. The idea that they are not representative is a dream of the Government; it is wholly unsubstantiated by those who practise in the courts. There is no law or learning on this; there have been no studies—sociological, demographical or otherwise—to suggest that these juries are unrepresentative.
      The universal view of those who practise is that these juries are in fact more representative than any others. They include, it is true, slightly more women than men, which is no bad thing. They include, it is true, slightly more disabled people who are unable to work, which is no bad thing. Those drawn from a pool of people who are not working at that time include the highly successful—no bad thing if one is dealing with serious fraud—and those who have the misfortune to be unemployed. Again, that is no bad thing. These supposedly unrepresentative people have no difficulty whatsoever in convicting in nearly 90 per cent. of the cases that they hear. This Government would not suggest for one moment that that was due to some feebleness of intellect.
      Having dealt with the Government's case—that is the totality of it—I shall now move on to the offensive and state as a plain fact that the provision will not work and

      761
      will be wholly unjust. I say that for two separate reasons—there are many others, but I shall focus on the two most important. First, judges sit as judges of law; juries sit as judges of fact. That is our system. We cannot simply remove the jury from our system and pretend that we have invented an inquisitorial system. As I have said before, it is the precise equivalent of removing the wheels from a car and pretending that a boat has been created. The jury is essential to the system, as are judges.
      The whole question of public interest immunity applies. The Crown claims public interest immunity for evidence that it believes should not, in the public interest, be put before the defence. The evidence is put before the trial judge, and the trial judge decides. The system works extremely well. The judge might say that the defence can see certain evidence, but not other evidence: the jury will then, in common with the defence, be ignorant of that evidence. A judge cannot hear PII claims—hear evidence that is not privy to the defence—and then try a case of guilt or innocence. That offends every single canon of natural justice and is a manifest breach of the European convention.
      The Government have advanced no argument—absolutely none—in favour of the position, only the postulation that there could be a second judge. I tell the House that that is impossible, because the nature of public interest immunity is that the judge has to keep the matter under review throughout the trial until it reaches a point at which the judge says that evidence that he hitherto decided should not be given to the defence, now should be given to it. The judge knows the case throughout the trial. Even supposing that having another judge were possible, what would happen in a PII case: it would have to start again with another judge, and then on it would go to another judge for another PII application. I repeat that that cannot work. What will happen in practice? Judges, asked if they would try a case on their own will end up asking the prosecution whether PII factors apply to that case. In money laundering cases, such factors always apply, and nearly always in cases of serious fraud. The legislation is deeply flawed in that respect alone.
      However, manifest injustice is evident in another respect. Frequently—or more often than not—trials involve more than one defendant. In serious cases—whether or not jury tampering has occurred—there may be a Mr. Big, a Mr. Not so Big and a Mrs. somewhere in the middle. Mr. and Mrs. might be bringing up the end and two or three misters are the minnows who have played hardly any part at all. They are all, quite rightly, tried together, but what will happen if an application is made to the effect that public interest immunity applies to one of them? They will all be tainted. What will happen if one of them tampers with a jury? They will all lose their jury trial—every single one of them. What will happen if complexity is postulated in respect of only one defendant, Mr. Big? They will all lose their right to a jury trial.
      When I asked the then Minister, he confirmed that that would be the case, but said that it would be subject to an application to split the trial. So now we have two trials—the same trial once tried by a judge, and once tried by a jury. What will happen if two conflicting verdicts result: the jury says guilty, the judge not guilty?
      762
      What will happen when it goes to the Court of Appeal? Absolutely none of those issues has been thought out or answered by the Government. The Bill manifestly attacks the most fundamental of our civil liberties and is wholly unworkable in practice. It is unjust, offending against every single canon of our criminal justice system. I urge all hon. Members to support the cross-party amendments Nos. 1 to 3; let us have done with this very bad part of a pretty bad Bill.
      Mr. Hogg: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). His point about public interest immunity is wholly conclusive. He has marshalled the arguments with great lucidity, so I shall be brief.
      There is a problem with jury nobbling in clause 38 and we have not tackled it sensibly. I should like to make three brief points. First, it is said that there is a right of appeal and there is, but it is subject to leave and the Bill is silent about the grounds on which that leave will be granted or withheld. We must deal with that problem.
      7.45 pm
      Secondly, and it is not quite the same issue that applies to public interest immunity, it is important that nothing on the application for a non-jury trial should be allowed to taint the subsequent trial. In the great majority of cases, that will mean that the application for the non-jury trial should be made by a judge different from the one who subsequently hears the substantive trial.
      Thirdly, I agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) that before a non-jury trial is granted on the ground of tampering, it is essential that clear evidence is provided that either tampering has taken place or is likely to take place. A bald assertion to that effect is certainly not enough and will result in many non-jury trials being approved on the ground of likelihood alone.
      I shall now move on quickly to clauses 36 and 37. I find myself in substantial agreement—I am glad to say, on this occasion—with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). During the past six years since I was unfortunately driven from Government, I have taken part in several fraud cases, some of them long, which ultimately revolved around the question of whether the defendant was dishonest. Juries are singularly well place to determine that question. In common with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, I do not buy the argument that jurors cannot address that question: they can and they do.
      I make my next point with a degree of caution and diffidence because I hope to be treated with courtesy in courts as well as in the House, but some judges are unduly predisposed in favour of the Crown. That is not surprising. Judges spend many years listening to spurious defence case after spurious defence case, which can make them jolly impatient with defendants. I regard the jury system as an important safeguard to protect the innocent citizen in a way that I do not believe is true of all judges. I regret to say that, but I believe it to be the case.

      763
      My next point will be brief, because my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset expressed it so clearly. It is the slippery slope argument. Once it is accepted as a proposition that length and complexity provide good reasons for not having a jury trial, why extend it to a second condition and say that a jury is unnecessary because of the commercial or property nature of the case? Once complexity and length are conceded as appropriate grounds, we are heading towards getting rid of all jury trials.
      Other right hon. and hon. Members want to speak, so I shall quickly make two final points. First, it is not impossible to find jurors to deal with long cases. The hon. and learned Member for Medway has greater experience than me in that respect. Although it is sometimes difficult, jurors are always to be found and empanelled.
      Finally, as the hon. and learned Member for Medway said and as I mentioned at the outset, the public interest immunity point is absolutely conclusive. It is the nature of fraud cases that PII applications will be made, at least at the start. Once a judge starts hearing PII applications in the absence, as always, of the defence, how can we conceivably satisfy the requirements of article 6 of the convention? That point goes to the heart of the matter and demonstrates why the proposal is so ill thought out.
      Vera Baird: Amendment No. 1 would leave out clause 36, which couches as a "right" the option to opt out of jury trial. That alleged right should be considered in context. It will be given to a defendant, by a Bill that has repeatedly been described as one that was intended to rebalance rights towards victims and witnesses. Nobody has ever asked for that right. No client has ever said to me, "When you get into Parliament, can you legislate to get rid of these bigoted jurors and get me trial by judge, please?" Nor can we ignore the Government's recent attitude to mode of trial, when the very idea that the defendant should decide whether he should have trial by jury was called a bizarre idea, often in this Chamber itself. It is not that I doubt the current Home Secretary, but in two years the argument has been stood totally on its head, and I fear the level of future acrobatic prowess that may be required.
      Will the Government be comfortable for long with a right for a defendant alone to opt for or against a jury trial, to be exercised arbitrarily with no recognition of the rights or wishes of the victim? The Home Secretary himself mentioned that point, but what about a black person in a racially aggravated case, faced with a white defendant who exercises his option to be tried by a white judge and not by anyone from a black community? What about a female rape complainant who comes to court to find that, in a highly gendered situation, the male defendant has the right to opt to exclude every other female from the case and for trial by a male judge? The perception of those two problems is dangerous enough, before one even considers the outcome. It is hard enough now to get rape complainants to come to court, and the very judges who will be given the
      764
      responsibility are drawn from a group of men who have made the most appalling comments about rape complainants over the years.
      The new right will inevitably be abused by defendants—mostly by criminals, but probably by all defendants—in localities. For example, in Redcar particular judges are known to be particularly liberal, and others are known to be particularly tough. If anyone asked me what I thought about the right to trial by judge alone, I would ask, "Which judge?" What will happen will be forum shopping of the worst imaginable sort. Local witnesses will know that a defendant has opted at the last minute for judge X because he is softer than the jury, or has opted for a jury because judge Y, who is hard, has been allocated to the case. That will rightly scandalise victims. The Bill includes provision that the defendant must exercise the option at an early stage, but that is unenforceable. If a defendant has the right to opt for or against jury trial, that cannot be taken away by rules of procedure. It will remain an option until the last day, and will inevitably be exercised on the last day when the identity of the judge becomes known.
      What is the new right? It is a right for defendants in a Bill that is supposed to enhance the rights of victims. It is a right that no one has ever asked for. It is anti-victim, as I have described, and it will bring the courts into disrepute. It has no point and no purpose, because no one claims that juries do not work or are not valuable. Some 80 per cent. of the population supports them, so what is going on? It is the beginning of the end of trial by jury.
      A year from now, those who have opted for trial by judge alone will have been tried more quickly, and thus more cheaply, than those who have been tried by a jury. One has to proceed in court at the rate of the slowest juror, and one cannot even ascertain what that is, because one does not speak to them and they cannot ask their own questions to clarify the points. The judge can say, "Yes, Mrs. Baird, I've got that, so you can move on." He can also ask about issues that are troubling him.
      In a year's time, someone will say, "Hang on a moment, this burglary was tried by a judge alone in a week, but this almost identical burglary took two weeks to be tried by jury and cost twice as much." Why should somebody have legal aid for two weeks when it could be done in one? By then, cases will have had elections made at the last minute between judge and jury—forum shopping—to the scandalisation of victims, and the Government will say that that will not do. The Government will say that by analogy with the argument on mode of trial, it is bizarre for defendants to be able to make such decisions. The Government will say that they must take the decision about mode of trial away from the defendant and give it to the judge, who will exercise his discretion. However, the judge will be under pressure from disposal rates and financial factors, and there will be fewer and fewer jury trials. By that stage, the decision will be at the discretion of the judge, and therefore no one will any longer have the right to opt for jury trial—that is the important point. That is the destination towards which, inexorably, the Bill will take us—in clause 38, to a lesser extent; in clause 37; and,

      765
      despite its apparent benevolence at first sight, in clause 36. If the clauses remain in the Bill, by the end of the decade we will be lucky to have a jury in the Eurovision song contest.
      Mr. Gummer: I have listened carefully to the debate, but I failed to hear the proof that juries were impossible to find, and that would have made a great deal of difference to the argument. We heard proof that it was difficult to get all cases to court, but that has nothing to do with an inability to find juries. We heard proof that some juries were tampered with, but that has nothing to do with the difficulty of finding juries in the first place. All the evidence that we have had has come from those who have explained that although it is not always easy to find juries, there is no example of a case that would have proceeded had there been a jury but was unable to do so because there was not.
      The Home Secretary gave his case away by developing an argument that although juries could be found in all cases, the juries were not as representative as he would like. However, I know of no jury that is utterly representative, because that is impossible. What juries need to be is as representative as possible. Evidence has been given in the debate to show that juries, in the sort of cases that we are discussing, are—if anything—more representative than juries in general. So the Home Secretary has failed to present the very case on which he relied to bring the House to agree with him.
      Instead, the Home Secretary has presented the argument that the cases involved are a narrow group—fewer than 100 a year—and that he has no intention of expanding that number. If the Home Secretary had no previous form, many of us might be willing to believe him, because he is an honourable man. However, in recent years—almost, in recent months—the argument has been that there should be no limitation on the number of cases in which the defendant should be denied a jury trial, except those that were very serious, which should be allowed a jury trial. So those that were not so serious would be refused a jury trial and those that were very serious would receive a jury trial—in defence of justice. The House denied that argument, but now—a few months later—the opposite argument is put before us. It is argued that any case that does not really matter—which is short, simple and uncontroversial—should have a jury trial, but any case in the group that previously would have been the only ones to get a jury trial will now be refused one.
      Now the argument is precisely opposite to the one that we started with, and hon. Members are supposed to suggest to our constituents that the House will go along with this proposal because we were sure that it would never be extended and that we would never find any other group. However, we know perfectly well that, if we were to agree to the new clause, all those cases that were thought so important as to be removed from the jury's ambit would come along pretty soon.
      8 pm
      The hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) is absolutely right. We know the argument—the proposal is cheaper, quicker and more certain. Yet in
      766
      fact jury cases have delivered exactly the kind of proportion of guilty judgments that one would expect—not universal, but pretty high—because people do not bring such cases unless they have got a good case, so that is not the argument. I have to tell the Home Secretary that this case is not just not proven, but has failed even to be presented in a way that any sensible person could support, and I very much hope that the House will throw out this attempt as it has thrown out every previous attempt.
      Ian Lucas: I will make only one very brief point. It is important to remember that the criminal justice system currently includes both trial by jury and trial before magistrates, so jury trial is not the only way in which justice can be reached. As the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) said, we have had a system in Northern Ireland, within the United Kingdom jurisdiction, for some 30 years—
      It being four and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER pursuant to Orders [4 February, 5 March, 2 April and this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour.
      Amendment proposed: No. 2, in page 25, line 10, leave out clause 37.—[Mr. Letwin.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 227, Noes 299.

      Division No. 205]

      [8.03 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Brazier, Julian

      Allan, Richard

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Amess, David

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Burnett, John

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Burns, Simon

      Bacon, Richard

      Burnside, David

      Baird, Vera

      Burstow, Paul

      Baker, Norman

      Burt, Alistair

      Baldry, Tony

      Butterfill, John

      Barker, Gregory

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Barnes, Harry

      Cameron, David

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Barrett, John

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Cash, William

      Bellingham, Henry

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Bercow, John

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Chidgey, David

      Blunt, Crispin

      Chope, Christopher

      Boswell, Tim

      Clappison, James

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Collins, Tim

      Brady, Graham

      Connarty, Michael

      767

      Conway, Derek

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Lamb, Norman

      Cotter, Brian

      Lansley, Andrew

      Cousins, Jim

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Leigh, Edward

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Lidington, David

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Dawson, Hilton

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Loughton, Tim

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      McDonnell, John

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Etherington, Bill

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Evans, Nigel

      Maclean, rh David

      Fabricant, Michael

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fallon, Michael

      McNamara, Kevin

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Malins, Humfrey

      Fisher, Mark

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Flight, Howard

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Flook, Adrian

      Mates, Michael

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Forth, rh Eric

      Mercer, Patrick

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Francois, Mark

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Norman, Archie

      Garnier, Edward

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Gerrard, Neil

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Gidley, Sandra

      Öpik, Lembit

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Goodman, Paul

      Ottaway, Richard

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Page, Richard

      Grayling, Chris

      Paice, James

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Paterson, Owen

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Pickles, Eric

      Greenway, John

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Gummer, rh John

      Randall, John

      Hammond, Philip

      Redwood, rh John

      Hancock, Mike

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Rendel, David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Harvey, Nick

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Heald, Oliver

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Heath, David

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Hendry, Charles

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Hermon, Lady

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Holmes, Paul

      Selous, Andrew

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Hunter, Andrew

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

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

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Keetch, Paul

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Spring, Richard

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Steen, Anthony

      768

      Streeter, Gary

      Waterson, Nigel

      Stunell, Andrew

      Watkinson, Angela

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Syms, Robert

      Whittingdale, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Wilkinson, John

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Willetts, David

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Willis, Phil

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Wilshire, David

      Thurso, John

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Winterton, Sri Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Tredinnick, David

      Yoe, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Young, rh Sir George

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Viggers, Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Walter, Robert

      Hugh Robertson and

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Mr. Desmond Swayne

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Ainger, Nick

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Allen, Graham

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Clelland, David

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Coaker, Vernon

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bailey, Adrian

      Coleman, Iain

      Banks, Tony

      Colman, Tony

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Battle, John

      Cooper, Yvette

      Bayley, Hugh

      Corston, Jean

      Beard, Nigel

      Cranston, Ross

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Crausby, David

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cruddas, Jon

      Bell, Stuart

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Benn, Hilary

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Berry, Roger

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Blackman, Liz

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      David, Wayne

      Blizzard, Bob

      Davidson, Ian

      Blunkett, rh David

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Denham, rh John

      Borrow, David

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Doran, Frank

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Browne, Desmond

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Bryant, Chris

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Edwards, Huw

      Burden, Richard

      Efford, Clive

      Burgon, Colin

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Burnham, Andy

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Farrelly, Paul

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Cairns, David

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Follett, Barbara

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Casale, Roger

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Challen, Colin

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Chaytor, David

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Goggins, Paul

      769

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      MacDougall, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Grogan, John

      McKechin, Ann

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      McNulty, Tony

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      MacShane, Denis

      Hanson, David

      McWalter, Tony

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      McWilliam, John

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Healey, John

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Martlew, Eric

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Hendrick, Mark

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Miliband, David

      Heppell, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Hesford, Stephen

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Mole, Chris

      Heyes, David

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Morley, Elliot

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mountford, Kali

      Hodge, Margaret

      Mullin, Chris

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Olner, Bill

      Organ, Diana

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Hutton, rh John

      Pearson, Ian

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Perham, Linda

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Picking, Anne

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Jamieson, David

      Plaskitt, James

      Jenkins, Brian

      Pollard, Kerry

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pound, Stephen

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Purnell, James

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Kemp, Fraser

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Rammell, Bill

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Kidney, David

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Rooney, Terry

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Ruane, Chris

      Lammy, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Salter, Martin

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Lepper, David

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Sawford, Phil

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Linton, Martin

      Sheerman, Barry

      Love, Andrew

      Sheridan, Jim

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Singh, Marsha

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      770

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Trickett, Jon

      Truswell, Paul

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Soley, Clive

      Southworth, Helen

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Spellar, rh John

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Squire, Rachel

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Stevenson, George

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Watts, David

      White, Brian

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Stringer, Graham

      Wills, Michael

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Woolas, Phil

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Worthington, Tony

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Timms, Stephen

      Tipping, Paddy

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Gillian Merron and

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Derek Twigg

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 3, in page 25, line 38, leave out Clause 38.—[Mr. Letwin.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 223, Noes 304.

      Division No. 206]

      [8:16 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Butterfill, John

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Allan, Richard

      Cameron, David

      Amess, David

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Cash, William

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Bacon, Richard

      Baird, Vera

      Chidgey, David

      Baker, Norman

      Chope, Christopher

      Baldry, Tony

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Barker, Gregory

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Barnes, Harry

      Collins, Tim

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Connarty, Michael

      Barrett, John

      Conway, Derek

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bercow, John

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Cotter, Brian

      Blunt, Crispin

      Cousins, Jim

      Boswell, Tim

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Brady, Graham

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Brazier, Julian

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Dawson, Hilton

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Burnett, John

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Burns, Simon

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Burnside, David

      Etherington, Bill

      Burstow, Paul

      Evans, Nigel

      Burt, Alistair

      Fabricant, Michael

      771

      Fallon, Michael

      Malins, Humfrey

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Fisher, Mark

      Mates, Michael

      Flook, Adrian

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Forth, rh Eric

      Moss, Malcolm

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Francois, Mark

      Norman, Archie

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Garnier, Edward

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Öpik, Lembit

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Ottaway, Richard

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Page, Richard

      Goodman, Paul

      Paice, James

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Paterson, Owen

      Grayling, Chris

      Pickles, Eric

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Greenway, John

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Grieve, Dominic

      Randall, John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Redwood, rh John

      Gummer, rh John

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Hammond, Philip

      Rendel, David

      Hancock, Mike

      Robathan, Andrew

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Harvey, Nick

      Hawkins, Nick

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Heald, Oliver

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Heath, David

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Hendry, Charles

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hermon, Lady

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Selous, Andrew

      Holmes, Paul

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Shepherd, Richard

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Jack, rh Michael

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

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Keetch, Paul

      Spring, Richard

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Steen, Anthony

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Streeter, Gary

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Syms, Robert

      Lamb, Norman

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Leigh, Edward

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Thurso, John

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Tredinnick, David

      Lidington, David

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Loughton, Tim

      Viggers, Peter

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      McCafferty, Chris

      Walter, Robert

      McDonnell, John

      Wareing, Robert N.

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Waterson, Nigel

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Watkinson, Angela

      Maclean, rh David

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Whittingdale, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Wiggin, Bill

      772

      Wilkinson, John

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Willetts, David

      Young, rh Sir George

      Willis, Phil

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Wilshire, David

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Hugh Robertson and

      Mr. Desmond Swayne

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Colman, Tony

      Ainger, Nick

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Alexander, Douglas

      Corston, Jean

      Allen, Graham

      Cranston, Ross

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Crausby, David

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Banks, Tony

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      David, Wayne

      Battle, John

      Davidson, Ian

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Beard, Nigel

      Denham, rh John

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Dismore, Andrew

      Bell, Stuart

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Benn, Hilary

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Doran, Frank

      Berry, Roger

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Blackman, Liz

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Blunkett, rh David

      Edwards, Huw

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Efford, Clive

      Borrow, David

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Farrelly, Paul

      Brennan, Kevin

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Flint, Caroline

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Follett, Barbara

      Browne, Desmond

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Bryant, Chris

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Burden, Richard

      Foulkes, rh George

      Burgon, Colin

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Burnham, Andy

      Gardiner, Barry

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Gilroy, Linda

      Cairns, David

      Godsiff, Roger

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Goggins, Paul

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Casale, Roger

      Grogan, John

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Challen, Colin

      Hall, Patrick (Bedlford)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Chaytor, David

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hanson, David

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Healey, John

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clelland, David

      Hendrick, Mark

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Coaker, Vernon

      Heppell, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cohen, Harry

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Coleman, Iain

      Heyes, David

      773

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Hinchliffe, David

      Morley, Elliot

      Hodge, Margaret

      Mountford, Kali

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Mullin, Chris

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Olner, Bill

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Organ, Diana

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Hutton, rh John

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Pearson, Ian

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Perham, Linda

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Picking, Anne

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jamieson, David

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Plaskitt, James

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Pound, Stephen

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Purnell, James

      Kemp, Fraser

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Rammell, Bill

      Kidney, David

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Rooney, Terry

      Lammy, David

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Ruane, Chris

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Lepper, David

      Salter, Martin

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Linton, Martin

      Sawford, Phil

      Love, Andrew

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Sheerman, Barry

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sheridan, Jim

      McCabe, Stephen

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Singh, Marsha

      MacDonald, Calum

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      MacDougall, John

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McIsaac, Shona

      McKechin, Ann

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Soley, Clive

      McNulty, Tony

      Southworth, Helen

      MacShane, Denis

      Spellar, rh John

      McWalter, Tony

      Squire, Rachel

      McWilliam, John

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Mallaber, Judy

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Stevenson, George

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Martlew, Eric

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Michael, rh Alun

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Miliband, David

      Stringer, Graham

      Miller, Andrew

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Moffatt, Laura

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mole, Chris

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      774

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Watts, David

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      White, Brian

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Whittingdale, John

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Timms, Stephen

      Wills, Michael

      Tipping, Paddy

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Trickett, Jon

      Woolas, Phil

      Truswell, Paul

      Worthington, Tony

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Gillian Merron and

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Derek Twigg

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 63

      CASES THAT MAY BE RETRIED
      Mr. Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 41, line 7, leave out 'a qualifying offence' and insert—
      'murder or rape, contrary to section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following:
      Amendment No. 479, in page 41, line 7, leave out 'a qualifying offence' and insert—
      'murder, genocide consisting in the killing of any person, or corporate manslaughter'.
      Government amendments Nos. 462 to 465, 357 and 466.
      Amendment No. 480, in page 41, line 38, leave out
      'an offence listed in Schedule 4'
      and insert
      'murder, genocide consisting in the killing of any person, or corporate manslaughter'.
      Government amendment No. 467.
      Amendment No. 19, in page 188, line 1, leave out Schedule 4.
      Amendment No. 129, in schedule 4, page 188, line 8, leave out paragraph 2.
      Amendment No. 130, in schedule 4, page 188, line 16, leave out paragraphs 5 and 6.
      Government amendment No. 423.
      Amendment No. 131, in schedule 4, page 188, line 23, leave out paragraphs 8 to 18.
      Government amendments Nos. 424 and 425.
      Amendment No. 132, in schedule 4, page 190, line 7, leave out paragraphs 21 to 29.
      Government amendments Nos. 474 and 475, 468 and 469, and 358 and 359.
      Amendment No. 20, in page 42, line 41, leave out 'is' and insert 'appears to be'.
      Amendment No. 21, in page 43, line 1, leave out 'is' and insert 'appears to be'.
      Government amendment No. 360.
      Amendment No. 22, in clause 66, page 43, line 2, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
      "(c) it is material which a jury properly directed might reasonably convict.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 361 to 373, 470 to 472, and 374 to 376.
      Amendment No. 61, in clause 73, page 47, line 44, leave out 'and'.
      Amendment No. 62, in page 47, line 45, at end insert ",
      and
      (c) has sought leave from a judge of the Crown Court on an exparte application.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 377 to 420.
      Government new clause 42—Restrictions on publication in the interests of justice.
      Government new clause 43—Revocation of bail.
      Government new clause 44—Armed Forces: Part 10.
      Government new clause 54—Application of Part 10 to Northern Ireland.
      Government amendments Nos. 421, 473 and 422.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Grieve: We shall now consider an area of the Bill that certainly caused me a great deal of anxiety in Committee. It was clear in Committee that there were vastly differing views about the correct approach that the House should have to the issue of retrial and double jeopardy.
      A principle was long enshrined in our law—it certainly went back to the middle ages—that a person should not be in jeopardy twice for the same offence. The underlying principles were sound ones. In an age when the state could often act oppressively and, indeed, intended to do so, it was the one protection that a person had against continuous oppression by the state. Once a jury had had the courage to return a not guilty verdict, the issue could not be reopened. Some of the accounts of state trials in the 14th century show that the jury that did return a not guilty verdict was exposing itself to fairly severe sanctions. Notwithstanding that, once the jury did it, it was accepted that there was nothing that the state could do to re-prosecute.
      We are talking, historically, about one of the great pillars of our liberties. We must therefore raise a question mark. Indeed, some Members have done so in Committee and in the House. Why has it been thought right to interfere with the principle by providing in the Bill the mechanism by which a person may be retried, having previously been acquitted, on the basis that new evidence has come to light on which he could properly be convicted?
      The approach that the Opposition have adopted is essentially a pragmatic one. We have said that we accept, especially with the arrival of much better scientific evidence, including DNA, that many people would regard it as offensive in regard to the most serious of crimes if a person, having previously been acquitted because of insufficient evidence, found themselves when that evidence emerged some time later, in a matter that had caused the public huge disquiet and anxiety, incapable of being prosecuted again, and protected against prosecution, when the public would consider
      776
      that it was of great public importance that the individual should be retried for the offence and, if the evidence was good, convicted upon it.
      The matter has been considered over and over again. In particular, it was considered by the Law Commission. The commission's view—it has been reflected by the sorts of cases that have come to the public's attention—was that the mechanism for retrial should be confined to murder. However, Lord Justice Auld—I regret to say that it was in a fit of some deliciously woolly thinking, but perhaps I am allowed to say that nowadays, it being permissible since the Home Secretary has now allowed us to criticise members of the judiciary—
      Mr. Heath: It is compulsory.
      Mr. Grieve: As the hon. Gentleman says, it is compulsory.
      Lord Justice Auld felt that it was necessary, or might be desirable, to apply the approach to other grave offences. The problem is that the Government, having considered what constitutes other grave offences in schedule 4, have come up with 30 offences that they consider should lead to retrial.
      Simon Hughes: And an extra one.
      Mr. Grieve: As the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, an extra one is being added.
      As in the previous debate on jury trial, there is the lurking anxiety and suspicion that this, in the inevitable way, will be only the start, and that once we go down this road we shall find in the years to come that there will be pressure to add other offences to the list.
      I shall give the Minister an example. Let us say that a group of people commit a vicious armed robbery with machetes. They terrorise their victims and seize huge amounts of cash. It is something that causes a sensation when it happens, and they are acquitted. Under the provisions of schedule 4, they could not be retried. On the other hand, someone who is convicted of, I regret to say, the somewhat prosaic offence of supplying, or offering to supply, a class A drug—something that can be found to be taking place in small quantities at King's Cross virtually every day of the week—will come within the schedule. The criterion is that the offence attracts a life sentence.
      Many offences attract life sentences on the statute book. Some offences do so because they are at common law and have never had a period of sentence defined for them.
      Stephen Hesford: What about an offence of murder that is effectively a mercy killing? In the hon. Gentleman's mind, surely that would not come within the proper definition that he is seeking, which is a really serious offence.
      Mr. Grieve: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. It is a perfectly fair one. It might be said that there are different categories of murder in terms of the horror with which it is regarded by the public. Notwithstanding that, my impression is that the Law Commission selected the offence of murder for precise reasons. I suppose that short of high treason, murder has always

      777
      been regarded as the most serious offence in the calendar. It is the malicious deprivation of another person's life, in circumstances where the jury convict. With mercy killings, juries have sometimes adopted a merciful view of the person who killed. In my experience, when juries convict in those circumstances, it is usually because they think that that which happened went rather beyond what a right-thinking person, being flexible with the law, would regard as proper.
      The Law Commission had some sensible views on the subject.
      Mr. Gummer: Is not the advantage of the Law Commission's restriction that it is objective? It refers to a specific class of crime which is seen universally as the most horrific crime. The difficulty with the Government's list—this is proved by the addition to the list—is that it is not objective. It tries to say that it relates to those things that shock people the most. Is it not a bad principle of law that we ask that that which shocks people should be subject to double jeopardy?
      Mr. Grieve: I agree entirely. The argument for murder is that we must accept that someone who has a propensity to kill other people is potentially a serious public menace. I am sure that one of the reasons that weighed so heavily on the mind of the Law Commission was that there is enormous public interest in trying to ensure that such a person may not strike again. The sorts of cases that we have often heard about and commented about have been those where murder has been committed by an individual and other people are fearful that because of the murderer's psychopathic personality or other features, there might be a repeat offence.
      The Minister knows, and his predecessor in the post knew, that I was and am unhappy with the prospect of departing from the time-honoured protection provided by principle of double jeopardy, notwithstanding the fact that, adopting the pragmatic approach that I said at the outset was the hallmark of our party's approach to the matter, I was prepared to consider making an exception. As will be seen from amendments Nos. 18 and 19, we have suggested that the provision should be confined to offences of murder and rape only.
      Stephen Hesford: The hon. Gentleman says that the Opposition's approach is pragmatic. He will recall from an interchange in Committee, when the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) was struggling to identify the serious offences to which similar wording might apply, that there was some banter about genocide. Should not genocide come within the definition?
      Mr. Grieve: That is a fair point. As the hon. Gentleman knows, some of his hon. Friends, fellow Back Benchers, have tabled amendments separate from ours that take a slightly different approach. Those hon. Members have run through the entirety of schedule 4 and sought to identify what they consider to be the most serious offences. That is wider in scope than amendment No. 18.
      If the Minister suddenly stood up and said that the approach adopted by his hon. Friends was the correct one, in a spirit of compromise, I would not press my
      778
      amendment to a Division, and we would go away and try to resolve the issue. There is an issue pragmatically and legitimately to be considered about eroding the double jeopardy protection. However, it is the Government who reiterated in Committee—the hon. Gentleman will remember the Minister's words—that they recognised that the double jeopardy rule was an important protection, and they wanted only to erode it slightly in those areas that they considered important to ensure that public confidence in the criminal justice system was maintained. When I look at the lists and compare them with what I consider to be the key areas of public disquiet, I think that the Government have got it wrong.
      Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend is advancing the argument well. Given that the principle of double jeopardy is so important, and the difficulties that we had in Committee in going through a series of offences that would be covered by the new rule, is not one of the strongest arguments for his amendment that we should move very slowly and one step at a time? By including only murder and rape at this stage, we can watch to see how the law develops before widening it. That, once done, is difficult to withdraw.
      Mr. Grieve: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. One aspect that causes me disquiet is that, although the matter was considered carefully by the Law Commission—I cannot pronounce on Lord Justice Auld's approach—I do not believe that much thought was given to it before the Government embarked on it. One of my reasons for saying that was what happened in the Home Affairs Committee when it sat briefly and rather imperfectly, as the Committee itself admitted, to consider the wide range of changes that were being introduced.
      When Lord Falconer of Thoroton was giving evidence on 26 November 2002, the Chairman asked:
      "How many offences can be retried under double jeopardy?"
      Lord Falconer replied:
      "I think the number is 30, and aiding and abetting as well. It is Schedule 4, page 181 of the Bill."
      The Chairman responded:
      "Thank you. It does seem rather a lot more than most people previously anticipated—or indeed the Government suggested."
      Lord Falconer said, "Yes." The Chairman continued:
      "These things have a habit of growing, do they not?"
      At that point, Mr. Chisholm interrupted and said:
      "The Law Commission originally set it as being murder but Lord Justice Auld said it should extend to other grave offences. What we did was look at all offences that attracted a maximum of life imprisonment, and these are only some; these, ministers decided, were the most serious under that category and they were the ones that ministers agreed should attract the possibility of retrial."
      I note, first, that Lord Falconer did not answer the question but left it to an official to do so. I also note that the answer from the official gave no explanation or indication of a rationale behind the selection, apart from the reason that there were some offences that looked rather nasty to the Government when they looked down the list. That is not good enough, given that the measure represents such a radical departure from established practice.

      779
      As the Minister knows, from the many amendments that the Government have introduced to try and improve this part of the Bill—I will go on to welcome some of the steps that they have taken—the mechanism of retrial will be complicated. It will be complicated to achieve a just result, and it will be complicated to implement the mechanism properly without trampling on the civil liberties of the individual being investigated. The measure is far from being one that will allow the Government to click their fingers and start again. Getting a fair trial, ensuring that the public have confidence in the process, and ensuring that at the end, criminals consider that they have been justly convicted, which is an important part of the criminal justice process, will be extremely difficult to achieve. Surely, that is all the more reason why we should restrict the scope of this experimental project to a limited number of offences. We could limit it to the murder offence only, as the Law Commission suggested, but we seek to include rape as well because we are perfectly aware of the dangers attendant on it, public abhorrence of it, anxiety about its increase and, in particular, the fact that scientific evidence is often key in determining at a subsequent date that an offence was probably committed when the scientific DNA evidence was not available at the time of trial.
      8.45 pm
      Stephen Hesford: The hon. Gentleman has been generous in giving way. I wish to push him on the question of practicality or pragmatism. As I read things, if amendment No. 19 were agreed to, it would leave out attempted murder, manslaughter and attempted rape, which are currently included in schedule 4, which it seeks to remove. How does he deal with that point?
      Mr. Grieve: Very simply. Attempted murder may well have many of the very unpleasant ingredients of the complete offence, but the fact is that it is a lesser offence and has always been regarded as such, and the line has to be drawn somewhere. That is the problem. The Government say, "Oh, well; we'll draw the line at 30 offences", but then tell us on Report, "Actually, we'll make it 31."
      Once the double jeopardy rule is got rid of, there is an inexorable logic for saying that every offence is capable of being retried. I can think of no philosophical reason why, once we open the floodgates, we should not go the whole way. It is perfectly justifiable to ask why somebody who escapes conviction should not be retried, but there are other arguments. One is that we need certainty, and another is that it is very undesirable that there should not be finality in legal proceedings—a point that has been accepted for many years and repeated in civil and criminal matters. Furthermore, there is a danger that people will feel persecuted, as well as a danger of miscarriages of justice. We all know that some people are convicted but found 18 years later not to have committed the offence. At some point down the road, when we bring back double jeopardy, we will find somebody who has been acquitted and convicted, but whose conviction is overturned 18 years on because it was unsafe and unsatisfactory. That will be a very bad day for the criminal justice system.
      The hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) will also remember that, during the Bill's passage, I have highlighted a range of other issues,
      780
      including the deprivation of liberty attendant on the process of retrial, which is inevitable and highly offensive to civil liberty concepts, as most people who have been acquitted are entitled to the benefit of that acquittal. The removal of that benefit is a draconian step. We cannot underestimate that, but I accept that once it is decided that that is not a draconian step, we might as well retry people twice or three or four times for anything on which we could not secure a conviction and on which further evidence came to light.
      That is abhorrent to me, I think that it is abhorrent to the hon. Member for Wirral, West and I am sure that it is abhorrent to the Government. That is all the more reason why we should limit the provision to what the Law Commission proposes and perhaps also include rape, as we have suggested, with particular regard to the issue of scientific evidence. We know that, in all likelihood, even though the new evidence is not limited to scientific evidence, the sort of cases that will be reopened will be those in which DNA evidence exists from the scene of the original crime and provides a strong and powerful link between the person who was previously acquitted and the commission of the offence. In itself, that is not without problems, and we explored them in Committee as well. DNA is not entirely foolproof and evidence can be contaminated and sometimes misread. Nevertheless, it provides a framework and perhaps a justification for reopening a case, and we are prepared to concede that. I come to the Minister in a conciliatory mood, but only up to a point.
      Mr. Allen: The hon. Gentleman is making a very strong case and I commend him for it, but he is missing out the public outrage. I know that he is well aware of the various cases that generate outrage in which a particular individual is known to have committed an offence and got away with it. In Committee, we referred to a case that arose in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), in which a child molester and child killer got away with the offence in the first instance, but afterwards not only admitted having committed it, but made money out of a newspaper by selling his story. Such cases show the need for a balance, which the hon. Gentleman might want to bring to his remarks. Unless they are dealt with, they will bring the whole criminal justice system into disrepute.
      Mr. Grieve: I clearly accept that argument—we are prepared to concede that it should be possible to reopen murder cases that fall squarely within that group.
      Mr. Malins: On the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) about offences that cause outrage, is not it the case that one offence that causes outrage in small communities is causing death by dangerous driving? Families are so concerned that they never get over it—it can be much worse than anything else. Yet which of us would argue that double jeopardy should apply to it? Causing death by dangerous driving is not in the schedule, but once one moves into that territory, the arguments become very complicated.
      Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, in recent times, Members of Parliament may have received more letters on that subject than on most others concerning the criminal justice system.

      781
      There is no easy answer, which is precisely why I return to the point that I made to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). We would be wise to stick to a minimalist approach. Once the Bill is on the statute book, it will be extremely difficult to remove the provision. In that sense, the issue is simple. I concede that there are difficulties, and it is possible for thoughtful, right-thinking people to have different views on the subject. However, the more that we have reflected on it, the more strongly we have come to believe that the Law Commission was broadly right and the Government have gone much further than is proper.
      I turn now to the other amendments in this group in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Amendments Nos. 20 to 22 deal with the evidence on which a jury could convict. I am delighted that the Government have gone a long way towards addressing our concerns, and I will certainly not press the amendments to a vote. The nub of the issue was that the wording of clause 66 left the distinct impression that the Court of Appeal could order a retrial only in cases where it was satisfied that the person was guilty. It seemed to us that that prejudiced the possibility of a retrial further on, because the papers would be able to report it and, indeed, use the court's very words. That was a subject of deep anxiety in Committee, which is why we tabled the amendments. I accept, however, that Government amendments Nos. 358 and 359 deal with the issue through a simple rewording. Their wording is slightly different from ours and, I concede, rather better—they were probably helped by their officials. I am pleased with the change, and I welcome the fact that the Government accepted that there was a problem.
      Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 deal with judicial control. In this case, there may not be a meeting of minds, and the subject causes us considerable concern. We need to look at clause 73, which is about the authorisation of investigations. I hope not to detain the House too long, but this is an important issue and needs to be considered. Because of the unusual nature of the process, a person who, by virtue of being acquitted is free of the normal processes of criminal investigation—and should be, as long as he has not committed other offences—has to be criminally investigated with a view to a decision being made about whether a retrial should take place. That in itself is, if I may use the term, a very offensive procedure, because it means that someone with the benefit of an acquittal will suddenly have the police knocking on their door. A police officer may want to seize material, come into that individual's house, arrest him and take him away for questioning. All those actions would be regarded as a gross violation of his civil liberties, post-acquittal, if they were not to happen as part of the process of a possible retrial.
      The Government have provided a series of mechanisms, with which they have tinkered further in their amendments, that are designed to authorise investigations. That process is dependent on the police and on the Director of Public Prosecutions. I accept that the DPP has an enormously important role to play in the administration of justice, but he is exactly what his name suggests—a public official who brings prosecutions and investigations in the name of the Crown. He is not, in that sense, an impartial figure at all, even though he lays
      782
      down very high standards for himself—the high standards that Parliament expects of him—as regards the way in which he carries out his duties. We have a long-standing principle in this country—although parts of the Bill seem to depart from it—whereby administrative actions that require a violation of somebody's civil liberties should have some judicial scrutiny. I am not saying that that scrutiny needs to be very intense, searching or far-reaching, but simply that it is a process by which someone goes to a judge to explain and to justify why such an investigation should commence.
      That mechanism would be provided by amendment No. 62, which would require the DPP to seek leave from a judge of the Crown court on an ex parte application for the process to commence. It would require him to say, "This is not frivolous. Here are the key components that we already have, which make us think that this individual was wrongly acquitted and committed this dreadful murder or rape"—I take the two examples in schedule 4 that I would continue to allow—"so we would like to initiate the investigation." The judge could then ask to be shown the relevant documents and papers. That would not necessarily take long: I envisage that such a hearing might take an hour to a couple of hours. We are told, I suspect correctly, that the likely number of such retrials in any given year is tiny: perhaps half a dozen. It would not place an onerous burden on the judiciary, but it would at least provide a mechanism whereby a judge could say, "No, you can't: this is completely frivolous", or indeed, "This is outrageous."
      The Government will tell us that the DPP is not going to act outrageously, frivolously or offensively, and I accept that most of us would expect that to be so. However, there is a terrible tendency in the House at the moment in that the Government are always telling us that we must take Executive power on trust. I am afraid that one of the things that makes me a Conservative is that I do not believe in taking Executive power on trust. One of the reasons why we have a system in which Executive power is, on the whole, wielded properly is that on every occasion it has been challenged, scrutinised and argued over in this House and by the judiciary in holding the Government in check.
      Why, therefore, should we not have the mechanism that we suggest in amendment No. 62? Can the Government give me one good reason why we should not have that extra check, which would provide great reassurance to the public that an investigation will not be mounted frivolously? It would also provide a protection for the police and the DPP. As certainly as night follows day, a reinvestigation will be undertaken in which the police re-arrest, re-search and carry out all those highly offensive acts against the liberty of an individual, but ultimately have to say, "We're terribly sorry, but we've decided that there insufficient evidence for this retrial and we won't proceed." At that point, great and possibly unjustified criticism will be levelled at them. What better mechanism to protect them than ensuring some judicial scrutiny before the process gets under way?
      9 pm
      Mr. Gummer: Before my hon. Friend leaves the point, will he cast his mind back to the Home Secretary's intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for

      783
      West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) to ask him to confirm that judges were not creatures of the state? Let us turn the proposition around and say that in the case that we are considering it is important that somebody who is manifestly not a creature of the state should make the final decision. The police and the DPP are, very properly by their nature, creatures of the state.
      Mr. Grieve: I agree with my right hon. Friend. Of course, there is a mechanism for going to the Court of Appeal to get the original verdict set aside. However, by that stage, a considerable intrusion on civil liberties has occurred. They need to be protected. The more one examines the details of the procedure, the more apparent is the extent to which we are making massive inroads into what most people regard as the basic civil rights of an individual who has been acquitted or held to be innocent of a specific offence. I hope that the Government can respond positively to that.
      The Under-Secretary will speak about the many Government amendments. We welcome the desirable changes on reporting restrictions. For reasons that I outlined earlier, I am sorry that the Government propose including another qualifying offence. We are anxious about the changes on new and compelling evidence and the interests of justice test. I accept that the Government believe that the effect of the rewording will be identical to that of the previous wording but without allowing an opportunity for complex legal argument. However, the previous due diligence test appeared well worded to us.
      I am not persuaded that the Government's classic move of providing in one clause that a trial can be reopened in the light of new evidence but qualifying that with a due diligence test is as good as the previous provision. We argued that the provision had to go beyond the Government's proposal and ensure that the prosecution was not allowed two bites of the cherry through incompetence. I hope that the Minister can reassure us about that. In the other place, those who are better versed in law than many hon. Members in this place will be able to give their opinion on whether the Government amendment would not change much but lead to better wording. I remain unpersuaded, but I am open to persuasion.
      I am sorry that the Minister has not accepted our views on retrospection, but I shall not reopen the matter. I look forward to his comments on the voluminous Government amendments. I repeat that the fact that the Government had to devise so many highlights the subject's complexity and difficulty. That is all the more reason to confine their scope, as was originally intended, to our proposals in amendment No. 18.
      Simon Hughes: We are holding another important debate and I am conscious of the fact that we are again strapped for time because of the guillotine. I shall therefore not repeat the points made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).
      We took a straightforward position in our amendments. I refer specifically to amendments Nos. 479 and 480. Instead of schedule 4's long list of 30 offences, to which the Government have tabled a
      784
      further, late addition, we propose to remove the schedule and accept the Law Commission's suggestion, which we incorporated in amendment No. 479, of
      "murder, genocide consisting in the killing of any person, or corporate manslaughter".
      "Corporate manslaughter" is the updated version of reckless killing, which the Law Commission originally proposed. We understand that the Government have adopted it; some of us argued for that for a long time. Our party now accepts that there is an argument for considering whether cases should be tried again. We did not approach the issue with a theological or absolutist view; we engaged in long internal debates, which were honest and open, and we were clear about the fact that this should apply only to offences in the general category of "most serious".
      The majority view in the party was that the provision should be prospective rather than retrospective. If all cases resulting in trial and acquittal could be retried, a generation or more of cases would be reopened, and every acquittal would become a provisional acquittal. We concluded, however, that unless an objective recommendation were followed, no obvious criterion could govern which offences could be subject to retrial and which could not.
      The reason given by the Law Commission for saying that murder and genocide should be included and other offences should not, and the reason it gave for not accepting that offences carrying a life sentence should be included, was that everyone accepted—I agree that this is accepted widely—that murder is in a category of its own, genocide is mass murder, and many offences at the bottom of the league that carry life imprisonment as a potential maximum are clearly not regarded as similarly serious.
      Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman is not the puppet of the Law Commission. I was shocked—nay appalled—to see that the amendment did not include rape. Does that mean that the Liberal Democrats do not consider that—in my view—heinous offence to be in what he has just described as the general category of "most serious offences"?
      Simon Hughes: We do not say that rape is not in that category; we say that it is—that it is indeed a most serious offence. We had to decide, however, whether to suggest the inclusion of all serious offences, or to take the Law Commission's view as our starting point. For reasons that I understand, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said that the Conservatives had decided to take one of the commission's recommendations and add an offence to it, which was a bit of a "pick and mix" proposal. The Government went further than the commission, and indeed much further than the White Paper produced only a few months ago, in which they said:
      "For this reason we have decided that the change should extend to a number of other very serious offences such as rape, manslaughter and armed robbery."
      The shortlist has obviously grown since then.
      Stephen Hesford: The hon. Gentleman used the phrase "pick and mix" in criticising the official

      785
      Opposition's approach, but surely his own approach is "pick and mix". The Liberal Democrats have added corporate manslaughter to the list.
      Simon Hughes: The Law Commission recommended the inclusion of three offences—murder, genocide and reckless killing. When the Bill began its life, "reckless killing" was the third offence on the list, but I understand that the Government are to update "killing" offences and term them "corporate manslaughter". We propose that offences whose objective and result are people's deaths should be included, for the reasons given by the Law Commission.
      I do not pretend that the Law Commission has an absolute right view, but it makes what are clearly objective recommendations to Parliament on what laws should be changed and how. We think it necessary, for reasons given by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, to start carefully. This is not just a break with tradition; it is, potentially, a risky and dangerous course. We think it best to begin with a category of offences that, by anyone's definition, are at the top of the list.
      Mr. Allen: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about changing criminal law by Executive reflex. Tomorrow we will, I hope, have an interesting debate about the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which at least attempts to go beyond the megaphone diplomacy of the Home Secretary and the judiciary in the argument about sentencing levels. It is, however, incumbent on the hon. Gentleman to explain how we can go further than the Law Commission's recommendations. What mechanism does he envisage for adding offences legitimately, rather than just coming up with a list produced by someone in the Department? How can we reach a consensus on offences that should be added?
      Simon Hughes: I do not think that there is much between the hon. Gentleman and me on this matter. The Liberal Democrats are starting with the recommendations of the Law Commission, a body that was set up to recommend changes to the law and that has a long-standing reputation for doing so. Had many of its recommendations been adopted by Parliament over the years, we would be much better off. Our proposal was not our invention; it was based on a proposition put forward by the body that has been given that job.
      In terms of the development of the provisions, the representatives of the Law Commission are the first people who should be asked, after a reasonable period, for their suggestions in the light of experience. I share the hon. Gentleman's views that there are representative bodies in this place that are appropriate to examine these issues. The Select Committee process would be an appropriate one, involving the Home Affairs Committee and the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department, for example.
      One of the bodies that we are going to discuss tomorrow may make recommendations on sentencing matters, and will involve a broader sweep of people—we would suggest not only those who judge but those who legislate—and that body could appropriately have a role in these circumstances. So we are open to a process for
      786
      achieving that. Our proposal is that we should start with the proposition placed on the table by the body that has been given the job to do that, and that, at a later date, we should see how that is going.
      Mr. David Kidney: The hon. Gentleman's argument relies on the recommendations of the Law Commission, one of which was to include the classification of "reckless killing". The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) has pointed out, however, that the Government do not include causing death by reckless driving in their list. Why do not the Liberal Democrats include that classification?
      Simon Hughes: To be fair, we are trying to be as exact as possible in following the Law Commission's recommendations. I am sympathetic to the proposal that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned, and I think that the best way out of this debate is to see where there is agreement that we should go forward. That might not get resolved here tonight; it might be more clearly resolved in the House of Lords. I sense that the Liberal Democrats' view that we should not be retrospective or concentrate on trying to revisit the past, but that we should be prospective, has not found much favour.
      The consensus seems to be that there should be an ability retrospectively to examine cases, particularly in the light of DNA testing. I give the warning, however, that that does not mean that some of the cases most often cited in this context would be likely to be retried. I have said before that the two cases that even senior police officers have hinted could be, as it were, rescued and opened for retrial by this change, if we were to implement it—the Stephen Lawrence case and the Damilola Taylor case, both of which I have detailed knowledge of—would not be able to be reopened. I think that everyone agrees that a case cannot be reopened if it did not succeed because of a failure in the prosecution process or the investigation. It was very clear from the Lawrence inquiry report—and it seemed clear from the Damilola Taylor inquiry—that it was failures in the process that might not have delivered a verdict in either case, and that no new evidence had come to light.
      Lady Hermon: The hon. Gentleman will know that the very last amendment, which we are unlikely to get to this evening, relates to the extension of part 10 to Northern Ireland. That proposal had built up hope for some people, particularly the group known as the disappeared. They are not in south America; they are in Northern Ireland. They are people who have been someone's son or father—or, indeed, someone's mother, as in the case of Jean McConville. Is the hon. Gentleman saying to those families that they have no hope, and that his party does not wish this provision to be retrospective? Does that mean that the families of the disappeared should have no hope of there ever being a prosecution of those who kidnapped or murdered their loved ones?
      9.15 pm
      Simon Hughes: I will be completely honest with the hon. Lady: that was our original considered view, and it was originally my view. I am, however, being persuaded that there would not be any justice in that. I will own up to another change of view—that is why we have these

      787
      debates. The case was made very effectively in Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), and I am persuaded that another exception to the general proposition that we should not retry is where there has been an admission of guilt by a person who has been acquitted. It is not compatible with justice that the issue cannot be revisited when someone is tried and acquitted, and then publicly says that they committed the offence.
      It seems to me that our constituents—the people whom we represent—such as the families of victims would expect the authorities to revisit an issue if there is an admission that, on investigation, looks like an admission that was intended to be made rather than just bravado. That should be the case if money is involved, as in the example given by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), and even if it is not.
      I have been persuaded that both those arguments have merit, but I do not want us to make people think that that means that, suddenly, all those offences that have led to trials and not guilty verdicts will be reopened. That would mean no finality, no certainty and no end, and that everybody alive who has ever been acquitted of any such offence would suddenly be only prospectively acquitted. That seems to me to be an injustice equal to many others.
      I say to the new Minister, whom I very much welcome to the Home Office team, that there is a really big issue here, which the Government have partly addressed. They must try to ensure that we protect those who might be in a second trial from the risk of prejudice. The big debate is about how to enable a second trial to go ahead fairly without people knowing of the first. The Government have tabled amendments that will help with that, which we welcome, but they will not create any realistic guarantee that a juror—it needs only one person—will not remember that a case, which was well known due to the fact that it was shocking and reported nationally or because the defendant was well known—has been tried before.
      Someone on the jury might realise that the case is back in court again because it has been up to the Court of Appeal due to the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions thinks that it can be reopened and because, therefore, a very high threshold has been passed. A juror might think, "It could not come before us unless there is a very good case." That person will start with that prejudice, and the matter needs to be addressed.
      One of the important matters that we looked at in detail in Committee, although I shall not trouble the House with it now, is the definition of the triggers for reopening a case. It is absolutely clear to all of us who have deliberated that they should not be released because of a failure of the earlier investigation. They must be released because new evidence, which was not available, has come to light.
      My colleagues and I shall seek to press our amendment to the vote. We think that it would be better to start with the Law Commission proposal, and that the Government's list is too long and would change the law too much in one go. We hope that Parliament moves forward in a considered and careful way, but one that reflects the injustice in respect of the position of certain people who clearly ought to be retried for an offence with which they are connected.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): As has been pointed out, there are many amendments in this group, so, in the hope that some of my hon. Friends and others will be able to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall concentrate on two specific areas: which offences should be qualifying offences under part 10, and the amendments on new and compelling evidence.
      In the first area, Government amendment No. 357 will ensure that the qualifying offences set out by clause 63 include those serious offences committed abroad for which the UK takes jurisdiction, so the arrangements for retrial in part 10 apply to acquittals for those offences. That applies in particular to offences of murder alleged to have been committed by a British citizen abroad. Government amendments Nos. 423 and 424 are consequential on the changes being made by the Sexual Offences Bill, which is updating and modernising the definition of a number of offences. The amendments account for those changes.
      I turn to amendment No. 425. During the Committee stage of the Bill, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) raised a particular issue: whether officers of HM Customs and Excise should be included in the list of "forces" allowed to conduct an investigation in respect of part 10 procedures. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn) was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. I agree that, in view of its responsibilities to investigate serious drug trafficking offences, it is right to include HM Customs and Excise as an investigating agency. Following consultation with HM Customs and Excise, we have decided to include the offence of fraudulent evasion in respect of a class A drug, to which hon. Members have referred. We are advised that that offence is the one that Customs and Excise uses most frequently to prosecute serious drug trafficking offences. That is why it has been added to the list.
      Mr. Grieve: The Minister says that that offence is the one that Customs and Excise uses to prosecute serious offences. As a past prosecutor for Customs and Excise, I have to say that it is the one that it uses to prosecute virtually all class A offences. The seriousness is very variable.
      Paul Goggins: If Customs and Excise uses the offence to prosecute many offences, it will also use it to prosecute serious offences. It is because it is a serious offence that it has been included in the list.
      As we have heard, Opposition amendments Nos. 18 and 19 would limit the proposed changes to the double jeopardy law to offences of murder and rape. We see absolutely no rationale for restricting the provision to murder and rape. That would rule out applications for acquittals to be quashed in a range of very serious offences such as manslaughter and attempted murder.
      While the Law Commission's initial recommendation was that a change to the double jeopardy rule should be made in respect of offences of murder, Lord Justice Auld's review proposed that the changes should apply more widely. Therefore, we have proposed in schedule 4 a range of serious offences that are punishable in the main with life imprisonment, that have a particularly serious impact on the victim or on society more widely,

      789
      and to which the new proposed exception to the double jeopardy rule should apply. As such, we cannot accept those amendments.
      It is interesting to hear the debate about whether there is a small group of serious offences such as murder and rape and whether the Government want to introduce a rather woolly, wide list that includes perhaps some rather frivolous offences. It is interesting to look at some of the offences that would be omitted if the amendments tabled by the Opposition were accepted. They include attempted murder, soliciting to commit murder, grievous bodily harm, which in many cases is an unsuccessful attempt almost to take someone's life, kidnapping, taking hostages, attempted rape, unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13, a range of serious drugs offences, armed robbery using a firearm, arson endangering life, causing explosion likely to endanger life or property and, as we have heard, offences of genocide and grave breaches of the Geneva convention. The Opposition suggest that such offences are somewhat frivolous and should not be included in our list. We strongly assert that the rationale for the list is the seriousness of the offence.
      Mr. Grieve: I never used the expression that they were frivolous offences. Any offence in that list is a serious matter. What I did say was that I did not consider that they justified departing from the established rule: the protection of the individual under the double jeopardy rule.
      Paul Goggins: I accept that the hon. Gentleman did not use the word "frivolous" but it could be implied in the debate that those were less serious offences. I am asserting that all those offences are very serious indeed.
      Mr. Allen: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) is now in the Chamber because on several occasions in Committee we raised the case of a child molester and child murderer who, after being released and found not guilty of those offences, commented that he had committed them and was paid money by a newspaper for his story. Presumably, my hon. Friend the Minister knows of many cases where we could use the double jeopardy change to bring such people to justice. Obviously, I do not expect him to rattle off a list now. Presumably, the Home Office has done considerable research on the number of people who could be brought to book.
      Paul Goggins: Certainly; my hon. Friend is right. There are a number of such cases and the individual to whom he refers would be caught not only by the double jeopardy provisions, but by some of the proposals that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will bring to the House tomorrow.
      Mr. Heath: I am worried that the Government might be raising expectations of the result of this measure way beyond what can be sustained. In Committee, the Minister's predecessor told us that very few cases were likely to be brought before the courts under this proposal. When one looks at the thresholds to be applied and the difficulty of getting a fair trial—which
      790
      may, I fear, take out some of the most notorious cases—the possibility is that very few cases will be retried on this basis.
      Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman will note that I said that the Home Office was aware of other cases, which was the only claim that I made.
      Amendments Nos. 129 to 132—tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and others—are in a similar vein to the amendments that I have just mentioned. Although the list in the amendments is drawn more widely than the list offered by the Opposition, I cannot accept the amendments for the same reasons.
      Schedule 4 has been considered carefully by Ministers and although there is clearly an element of judgment over exactly which offences should be included, we believe that the current list includes a range of very serious offences for which it is right that there should be a retrial if new and compelling evidence becomes available. I do not accept the arguments made in Committee and this evening by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) that the list of qualifying offences leaves too many acquittals with, in effect, a provisional rather than a final status. For any case to be reopened, there must be new and compelling evidence against the acquitted person. We have put in place a range of safeguards to ensure that only in these cases are re-investigations and new charges to be justified. Frankly, only guilty people who know that they have got away with it will need to be worried about the prospect of a retrial.
      I wish to refer to the amendments on new and compelling evidence. Clauses 66 and 67 are in many ways the very heart of part 10 of the Bill, where we articulate the tests that we want the Court of Appeal to apply in considering whether to quash an appeal and order a retrial. As in many other aspects of the Bill, the test has to hold some important considerations in the balance. It has to hold in the balance the need to impose a high threshold on reopening an acquittal to ensure that that is not done except in the most compelling cases, with care of course not to set the test so high as to amount to a virtual imputation of guilt, which could prejudice a retrial.
      The test must guard against giving our investigators and prosecutors the slightest encouragement to think that they can skimp on the preparation of a trial on the basis that they can always have another go if the defendant is acquitted. The test has to be scrupulously fair to acquitted persons and must deliver visible justice to the victims of extremely serious crimes. Finally, the test has to ensure that justice is not brought into disrepute either by the unwarranted harassment of the innocent or by allowing the guilty to flaunt their guilt, safe in the knowledge that the law is powerless to act. In the end, the court must deal with an individual case on its own merits and decide as the interests of justice require.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I apologise for not being here for part of this debate, although I have been here since 3.30 pm. The Minister will be aware that the objection that many of us had for many years to double jeopardy was not on the basis of civil liberties—I do not think it

      791
      is a civil liberties issue—but on the basis of policy, which is what he is talking about at the moment; the policy that dictates that one gets it right first time. I am persuaded that that is no longer a consideration. However, what I do not understand is why, under those circumstances, we should be limited to two. If precisely the same test is to apply—namely, that evidence was not available—why should we stop at two? Why cannot it be three, four or more?
      9.30 pm
      Paul Goggins: My hon. and learned Friend will recognise that the reason for stopping at two is that it is one of the safeguards that the Government offer to prevent a sense of repeatedly reopening old cases.
      In Committee, some very cogent suggestions were made for improvements to the test that I just mentioned. I am happy to introduce Government amendments that bring about those improvements. It was suggested in Committee that the test of new and compelling evidence went too far in imputing guilt to an acquitted person, and was therefore potentially prejudicial to a retrial. We have considered that point carefully and introduced amendments that will remove references to "guilt", and refer instead in clause 66(1) to evidence
      "against the acquitted person in relation to the qualifying offence",
      and in clause 66(3)(c) to evidence that is "highly probative" of the case against the acquitted person. That will not only make it clearer that the Court of Appeal is taking a decision in relation to the strength of the new evidence, but will be less likely to create an impression of prejudice.
      At the same time, we propose to revise the definition of "new" evidence to make the test both clearer and simpler. That is because we believe that the current wording of clause 66(2) would provide scope for endless legal argument about whether evidence was, or should have been, "known or available" to the police at the time of the original acquittal.
      Mr. Grieve: When we debated this issue in Committee, I got the distinct impression from the Minister present that the form of words that this Minister wants to jettison was regarded as one of the really important and essential safeguards to prevent—[Interruption.] I got the distinct impression that that Minister saw it as important in ensuring that the two-bites-of-the-cherry principle did not follow, and that it was not there to cure prosecution incompetence.
      Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman points to the importance of scrutiny in our Committees.
      We therefore propose a new, straightforward, factual definition: the evidence is new if it was not adduced at the original trial. Linked to that, we also propose to clarify the "due diligence" tests set out in clause 67 to help to guard against the possibility of poor police investigations giving rise to a second bite of the cherry.
      Given those circumstances, I believe that we have addressed the concerns raised by the Opposition amendments and provided a package through which the Court of Appeal can take a balanced view on whether an acquittal should be quashed and a retrial ordered. For that to happen the evidence must be new, in that it has
      792
      not been before the court before; it must be compelling; and the court must consider it to be in the interests of justice for a retrial to be ordered. Those are the right tests and they strike the right balance.
      Therefore, amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are not necessary. The Court of Appeal must assess whether the new evidence in a case is reliable and compelling. I can see that the purpose of the Opposition amendments is to make that judgment appear more guarded, and clearly, we would wish to avoid any ruling that might appear prejudicial to a potential retrial. But we must remember that the court is considering only the nature of the new evidence, not the entirety of evidence as it will be presented in a retrial, nor the guilt or otherwise of the individual. We therefore believe that an assessment of whether the evidence is reliable and substantial, taken together with our other proposed changes, is the right one.
      I believe that the case for retrial in relation to serious offences is now widely accepted. The Government amendments introduced this evening will help to apply this principle more successfully in practice.
      Mr. Gummer: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his first speech as a Minister—I am only sad that we lose him as a campaigner on certain issues on which he and I have much in common. It is a pleasure to follow him.
      I have concerns about this part of the Bill not because I do not find the Minister's arguments compelling, but merely because they go too far. They go too far because we have not yet had the experience of introducing to our legal system the concept of double jeopardy, which, after all, we excluded from it for centuries. Perhaps this is a moment for a little care and reticence—a view commonly held by many on both sides of the House. That is the reason for questioning the long list that has been produced.
      The list is rather less compelling when read in its totality. I have no doubt that an offence arising out of article 4 of the Channel Tunnel Security Order 1994 is extremely serious, but there are other hijacking offences that might be thought at least equally serious. That example was chosen because of the maximum penalty involved. That is the fundamental difficulty with the Government's proposals. The list provides a series—though not an exhaustive one—of penalties for offences. However, they are not characterised by their objective seriousness, but appear because someone decided in the past that they were serious enough to warrant the maximum punishment of life imprisonment.
      That makes for a rather peculiar series. The Minister is right that, among them, are highly serious offences that we would all agree should be included as the most serious that could be committed. The question remains whether, because they are serious offences, they reveal themselves to be of a different class and category from other offences. I find it difficult to view the list in those terms, so I return to the notion of objectiveness.
      We must decide how the seriousness, shock and horror should be measured. Surely we have to look not at individual cases, but at classes of cases. I am concerned at the idea that we need to include an offence because of people's horror at a particular case. One of the reasons for having a formal legal system is to remove the decision in the case from the immediacy of the

      793
      horror at the offence in order to judge the case with impartiality and objectiveness. I am concerned at the argument that certain offences should be included because the public could be so affronted by a particular case that they would be appalled if it were not re-tried.
      We should view the case rather differently, which brings me back to the position of the Law Commission. It may not necessarily be right, but it has put forward a proposition that can be recognised as sensible by all. Its approach was to take one particular crime that was universally viewed, without question, as unique in its horror—the taking of someone else's life purposefully. It is possible to stop just there, but my right hon. and hon. Friends believe that the crime of rape should be added. I value the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). She is right to say that rape is a proper addition to the list, but it perhaps opens the door to many others. Those two, however, would universally be seen as crimes of a particular severity and horror.
      In those circumstances it is surely sensible to do what the Law Commission suggested. It argued that, if double jeopardy were necessary, it should be restricted to those crimes. After some experience, I am not one who believes that it could not safely be extended to other offences, but I am saying that we cannot safely extend to all the others, without any experience, something that we have found inimical to our legal system for hundreds of years.
      Stephen Hesford: The right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government who brought measures before the House to categorise offences that deserved to be punished with life imprisonment. He now seeks to belittle that policy. How does he square his past with what he is now saying?
      Mr. Gummer: We are talking about a wholly different position, so I do not have anything to square. We are now discussing the issue of which crimes should be treated in a way that is wholly novel in British law. I do not find it objectionable therefore to say that I wish to apply that, as the Law Commission suggested, to a very select group of crimes.
      If the House is to overturn something that we have held as being very important to the principle of justice for centuries, it is a good idea—it is much safer—to do so little by little, so that we may even decide that we went too far in the first place. That is a simple matter of sense, and it is why I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends in their amendments.
      I am also concerned about how the system should be triggered, so I want to end by returning to a comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). The crucial issue that faces those who might be pressed in such circumstances is that they will be under investigation for a second time. Of course the Minister said—I cite him as accurately as I can—that only guilty people who know that they have got away with it will need to be worried. I have to tell him that there is a slight assumption in that, is there not? The assumption is that everyone who is tried a second time is a guilty person who has got away with it.
      794
      My concern—the House ought to be concerned with this—is the small number of people who have been found innocent, but new evidence turns up that casts doubt on that finding. They are still innocent and may in the end be found to be innocent, but in the meantime they have to be reinvestigated. The Minister has assured us that he is doing everything in his power to protect the innocent.
      I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield: the decision must be seen to be triggered not primarily by the state, but much more by the independent judiciary. That is why I, too, hope that the House will accept those amendments that would put a judge in the position of taking that triggering act, because the public would then see that it is a judicial, not a state, decision. That would also protect those emissaries of the state who have the grizzly task of reopening cases that have been closed until then.
      Lady Hermon: I am very sorry to put on record how much I disagree with the statement made by the Minister, whom I warmly welcome to the Dispatch Box. Not just the guilty need be afraid of the Bill. The Minister and the right hon. Gentleman will know that some of the amendments being considered this evening extend part 10 to Northern Ireland, so those who are guilty of murder in the most heinous circumstances in Northern Ireland should face the rigour of the Bill. However, the right hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that the recent Hillsborough declaration includes proposals for on-the-run terrorists who have committed murder to be given a clean bill of health—they will not face prosecution. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on that?
      Mr. Gummer: Well, I could comment on it, but it would be very inadvisable if I were to do so at this stage in this debate on these issues. We are dealing with the interrelation of a whole series of issues and I would be probably closer to the hon. Lady than to others on the fundamental issues that we are discussing.
      What I want to say very clearly is that this is an extremely serious step even if, as Members on both sides of the House have argued against double jeopardy for many years, we decide to introduce double jeopardy in a very limited way. I should like that limitation to be clearly objective and clearly sensible in its distinction between the crimes that it covers and all other crimes, and it seems to me that the Law Commission has got it about right, although I am prepared to go one stage further and add the offence of rape.
      Mr. Frank Cook: The right hon. Gentleman in some ways quite properly says that the Government are seeking to introduce double jeopardy. I would dispute that statement by saying that double jeopardy was introduced by Billy Dunlop when he turned round and admitted that he had killed Julie Hogg and hidden her behind the bath for her mother to find a decomposing body. Billy Dunlop introduced double jeopardy, and it is up to us to deal with that kind of situation.
      Mr. Gummer: However horrific the case, and that was one of the most horrific, the House would none the less be better advised to make its decisions about changes in

      795
      the law in general rather than in particular. That is the history of good law making. The general case is that it appears unacceptable to many people that if later evidence shows that those found innocent of murder may not have been innocent, they should, because of the process of law, be excluded from prosecution. We are suggesting—
      David Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Gummer: No, I must bring my remarks to an end.
      I merely suggest that we would be better advised to restrict the provision to those two limited offences and to ensure that the trigger mechanism is in the hands of the judiciary and not in the offices of the state.
      9.45 pm
      Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I have listened to Members on both sides of the House debating which cases should or should not be referred to the Court of Appeal for review. The criteria being used by my hon. Friends and by other Members are at odds with mine. My criteria would be based on the suitability and the nature of the evidence.
      Where the available physical evidence gives cause for concern about the original conviction, the case should be eligible to be referred back to the court. Where there is no physical evidence to support such a referral or where the evidence is purely verbal, the case should not go back to the court. That view arises from my, unfortunately, extensive work with a very unpopular part of the criminal community—sex offenders.
      For the past three years, I have been chair of the all-party group on abuse investigations. Unfortunately, we have had to look into the processes involved in the conviction of sex offenders. Many of the people caught up in such cases assert their innocence of the crimes of which they are accused. I am not remotely interested in whether those people are innocent or guilty, but I am deeply concerned about the way in which the evidence against them in court has been collected.
      Hon. Members will recall that, in 1993, a set of protocols was developed to manage physical evidence, following the cases of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four when there were clearly problems in that regard. There are about 133 requirements for the management of physical evidence, all of which we fully support and all of which underpin our view that in cases involving rape or murder, where physical evidence is obtained many years after the event, it should be used as the basis of an appeal. That makes us feel far more comfortable.
      Unfortunately, no such protocols exist for the management of verbal evidence. In the vast majority of the cases with which I am concerned, all the evidence against the individuals has been collected in prison.
      Mr. Grieve: I disagree slightly with the hon. Lady about the protocols on physical evidence. One of the problems that will have to be faced when the measure goes through is that the protocols on the preservation of evidence 20 years ago were very different from those that exist today. As a result, the dangers of contamination of, for example, DNA testing of old evidence collected by
      796
      the police are real, which may inhibit or prevent many of the prosecutions that certain hon. Members would like to see go ahead.
      Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I do not disagree with that point, but at least there are some protocols for the management of physical evidence. Since 1993, we can feel reasonably confident that the physical evidence gathered has been managed efficaciously. However, that is rather different from the verbal evidence that is collected in prisons every day for a variety of cases, when prisoners are interviewed by the police as they pursue their inquiries. Frequently, there are no independent persons to witness conversations that can lead to the conviction of an individual. In the cases with which we have been dealing, there could be dozens and dozens of witnesses appearing against a suspect, all of whom were interviewed in prison. I am not happy that the evidence collected from those individuals, who are there because they have broken the law, might subsequently convict a man for the rest of his life. Moreover, there have been exceptional cases in which an individual has faced allegations from as many as 58 men, and all those allegations have been set aside. Those men, however, could face in the future further allegations and the possibility of a retrial. If further new evidence is brought to light, I would suggest to right hon. and hon. Members that it will have been gathered in exactly the same way: with no independent witnesses being available. I must add that the vast majority of complainants involved in those cases go on to receive significant amounts of compensation.
      Therefore, cases exist, I am afraid, in which to introduce double jeopardy would endanger and lead to more innocent people being convicted of crimes that they did not commit.
      Mr. Allen: The House always listens to my hon. Friend with great respect when she talks about these matters. Is she not reassured, however, that the Court of Appeal would have to hold that such evidence was both new and compelling before any such action was even considered?
      Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Yes, that would be so. I must say, however, that my knowledge of the police and the way in which they investigate this crime leads me to believe that if they can interview 800 people in relation to an individual, they will not be deterred from searching out more individuals to support a view that they have about a particular person. That is what many involved in the care sector and social services are facing: allegations not from one or two people but from dozens. Frequently, we find that the police have been unable to realise all the witnesses that they would have liked to have realised for one reason or another: they may be frightened or they may have disappeared or vanished from society for some while. That does not preclude them, however, from coming back at some point in the future. In relation to this measure, therefore, I have great concerns. The police can say, "We realised this number of complainants on this occasion, but by the methods that we are allowed to employ, we will return

      797
      for others if we are unsuccessful, so assured are we that this particular man is guilty of the crimes of which he is accused."
      Vera Baird: I do not know whether my hon. Friend appreciates that by saying that retrial should only be available in a trial in which there is physical evidence, she would rule out being retried the case to which my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) have already referred, in which the man, Dunlop, killed a lady, Julie Hogg, was acquitted of her murder, and then confessed in the pub, not in the paper, that he had done it. That man is so much a liar that he is currently serving a sentence for perjury, for saying in the first trial that he did not kill her. My hon. Friend would rule out a retrial in that case, and I therefore suspect that she is wrong.
      Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: We have not had the opportunity today, or on any other day, to talk about the credibility of witnesses and how we determine whether witnesses are credible to give evidence. I wish that we had had that opportunity. I know that the Crown Prosecution Service is consulting on the matter.
      I return to my original submission, however, that cases that can be substantiated with physical evidence should be brought forward for retrial, whereas those cases that are substantiated with the methods that I have described this evening should be turned down, simply because an integrity of process with which this House would feel comfortable does not exist. The House does not feel, and did not feel, comfortable with the way we managed physical evidence, and we introduced protocols to manage that.
      I believe that the time has come to address the vacuum in the recording and management of verbal evidence. Many people have been convicted on the back of verbal evidence, and thousands of families are sitting at home in fear of what we may confirm this evening. They realise that they are in an indefensible position, knowing that they cannot win in these cases.
      Lady Hermon: I am disappointed and surprised that not one member of the Democratic Unionist party is in the Chamber this evening. They were in their places last week on a different matter. However, when it comes to significant changes to criminal justice, it is disappointing that they are not present. Perhaps they will surprise us and bounce into their usual places. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) in the Chamber, united in spirit and body on this occasion.
      I am pleased also that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is on the Government Front Bench this evening. Most of my remarks will be directed to both the Northern Ireland Office and the Home Office. It has been a particular concern over recent months that there has not been joined-up thinking between them. I am especially pleased to see Ministers from both Departments in the Chamber.
      Members of the Committee who considered the Bill each received a copy of a useful letter from the Minister for Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law Reform in
      798
      another place, which explained why part 10 was being extended to Northern Ireland. The letter stated that Northern Ireland should not be perceived as becoming
      "a safe haven for individuals who are seeking to avoid retrial under the new provisions."
      The perception that Northern Ireland could be a place of refuge for those seeking to avoid the operation of part 10 would have a greatly detrimental effect on the confidence of the community and the ability of the criminal justice system. I say hear, hear to that concern.
      I suggest that the Minister photocopies that letter and sends it to the Northern Ireland Office and even to the Prime Minister, because at the same time we have proposals relating to those who are on the run. It is a serious issue. We cannot say on the one hand that where there is new and compelling evidence a person should be prosecuted after a retrial, and on the other that he or she should be free to return to Northern Ireland without risk of arrest for questioning or charge in relation to a series of serious offences. Please, will the Northern Ireland Office and the Home Office come to a mutual arrangement so that they understand what both hands are doing at the same time? That would be extremely helpful.
      There is no justification for singling out only part 10 in terms of new and compelling evidence and retrials. Northern Ireland is guaranteed by the Belfast agreement, which the Prime Minister and the House generally have regularly told us how much they want to implement, to remain part of the United Kingdom unless and until the people of Northern Ireland say otherwise and vote in a referendum. If that is the case, why are the sentencing provisions in the Bill not extended to Northern Ireland? Why should those who riot in Bradford be sentenced to months or years of imprisonment, while in Belfast, where there was a dreadful history of rioting last year, on a good day someone might be remanded for 30 days? There is no justification for treating people so differently in different parts of the United Kingdom. Departments must get their heads together and treat the people of Northern Ireland fairly and equally with people in the rest of the UK.
      Martin Linton: I make a plea for a less restrictive approach to double jeopardy. No one puts forward the case now against any relaxation of double jeopardy, but we are deciding where the threshold should be. The Law Commission suggested that we should start with any offence that attracted three years' imprisonment. In its final document, it tightened up its proposal to only murder, genocide, and reckless killing.
      I would argue that we should look to the organisation that represents victims in the legal system, which is Victim Support. It argues that we already have a high threshold for retrials. Under the Bill, to get a retrial, evidence has to be reliable and substantial so as to make it highly probable that a person is found guilty. That has to be in the interests of justice and to make a fair trial likely. The Director of Public Prosecutions has to be satisfied that it is in the public interest. Finally, the Court of Appeal must quash the acquittal and order a retrial, so there are already several high thresholds in the system.
      Victim Support argues that we should not unduly restrict the categories of offence that can lead to a retrial. It calls for retrials to be possible in the case of all

      799
      arrestable offences. I am not endorsing that, but we are being far too restrictive in arguing, as the Opposition do, for only murder and rape cases. The Liberal Democrats argue for murder, genocide and corporate manslaughter cases.
      There is a stronger case to be made for rape victims. If a rape victim sees her assailant acquitted, she will know that her assailant is free, immune from prosecution, and may commit the offence again. She may be imprisoned in her own house by the fear of a repeat of that offence, in the same way as somebody wrongfully convicted is imprisoned for that offence. It is important that we go beyond murder and rape cases to kidnapping, attempted rape and class A drugs cases. Many such cases would come over the threshold and should not be ruled out on the grounds of the type of offence.
      I mention one famous case, that of Ronnie Knight, whom a jury found not guilty of the gangland murder of Alfredo Zomparelli, who was gunned down in the Golden Goose restaurant. Many hon. Members will remember the case. He was one of the many people who wrote kill-and-tell memoirs, where he boasted of a murder of which he had been acquitted—
      It being six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to Orders [4 February, 5 March, 2 April and this day] put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 330.

      Division No. 207]

      [10:02 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Allan, Richard

      Amess, David

      Chidgey, David

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Chope, Christopher

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Collins, Tim

      Bacon, Richard

      Conway, Derek

      Baker, Norman

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Baldry, Tony

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Barker, Gregory

      Cotter, Brian

      Barnes, Harry

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Barrett, John

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Bellingham, Henry

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Bercow, John

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Blunt, Crispin

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Boswell, Tim

      Doughty, Sue

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Brady, Graham

      Evans, Nigel

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Fallon, Michael

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Flook, Adrian

      Burnett, John

      Forth, rh Eric

      Burns, Simon

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Burstow, Paul

      Francois, Mark

      Burt, Alistair

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Butterfill, John

      Garnier, Edward

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Cameron, David

      Gidley, Sandra

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Goodman, Paul

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Cash, William

      Grayling, Chris

      800

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Pickles, Eric

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Greenway, John

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Grieve, Dominic

      Randall, John

      Gummer, rh John

      Redwood, rh John

      Hammond, Philip

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Hancock, Mike

      Rendel, David

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Harvey, Nick

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Heald, Oliver

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Heath, David

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hendry, Charles

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Selous, Andrew

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Holmes, Paul

      Simmonds, Mark

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

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

      Hunter, Andrew

      Jack, rh Michael

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Spring, Richard

      Keetch, Paul

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Steen, Anthony

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Streeter, Gary

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Syms, Robert

      Lamb, Norman

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Leigh, Edward

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Thurso, John

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Lidington, David

      Tredinnick, David

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Loughton, Tim

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Viggers, Peter

      McDonnell, John

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Walter, Robert

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Waterson, Nigel

      Maclean, rh David

      Watkinson, Angela

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Whittingdale, John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Wilkinson, John

      Mates, Michael

      Willetts, David

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Willis, Phil

      Mercer, Patrick

      Wilshire, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Norman, Archie

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Young, rh Sir George

      Öpik, Lembit

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Page, Richard

      Hugh Robertson and

      Paterson, Owen

      Mr. Desmond Swayne

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Ainger, Nick

      Austin, John

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Alexander, Douglas

      Baird, Vera

      Allen, Graham

      Banks, Tony

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Battle, John

      Bayley, Hugh

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Beard, Nigel

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      801

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Bell, Stuart

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Benn, Hilary

      Doran, Frank

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Berry, Roger

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Blackman, Liz

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Edwards, Huw

      Blunkett, rh David

      Efford, Clive

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Borrow, David

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Fisher, Mark

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Flint, Caroline

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Browne, Desmond

      Follett, Barbara

      Bryant, Chris

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Burden, Richard

      Burgon, Colin

      Foulkes, rh George

      Burnham, Andy

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Burnside, David

      Gardiner, Barry

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Gerrard, Neil

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Cairns, David

      Gilroy, Linda

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Goggins, Paul

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Casale, Roger

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Grogan, John

      Challen, Colin

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Chaytor, David

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hanson, David

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Healey, John

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clelland, David

      Hendrick, Mark

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Coaker, Vernon

      Heppell, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hermon, Lady

      Cohen, Harry

      Hesford, Stephen

      Coleman, Iain

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Colman, Tony

      Heyes, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Corston, Jean

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Cousins, Jim

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cranston, Ross

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Crausby, David

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hutton, rh John

      David, Wayne

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Davidson, Ian

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Dawson, Hilton

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Denham, rh John

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jamieson, David

      802

      Jenkins, Brian

      Perham, Linda

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Picking, Anne

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Pollard, Kerry

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pound, Stephen

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kidney, David

      Purnell, James

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Rammell, Bill

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Lammy, David

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Lepper, David

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Rooney, Terry

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Linton, Martin

      Ruane, Chris

      Love, Andrew

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Salter, Martin

      McCabe, Stephen

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McCafferty, Chris

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Sawford, Phil

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sedgemore, Brian

      MacDonald, Calum

      Shaw, Jonathan

      MacDougall, John

      Sheerman, Barry

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Sheridan, Jim

      McIsaac, Shona

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McKechin, Ann

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Singh, Marsha

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McNulty, Tony

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      MacShane, Denis

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McWilliam, John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Soley, Clive

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Southworth, Helen

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Spellar, rh John

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Squire, Rachel

      Martlew, Eric

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Merron, Gillian

      Stevenson, George

      Michael, rh Alun

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Miliband, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Mole, Chris

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Stringer, Graham

      Morley, Elliot

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mountford, Kali

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Mullin, Chris

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Timms, Stephen

      Olner, Bill

      Tipping, Paddy

      O'Neill, Martin

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Organ, Diana

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Trickett, Jon

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Truswell, Paul

      Pearson, Ian

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      803

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Wills, Michael

      Winnick, David

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Woolas, Phil

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Worthington, Tony

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Watts, David

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      White, Brian

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Dan Norris and

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe

      Question accordingly negatived.
      MR. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour.

    Clause 63

      CASES THAT MAY BE RETRIED
      Amendments made: No. 462, in page 41, line 8, leave out 'in England and Wales'.
      No. 464, in page 41, line 10, leave out 'on indictment' and insert
      'in proceedings on indictment in England and Wales'.
      No. 463, in page 41, line 9, at end insert 'in England and Wales'.
      No. 465, in page 41, line 27, leave out
      "England and Wales or Scotland'
      and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
      No. 357, in page 41, line 30, after 'Kingdom' insert 'or elsewhere'.
      No. 466, in page 41, line 31 leave out
      "England and Wales or Scotland'
      and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
      No. 467, in page 41, line 38, after 'in' insert 'Part 1 of'—[Paul Goggins.]

    Schedule 4

      QUALIFYING OFFENCES FOR PURPOSES OF PART 10
      Amendments made: No. 423, in page 188, line 22, at end insert
      "or section 1 or 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003'.
      No. 424, in page 188, line 25, at end insert
      "or section 1 or 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003'.
      No. 425, in page 189, line 12, at end insert—
      "Fraudulent evasion in respect of Class A drug
      12A An offence under section 170(1) or (2) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2) alleged to have been committed in respect of a Class A drug (as defined by section 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (c. 38)).'.
      No. 474, in page 191, line 4, after 'in' insert 'this Part of'.
      No. 475, in page 191, line 4, at end insert—
      List of Offences for Northern Ireland Offences against the Person Murder
      30A Murder.

      Attempted murder
      30B An offence under Article 3 of the Criminal Attempts and Conspiracy (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 of attempting to commit murder.
      Soliciting murder
      30C An offence under section 4 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (c. 100).

      Manslaughter
      30D Manslaughter.
      Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent
      30E An offence under section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (c. 100).

      30F Kidnapping.
      Sexual Offences Rape
      30G Rape.
      30H An offence under section 2 of the Attempted Rape, etc., Act (Northern Ireland) 1960.
      Intercourse with a girl under fourteen
      30I An offence under section 4 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 (c. 69) of unlawfully and carnally knowing a girl under fourteen.
      Incest by a man with a girl under fourteen
      30J An offence under section 1(1) of the Punishment of Incest Act 1908 (c. 45) alleged to have been committed with a girl under fourteen.
      Unlawful importation of Class A drug
      30K An offence under section 50(2) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2) alleged to have been committed in respect of a Class A drug (as defined by section 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (c. 38)).
      Unlawful exportation of Class A drug
      30L An offence under section 68(2) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2) alleged to have been committed in respect of a Class A drug (as defined by section 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (c.38)).

      Fraudulent evasion in respect of Class A drug
      30M An offence under section 170(1) or (2) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2) alleged to have been committed in respect of a Class A drug (as defined by section 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (c. 38)).
      Producing or being concerned in production of Class A drug
      30N An offence under section 4(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (c. 38) alleged to have been committed in respect of a Class A drug (as defined by section 2 of that Act).

      Supplying or offering to supply Class A drug
      30O An offence under section 4(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (c. 38) alleged to have been committed in respect of a Class A drug (as defined by section 2 of that Act).
      Robbery
      30P An offence under section 8(1) of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 where it is alleged that, at some time during the commission of the offence, the defendant had in his possession a firearm or imitation firearm (as defined by Article 2(2) of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981).

      Arson endangering life
      30Q An offence under Article 3(2) of the Criminal Damage (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 alleged to have been committed by destroying or damaging property by fire.
      Causing explosion likely to endanger life or property
      30R An offence under section 2 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 (c. 3).
      Intent or conspiracy to cause explosion likely to endanger life or property
      30S An offence under section 3(1)(a) of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 (c. 3).

      War Crimes and Terrorism
      Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes
      30T An offence under section 51 or 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (c. 17).

      Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions
      30U An offence under section 1 of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 (c. 52).
      Directing terrorist organisation
      30V An offence under section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11).
      Hostage taking
      30W An offence under section 1 of the Taking of Hostages Act 1982 (c. 28).

      Hijacking of aircraft
      30X An offence under section 1 of the Aviation Security Act 1982 (c. 36).
      Destroying, damaging or endangering the safety of an aircraft
      30Y An offence under section 2 of the Aviation Security Act 1982 (c. 36).

      Hijacking of ships
      30Z An offence under section 9 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 (c. 31).
      Seizing or exercising control of fixed platforms
      30ZA An offence under section 10 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 (c. 31).
      Destroying ships or fixed platforms or endangering their safety
      30ZB An offence under section 11 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 (c. 31).

      Hijacking of Channel Tunnel trains
      30ZC An offence under article 4 of the Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994 (S.I. 1994/570).
      Seizing or exercising control of the Channel Tunnel system
      30ZD An offence under article 5 of the Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994 (S.I. 1994/570).

      Conspiracy
      30ZE An offence under Article 9 of the Criminal Attempts and Conspiracy (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 of conspiracy to commit an offence listed in this Part of this Schedule.'—[Paul Goggins.]
    Clause 64

      APPLICATION TO COURT OF APPEAL
      Amendments made: No. 468, in page 42, line 4, leave out 'England and Wales' and insert 'proceedings within section 63(1)'.
      No. 469, in page 42, line 7, leave out
      "England and Wales or Scotland'
      and insert
      "the United Kingdom'.—[Paul Goggins.]

    Clause 66

      NEW AND COMPELLING EVIDENCE
      Amendments made: No. 358, in page 42, line 37, leave out
      806
      "that the acquitted person is guilty of"
      and insert
      "against the acquitted person in relation to'.
      No. 359, in page 42, line 38, leave out from 'it' to end of line 39 and insert
      "was not adduced in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted (nor, if those were appeal proceedings, in earlier proceedings to which the appeal related).'.
      No. 360, in page 43, line 2, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
      "( ) in the context of the outstanding issues, it appears highly probative of the case against the acquitted person.'.
      No. 361, in page 43, line 5, leave out 'are' and insert `were'.
      No. 362, in page 43, line 6, leave out 'relates' and insert 'related'.—[Paul Goggins.]

    Clause 70
      RESTRICTIONS ON REPORTING
      Amendment made: No. 372, in page 44, line 31, leave out Clause 70.—[Paul Goggins.]
    Clause 71
      OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH REPORTING
      Amendment made: No. 373, in page 45, line 26, leave out Clause 71.—[Paul Goggins.]
    Clause 72

      RETRIAL
      Amendment made: No. 470, in page 46, line 32, leave out
      'England and Wales or Scotland'
      and insert 'the United Kingdom'.—[Paul Goggins.]

    Clause 73

      AUTHORISATION OF INVESTIGATIONS
      Amendments made: No. 471, in page 47, line 8, leave out 'England and Wales' and insert 'proceedings within section 63(1)'.
      No. 472, in page 47, line 9, leave out
      "England and Wales or Scotland'
      and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
      No. 374, in page 47, line 9, leave out 'England and Wales and Scotland'
      and insert 'the United Kingdom'.
      No. 375, in page 47, line 30, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert
      'an officer who—
      (a) if he is an officer of the Metropolitan police force or the City of London police force, is of the rank of commander or above, and
      (b) in any other case, is of the rank of assistant chief constable or above.'.
      No. 376, in page 47, line 35, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

      807
      '(a) he is satisfied that new evidence has been obtained which would be relevant to an application under section 64(1) or (2) in respect of the qualifying offence to which the investigation relates, or
      (b) he has reasonable grounds for believing that such new evidence is likely to be obtained as a result of the investigation.'.
      No. 377, in page 48, line 3, at end insert
      'or specified team of customs and excise officers'.—[Paul Goggins.]

    Clause 74

      URGENT INVESTIGATIVE STEPS
      Amendments made: No. 378, in page 48, line 6, leave out from 'investigation' to end of line 23 and insert "if—

      (a) the action is necessary as a matter of urgency to prevent the investigation being substantially and irrevocably prejudiced,

      (b) the requirements of subsection (1A) are met, and

      (c) either—

      (i) the action is authorised under subsection (1B), or

      (ii) the requirements of subsection (8) are met.

      (1A) The requirements of this subsection are met if—'
      No. 379, in page 48, line 28, at end insert—
      (1B) An officer of the rank of superintendent or above may authorise the action if—

      (a) he is satisfied that new evidence has been obtained which would be relevant to an application under section 64(1) or (2) in respect of the qualifying offence to which the investigation relates, or

      (b) he has reasonable grounds for believing that such new evidence is likely to be obtained as a result of the investigation.'.

      No. 380, in page 48, line 29, leave out '(2)' and insert '(1B)'.
      No. 381, in page 48, line 32, at end insert—
      "(8) The requirements of this subsection are met if—

      (a) there has been no undue delay in applying for authorisation under subsection (1B),

      (b) that authorisation has not been refused, and

      (c) taking into account the urgency of the situation, it is not reasonably practicable to obtain that authorisation before taking the action.

      (9) Where the requirements of subsection (8) are met, the action is nevertheless to be treated as having been unlawful unless, as soon as reasonably practicable after the action is taken, an officer of the rank of superintendent or above certifies in writing that he is satisfied that, when the action was taken—

      (a) new evidence had been obtained which would be relevant to an application under section 64(1) or (2) in respect of the qualifying offence to which the investigation relates, or

      (b) the officer who took the action had reasonable grounds for believing that such new evidence was likely to be obtained as a result of the investigation.'.—[Paul Goggins.]

    Clause 75

      ARREST AND CHARGE
      Amendments made: No. 382, in page 48, line 35, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
      '(1) Where section 73 applies to the investigation of the commission of an offence by any person and no certification has been given under subsection (2) of that section—
      808

      (a) a justice of the peace may issue a warrant to arrest that person for that offence only if satisfied by written information that new evidence has been obtained which would be relevant to an application under section 64(1) or (2) in respect of the commission by that person of that offence, and

      (b) that person may not be arrested for that offence except under a warrant so issued.

      (2) Subsection (1) does not affect section 77(3)(b) or (Revocation of bail)(3), or any other power to arrest a person, or to issue a warrant for the arrest of a person, otherwise than for an offence.
      (2A) Part 4 of the 1984 Act (detention) applies as follows where a person—

      (a) is arrested for an offence under a warrant issued in accordance with subsection (1)(a), or

      (b) having been so arrested, is subsequently treated under section 34(7) of that Act as arrested for that offence.'

      No. 383, in page 49, line 1, leave out from first 'of' to "there' in line 2 and insert 'that Part'.
      No. 384, in page 49, line 4, after 'above' insert
      "(who has not been directly involved in the investigation)'.
      No. 385, in page 49, line 15 at end insert—
      (5) Section 37 of that Act (including any provision of that section as applied by section 40(8) of that Act) has effect subject to the following modifications—

      (a) in subsection (1)—

      (i) for "determine whether he has before him" there is substituted "request an officer of the rank of superintendent or above (who has not been directly involved in the investigation) to determine, in accordance with section 75(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, whether there is";

      (ii) for "him to do so" there is substituted "that determination to be made";

      (b) in subsection (2)—

      (i) for the words from "custody officer determines" to "before him" there is substituted "officer determines that there is not such sufficient evidence";

      (ii) the word "custody" is omitted from the second place where it occurs;

      (c) in subsection (3)—

      (i) the word "custody" is omitted;

      (ii) after "may" there is inserted "direct the custody officer to";

      (d) in subsection (7) for the words from "the custody officer" to the end of that subsection there is substituted "an officer of the rank of superintendent or above (who has not been directly involved in the investigation) determines, in accordance with section 75(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, that there is sufficient evidence to charge the person arrested with the offence for which he was arrested, the person arrested shall be charged.";

      (e) subsections (7A), (7B) and (8) do not apply;

      (f) after subsection (10) there is inserted—

      "(10A) The officer who is requested by the custody officer to make a determination under subsection (1) above shall make that determination as soon as practicable after the request is made.".
      (6) Section 40 of that Act has effect as if in subsections (8) and (9) of that section after "(6)" there were inserted "and (10A)".
      (7) Section 42 of that Act has effect as if in subsection (1) of that section for the words from "who" to "detained" there were substituted "(who has not been directly involved in the investigation)".'.
      —[Paul Goggins.]

    Clause 76

      BAIL AND CUSTODY BEFORE APPLICATION
      Amendments made: No. 386, in page 49, line 17, leave out from beginning to 'must' and insert—
      "(1) In relation to a person charged in accordance with section 75(3)—

      (a) section 38 of the 1984 Act (including any provision of that section as applied by section 40(10) of that Act) has effect as if, in subsection (1), for "either on bail or without bail" there were substituted "on bail",

      (b) section 47(3) of that Act does not apply and references in section 38 of that Act to bail are references to bail subject to a duty to appear before the Crown Court at such place as the custody officer may appoint and at such time, not later than 24 hours after the person is released, as that officer may appoint, and

      (c) section 43B of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43) does not apply.

      (1A) Where such a person is, after being charged—

      (a) kept in police detention, or

      (b) detained by a local authority in pursuance of arrangements made under section 38(6) of the 1984 Act,

      he'.
      No. 387, in page 49, line 19, leave out from first 'and' to 'not' in line 20 and insert
      "section 46 of the 1984 Act does'.
      No. 388, in page 49, line 21, after "(1)' insert 'or (1A)'.
      No. 389, in page 49, line 28, after 'is' insert
      "to appear before the Crown Court as mentioned in subsection (1) or, where subsection (1A) applies, is'.
      No. 390, in page 49, line 29, at beginning insert
      "Where a person appears or is brought before the Crown Court in accordance with subsection (1) or (1A),'.
      No. 391, in page 49, line 30, leave out
      ", with such conditions as it sees fit,'.
      No. 392, in page 49, line 31, leave out 'before the Crown Court'.
      No. 393, in page 49, line 32, after "68(2)' insert
      "before the Court of Appeal at the hearing of that application'.
      No. 394, in page 49, line 35, leave out subsection (4).
      No. 395, in page 49, line 37, leave out from 'may' to 'revoke' in line 39.
      No. 396, in page 49, line 41, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
      (6A) In subsection (6B) the "relevant period", in relation to a person granted bail or remanded in custody under subsection (3), means—

      (a) the period of 42 days beginning with the day on which he is granted bail or remanded in custody under that subsection, or

      (b) that period as extended or further extended under subsection (7).

      (6B) If at the end of the relevant period no notice of an application under section 64(1) or (2) in relation to the person has been given under section 68(1), the person—

      (a) if on bail subject to a duty to appear as mentioned in subsection (3)(a), ceases to be subject to that duty and to any conditions of that bail, and

      (b) if in custody on remand under subsection (3)(b) or (5), must be released immediately without bail.'.

      No. 397, in page 50, line 5, leave out "(6)(b)' and insert "(6A)(a)'.
      No. 398, in page 50, line 5, after '(6)(b)' insert "until a specified date'.
      No. 399, in page 50, line 8, leave out subsection (8).—[Paul Goggins.]

    Clause 77

      BAIL AND CUSTODY BEFORE HEARING
      Amendments made: No. 400, in page 50, line 13, leave out '(5)(b)' and insert '(5)'.
      No. 401, in page 50, line 15, leave out "(5)(b)' and insert '(5)'.
      No. 402, in page 50, line 19, at end insert—
      "and a warrant under paragraph (b) may be issued at any time even though a summons has previously been issued.'.
      No. 403, in page 50, line 28, at end insert
      ", and section 81(5) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (c. 54) does not apply.'.
      No. 404, in page 50, line 29, leave out from '(6)' to "the' in line 30.
      No. 405, in page 50, line 34, leave out
      ", with such conditions as it sees fit,'.
      No. 406, in page 50, line 36, leave out subsection (8).
      No. 407, in page 50, line 38, leave out "from time to time'.
      No. 408, in page 50, line 41, leave out from "(7)(a)' to end of line 42.—[Paul Goggins.]

    Clause 78

      BAIL AND CUSTODY DURING AND AFTER HEARING
      Amendments made: No. 409, in page 51, line 10, leave out
      "with such conditions as it sees fit,'.
      No. 410, in page 51, line 26, at end insert—
      '(3A) Section 4 of the Bail Act 1976 (c.63) applies in relation to the grant of bail under this section as if in subsection (2) the reference to the Crown Court included a reference to the Court of Appeal.'.
      No. 411, in page 51, line 30, leave out from beginning to 'or'.
      No. 412, in page 51, line 32, leave out subsection (5).—[Paul Goggins.]

    Clause 81

      INTERPRETATION OF PART 10
      Amendments made: No. 413, in page 52, line 12, at end insert—
      ""the 1979 Act" means the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2),
      "the 1984 Act" means the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60),'.
      No. 414, in page 52, line 14, at end insert—
      '"customs and excise officer" means an officer as defined by section 1(1) of the 1979 Act, or a person to whom section 8(2) of that Act applies,'.
      No. 415, in page 52, line 16, leave out
      ", subject to section 71(6),'.
      No. 416, in page 52, line 16, after 'force' insert
      "or a customs and excise officer'.
      No. 417, in page 52, leave out line 19.
      No. 418, in page 52, leave out line 22.
      No. 419, in page 52, leave out line 24.
      No. 420, in page 52, line 31, at end insert—
      "(3) References in this Part to an officer of a specified rank or above are, in the case of a customs and excise officer, references to an officer of such description as—

      (a) appears to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to comprise officers of equivalent rank or above, and

      (b) is specified by the Commissioners for the purposes of the provision concerned.'.—[Paul Goggins.]

    New Clause 42

      RESTRICTIONS ON PUBLICATION IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE
      "(1) Where it appears to the Court of Appeal that the inclusion of any matter in a publication would give rise to a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in a retrial, the court may order that the matter is not to be included in any publication while the order has effect.
      (2) In subsection (1) "retrial" means the trial of an acquitted person for a qualifying offence pursuant to any order made or that may be made under section 65.
      (3) The court may make an order under this section only if it appears to it necessary in the interests of justice to do so.
      (4) An order under this section may apply to a matter which has been included in a publication published before the order takes effect, but such an order—

      (a) applies only to the later inclusion of the matter in a publication (whether directly or by inclusion of the earlier publication), and

      (b) does not otherwise affect the earlier publication.

      (5) After notice of an application has been given under section 68(1) relating to the acquitted person and the qualifying offence, the court may make an order under this section only—

      (a) of its own motion, or

      (b) on the application of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

      (6) Before such notice has been given, an order under this section—

      (a) may be made only on the application of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and

      (b) may not be made unless, since the acquittal concerned, an investigation of the commission by the acquitted person of the qualifying offence has been commenced by officers.

      (7) The court may at any time, of its own motion or on an application made by the Director of Public Prosecutions or the acquitted person, vary or revoke an order under this section.
      (8) Any order made under this section before notice of an application has been given under section 68(1) relating to the acquitted person and the qualifying offence must specify the time when it ceases to have effect.
      (9) An order under this section which is made or has effect after such notice has been given ceases to have effect, unless it specifies an earlier time—

      (a) when there is no longer any step that could be taken which would lead to the acquitted person being tried pursuant to an order made on the application, or

      (b) if he is tried pursuant to such an order, at the conclusion of the trial.

      (10) Nothing in this section affects any prohibition or restriction by virtue of any other enactment on the inclusion of any matter in a publication or any power, under an enactment or otherwise, to impose such a prohibition or restriction.
      (11) In this section—
      "programme service" has the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42),
      "publication" includes any speech, writing, relevant programme or other communication in whatever form, which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public (and for this purpose every relevant programme is to be taken to be so addressed), but does not include an indictment or other document prepared for use in particular legal proceedings,
      "relevant programme" means a programme included in a programme service.'.—[Paul Goggins,]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 43

      REVOCATION OF BAIL
      "(1) Where—

      (a) a court revokes a person's bail under this Part, and

      (b) that person is not before the court when his bail is revoked,

      the court must order him to surrender himself forthwith to the custody of the court.
      (2) Where a person surrenders himself in the custody of the court in compliance with an order under subsection (1), the court must remand him in custody.
      (3) A person who has been ordered to surrender to custody under subsection (1) may be arrested without a warrant by an officer if he fails without reasonable cause to surrender to custody in accordance with the order.
      (4) A person arrested under subsection (3) must be brought as soon as practicable, and, in any event, not more than 24 hours after he is arrested, before the court and the court must remand him in custody.
      (5) For the purpose of calculating the period referred to in subsection (4), the following are to be disregarded—

      (a) Sunday,

      (b) Christmas Day,

      (c) Good Friday,

      (d) any day which is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 (c. 80) in the part of the United Kingdom where the person is for the time being detained.'.—[Paul Goggins.]

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

    New Clause 44

      ARMED FORCES: PART 10
      "(1) Section 31 of the Armed Forces Act 2001 (c. 19) (provision in consequence of enactments relating to criminal justice) applies to an enactment contained in this Part so far as relating to matters not specified in subsection (2) of that section as it applies to a criminal justice enactment.
      (2) The power under that section to make provision equivalent to that made in relation to qualifying offences by an enactment contained in this Part (with or without modifications) includes power to make such provision in relation to such service offences as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
      (3) In subsection (2) "service offence" means an offence under the Army Act 1955 (3&4Eliz.2 c. 18), the Air Force Act 1955 (3&4Eliz.2 c. 19) or the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (c. 53).'.—[Paul Goggins.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 54

      APPLICATION OF PART 10 TO NORTHERN IRELAND
      "(1) In its application to Northern Ireland this Part is to have effect subject to the modifications in this section.
      (2) In sections 63(1)(a) and (b), 64(2)(a), 67(3) and 73(2)(a) for "England and Wales" substitute "Northern Ireland".
      (3) For section 63(2)(c) substitute—
      "(c) in respect of which, in proceedings where he has been found to be unfit to be tried in accordance with Article 49 of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (S.I. 1986/595 (N.I. 4)), a finding has been made that he did the act or made the omission charged against him."
      (4) In section 63(8) for "Part 1" substitute "Part 1A".
      (5) In section 69(1) for "Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c. 19)" substitute "Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (c. 47)".
      (6) In section 69(2)—

      (a) for "33" substitute "31", and

      (b) for "An" substitute "Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, an".

      (7) In section 69(4)—

      (a) for "34(2)" substitute "32(2)", and

      (b) for "33(1B)" substitute "31(1B)".

      (8) In section 72(1) for "preferred" substitute "presented".
      (9) After section 72(6) insert—
      "(6A) Article 29 of the Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/228 (N.I. 8)) applies in the case of a person who is to be tried in accordance with subsection (1) as if—

      (a) he had been committed for trial for the offence in question, and

      (b) the reference in paragraph (2)(a) of that Article to a magistrates' court included a reference to the Court of Appeal."

      (10) In section 79(1) for the words from the beginning to "does" substitute "Sections 30(4) and 36 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 (c. 26) do".
      (11) Until the coming into force of section 36 of that Act of 2002 the reference to that section in subsection (10) is to be read as a reference to Article 4(8) of the Prosecution of Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (S.I. 1972/538 (N.I. 1)).
      (12) In section 80(2) for "the Criminal Appeal Rules and the Crown Court Rules" substitute "rules under section 55 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (c. 23) and Crown Court Rules".
      (13) In section 81(1) for the definition of "police force" substitute—
      ""police force" means—

      (a) the Police Service of Northern Ireland or the Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve,

      (b) the Ministry of Defence Police,

      (c) any body of constables appointed under Article 19 of the Airports (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 (S.I. 1994/426 (N.I. 1)), or

      (d) any body of special constables appointed in Northern Ireland under section 79 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 (c. 27) or section 57 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (c. 16);".

      (14) Omit section 81(2).'.
      —[Paul Goggins.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 279

      EXTENT
      Amendments made: No. 421, in page 156, line 17, leave out line 17 and insert—
      "section (Restrictions on publication in the interests of justice);'.
      No. 473, in page 156, line 31, at end insert—
      "sections 63 to 69;
      sections 72 to 81 and (Application of Part 10 to Northern Ireland);
      Schedule 4.'.
      No. 422, in page 156, line 31, at end insert—
      '(4A) Section (Armed forces: Part 10) has the same extent as section 31 of the Armed Forces Act 2001 (c. 19).'.—[Paul Goggins.]
      More than six and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the Bill, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned, pursuant to Orders [4 February, 5 March, 2 April and today].
      Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

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

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
    That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 121) (HC 640) on Invest to Save Budget Round 5 Projects, Local e-Government Programme and e-Voting, which was laid before this House on 11th April, be approved.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
    Question agreed to.

  REGULATORY REFORM
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18 (Consideration of draft regulatory reform orders),
  REGULATORY REFORM

    BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD
    That the draft Regulatory Reform (British Waterways Board) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 28th April, be approved.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
    Question agreed to.

  WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That—
  (1) the matter of the Economy in Wales be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration;
  (2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Tuesday 24th June at five minutes to Nine o'clock and between Two o'clock and Four o'clock to take questions under Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and to consider the matter of the Economy in Wales under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)).—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
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.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

  Street Crime (Canvey Island)
  10.19 pm
  Bob Spink: The scourge of youth nuisance, violence, vandalism and street crime is deeply damaging to our communities. We must take back ownership and control of our streets for decent people, young and old alike. We must tackle yob behaviour. The good people of Canvey Island have raised a petition with that in mind.
  The petition states:
  "To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of Councillors Norman Banbridge, Frieda Cridland, Dorothy Best, Lance Munt and others of like disposition sheweth
  That residents of Canvey Island and particularly Winter Gardens are increasingly concerned about the threatening and criminal behaviour that is being experienced around Canvey Island, including Winter Gardens, and believe that firm action should be taken to increase policing of the area and to pursue a zero tolerance approach to crime on the streets involving young people.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House shall urge the Government to ensure that police foot patrols are provided for Canvey Island and particularly the Winter Gardens and other problem areas, especially at night time.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

Mobile Phone Masts
10.20 pm
Bob Spink: Mobile phone masts and other antennae have become a source of great anxiety to our constituents. It is yet another subject about which the Government are not listening to people and the Opposition are listening to them. Our constituents want more say about the location of mobile phone masts. They want to protect their interests and those of their children, hence the petition, which states:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The humble Petition of Mrs. Hughes, Councillor Kate Meager, Councillor David Cross and others of like disposition sheweth
That local residents seek greater controls over the siting of mobile phones and other antennae and are concerned about the impact of these on the health and well being of residents, particularly children, and on the street scene.
816
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House shall urge the Government to give more control over mobile phone masts and other such antennae to local communities through local planning procedures and local councillors.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table.

Dangerous Driving
10.21 pm
Mr. Neil Turner: I present the petition of Mr. Frank Round and his daughter, Mrs. Paula Sharrock on behalf of his other daughter, who was killed in a road accident. Death was caused by dangerous driving, but the person responsible was given only a one-year sentence.
The petition states:
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons increase the maximum sentence available to the courts for this offence and call upon the Lord Chancellor to ensure that the courts use this increased maximum when passing sentence.
And the Petitioners remain etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Zimbabwe
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
10.22 pm
Chris Grayling: I am grateful to the Minister for being present at this late hour. I requested the debate because I have had contact for some time through the churches in my constituency with people who are doing work on the front line in Zimbabwe. They have valuable intelligence about the reality of events in some rural areas in Zimbabwe and also identified an aspect of information from the Department in Africa that perhaps does not portray a true picture of the position in Zimbabwe. I want to share some of the feedback from those people with the Minister and ask whether she can take action through our offices in Zimbabwe to try to improve the predicament that undoubtedly faces people in rural areas.
The specific concern arose through information from the Department for International Development office in Harare about the amount of food support that is being provided to rural areas through non-governmental organisations. Some people in my constituency who expressed anxiety to the Department were recently reassured that the position was not as bad as they had believed and that some 90 per cent. of the people in the affected areas were receiving food support from the UK through NGO partners. The people with whom I am in contact said that that was not the case and that the aid was not getting through.
I want therefore to share with the Minister some of the feedback that I received from those people. I am sure that she understands that, since we are in a public forum, I want to protect the identities of those involved. However, I hope that she accepts my assurance that the reports are well founded and from people who are genuinely in the front line of the affected areas.
The Binga district is the area of especial anxiety. It is close to Lake Kariba in western Zimbabwe and is one of the areas that was most affected by political, socio-economic and drought-related developments in recent times. I shall read the response from the head of a church denomination in Bulawayo who has been in contact with people in Binga. He said:
"The Binga district, covering around 100 square kilometres, is arguably the most underdeveloped part of Zimbabwe. The Tonga people are disadvantaged educationally and in every other way. It is a malarial area and people have low incomes…The people feel neglected and there is enormous resentment against the government. Before the Presidential elections food was sent to Binga and it was made clear that this was an incentive to vote for Robert Mugabe. There were threats and intimidation but the biggest vote for the MDC was polled in this area. The mayor actually spoke out against the President in public. Before the local elections there was widespread intimidation, violence, killings and the destruction of homes by government-sponsored agents. All food distribution by NGOs was suspended but still the people voted for MDC. There is very little food now in Binga and this is a deliberate political decision on the part of the government in retaliation for the MDC vote."
One of my constituents' contacts on the ground in western Zimbabwe put questions to a Binga resident. One question related specifically to the Department's comments about the supposed supply of food through NGO partners. The questioner said:
818
"It is claimed that this area is supported at a much higher level than many other districts. Is this true?"
The response was:
"No it is not true. Many people are starving in Binga. I have come to Bulawayo to get help for desperate people. The District Administrator was attacked last month because the people are hungry."
The question was asked:
"What evidence do you have of the problem?"
The gentleman replied:
"Firstly I am closely connected to the local task force for drought relief. Secondly I know the situation in the church I attend. One quarter of the people in that church are desperate. They have been living on local wild fruits for two and a half months and many of them are getting sick and dying. The rest of the church have very little and are malnourished. People are continually bringing starving children to my door asking for help. I have connections with 15 other churches within a 30 km area and the situation is the same in every one."
The question was asked:
"Are the NGOs operating in your area?"
The reply was:
"I think that CADAC has resumed giving school children some relief but there is only limited distribution by other agencies. There are some important factors here. People at the top of these organisations may not realise the true nature of the situation. When the government came to power the traditional structures of authority in the rural areas were ignored by the government. Now the local chiefs are on the government pay-roll."
I met one of the relief workers who had come back to England 10 days ago. She said that the chiefs as a group had always been relatively independent from the Government, and as such were a trusted conduit for aid. Recently, however, the Government had started to pay many of them, and as a result there was much closer centralised control of the distribution networks.
The contact explained:
"Most NGOs do not have a grass-roots network in this area. They rely on the chiefs and their assistants to supply a list of people eligible to receive food. The chiefs are under instructions that food should go to card-carrying Zanu-PF people. So many people never receive food even when a distribution occurs. In an area where the infrastructure is so poor and people are scattered over a wide area linked only by dirt roads, it is hard for the agencies to monitor what is happening effectively. At the present time 90 per cent. of the people of Binga are not being fed by the UK through NGOs or by anyone else."
That is the key concern. It may appear at first glance to Ministers and officials at the centre that food supplies are being provided through the local networks and the tribal chiefs and are ultimately being received, but feedback from the ground suggests that that is not the case. It appears that the food that is being distributed is going to people on approved lists, which are under the control of the tribal chiefs—who themselves are now salaried employees of the Government. The mechanism exists in local communities to cut off those seen as hostile to the regime.
I do not doubt the motivation of our officials on the ground, but although they may believe that the food is being channelled through the NGOs, ultimately—because the grass-roots networks do not exist—they are operating on hearsay. They are relying on the word and confirmation of the tribal chiefs. Evidence from the few people who are still working in humanitarian areas in that part of Zimbabwe—I admire their bravery—suggests that the food is not getting through to those who need it most.

819
Let me also share with the Minister some feedback from a western aid worker on the ground in Zimbabwe, who is still doing extremely important work in the communities there. She said to me:
"I am confident that you will protect my identity for the sake of the work I am doing."
I am doing just that tonight. She, too, has talked about the NGOs feeding people in the Binga area of Zimbabwe. She says:
"I am involved in relief work and know that this is not the case. The distribution of this information presents a challenge to our credibility. Please bear with me asking for your help to put the record straight on behalf of the starving people in Binga District, Matabeleland North, Zimbabwe."
The aid worker goes on to give further political background information on the nature of the population in the area. They are people who were displaced as a result of the flooding to create the Kariba dam. She says:
"most of the government officials, teachers and other important roles in that area have been filled by Shona speakers brought into the area from Mashonaland—the northern provinces of Zimbabwe, the heartland of the ruling ZANU-PF party. This has resulted in the marginalizing of the Tonga and Ndebele peoples"—
—the traditional occupants of that area. She goes on:
"The Shona speakers have continued to be given food during the famine and those who are registered by the local headmen have also been assisted."
That relates to the point that I was making a moment ago. She continues:
"Food distribution in every area is based on lists of registered people provided by the traditional leaders. These traditional leaders, ignored by the government for many years, are now well paid and therefore tend to comply with government demands. Hence the needy are still marginalized as, if they do not speak Shona or carry a ZANU-PF party card, it is assumed they belong to the MDC."
One of the tragedies in all this is that there are people who are genuine victims who have no interest or involvement in politics at all, and who perhaps did not even vote in the recent elections. They might be illiterate or cut off from other communities. They are being treated as political pariahs and, as a result, do not receive food. The aid worker goes on to say:
"Amounts of food are being increased but politics not vulnerability is the measuring rod for eligibility. In some areas people who do not belong to the party will buy a card but still many will not compromise with murderers, thieves and liars."
She goes on to restate the point about the amounts of food available.
"Only a few weeks ago we received an urgent cry for help because many people still had no food. They have been surviving by crushing a small wild fruit, mixing it with water to make a thin soup. Now there are no more fruits. This diet has made many sick. The fact that we were contacted means that food supplies are inadequate."
The aid worker also confirms the point made about the activity of the NGOs. She says:
"The main NGO in Binga has always been the Catholic Church through CADAC. Around election time CADAC's distributions were stopped and so were those of Save the Children UK. This was largely because the mayor of Binga spoke out against the government during a pre-election visit by Robert Mugabe. The Catholic church has also taken a firm stand against human rights abuse. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that food deprivation
820
was used as a punishment. CADAC is operating again distributing a high-protein drink in schools and Save the Children is doing some work. ORAP"—
the Organisation of Rural Associations for Progress—
"under the World Food Programme have taken in seed and fertilizer but we know that in many cases the seed was washed and eaten rather than sown."
She goes on:
"We do not dispute that Britain is assisting the hungry people of Zimbabwe and we are very grateful for all that is being done. It is not the fault of the NGOs as they can only go where the government allows access and it is hard to accurately monitor the situation without independent grass-roots contacts. This letter is just to put the record straight. Britain was definitely not providing food for 90 per cent. of the people of Binga…We are convinced that there is still a great need for further help in that area as in other parts of Zimbabwe. Matabeleland, comprising the southern provinces of Zimbabwe, has not benefited from the rainfall that the north has received and will therefore continue to need a lot of assistance in the months ahead."
There is a concern at the heart of the matter: the Government are sending one message about the support that we are providing through the NGOs—the Department is saying that it is all fine and all sorted—but smaller NGOs are still looking to operate almost under the radar, which they can do on the ground because they are small and not noticed, while turning to their supporters in this country and saying, "Please provide us with extra support." If the Department is sending such a message, that support will not be forthcoming.
That is the real worry of those NGOs. They believe that they are operating on the front line, and that they have a distinct and unique ability to make a difference on that front line in a country where some hardships are creating desperation. They are extremely concerned that Ministers get the message, "It's not all working according to plan. The things you are trying are not getting to the front line in the way that you hope they are." If the Department gives out the wrong message, that will make it more difficult for those who are there to secure the support—financial and otherwise—from within this country to help them to carry on with their work.
It is very much my hope that that information from the front line in Zimbabwe gives the Minister an additional backcloth to events and helps her to provide a briefing to her office in Zimbabwe on the issues on that front line. I hope also that it enables her, her Department and the NGOs, both large and small, working in Zimbabwe to make a difference in a country where there is undoubtedly huge human hardship. We may not be able to do all that we would like to ease that hardship because of the nature of the regime, but every small thing we can do is clearly not only desirable, but necessary.
10.36 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for international Development (Ms Sally Keeble): I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on securing the debate and his presentation of the issues, which was clear and helpful. I assure him of two things: first, the concern about the plight of the Zimbabwean people, especially in the rural areas that he described, is shared equally across all parties. We on the Government side certainly are not

821
complacent about the position of people in Zimbabwe, and I welcome the chance to set out some of our approach, because quite a few issues are worth rehearsing and explaining.
Secondly, I understand why the hon. Gentleman is protective of the contact with his constituents. I pay tribute to them and the work that they do in extraordinarily difficult circumstances and at considerable risk to themselves to meet profound humanitarian needs. Labour Members would not look to increase the pressure on them any further.
I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's points, but, perhaps at the end of my speech, I will give reassurances on how the information that he has provided will be treated and fed back into the system. Zimbabwe's humanitarian crisis is, of course, part of a wider political and economic crisis. Unfortunately, the suffering of ordinary Zimbabweans will continue, despite the best efforts of the international community, until the appalling failures of the Mugabe regime are reversed. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that at the heart of the matter is a profound political problem. It is not just humanitarian.
I assure the hon. Gentleman of the Government's commitment in relation to Zimbabwe. We have pressed extremely hard for reform and will continue to do so, but we cannot secure change on our own. Therefore, we strongly welcome the recent initiatives that have been taken by the Presidents of South Africa, Nigeria and Malawi to start a dialogue between Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change. Pressure from the African Governments is essential to deliver the change of policies and a return to legitimate democracy that Zimbabwe so badly needs.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Zimbabwean Government's disastrous land reform programme is at the heart of the crisis. Far from improving agricultural productivity or helping the poor, it has contributed to a humanitarian crisis that is deeper than any in recent times; far from learning from elsewhere, it ignores international recommendations and the Zimbabwean Government's own principles, which were adopted at international conferences.
It was clear at independence that land reform was needed. Since independence, Britain has provided £500 million in bilateral support for development work in Zimbabwe and £47 million specifically for land reform, of which £3 million was returned because of a lack of specific proposals on land reform. We have not reneged on the Lancaster house commitments and we continue to want land reform, but Zimbabwe needs reforms that benefit the poor, not Mugabe's henchmen, which is one of the reasons why there are particular problems in rural areas.
The situation of the ordinary people in Zimbabwe in rural and indeed urban areas is increasingly difficult. Food shortages affecting nearly 7 million people—more than half the population—have been well publicised but that is just one aspect of the crisis facing the poor. Access to official assistance for education, Government food aid, justice and medical treatment can depend on where people live and, as the hon. Gentleman said, which party
822
they support. Constitutional rights are being abused by the very institutions of state responsible for their protection.
Zimbabwe has the fastest collapsing economy in the world. Falling exports mean that there is little foreign exchange to buy food, fuel or power. Jobs are disappearing. Officially, inflation is 228 per cent. and growing at about 10 per cent. a month. Even for those with cash, prices are rising rapidly and basic goods are often unavailable except on the black market. Attempts to control prices and to operate subsidies without making financial provision have served only to distort markets and cause shortages and fuel inflation.
In total, about 70 per cent. of people live below the poverty line. People are increasingly dependent on informal livelihoods and food aid. Many skilled Zimbabweans are opting for emigration in the hope of a better life.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Keeble: Yes.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It is not the convention to have interventions from the Opposition Front Bench.
Ms Keeble: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I will come on to some of the specific points about food aid. It is also important to set some of the difficulties in the wider context. I know that hon. Members have raised questions about the Government's approach more generally to what is happening in Zimbabwe. It is important to take this opportunity to deal with those concerns, but I will of course deal with the remarks of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, too.
As the hon. Gentleman said, my Department provides substantial support for Zimbabwe. We are the second largest bilateral donors and have made substantial increases in assistance to protect the poor and vulnerable. Our programme is now entirely focused on humanitarian assistance.
The new maize harvest is improving the position in Zimbabwe in the short term but the Zimbabwean Government have failed to import significant volumes of food or to help some areas for many months. Areas where there has been no harvest will continue to depend on international aid throughout the year. We expect a serious national food shortage to re-emerge by the end of the year. As yet, the Zimbabwean Government have not given any plan for tackling it.
The international relief effort over the past year, led by the United Nations World Food Programme, has been substantially successful within the terms in which it can operate: providing humanitarian assistance. The US, the EC and the UK have been the major donors.
A national survey of health and nutrition status shows that there has been only a slight increase in the rate of malnutrition overall. Of course, any loss of life is extremely harsh. Many lives have been lost through AIDS—about 3,000 a month—but there has been little evidence of deaths related solely to malnutrition,. Of

823
course, many other conditions are associated with the circumstances and humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe, which will, sadly, produce deaths.
In addition to funding food assistance, the donors have funded monitoring programmes to examine carefully the way in which our assistance is provided and its effectiveness at reaching people in the front line. We have difficulties, because the Zimbabwean Government also produce a large amount of food aid, about which I shall speak briefly later. We are not provided with information about the way in which that aid is distributed, and there is a substantial question mark over it.
The Zimbabwean Government must play a major role in providing food assistance but, as has been said, that role is biased. The Zimbabwean Government were the largest importer of food overall in 2002, but—as the hon. Gentleman highlighted—there was no transparency in the way in which they distributed their food stocks and there were widespread complaints that they were both biased and corrupt.
By contrast, the food aid provided by the UN and by donors, including DFID, is not distributed through Government channels and is allocated strictly on the basis of humanitarian need. The international efforts are closely monitored to ensure that this humanitarian approach is maintained. All of DFID's humanitarian effort has been independent of the Zimbabwean Government.
I note the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the Binga area. We were aware of the disruption caused to food distribution there, in particular the distribution through Save the Children and the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, which have been feeding about 90 per cent. of the local population. We understood that the concerns had been resolved to a great extent and that the food aid had been resumed. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman will not want to disclose the identities of those who provided him with information, but I shall check what he said and provide him with written assurances about the area. However, our information was that the problems had been resolved, or at least that the feeding programmes had been resumed.
Chris Grayling: That is the nub of the point. It is my constituent's belief that her information is precisely that. However, it is simply a question of whether the sources of information are giving a true reflection of the realities on the ground. It may not be easy to check that, but it would be helpful if the Department looked at ways of doing that.
Ms Keeble: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He will understand that, in such a situation—where people are operating in an extremely difficult environment and depend on donors who have to operate under great
824
pressure—we are confident that we have monitoring regimes in place. Our food aid does not go through the corrupt political channels; but if there are allegations to the contrary, they must be looked at and checked and I shall certainly make sure that that happens. I have the greatest respect for the work that our people do in Zimbabwe and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that our information is the best we have, based on careful distribution and monitoring arrangements.
One of our concerns about the coming year is that the Zimbabwean Government's food imports are likely to be reduced because the economic crisis means that they have fewer resources available for foreign purchases. The task for the international community might be as large as, or greater than, it has been during the last year.
I wish to deal briefly with the pressure that the UK has applied, a concern raised by the Conservative party. The British Government have spoken out for a long time about democratic rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe. We have supported EU and Commonwealth attempts at dialogue and eventual censure, and debate at the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. The EU renewed targeted sanctions against 79 members of the ZANU-PF leadership in February.
The EU issued declarations on Zimbabwe in February and March, expressing concern at the increasing incidence of arrests, inhuman treatment and torture of members of the opposition and of civil society, and called on the Government of Zimbabwe to respect human rights and to end the harassment and violence that have become such a part of the political landscape. We are also working with others in the international community to lobby for change in the economic and social policies that are at the root of the crisis. We will of course continue to bring pressure to bear. The recent increase in violence and political retribution has shocked other African leaders, who have publicly supported Zimbabwe until now. We therefore very much welcome the efforts of the Presidents of South Africa, Nigeria and Malawi to generate genuine interparty dialogue and to find a way forward for the people of Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe's crisis and the increase in poverty are the results of adherence to ill-judged and failed policies, and of the disastrous regime of Robert Mugabe. Economic mismanagement has led to shortages of food and fuel, high and rising inflation, a rapid increase in unemployment, a fall in real incomes and, as the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell has outlined, disastrous consequences for some of the poorest people in Zimbabwe. The failed land reform—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Africa
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development whether the United Kingdom will raise at the G8 Evian Summit the failure to reach agreement within the WTO to amend the TRIPS agreement to provide affordable access to medicines to Africa's poor; and whether the UK will seek to obtain at Evian a recommitment to this policy by all G8 countries. [113632]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government is concerned by the continued lack of progress on this issue. We are actively working with our WTO partners, including members of the G8, to reach a satisfactory agreement as soon as possible and hopefully in advance of the 5th WTO Ministerial Conference in Cancun, Mexico in September.

  At the G8 Evian Summit leaders will discuss both the current blockage in the WTO TRIPS and Public Health negotiations as well as the broader issue of access to medicines. We hope to secure further positive action on these important issues.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development how many United Kingdom companies involved in extractive industries in Africa have disclosed their payments to host governments as envisaged in the UK implementation plans for the G8 Africa Action plan; and if she will make a statement. [113644]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK is working to persuade relevant stakeholders to join the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). This would encourage producer and host countries to allow company disclosure of payments and to disclose revenues.

  Ministers, CEOs and high-level representatives will be attending a conference in London on 17 June to agree a statement of principles underpinning EITI and to agree actions on how to take it forward.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development whether the Government has(a) hosted a pre-Evian international meeting to discuss the contribution of extractive industry to transparency and accountability in Africa, (b) developed a framework to promote transparency of payments based on World Bank technical work and (c) persuaded (i) other governments and (ii) oil and mining companies to join this initiative. [113645]
  508W
  Hilary Benn
  DFID's Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) team has hosted two pre-Evian international meetings:A multi-stakeholder workshop was held in February 2003 to develop a framework to promote transparency that would be practical and effective in countries heavily dependent on oil, gas and mining;
  Moving forward from this, a technical workshop was held in May 2003 to allow stakeholders to review the draft reporting guidelines that have been prepared for the piloting of new approaches to data disclosure. Country level meetings are also being planned which complement this.

  Ministers, CEOs and high-level representatives of the stakeholder groups have been invited to a conference in London on 17 June to agree a statement of the principles underpinning EITI and to agree actions to take forward the initiative.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development when a Commonwealth Development Corporation African Fund was established; how much it intends to invest in African businesses; how much this will increase its investment in Africa; and whether the Commonwealth Development Corporation intends to mirror the G8 proposal to devote half its resources to Africa. [113610]

  Hilary Benn
  Under the 1999 Act, the Commonwealth Development Corporation became a public limited company, registered as CDC Group pic, and trading as CDC Capital Partners.

  In August 2002, it was announced that, from 2003, CDC would organise its investment activities through specialised funds. This reorganisation is progressing well and it is intended that fund raising will start later this year. One of these funds will be dedicated to Africa.

  In the meantime, CDC continues to make investments in Africa. In the past six months, CDC has taken ownership of power assets in Tanzania and South Africa; financed the management buy-out of a leading Egyptian consumer business; made a further investment in Uganda's leading private sector bank; and provided expansion capital to a leading agribusiness exporter in Kenya.

  CDC Group plc operates under an investment policy, agreed with DFID, which requires that at least 50 cent, of its new investments are in, or for the benefit of, the countries of sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia and that 70 per cent, of new investments must be in, or for the benefit of, the poorer developing countries (which of course includes most of sub-Saharan Africa). It is not planned to revise these targets in the foreseeable future.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what assistance the Commonwealth Business Council has given to the New Partnership for Africa's Development-NEPAD-Business Group. [113611]

  Hilary Benn
  The Commonwealth Business Council (CBC) helped to establish, and is a member of the NEPAD Business Group (NBG). NBG comprises leading business organisations who have a broad constituency—both inside and outside Africa—and are committed to helping the continent realise its full
  509W
  economic potential. The Group acts as a medium between NEPAD and private companies who support its aims.

  The NEPAD Heads of Government Implementation Committee at the African Union Summit approved the NBG as its business partner, and set up a special committee of the NEPAD Steering Group to work with CBC. CBC has established a Project Support Unit, to which DFID has contributed £117,000 of funding. The Unit is conducting national consultations with African businesses, policy analyses, and the development of action plans which map out the constraints and opportunities for the private sector to influence the NEPAD process.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what assistance her Department is giving to expand digital opportunities in Africa. [113612]

  Hilary Benn
  Through partnerships with others, DFID is supporting four key initiatives that seek to build digital opportunities. First, Imfundo: Partnership for IT in Education 2001–06 (£7 million) works with civil society organisations, the private sector, global agencies and academic institutions to enhance initiatives that support universal equitable basic education. Second, Catalysing Access to ICTs in Africa (CATIA) 2003–06 (£8.8 million). This project promotes reform and affordable access to ICTs across Africa and forms part of our response to the G8 Africa Action Plan. Third, Building Digital Opportunities 2001-2004 (£7 million); this global initiative has strong African components and covers a range of ICT issues from regulatory issues to inclusion for the poor through links with traditional media such as community radio. And fourth, the African Virtual University (AVU) 2002–04 (£2 million). The AVU's goal is to reach all students in Africa who would like to attend university but are unable to do so because of costs and distance.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what new initiatives have been taken by G8 countries to support the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals for education in African Countries which are not yet reforming, with particular reference to(a) Nigeria and (b) Democratic Republic of Congo; and what additional funding has been made available for education in African countries already covered by the World Bank's Fast Track initiative. [113613]

  Hilary Benn
  Between 2002 and 2007 we intend to spend £1.3 billion on basic education, subject to agreeing high quality programmes with our partners. Of this, about £500 million will go to Africa. This figure of £1.3 billion compares favourably with the £700 million committed to Universal Primary Education since 1997.

  There is broad consensus among international agencies that greater harmonisation of resources will increase aid effectiveness. We will work with G8 to ensure that they increase support and resources to meet the education MDGs. Our approach to Nigeria and DRC is to support long-term change while supporting rapid improvements in education delivery. In Nigeria we have committed £12.5 million of technical support to help 16 Nigerian states with their plans for Universal
  510W
  Basic Education alongside $100 million of financial support from the World Bank. In the DRC, DFID has agreed to support an education adviser within the World Bank office in Kinshasa and to provide additional support to the education planning process. We will consider supporting education following the conclusion of the peace agreement.

  Our approach to the Fast Track Initiative (FTI) is to ensure that it focuses on encouraging Governments with large numbers of children out of school to develop credible education plans that will enable them to achieve the aim of universal primary education. We have successfully pressed for the inclusion of those countries with the most children out of school—like India (with 30 million children out of school), Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo. A working group of which DFID is a member has been established to take this forward. In countries where we are engaged, we will consider increasing our support in the context of their PRSP and Medium-Term Expenditure Framework. We will continue to be involved in the Fast Track Initiative at all levels but do not envisage diverting existing commitments in order to support specific Fast Track Initiative proposals.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development how much(a) in cash terms and (b) as a percentage of the Department's total expenditure her Department has spent in Africa in each year since 1997–98; and how much it will spend in Africa this year and in each of the next three years. [113627]

  Hilary Benn
  Since 1997–98 DFID has spent in Africa(a) in cash terms (£m) and (b) as a percentage of the Department's total programme expenditure:

  Year

  (a)

  (b)

  1997–98

  297

  15.0

  1998–99

  398

  17.4

  1999–2000

  402

  16.1

  2000–01

  586

  21.6

  2001–02

  499

  17.4

  2002–031

  657

  19.9

  1 2002–03 figures are provisional

  DFID's budget is only set until 2005–06, the last year covered by the 2002 Spending Review. In line with the Government's commitment to spend £1 billion in Africa by 2006, DFID's planned expenditure in Africa for each year as far as 2005–06 is as follows:

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  In cash terms (£m)

  686

  854

  1,043

  As a percentage of the Department's total programme expenditure

  19.0

  23.8

  24.0

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what the timetable is for completing Poverty Reduction Framework Agreements with(a) Ethiopia, (b) Ghana, (c) Mozambique, (d) Sierra Leone, (e) Tanzania and (f) Uganda; and if she will make a statement on plans for such agreements with other countries. [113631]

  Hilary Benn
  Ten-year partnerships, now known as country Memoranda of Understanding, were agreed with the Government of Sierra Leone in November 2002
  511W
  and the Government of Ethiopia in January 2003. The first such Memorandum was signed with the Government of Rwanda in April 1999. It is expected that a country Memorandum of Understanding will be agreed with the Government of Tanzania later this year. In Uganda, a memorandum is being considered with the Government but finalisation will await the revision in late 2003 of the national Poverty Eradication Action Plan with which it will be aligned. Country Memoranda are also being actively considered in Ghana and Mozambique but no timetable has been set. The Department will consider entering in to such long-term partnerships with other African governments that demonstrate strong commitment to the goal of poverty eradication, have appropriate policies in place and, are building the capacity to deliver effective programmes.

  Coffee
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development how the Department is helping producer countries capture more value from agricultural commodities, including coffee. [114328]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) to PQ113512, on 19 May 2003.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what steps the Department is taking to help small coffee producers in developing countries(a) to diversify into alternative livelihoods following the decline in world coffee prices and (b) to gain organic certification for their coffees. [113508]

  Hilary Benn
  UK development assistance is provided on a bilateral basis to a significant number of coffee producing countries including Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda. UK bilateral assistance to these six countries in 2001–2 amounted to £200 million. Additional financial resources are also provided through multilateral channels including the European Commission's external aid programme and the Common Fund for Commodities. UK support to poverty reduction strategies, and other national strategic planning processes, provides an important contribution to livelihood diversification in many coffee dependent countries.

  Through our membership of the International Coffee Organisation (ICO) the UK is also supporting the development of an ICO diversification programme. The aim is to undertake specific projects to generate other sources of earnings for growers, such as by the introduction of new crops, without eliminating coffee growing itself.

  It does not necessarily follow that organic certification will deliver improved livelihoods for poor coffee producers. It is important that careful consideration is given to ensuring that any additional premium generated from the production and sale of organic produce justifies any additional costs that may be incurred, including associated certification costs. In 2000, DFID financed a study to examine the opportunities and constraints for resource poor farmers in organic production and trade. DFID is also supporting a coffee certification feasibility analysis in Uganda.
  512W
  John Barrett
  To ask the Minister of State for Internationa] Development what representations he will make to EU Commissioner Nielson on the use of unspent EU aid money to compensate poor countries for the fall in coffee prices through(a) assisting the International Coffee Organisation in monitoring coffee quality, (b) increasing aid to boost coffee farmers' market power and (c) helping them diversify to the production of other crops. [113510]

  Hilary Benn
  The funds in question refer to resources available from the now expired Lome Convention. However, it is important to recognise that these funds, while not disbursed, are currently allocated to other activities. Until such commitments are actually spent, financial resources remain with Member State Treasuries. In the case of the UK, they are spent on poverty reduction activities elsewhere. The European Commission does not maintain a fund of unused finances beyond normal balances needed for cash management purposes.

  However, from an efficiency point of view, the Commission needs to provide more information about old and undisbursed commitments that could and should be recommitted elsewhere to fund other development activities through bilateral or multilateral channels. The mid-term reviews of EC Country Strategies starting in 2004, will give each country an opportunity to reassess their own priorities and requirements, and could allow reallocation of existing commitments. The Secretary of State will make this point at the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 19 to 20 May 2003, at which Commissioner Nielson will be present.

  We would be willing to support, within the framework of poverty reduction programmes or other appropriate national planning processes, efforts by the Commission to direct any released funds to activities that facilitate livelihood diversification in poor countries including those dependent on coffee.

  The market power of coffee producers is partly a function of their capacity to negotiate improved terms with other market participants. There are a number of ways in which EU aid could be applied to achieve this. This includes support provided within the framework of poverty reduction programmes.

  The EU is supportive of the ICO Quality Initiative. Progress with implementation of the Quality Initiative is currently being discussed by the Working Group on Commodities (PROBA) at which the UK is represented by DEFRA. At this point in time, the priority must be to encourage the full participation and commitment of all major coffee consuming and producing countries to the Initiative.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development if the UK Government will financially support moves taken by producer countries to reduce stocks on the coffee markets in order to raise the market price. [113511]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK Government remain sceptical about proposals to finance the reduction of stocks of surplus coffee. A voluntary cut in total global production that results in a better balance between coffee supply and demand is the only feasible means to achieve an improvement in coffee prices. It is also important to
  513W
  recognise that any arrangement that promotes an increase in market prices in the absence of strict disciplines on production is likely to be short-lived as producers will respond to increased prices through an expansion in output. For these reasons we do not intend to finance or compensate producer countries in respect of any stock reduction programme they undertake.

  The Coffee Retention Scheme agreed by the Association of Coffee Producing Countries was intended to raise coffee prices, by retaining a set proportion of coffee supplies destined for export. The Scheme was formally abandoned in 2002 as producer members were unable to work out a mechanism of control over coffee prices. The International Coffee Organisation also used to operate a quota system whereby coffee supplies in excess of consumer requirements were withheld from the market. However, changes in the pattern of supply and demand, resulting in an increase in prices, also led to the collapse of this quota system. This highlights the problems with stock retention schemes.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what steps he is taking to help producer countries capture more value from agricultural commodities, including coffee. [113512]

  Hilary Benn
  We are working to ensure that a greater proportion of "value-added", including through processing, is retained in the developing country of origin. This is reflected in the pressure we are applying to secure a reduction in tariff escalation in developed countries, especially within the European Union. We also provide support to initiatives that contribute to improvements in essential infrastructure (e.g. energy and transport) and we are working to ensure that appropriate legal regulatory frameworks exist to promote investment.

  The UK is also a member of the Common Fund For Commodities (CFC). The CFC finances development projects covering a range of agricultural commodities produced in developing countries, including initiatives to promote vertical diversification in developing producer countries.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development whether the Government plan to support financially moves taken by producer countries to reduce their stocks of low-quality coffee in order to raise the world market price. [114329]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) to PQ 113511, on 19 May 2003.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what assistance the Department is giving to coffee farmers and workers in developing countries; and whether it plans to increase existing levels of support in view of the international coffee crisis. [114330]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK has development programmes in several coffee producing countries with bilateral assistance to Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda amounting in 2001–02 to £200 million.

  The UK supports countries in the development and implementation of their poverty reduction strategies, including nationally owned agricultural diversification
  514W
  plans to help deal with commodity dependence. The UK also supports research in several coffee producing countries aimed at improving the competitiveness of smallholder production.

  We remain concerned about the plight of those whose livelihoods have been, and continue to be, affected by the depressed producer prices that have prevailed in the coffee market over the last few years. Commodity dependence is a complex problem and there is no simple solution.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how the Department is helping coffee producers in developing countries to gain organic certification for their coffee. [114331]

  Hilary Benn
  In 2000, DFID financed a study to examine the opportunities and constraints for resource poor farmers in organic production and trade. DFID is also supporting a coffee certification feasibility analysis in Uganda. It does not necessarily follow that organic certification will deliver improved livelihoods for poor coffee producers. It is important that careful consideration is given to ensuring that any additional premium generated from the production and sale of organic produce justifies any additional costs that may be incurred, including associated certification costs.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what discussions he has had with the EU Development Commissioner regarding the use of unspent EU aid money to compensate African, Caribbean and Pacific countries suffering as a result of the world coffee crisis. [114333]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) to PQ 113510, on 19 May 2003.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the role of(a) financial support for agricultural extension services and (b) the formation of cooperatives, to assist in increasing coffee farmers' market power in developing countries. [113509]

  Hilary Benn
  UK development assistance is provided to a significant number of coffee producing countries. More generally, the UK has supported the strengthening of agricultural research and extension systems over many years both nationally and internationally, including in coffee producing countries. At the developing country level, support to agricultural extension is being integrated into sector-wide reform programmes that receive support from multiple donors, for example in Ghana, Uganda and Mozambique. The UK is also a supporter of the Neuchatel Initiative, a multi-donor group established to achieve convergence on the objectives, methods and means of support for agricultural extension policies. The Neuchatel Group has produced studies on alternative financing mechanisms for agricultural extension involving public and private actors.

  Improved market knowledge and access to information can help to strengthen the negotiating power of farmers. There are a number of routes through

  515W
  which this can be achieved other than through support to formal government agricultural extension service structures.

  The decision to establish a co-operative, or indeed any other organised grouping of people, must be entirely voluntary and based on a shared commitment to particular ideals or objectives. Activities must be bound by agreed rules including those relating to the behaviour and conduct of members and accountability. The lessons from past experience, particularly of the state-led drive to establish co-operatives in Africa in the '70s, highlight the difficulties that can arise when decisions to form a co-operative are imposed by external agents. Having said that, UK development assistance lends support to a range of institutional arrangements as deemed appropriate.

  Dalit People
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what aid to Dalit people and their organisations(a) has been provided in India in each of the past five years and (b) is expected to be provided in 2003–04. [113521]

  Hilary Benn
  The Department for International Development has increasingly focused its aid to support the Government of India in sustainably addressing poverty reduction and targeting the poorest. The Dalit people, who number about 170 million, are particularly disadvantaged. Much of the sectoral work in service provision, such as the DFID-supported Child Environment Programme in water and sanitation of UNICEF or the Urban Services for the Poor programmes in Kolkata and Andhra Pradesh, deliver aid to Dalit people. The District Primary Education Programme, which DFID has supported since 1998, and the Lok Jumbish primary education programme, which DFID has been funding for about four years, both have explicit budget lines on educational needs of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, particularly girls. Through such government programmes, DFID seeks to increase the potential for the far greater resources of the Government of India to address the needs of the poorest, including the Dalits.

  In addition, DFID has a relatively small allocation to civil society organisations, which are required under Indian law to be registered under the Foreign Contributions Registration Act in order to receive foreign contributions. DFID, through its Civil Society Department, has supported a number of UK-based NGOs that work with empowering Dalits. More directly the Poorest Areas Civil Society programme works in most of the 100 poorest districts identified by a Government of India survey that included social criteria. These districts include high levels of Dalits and include many of the districts of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. The PACS programme has made grants to a number of organisations that address issues of discrimination against Dalits and more information on these grants can be obtained from the PACS website www.empowerpoor.org (e.g. grants 7 to "Chetna Vikas" and 8 to "Gramin Evam Nagar Vikas Parishad" among others). This is a new programme and the first grants were made in the UK financial year 2001–02, but are mostly effective in 2002–03 and subsequent years.
  516W
  DFID has also committed 65,000 to the Village Service Trust for four years from 2001–05 for increasing political participation of socially marginalized groups in Theni District, particularly women and Dalits. The Department's support for ActionAid's "Fighting Poverty Together" corporate plan covers work with particularly discriminated groups, including Dalits. Through the Small Grants Scheme, operated by the British High Commission, a grant of £11,000 was made in 1999–2000 to "The Society of Depressed People for Social Justice" in Delhi, creating awareness on legal rights for Dalit women in various slum colonies in Delhi.

  DFID has recently approved the District Health Management and Sector Reform Programme (for the State of Madhya Pradesh) which will invest £18.4 million over the two years 2003–04 and 2004–05 and will seek to target health service provision "more effectively and equitably to address the needs of disadvantaged groups, particularly Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, other vulnerable communities and women".

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what consideration is given to the position of Dalit people in India when bilateral and multilateral aid programmes are considered by the Department for International Development. [113522]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID's programme in India is primarily a bilateral partnership with the Government of India, which itself has a number of Centrally Sponsored Schemes that focus on disadvantaged groups. Recent estimates suggest that the administrative category of "Scheduled Caste", essentially Dalits, has about 9 per cent, higher levels of income poverty than the all-India average of 26.5 per cent, in 1999–2000 and that other indicators also show poorer outcomes than average for Dalits. DFID's overall aim of reducing poverty through supporting appropriate government actions therefore addresses these inequalities of outcomes. DFID is seeking to analyse the non-income barriers to poverty reduction and ways of addressing these. Issues of discrimination against Dalits, Adivasis and Minorities are at the heart of social exclusion and poverty.

  One way DFID seeks to address the position of Dalit peoples when considering bilateral aid is to build in an explicit focus on indicators such as educational or health outcomes for Dalit girls in annual and mid-term reviews of programmes, (even where these involve DFID funding for Government of India programmes, such as the Sarva Shikshya Abhyan primary education programme). To do this, DFID seeks to encourage the collection of disaggregated data that will permit such analysis. This has already been done through the earlier District Primary Education Programme, for example.

  Developing the demand side for reform of services to be more accountable to, and responsive to the needs of, particular groups of the poor and, in particular, Dalits, requires support for their organisations and representatives to be directly involved in policy formulation and programme implementation and monitoring. DFID is looking at ways of supporting such constructive engagement with government.

  Foreign Aid
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what progress has been made with(a) developing and (b) applying performance indicators to measure the effectiveness of (i) donor inputs to poverty reduction strategy papers and (ii) the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. [113618]

  Hilary Benn
  The information is as follows:

  (i) The Rome Declaration on Harmonisation in February this year committed donors to track, and as necessary refine, lead indicators of progress on harmonisation. At the country level, a growing number of donors are in the early stages of developing indicators and processes to monitor the impact of their engagement on poverty reduction in partner countries. Where possible these are built upon the partner countries' own systems to monitor progress against the Poverty Reduction Strategy Plan targets. DFID is developing such indicators as part of their new Country Assistance Plans.

  The Strategic Partnership with Africa (SPA) recently adopted a programme of action to monitor progress made by donors in aligning their support with national poverty reduction strategies (PRSs), and to track the quality and volume of aid flows to Africa. Two working groups have been created to address alignment issues relating to sector programmes and budget support. The working groups are developing a framework for monitoring progress in donor behaviour. The monitoring framework will be implemented in cooperation with the OECD/DAC and the UNECA.

  (ii) The UN Secretary-General has overall responsibility for monitoring and reporting global progress against the Millennium Development Goals. DFID was influential this year in finalising a working set of 48 indicators against which progress towards meeting the Millennium Development Goals will be measured. These indicators (available in Annex 4 of DFID's 2003 Departmental Report) provide a baseline for the UN Secretary-General's report on progress towards the Goals.

  DFID has supported the establishment by the UNDP of a comprehensive Millennium Development Goals Support Programme. It will develop strategies to meet each Goal, help each developing country to monitor progress and feed results into the UN Secretary-General's annual report on progress against the Goals, and link up national and global level campaigning in support of them.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what progress each G7 country has made on(a) untying aid and (b) removing nationality restrictions on technical co-operation direct budgetary support since the Kananaskis summit. [113620]

  Hilary Benn
  All G7 countries have untied their aid to least-developed countries in line with the Recommendation of the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD. Only the UK has removed all nationality restrictions on its aid and we are working in the DAC and elsewhere to encourage other donors to do the same in the interests of greater aid effectiveness.
  518W
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what progress the EU has made since the G8 Kananaskis summit in increasing the percentage of EU aid which is(a) spent in Africa, (b) spent in low income countries and (c) spent on poverty reduction. [113622]

  Hilary Benn
  For 2003 the EC planned to spend approximately 21 per cent, of its budget in Africa. This figure is expected to rise to over 33 per cent, of total European aid payments by 2006.

  Figures giving the percentage of EC aid going to Low Income Countries for 2002 will be available in June.

  Poverty reduction is a key Millennium development goal to which the EC is signed up. However it is not possible to say exactly what the impact of EC aid expenditure will be on poverty.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development how each(a) EU member state and (b) the European Commission will report progress towards the Monterrey commitment that member states should spend an average of 0.39 per cent, of their gross national product on aid by 2006. [113629]

  Hilary Benn
  All Member States report their ODA/GNI ratios annually to the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD. In addition, the European Commission has recently reviewed progress towards the commitment that by 2006, an EU average of gross national income provided as official development assistance will reach 0.39 per cent. A report including this review wil be discussed at the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council in Brussels on 20 May.

  Iraq
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development whether the Department for International Development has formed a medium-term economic plan for Iraq. [113395]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID does not produce medium-term economic plans for any country. These are drafted by national authorities, sometimes with advice from the International Financial Institutions.

  World Bank and International Monetary Fund economic and social needs assessments for Iraq will begin in the coming weeks. Our engagement will reflect the needs highlighted in these assessments.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development(1)if he will make a statement on the delivery of EU aid to Iraq; [113540]

  (2) what the cash value of the EU aid delivered to Iraq since the start of the conflict in the Gulf is. [113478]

  Hilary Benn
  To date EU member states and the European Commission have pledged a total of €730 million (€276 million of which is already committed) for humanitarian aid operations in Iraq. The European Commission Humanitarian Office (ECHO) has a team in Baghdad and expects to open an office by the end of May.
  519W
  DFID has committed £115 million to support work by humanitarian agencies in the current crisis and has set aside a further £95 million to support emerging humanitarian needs.

  Polio
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what additional financial contributions have been made by G8 countries to the Polio Eradication Initiative since the G8 Kananaskis summit; and whether the initiative faces a funding gap. [113615]

  Hilary Benn
  The Polio Eradication Initiative has a financial resource gap of US$275 million (as of year end). The UK has committed $25 million to closing this funding gap. Canada has pledged US$32 million. Other G8 members including the European Commission have shown interest in providing additional funds, though exact figures have yet to be determined.

  We have on a number of occasions pressed G8 countries to fulfil the commitments made in Kananaskis, to raise sufficient resources to eradicate polio in Africa by 2005 and will continue to do so.

  We believe eradication is achievable, but will require resources and commitment from a broad partnership base. Discussions have been held with a variety of other stakeholders as well as the G8.

  Sierra Leone
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made with(a) governance reform and (b) transparent economic management, including the transparent management of diamonds, in Sierra Leone. [113639]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government of Sierra Leone is taking forward a wide-ranging programme of governance reform. In particular it has established an Anti-Corruption Commission, addressed essential reforms in the security sector, and begun the important process of decentralisation. Progress is being made, but is affected by limitations on local capacity.

  Support for governance reform is central to our assistance to Sierra Leone. We provide extensive support for reform in the security sector, including the armed forces, police and intelligence services. We are also supporting the Governance Reform Secretariat (GRS), which reports to the Office of the President and leads co-ordination of both central and local government reform. Through the GRS we have supported diagnostic studies of four key ministries to provide guidance on measures to improve their effectiveness. A second phase of this programme is being designed. We have assisted the re-establishment of the chieftaincy system. We are also assisting with the preparations for local elections and plans for decentralisation of government. We provide substantial support for the work of the Anti-Corruption Commission, strengthening of the judiciary and law reform, and media development. We are designing major projects to promote access to justice and to strengthen the role of civil society.
  520W
  The Government of Sierra Leone has made significant progress in economic management, which has been acknowledged by the international financial institutions. We are working to help improve public financial management. We are represented on a donor/government public financial management working group which has been established to oversee improvements in a number of key areas including internal and external audit, financial management information systems, and procurement procedures. We plan to provide assistance to the Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament to help ensure transparent economic management of government and donor funds. We have also supported Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys.

  A UK adviser to the President has prepared a draft strategy for the diamond sector. We plan to work with the Government of Sierra Leone and other donors to gain broad commitment to implementation of the strategy.

  Sudan
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the contribution made by her Department(a) bilaterally and (b) multilaterally with the UN, World Bank and EU on (i) post-war reconstruction in the Sudan,(ii)dealing with Sudan's debt and (iii) developing a poverty reduction strategy paper for Sudan. [113626]

  Hilary Benn
  (i) With others in the international community, we are now planning for the hard work of recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction in Sudan when there is peace. In preparing for peace, we are coordinating closely with other donor countries, the UN, World Bank, IMF and INGOs. When there is a peace agreement, we intend to double our assistance to Sudan to a level of about £20 million. Key priorities for our bilateral programme will be:to respond to expanding humanitarian needs;
  to support for "quick start" projects that will demonstrate early benefits of the peace to the Sudanese—largely be through improved services at the community level;
  to broaden the consensus for peace through work with civil society; and
  to support ceasefire monitoring operations and demobilisation of the armed forces.

  (ii) The UK has agreed to chair a Support Group of donors to Sudan, to be launched when there is peace, in order to assist the new Government of Sudan through the difficult process of arrears clearance and debt relief. As a first step, the UK will host a workshop for donors this month, to raise awareness of the debt problem.

  (iii) The current Government of Sudan is working on a first draft of an interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. However, such a strategy will not be credible in the absence of a peace agreement. In addition, the strategy should be produced jointly with the Sudan People's Liberation Movement and prepared in consultation with the wider Sudanese political spectrum and Sudanese civil society. We are encouraging the Government of Sudan to broaden its work on the strategy in this way.

  Water Supplies (Palestine)
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the destruction by Israeli military forces of Well No C67 in Beit Hanoun, Gaza, on 26 April, and the impact of the destruction of the well on the availability and quality of water supplies to the local Palestinian population; and what representations he is making to the Israeli Government on the matter. [113595]

  Hilary Benn
  I do not have details of the particular water source in question. It is nevertheless clear that destruction of infrastructure as a result of Israeli Military activity in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is adversely affecting public services, including water and wastewater. In addition, closures and curfews imposed by the Government of Israel mean that Palestinian maintenance crews are unable to conduct necessary routine maintenance, and water tankers are unable to service Palestinian communities without networks. This has left many Palestinians without access to reliable water supplies for extended periods of time and is leading to concerns about public health in affected areas.

  We are working closely with the Palestinian Water Authority to support their activities to supply water to all sections of the population. We continue, both bilaterally and through the EU, to make representations at the highest level to the Government of Israel about damage to Palestinian infrastructure caused by Israeli military activity. We are also working closely with colleagues in the region, and across Whitehall, to encourage the Israeli Government to ease closures and curfews.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Air Quality
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many days of(a) moderate, (b) high and (c) very high air pollution were recorded at Lullington Heath, East Sussex, in each year since 1997. [114264]

  Alun Michael
  Monitoring of ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide is undertaken at the Lullington Heath monitoring station. The surrounding area is open rural landscape and the nearest road is approximately 1 km distant from the site. The number of days of(a) moderate, (b) high and (c) very high air pollution recorded in each year since 1997 are given in the table below. The only incidents of moderate or higher air pollution were recorded for ozone at Lullington Heath. There were no incidents of very high pollution.

  Number of days

  Moderate

  High

  Very high

  2002

  41

  0

  0

  2001

  53

  2

  0

  2000

  43

  0

  0

  1999

  83

  5

  0

  1998

  47

  1

  0

  1997

  77

  3

  0

  Animal By-products
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what steps she has taken to monitor the practical consequences of the implementation of the EU Animal By-Products Regulation for(a) the disposal of blood from abattoirs, (b) the disposal of fallen stock, (c) the disposal of catering waste to land and (d) the disposal of food waste from small retailers; and if she will make a statement; [110894]

  (2) if she will establish a joint working party including representatives from Government and industry to monitor the implementation of the EU Animal By-Products Regulation. [110895]

  Margaret Beckett
  DEFRA has worked closely with industry representatives and enforcement bodies during the negotiations on the EU Animal By-Products Regulation to identify practical difficulties, and where possible to secure transitional measures to give industry time to make the changes necessary to comply with the new requirements.

  The Department is in close touch with the enforcement authorities and has requested that they take a proportionate approach to enforcement. We want to encourage all affected sectors to make every effort to comply with the requirements of the Regulation, however, it is recognised that it may take a little time for new disposal facilities to come on stream.

  We will continue to meet with the affected sectors to discuss the progress being made and problems that arise.

  There are no plans to establish a formal working party, however regular meetings with stakeholders will continue during the first year of implementation, just as they did during the negotiating phase. A meeting is planned shortly to enable Ministers to discuss these issues with retailers.

  Anti-fraud Regulations
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the nature of the support intended by Commission Regulation (E2) 44/2003, 10th January, OJ L7 Vol 46, 11 th January, with particular reference to combating fraud. [112495]

  Alun Michael
  This regulation relates to the export refund system—a CAP market support measure intended to allow EU traders to sell competitively outside the Community. Under the export refund system, eligibility to refund is, in many cases, established when the exporter provides proof that the goods have been imported into a particular destination. In the UK, the export refund system is administered by the Rural Payments Agency which is an Executive Agency of DEFRA.

  Investigations by the Commission's anti-fraud arm, OLAF, indicated widespread irregularities in the import of beef, veal and pigmeat products into the territory of the Russian Federation. These irregularities were thought to be attributable to the unreliability of documentation produced by the Russian customs authorities.
  523W
  Consequently, OLAF brokered an agreement with the Russian authorities. This was partly intended as an anti-fraud measure and partly in recognition of the problems EU traders were experiencing in obtaining proof of import.

  This agreement was enacted by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2584/2000. It established a mechanism for communicating information on the movement of goods between the EU and the Russian Federation. The mechanism made it possible for EU authorities to trace exports by road of the products concerned to the Russian Federation and, where appropriate, detect cases in which the requirements for the payment of export refund were not met.

  The regulation was amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 44/2003. This extends the agreement, from 1 June 2003, to cover all types of transport. More importantly, it introduces a provision whereby a confirmation from the Russian authorities that the goods have arrived may be regarded as the primary proof of import for the payment.of export refund. Prior to the amendment, such a response could be considered only in conjunction with other supporting evidence. This new provision should ease the administrative burden on EU exporters and authorities while at the same time ensuring effective control of the export refund system.

  The UK trade has been kept fully informed of developments in this regard via the Rural Payments Agency's Notices to Traders 1/01 and 36/03 (pertaining to Regulations 2584/2000 and 44/2003 respectively).

  Birds
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on species of carrion-eating birds of the implementation of the EU Animal By-Products Regulation; and if she will make a statement. [109851]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Regulation permits member states to authorise the feeding of Animal By-Products which do not contain SRM to captive birds of prey. The UK intends to exercise this derogation.

  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.

  Countryside Agency
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much money she has provided to the Countryside Agency in each of the years of its existence for which figures are available. [111644]

  Alun Michael
  The following amounts of grant in aid have been allocated to the Countryside Agency since its creation in 1999.524W

  £million

  1999–2000

  48.7

  2000–01

  55.8

  2001–02

  71.5

  2002–03

  94

  2003–04

  98

  Electronic Mapping (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made in introducing electronic mapping in Leicestershire; and if she will make a statement. [114274]

  Alun Michael
  For the reporting period ending 9 May 2003, 89 per cent, of IACS applicants in Leicestershire have had their fields digitised. Of the total 1,446 holdings, 1,090 have received their initial maps. The project is due for completion early in 2004.

  Environment Agency
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list(a) the members of the Board of Directors of the Environment Agency and their declared party political affiliations and (b) appointments made to the Board of Directors of the Environment Agency since 1 May 1997 and their declared party political affiliations. [111105]

  Mr. Meacher
  The current Board members are:

  Sir John Harman (Chairman)

  Barbara Young (Chief Executive)

  Councillor Colin Beandwood

  Mr. Ted Cantle

  Mr. Andrew Dare CBE

  Mr. John Edmonds

  Professor Richard Macrory CBE

  Mr. Gerald Manning OBE

  Professor Peter Matthews

  Professor Jacqueline McGlade

  Ms Sara Parkin OBE

  Professor Donald Ritchie

  Dr. Lyndon Stanton

  Mr. Gareth Wardell

  Professor Lynda Warren

  Members of the Environment Agency's Board are required to complete questions in their application form about political activity, and not their political affiliation unless they are politically active. These application forms are held by my Department, and four reflect political activity at the time of appointment. Sir John Harman has declared his affiliation to the Labour Party, but resigned his party political positions after being appointed as Chairman of the Agency's Board. In her application for the post of Chief Executive, which carries with it automatic membership of the Board, Baroness Young listed her position as working Labour peer, but she resigned the Whip upon her appointment. John Edmonds has declared membership of the Labour Party National Policy Forum and Commission, and Councillor Colin Beardwood has declared that he is

  525W
  a member of the Labour Party and serves on Worcestershire County Council and West Midlands Regional Chamber.

  Gareth Wardell, who was the Labour MP for Gower until May 1997, was appointed by the then Secretary of State for Wales.

  No other Board member who has been appointed since 1 May 1997 has declared any party political activity. The only appointments made to the Board since 1 May 1997, excluding the above, were Mr. Alan Dalton and Mr Chris Hampson, the latter on his appointment as Deputy Chair of the Board. They have completed their appointments and are no longer on the Board.

  Consent reference number

  Consent holder and crop

  Nearest village, town or parish

  Grid reference of release site

  99/R21/6

  Novartis Seeds Ltd

  Stone, Worcestershire

  SO 853 748

  (now Syngenta)

  Ramsey, Cambridgeshire

  TL 293 877

  Fodder beet

  Bradenham, Narfolk

  TF 933 084

  Raynham,Norfolk

  TF 887 258

  Banham, Norfolk

  TM 072 889

  00/R33/6

  Aventis CropScience UK Ltd

  Bramham, North Yorks

  SE 446 418

  (now Bayer CropScience UK Ltd)

  Shellingford, Oxon

  SU 306 945

  Oilseed rape

  Thorganby, Lincolnshire

  TF 192 965

  Sand Hutton, North Yorks

  SE 675 583

  Meden Vale, Notts

  SK 604 706

  Felton, Herefordshire

  SO 561 486

  Melbourn, Cambrifgeshire

  TL 389 428

  Piccots End, Hertfordshire

  TL 049 095

  Banham, Norfolk

  TM 088 883

  01/R8/4

  IACR Rothamsted

  Harpenden, Hertfordshire

  TL 124 136

  (now Rothamsted Research) Wheat

  01/R29/3

  John Innes Centre Barley

  Colney, Norfolk

  TG 179 077

  02/R4/12

  Advanced Technologies (Cambridge) Ltd. Potato

  Thornhaugh, Peterborough

  TF 074 009

  02/R36/01

  IACR-Long Ashton

  Harpenden, Hertfordshire

  TL 124 136

  (now Rothamsted Research) Wheat

  01/R33/11

  Aventis CropScience Ltd.

  Little Bolligton, Cheshire

  SJ 714 872

  (now Bayer CropScience Ltd.)

  Great Moulton, Norfolk

  TM 165 902

  Oilseed rape

  Alveston/Loxley, Warks

  SP 231 535

  Farm Scale evaluations

  Piccotts End, Hertfordshire

  TL 048 098

  Bincombe, Dorset

  SY 692 841

  Narfferton, East Riding of Yorks

  TA 015 620

  Burdon, Tyne and Wear

  NZ 205 367

  Oakenshaw, Durham

  NZ 205 367

  Hinton Waldrist,Oxon

  SU 379 993

  Smarden, Kent

  TQ 882 397

  Throganby, Lincolnshire

  TF 213 972

  Burgh on Bain, Lincolnshire

  TF 227 876

  Bagley, Shropshire

  SJ 398 268

  Kilnwick Percy, East Riding of Yorks

  SE 841 497

  Laxton, East Riding of Yorks

  SE 792 276

  Lowthorpe, East Riding of Yorks

  TA 087 602

  Nuclear Waste
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 29 April 2003,Official Report, column 308W, on nuclear waste, what contingency plans are in place to deal with future arisings of low level wastes that cannot be accommodated at Drigg. [112456]

  GM Crop Trials
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the current sites of the GM crop trials; and if she will make a statement. [112930]

  Mr. Meacher
  The table below lists the organisations currently holding consent under part B of Directive 2001/18 to release GM crops for trial purposes in England at the locations shown. Consent 01/R33/11 issued to Aventis CropScience UK Ltd covers the programme of Farm Scale Evaluations of autumn sown oil seed rape. This information is also available on the Defra website. GM crop trials in Scotland are subject to consents issued by the Scottish Executive.

  Mr. Meacher
  The 2001 UK Radioactive Waste Inventory gives the time profile for generation of the 1,490,000m3 of low level waste referred to in my answer of 29 April 2003, Official Report, column 308W. This shows arisings of that waste during the period to 2120 with the majority being produced after 2070. For this reason the currently estimated life of the existing Drigg disposal facility is of the order of 50 years. The capacity of the site and its forecast life will be reviewed by the

  527W
  Environment Agency in light of safety cases provided by the site's operators, British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL). At some future point either extension of Drigg or the identification of another disposal site will be necessary. Further consideration can begin to be given to this once the outcome of the Environment Agency's review of the safety cases is known, around mid-2004. The outcome will provide vital information for consideration of disposal capacity, as well as providing a basis for the Agency's review of the Drigg disposal authorisation.

  Packaging
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has undertaken of the success of industry-based packaging minimisation programmes; and what action she will take to disseminate examples of good practice in the industry. 113180]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have recently asked my officials to look into minimisation of packaging and as part of this, the Advisory Committee on Packaging is setting up a Task Force to look into this issue, including looking at current examples of minimisation as well as ways of further encouraging this.

  The DTI is commissioning a study to examine the impact of the Essential Requirements regulations on waste minimisation.

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of packaging regulations in encouraging the minimisation of waste arising from packaging. [113188]

  Mr. Meacher
  As a result of the packaging Regulations, the amount of packaging waste going to landfill has fallen from 6.9 million tonnes in 1998 to 4.8 million tonnes in 2001. This figure is expected to continue falling as we set higher recycling targets in the future.

  Recycling
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the highest recycling rate is that has been achieved in England and Wales in areas which do not receive regular separate collections of recyclable and non-recyclable waste. [111862]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 May 2003]: Estimates based on 2000–01 Municipal Waste Management Survey data indicate that the highest household waste recycling rate achieved in a local authority area which does not receive kerbside recycling collections in England was 23 per cent.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average recycling rate is for households in England and Wales which(a) are provided with separate collections of recyclable and non-recyclable waste and (b) receive only a single collection of mixed waste. [111863]
  528W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 May 2003]: Local authorities frequently operate separate household recycling collections in only part of their area. The Municipal Waste Management Survey for 2000–01 shows in England:

  Percentage

  Households served by some form of separable collection of recyclable and non-recyclable waste

  Average recycling rate

  80

  15

  20–80

  11

  below 20

  8

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the proportion of homes that will require separate collections of recyclable and non-recyclable waste in order that(a) 30 per cent., (b) 33 per cent. and (c) 50 per cent, of households waste in England and Wales is recycled. [111864]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 May 2003]: No estimate has been made of the number of households that will need a regular separate collection of recyclable and non-recyclable waste in order to achieve recycling rates of 30 per cent, 33 per cent, and 50 per cent. However, doorstep recyclate collection is not the only mechanism for enabling us to reach our recycling targets. Increasing the number of, and intensity of use of, bring sites and civic amenity centres, for example, can be used to increase the recycling rate. Local authorities will need to consider a range of options if they are to reach their targets

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of households in England and Wales are provided with separate collections of recyclable and non-recyclable waste. [111865]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 May 2003]: The proportion of households served by kerbside recycling collection schemes in England in 2000–01 was estimated at 51 percent.

  Rural Tourism
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions her Department has had with the Department of Culture, Media and Sport on possible action to encourage rural tourism. [113417]

  Alun Michael
  I last met the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting on 30 April to discuss the paper produced by the Rural Affairs Forum sub-group for Rural Tourism with members of the sub-group. He and I and officials from DEFRA and DCMS are in frequent contact on rural tourism issues.

  Rural Transport
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much money the Countryside Agency has provided to the
  529W
  Rural Transport Partnership in the south west region in each of the years of the existence of the scheme for which figures are available. [111645]

  Alun Michael
  The amounts are as follows:

  £

  2002–03

  2,046,203

  2001–02

  944,569

  2000–01

  492,792

  Timber
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the Environmental Audit Committee's Sixth Report of Session 2001–02, Buying Time for Timber: Timber Trade and Public Procurement; and if she will make a statement on the time taken to reply. [111593]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 7 May 2003]: The Government's response to the Committee's report is not yet ready but I expect it to be made before Parliament's summer recess. I regret that a response has been delayed for so long, and apologise for that to the Committee and will write briefly to give an explanation.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Beilingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what safeguards are in place under current legislation to prevent firms from unfairly discriminating against younger women, and in favour of older women less likely to take advantage of maternity and other benefits; and if she will make a statement. [113497]

  Alan Johnson
  Discrimination on the ground of pregnancy or maternity is a form of direct discrimination on the ground of sex. The courts have interpreted the Sex Discrimination Act as meaning that discrimination on the ground that a person is, or might become, pregnant is unlawful. The amended Equal Treatment Directive published on 5 October 2002 says that less favourable treatment on the grounds of pregnancy and maternity within the meaning of the Pregnant Workers Directive constitutes sex discrimination.

  Business Transfer Regulations
  Mr. Beilingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made over the past two years on her Department's review of the Business Transfer Regulations; what delays have been experienced; and if she will make a statement. [113500]

  Alan Johnson
  In September 2001, the Department issued a formal public consultation document, accompanied by a more detailed background document, setting out policy proposals for the reform of the TUPE Regulations. Responses to that consultation were considered during 2002, and follow-up discussions took place informally with key stakeholders and TUPE interest groups. In December 2002, a further round of 530W
  consultation was launched, in the DWP/Treasury Green Paper "Pensions and the Workplace", on the specific issue of the protection of occupational pension rights on transfer. The outcome of that further consultation is currently under consideration. In the meantime, we announced in February 2003 that we intend to proceed with the other, non-occupational pensions aspects of our proposed reforms. We envisage carrying out a final round of consultation, on draft Regulations (excluding occupational pensions aspects) later this year with the intention of bringing these into force in April 2004.

  Employment Tribunals
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to review the powers of chairmen of employment tribunals to decide which witnesses should be called. [113755]

  Alan Johnson
  There are no plans to review the powers of chairmen to decide which witnesses should be called to appear before an employment tribunal.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recourse a party in an employment tribunal action has where the chairman refuses to issue a witness order. [113756]

  Alan Johnson
  Where an employment tribunal has refused to issue a witness order, an appeal may be brought to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on a point of law.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to increase the penalties for failure to attend an employment tribunal following being served with a witness order; and if she will make a statement. [113758]

  Alan Johnson
  There are no plans to increase the relevant penalty for failure to attend an employment tribunal after being served with a witness order. The legislation specifies a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale (currently set at £1,000).

  Export Licences
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 12 May 2003,Official Report, column 17W, on export licences, what assessment she has made of the problems with the extraterritorial export controls in the United States of America, other than with enforcement; and if she will make a statement on the reasons underlying her assessment that the extraterritorial export controls in the United States are less effective than those proposed in the United Kingdom. [113896]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I am advised that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has not made an assessment of the effectiveness of extraterritorial export controls in the US other than with enforcement, nor has she said that the extraterritorial export controls in the US are less effective that those proposed in the UK.

  Electronic Communications Regulations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received about the Electronic Communications (Universal Service) Regulations. [111730]

  Mr. Timms
  No representations have been received since the Regulations (S.I. 2003/33) were made on 9 January. The Department had however consulted on the subject matter of these Regulations (together with the subject matter of the Electronic Communications (Market Analysis) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/330)) in August 2002 and the Regulations that have been made take account of the responses to that consultation.

  Manufacturing (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has held with the London Chamber of Commerce regarding manufacturing employment within the Greater London area. [113354]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department has regular dialogue with the London Chamber, other London business organisations and with the London Development Agency concerning manufacturing issues and employment issues. In delivering the Government's Manufacturing Strategy with Industry and other stakeholders, we are helping employer and employees to actively engage in the skills development necessary for a successful manufacturing sector.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what definitions are used to categorise(a) high, (b) intermediate and (c) low level nuclear waste; and how much waste was produced in each of the last three years. [112898]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  Radioactive waste is categorised according to its radioactivity content and the heat it produces:
  Low Level Wastes (LLW) contain radioactive materials other than those suitable for disposal with ordinary refuse, but not exceeding 4 GBq/te (gigabecquerels) of alpha or 12 GBq/te of beta/gamma activity—that is, wastes which can be normally be accepted for authorised disposal at Drigg or other landfill sites by controlled burial.
  Intermediate Level Wastes (ILW) contain radioactivity levels exceeding the upper boundaries for LLW, but which do not need heat to be taken into account in the design of storage or disposal facilities.
  High Level Wastes (HLW) are wastes in which the temperature may rise significantly as a result of their radioactivity, so this factor has to be taken into account in designing storage or disposal facilities.

  National Inventories of radioactive wastes are only produced every three years on the grounds of cost, hence no precise figures are available for 1999 and 2000. However, from interpolation of figures in the 1998 and 2001 Inventories, estimates for 1999 and 2000 and precise figures for 2001 are given as follows.
  532W

  HLW

  ILW

  LLW

  1999

  approx 50m3

  approx 1,500m3

  approx 11,000m3

  2000

  approx 50m3

  approx 1,500m3

  approx 11,000m3

  2001

  68m3

  3,026m3

  12,447m3

  Note:

  m3 is a cubic metre

  Post Office
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub post offices in London have been closed in each of the last six months. [113894]

  Mr. Timms
  Post Office Ltd. collates figures for post office openings and closures on a quarterly basis. I am advised that in the London region there were net closures of 21 post offices in the October-December 2002 quarter and 15 net closures (of which 11 were Urban Reinvention programme closures) in the January-March 2003 quarter.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 29 April 2003,Official Report, column 183W, on post offices, when support for over the counter advice provided under the Your Guide pilot by post office staff ceased; and whether those facilities listed as continuing beyond March 2002 in the Your Guide Pilot Evaluation Report continued as set out. [113914]

  Mr. Timms
  The Your Guide pilot ended on 1 March 2002. Over the counter advice and services which were available at post offices prior to the Your Guide pilot, but which were incorporated in the Your Guide service for the duration of the pilot, continue to be available as before.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will establish regional targets for renewable energy development within the 10 per cent, national target. [113975]

  Mr. Wilson
  As stated in the Energy White Paper, we propose to ensure that a strategic approach to energy is developed and implemented in each region. We expect that this strategic approach will include regional targets (such as for renewables and energy efficiency) negotiated between the region and national Government.

  Small Businesses (Regulation)
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with colleagues in the European Union concerning the impact of regulation on small business; and if she will make a statement. [112447]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 12 May 2003]: Discussions on the impact of regulation have been held at every level, including the Competitiveness Council in March attended by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the SME EU ministerial conference in February, and on Tuesday 13 May with Commissioner Liikanen.

  The UK has championed this cause in Europe through "Think Small First", and we have taken action to make the UK the least bureaucratic country in

  533W
  Europe to establish a business in. We also urge our European counterparts to follow the UK's lead in lifting regulatory and other burdens by having the most favourable VAT threshold in Europe, 100 per cent, tax write-offs for SMEs who buy computer equipment and connect to the web, 40 per cent, tax allowances for plant and machinery and a zero starting rate for corporation tax.

  We have also supported the setting up of an independent liaison office in Brussels (smallbusiness/ europe) to represent the concerns of UK SMEs to the EU.

  Temporary Workers
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employment agencies have submitted responses to her Department's consultation paper on the EU Commission proposals for a directive on the working conditions of temporary (agency) workers; and if she will make a statement. [113498]

  Alan Johnson
  15 employment agencies submitted responses to the Consultation On The Proposed Directive on Temporary (Agency) Work.

  The Government are not opposed in principle to the proposed directive on temporary agency work, but are keenly aware of the potential impact on UK agencies and agency workers of a Directive that takes no account of conditions in the UK labour market. The Government are pressing very hard for the UK's legitimate concerns to be recognised.

  Working Time Regulations
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether employees who are(a) serving prison sentences, (b) absent on long-term sickness and (c) absent on sabbaticals and unpaid leave will continue to accrue paid holiday entitlement under the Working Time Regulations; and what plans her Department has to change this. [113495]

  Alan Johnson
  All workers, including employees, are entitled under the Working Time Regulations to take leave during a leave year determined in accordance with the Regulations.

  Whether a worker can receive holiday pay during the absences described in (a) and (c) above, is generally a contractual matter for negotiation between workers and employers. There has been litigation on whether a worker can receive holiday pay during times of long-term sickness absence but this has not yet been resolved by the higher courts.

  Once it has been resolved, the Government will consider whether it is appropriate to amend the Regulations in consequence.

CABINET OFFICE

  Agencies (Chief Executive Officers)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office who the chief executive officer is of the(a) Government Centre for Information Systems, (b) Centre for Management and
  534W
  Policy Studies, (c) Property Advisers to the Civil Estate (PACE) and (d) Charity Commissioners for England and Wales. [112700]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government Centre for Information Systems no longer exists. It became the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA) on 1 April 1996, thus reverting to its original name. The CCTA was incorporated into the Office of Government Commerce when that was set up in April 2000. The CEO of OGC is Peter Gershon.

  The Centre for Management and Policy Studies no longer exists as a separate organisation, having been absorbed into the central Cabinet Office as part of a re-organisation in September 2002. Training and Development programmes are still marketed under the CMPS brand, however, for customer recognition.

  Property Advisers to the Civil Estate (PACE) no longer exists as a separate organisation. PACE was created in April 1996 as an Executive Agency of the Office of Public Service, then part of the Cabinet Office. Responsibility for the Agency transferred to OGC in April 2000. It was abolished at the end of March 2001 and the majority of staff were allocated posts in the realigned OGC. The CEO of OGC is Peter Gershon.

  The Chief Charity Commissioner for England and Wales is Mr. John Stoker.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office 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. [110435]

  Mr. Alexander
  My Department will not be affected by the increase in the national minimum wage. Therefore, the estimated additional costs for 2003–04 will be nil.

  Travel Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the cost was of travel by train by staff in his Department in 2002. [106339]

  Mr. Alexander
  The amount spent on rail travel by the Cabinet Office in the calendar year 2002, was £382,971.61.

PRIME MINISTER

  House of Lords Appointments Commission
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what considerations led him to re-appoint Lord Stevenson as Chair of the House of Lords Appointments Commission; and if he will make a statement; [113592]

  (2) if he consulted the Office of the Commissioner of Public Appointments concerning the re-appointment of Lord Stevenson as chair of the House of Lords Appointments Commission; [113850]
  535W
  (3) whether he has asked the House of Lords Appointments Commission to recommend names for new peers; and if he will make a statement. [113848]

  The Prime Minister
  I hope to make a statement on appointments to the House of Lords Appointments Commission and on related matters shortly. Although appointments to the commission do not come within the remit of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, as a matter of best practice appointments are made in accordance with her Code of Practice.

  Meetings
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last met the Prime Minister of Poland; and if he will make a statement. [113891]

  The Prime Minister
  I last met the Prime Minister of Poland on 16 April at the signing of the EU Accession Treaty in Athens.

  Unsolicited Mail
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Prime Minister how many items of unsolicited mail were dispatched in his name from 10 Downing street in April; and if he will make a statement. [114548]

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware, none in April.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  BBC Charter
  11. Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement about the provisions in the BBC Charter relating to its commercial activities. [113836]

  Dr. Howells
  The BBC's commercial activities are the subject of a number of separate provisions in the Royal Charter and the BBC Governors are required under the Charter and Agreement to ensure that there is no cross-subsidy between the BBC's publicly-funded and its commercial activities. A copy of the Charter is available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Licensing Bill
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many meetings she has had with representatives of the music business about the Licensing Bill. [113837]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have had a number of meetings with representatives of musicians and the music industry including the Musicians' Union, the Music Industry Forum and representatives of the folk arts. We will continue to involve them in discussions about the Bill and its statutory guidance.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations she has received from musicians' organisations about the Licensing Bill. [113843]
  536W
  Dr. Howells
  My Department has received a great deal of correspondence from organisations representing musicians and other performers about the Licensing Bill, most of whom have been concerned that it will restrict their activities. The vast majority of their concerns have been unfounded and based on a misinterpretation of the Bill's provisions. Where we believed that the Bill could be improved, however, we have listened to the concerns expressed to us and have made appropriate amendments, for instance, by exempting places of public religious worship from the licensing regime as it relates to the provision of entertainment and entertainment facilities and by accepting the spirit of an amendment which exempts incidental live music in certain circumstances.

  Regional Television
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations she has received from viewers who are unable to receive their appropriate regional TV programmes because of the transmission network; and if she will make a statement. [113838]

  Dr. Howells
  I understand that my Department has received one recent representation on this issue. In some areas of the UK, it is not possible to receive the appropriate regional television service, on analogue terrestrial television or on digital terrestrial television, owing to a shortage of available frequencies. But appropriate regional services are available to consumers on the digital satellite platform.

  Olympic Games
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the Government's policy towards a London bid for the Olympic Games. [l13839]

  Tessa Jowell
  I set out in a statement to the House on 15 May the Government's decision to offer its wholehearted backing to a London bid to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012.

  This follows a very thorough and detailed review of the likely costs involved and wider impacts of staging the games in 2012 as well as an examination of the potential benefits.

  The challenge now remains to do all we can to support London in winning the nomination as host city for the 2012 Olympics.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the supplementary charge on London council tax which will be necessary to fund a bid for the Olympic Games. [113841]

  Tessa Jowell
  Within the £2.375 billion public funding package for a London 2012 Olympics, the Mayor of London has agreed to contribute up to £625 million towards staging the games through a council tax precept.
  537W
  The Mayor has indicated that for a Band D household the precept would be set at £20 a year or 38p a week. The precept would not come into effect until 2006–07 by when it will be known whether London has won the nomination for 2012.

  Sport England
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the reorganisation of Sport England. [113840]

  Mr. Caborn
  As a result of the recommendations in the joint DCMS/Strategy Unit Report—Game Plan—and a Quinquennial Review, Sport England is undergoing a radical modernisation and restructuring programme which will turn it into a more strategic and customer focused body. Good progress is being made with the adoption of a new strategy for sport and new business plan by Sport England's Council with proposals for restructuring the organisation are well advanced.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what new steps she is taking to encourage the development of the skills base for the film industry. [113842]

  Dr. Howells
  On 24 February 2003, the UK Film Council and Skillset launched "Developing UK Film Talent: A Comprehensive Skills Survey of the UK Film Industry", the most in-depth report ever on skills in the British film industry. Building on this work, a Film Skills Action Group has been convened, comprising representatives from across the industry, to deliver an industry training strategy by September 2003. I very much welcome this.

  Access Radio
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how the Government will facilitate the funding of its proposals for access radio. [113844]

  Dr. Howells
  We have received the Radio Authority's independent evaluation report on access radio and will be consulting on it. No decisions have yet been taken on how access radio should be funded.

  Youth Activities
  Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to fund arts and sports activities for young people in the school summer holidays. [113845]

  Tessa Jowell
  My Department is working with other Government Departments and agencies to deliver a programme of positive activities for children and young people during the summer and other school holidays. The programme builds on the success of last year's Summer Splash and Summer Plus schemes, and aims to reduce youth offending, encourage children and young people to return to education or training and build community cohesions. The type of activities will vary according to local need, but will include arts and sports.

  Mr. Arbeits
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what World Class Performance money has been given to the coach Mr. Arbeits. [113457]

  Mr. Caborn
  No funds from the World Class Performance Programme have been given to coach Mr. Arbeits.

  National Lottery
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been raised in funding for good causes from the National Lottery in each year since 1994. [113766]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested is shown, for each financial year, in the following table. This includes income from both the operator and from investments.

  Total (£000)

  2002–03

  1,590,472

  2001–02

  1,842,233

  2000–01

  1,772,839

  1999–2000

  1,766,394

  1998–99

  1,918,906

  1997–98

  1,952,219

  1996–97

  1,587,759

  1995–96

  1,535,966

  1994–95

  298,580

  The figure shown for 2002–03 has not yet been subjected to final audit.

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what system there is to ensure that lottery funding is used only by athletes and coaches who support drug-free sport. [113456]

  Mr. Caborn
  This Government are firmly committed to combating doping in sport. The anti-doping programme in the UK is delivered through the national anti-doping organisation, UK Sport, in conjunction with sports governing bodies.

  The existing national anti-doping policy includes conditions of funding on athletes and governing bodies. Athletes sign their commitment to drug-free sport in agreeing to accept funding. The Sports Councils have agreed a consistent approach to suspending funding to an athlete found to have committed a doping offence.

  UK Sport strongly supports the promotion of ethically fair and drug-free sport through their education and drug-testing programmes and their leading role internationally which has seen UK Sport accept the World Anti-Doping Code.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been given to good causes under the(a) New Opportunities Fund and (b) Community Fund in each year since its creation, broken down by type of organisation and activity. [113767]

  Mr. Caborn
  By working in partnership with other organisations, the New Opportunities Fund gives grants to health, education and environment projects across
  539W
  the UK. Many of its grant programmes focus particularly on those in society who are most disadvantaged. The amount of money committed each year since its creation is detailed in the following table:

  £

  Programme

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Health

  92,715,000

  61,972,000

  211,469,000

  246,439,250

  Education

  276,536,000

  196,185,000

  381,151,000

  115,279,576

  Environment

  0

  102,440,000

  5,653

  185,779,638

  CF Awards for corporate priorities

  £

  Year

  Children and young people

  Older people

  Disabled people

  Black and minority ethnic group

  Refugees and asylum seekers

  Areas disadvantaged by social or econimic change

  2002–03

  56,353,316

  33,015,302

  64,376,926

  30,246,272

  13,273,151

  65,441,662

  2001–02

  88,087,812

  48,367,859

  82,773,623

  44,438,276

  17,873,575

  153,869,915

  2000–01

  86,961,556

  39,095,128

  123,693,027

  38,105,864

  15,043,737

  191,543,092

  1999–2000

  62,539,828

  18,350,532

  141,044,269

  19,364,872

  10,348,477

  182,534,569

  1998–99

  59,348,864

  16,419,559

  117,493,289

  18,192,851

  7,405,889

  95,346,789

  1997–98

  118,221,242

  50,203,023

  75,782,565

  24,645,380

  10,238,443

  82,182,434

  1996–97

  120,758,214

  21,257,744

  163,099,667

  26,982,364

  5,618,066

  78,419,066

  1995–96

  51,386,677

  11,108,981

  27,431 ,964

  1

  2,046,808

  76,533,597

  Total

  643,657,509

  237,818,128

  795,698,330

  201,975,879

  81,848,146

  925,871,124

  1Unknown

  Youth Sports
  Claire Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress the Government have made in the promotion and funding of youth sports. [113835]

  Mr. Caborn
  We are making excellent progress. We are investing over £1 billion in physical education and school sport over the next three years. As a result of this investment, 75 per cent, of schoolchildren will be spending a minimum of two hours each week on high quality physical education and school sport within and beyond the curriculum by 2006.

  World Class Performance Funds
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much financial support has gone to Frank Dick and Denise Lewis from the World Class Performance funds. [113455]

  Mr. Caborn
  Denise Lewis has received direct support of £8,500 from the World Class Performance programme. £4,500 of this is used to support her training costs and £4,000 is paid to her coach Frank Dick, for coaching support. In addition she is eligible for core programme support from the UK Athletics World Class Programme, giving her access to service provision in the areas of sports science and sports medicine.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Bullying
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners
  540W
  The Community Fund awards grants to groups which help those at greatest disadvantage and which improve the life in the Community. All of the Community Fund's grants go to charities and other eligible voluntary and community organisations and the large majority of grants will go to registered charities in England and Wales or those recognised as charitable for tax purposes by the Inland Revenue in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  The amounts committed under the Community Funds six current corporate priority areas, worked back to 1995–96, are detailed in the following table:

  (1) how many complaints were made by clergy of bullying by more senior clergy in the last reporting year for which figures are available; [114124]

  (2) what support the Church offers to clergy who find themselves to be victims of bullying; [114199]

  (3) what recourse is available to victims of bullying in the church who (a) hold the freehold of benefice and (b) hold the bishop's licence. [114353]

  Mr. Bell
  No records are held centrally about complaints of bullying. The Clergy Discipline Measure, when it comes into effect, will provide a means of gathering some such information. In addition, a grievance procedure is being developed that will include provision for the grievance to be referred to an independent referee, and also an appeal procedure.

  Support is offered in dioceses by advisers in pastoral care and counselling, who are appointed by the Bishops to offer professional help to clergy with particular needs. Clergy who have freehold of office and clergy who hold a bishop's licence will, without distinction, shortly be able to use the grievance procedure or the Clergy Discipline Measure to seek redress against bullying.

  Church Deconsecration
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners how many churches have been deconsecrated since 1997. [113820]

  Mr. Bell
  Between 1997 and 2002, 138 Church of England churches were declared redundant.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

  Postal Voting
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, what plans the Electoral Commission has to expand the use of all-postal ballots. [113824]

  Mr. Viggers
  The Commission is currently evaluating the pilot schemes run at the 1 May local government elections in England, including those schemes that involved all-postal voting. The Commission will submit its report to the Secretary of State on 31 July 2003.

  Claire Ward
  To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, what assessment the Commission has made of the case for introducing all-postal vote elections in 2004. [113818]

  Mr. Viggers
  The Commission is evaluating the pilot schemes run at the 1 May local government elections in England, including those schemes that involved all-postal voting. The Commission will submit its report and recommendations to the Secretary of State on 31July2003.

  Turnout
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, what assessment has been made of the effect on turnout of(a) voting on days other than Thursday and (b) alternative locations for polling stations. [113825]

  Mr. Viggers
  The Commission is evaluating a number of pilot schemes that took place at the local elections in England on 1 May 2003, including schemes that allowed voters to vote earlier or later than is standard, and schemes that sited polling stations at alternative locations. Its report and recommendations will be submitted to the Secretary of State on 31 July 2003.

TRANSPORT

  Belfast City Airport
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the safety of landing facilities at Belfast City Airport for the next generation of civil aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [113868]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In licensing civil aerodromes in the UK, the Civil Aviation Authority does not specify the type of aircraft that can operate from a particular aerodrome. Instead, it ensures that national and international operating and safety standards are complied with. These standards will be amended as necessary to reflect any relevant new characteristics of the next generation of civil aircraft, such as weight or size. Provided any amended standards were met it would be a matter for operators of next generation aircraft and the aerodrome licensee to be satisfied that the facilities and manning levels matched their requirements.

  Bus Lanes
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it the policy of the Government to have consistent rules governing the use of bus lanes by motorcyclists. [114066]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department has published guidelines for the introduction and use of bus lanes, but it is for the local highway authority to decide whether other vehicles should use bus lanes.

  We are monitoring the effects of motorcycling in bus lanes in trials being carried out in conjunction with highway authorities. This will allow the Department to provide more clear cut advice about motorcycling in bus lanes to authorities.

  Civil Aviation
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport(1) what action he is taking following the resolution by the European Parliament of 8 November 2002 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in respect of civil aviation; [114212]

  (2) what discussions he has held with the Civil Aviation Authority on the harmonisation of European civil aviation rules relating to pilots' flying hours; [114213]

  (3) what the Government's policy is on the amendment of flight time limitations (a) at national and (b) at European level. [114214]

  Mr. Jamieson
  UK flight and duty time limitations are the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority. Their prime objective in setting such limits is to ensure that crew members are adequately rested at the beginning of each flying period and while flying are sufficiently free from fatigue so that they can operate to a satisfactory level of efficiency and safety. Any amendments to UK limitations will take that objective into account.

  The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has reviewed the European Parliament's proposed flight time limitations (FTL) requirements. They advise me that, while the requirements are not totally acceptable, with suitable amendment they could form a baseline European FTL requirement which could be supplemented by additional requirements in each member state. We recognise the need for FTL requirements to be harmonised at a European level and should the proposal come before the Council we will work constructively with other member states to ensure that it is appropriately amended. We will not endorse the proposal if any of the limits are significantly different to those set by the CAA in CAP 371, which are in line with scientific advice that the CAA has received over the years.

  Crossrail
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will publish the business case for Crossrail. [113536]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon Friend, the Secretary of State for Transport to the honourable Members for Kingston and Surbiton, and Ilford South, on 13 May 2003 Official Report, column 149.1 shall keep the House informed.

  Dartford Crossings
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much of the hypothecated toll money from the Dartford crossings has been(a) spent and (b) allocated in (i) Kent County Council, (ii) Essex County Council and (iii) East London boroughs since April 2002. [114530]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The new Dartford Crossing charging scheme and the obligation to hypothecate net revenue from the scheme did not begin until 1 April 2003. It is too early to be able to identify projects which will illustrate the benefits this additional source of funding has helped deliver.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes of policy have been made in relation to the hypothecated toll money from the Dartford crossings since August 2002; and if he will make a statement. [114531]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There have been no changes in policy. The Dartford net income forms part of the funding included in our 10 year transport plan.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the hypothecated money from the Dartford crossings is to be allocated beyond the three original stakeholders. [114532]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Dartford net income forms part of the funding included in our 10 year transport plan. It is too early to be able to identify projects which will illustrate the benefits this additional source of funding has helped deliver.

  Rail Network (Telecommunications Masts)
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many 20 metre high telecommunication masts(a) have been erected and (b) are planned in each Network Rail area; and what the purpose is of the masts. [104539]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand from Network Rail that to date no such masts have been erected. The following table from the company details the number of planned installations in each Network Rail zone:

  Network rail zone

  Number of planned telecommunications masts

  East Anglia

  137

  Great Western

  399

  London North Eastern

  307

  London Underground

  7

  Midlands

  177

  North Western

  226

  Southern

  380

  Southern

  380

  Total

  2,022

  Network Rail advises that its national installation programme forms part of its new safety system known as the Global System for Mobile Communications—Railways, which will create the first national driver to signaller direct communication system. It will enable high priority emergency calls to connect drivers and
  544W
  signallers within two seconds of an emergency, and also enable signallers to communicate with all trains in an area.

  Rail Services (Romford)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many faults were reported on railway lines into Romford in(a) April 2000, (b) April 2001, (c) April 2002 and (d) April 2003. [113480]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for Network Rail.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many complaints were received from passengers as a result of problems on railway track near Romford in(a) April 2000, (b) April 2001, (c) April 2002 and (d) April 2003. [113481]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The SRA publishes complaints data for each train operating company in its six-monthly "On Track" publication. This data is not broken down to route level. The most recent edition of "On Track" was published on 12 December. A copy is in the House Library.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progess is being made to improve safety(a) on railway lines into Romford and (b) at Romford railway station; and if he will make a statement. [113482]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Network Rail's East Anglia Region has implemented a new system for monitoring track maintenance contractors working on railway lines into Romford. In addition, HMRI has been working closely with the Romford station operator, First Great Eastern, to understand the causes of minor passenger slip, trip and fall incidents at the station, so as to reduce the number of such incidents.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent communication he has had with managers of First Great Eastern regarding safety on their service through Romford. [113483]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State has not had any recent communications with First Great Eastern regarding the safety of train services through Romford. However, discussions between the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) and First Great Eastern staff take place at all levels on a regular basis.

  Research and Consultancy
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was spent by his Department and its predecessors on external research and consultants in each year since 1997, broken down by(a) aviation, (b) local transport, (c) mobility and inclusion, (d) roads, vehicles and road safety, (e) shipping, (f) integrated transport, (g) railways, (h) science and research, (i) transport statistics, (j) freight logistics and (k) other subjects. [113351]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested on external research expenditure is set out below. Separate figures for expenditure on general consultancy are not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  545W

  Total Expenditure by DfT (and predecessors) on External Research since 1997, broken down by specified areas

  £million

  Area

  Outturn 1997–98

  Outurrn 1998–99

  Outturn 1999–2000

  Outturn 2000–01

  Outturn 2001–02

  Aviation

  0.2

  0.2

  0.5

  0.06

  1.64

  Transport Strategy/Local Transport1

  7.8

  6.1

  7.9

  7.6

  8.53

  Roads Vehicles and Road Safety3

  11.5

  12.0

  11.7

  9.4

  13.62

  Shipping4

  1.7

  0.8

  0.8

  0.55

  0.43

  Integrated Transport5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Railways6

  0

  0

  0

  0.1

  0

  Science and Research7

  1.9

  1.5

  0.7

  0.5

  0.56

  Transport Statistics8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Freight Logistics

  —

  —

  0.1

  0.4

  0.73

  Other Subjects9

  16.5

  16.3

  16.6

  18.16

  16.5

  Total of the above

  39.6

  36.9

  38.3

  36.77

  42.01

  Notes:

  1. Outturn figures for 1996–97 to 1999–2000 were obtained from The Forward Look Publications, which are complied using data supplied by the Office of National Statistics.

  2. Outturn figures 2000–01 and 2001–02 were obtained from local records of data that is collated by STP Division within DfT and supplied to ONS for inclusion in their Forward Look publications.

  1 This inludes Roads and Traffic-Integrated Local Transport as well as incorporating mobility and inclusion, Integrated Transport and Transport Statistics.

  2 Refer to note 1 above.

  3 The figures shown for Roads Vehicles and Road Safety are the cumulative total for Road Safety and Vehicle Standards and Engineering.

  4 The figures shown here are those of Maritime and Coastguard Agency (Marine Services Agency and Coastguard Agency prior to 1999)

  5 Refer to note 1 above

  6 Some research relevant to railways is included in the figures given for Transport Strategy/Local Transport.

  7 These figures are those of Science and Technology Policy Division and relate to LINK and New Horizons Programmes.

  8 Refer to note 1 above as some limited research expenditure on Transport Statistics is included in Local Transport.

  9 These figures include Highways Agency, Transport Security and Transport Environment and Taxation for 2000–01 and 2001–02. They do not Include Road User Charging Trails.

  Road Upgrades
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he expects the upgrading of the A66 between Penrith and the A1 to start; and when it will be completed; [113774]

  (2) when he expects work to start on the upgrading of the A74 to motorway standards between Carlisle and the Scottish Borders. [113776]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to my hon. Friend on these two issues.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Eric Martlew, dated 19 May 2003:
  David Jamieson has asked me to reply to your two recent Parliamentary Questions asking when work will start on the upgrading of the A74 to motorway standards between Carlisle and the Scottish border, and the expected start and completion dates for the upgrading of the A66 between Penrith, and A1.
  A 74 Upgrading

  In February this year, a contract was awarded for the design and construction of the A74 Carlisle to Guardsmill scheme using an innovative procurement method known as Early Contractor Involvement, by which it is expected that projects may be delivered more quickly. The current programme shows a start of works in September 2005 with road opening by September 2007. This is subject to completion of the necessary statutory procedures, which include the expected publication next January of draft formal proposals under the Highways Act that are required to give legal authority for the upgrading. The route being followed was announced in June 2002 and follows closely the existing A74.
  A66 Upgrading
  In November last year it was announced that the Agency had appointed consultants to undertake preliminary survey and design work in order to determine the feasibility of upgrading the whole of the A66 between Penrith to the west and the Al at Scotch
  546W
  Corner to the east to dual carriageway. A number of possible schemes have been identified on which preliminary work is continuing and on which it is expected that the public will be consulted towards the end of the year. If it is then decided that these schemes should be added to the Government's Targeted Programme of Improvements, it is expected that they would be completed within seven years of entry, or sooner.
  In addition to the schemes that are still under investigation, preparation work is in progress on three schemes on this route which are already included in the Targeted Programme of Improvements. These schemes, with their estimated dates for completion, are as follows:
  A66 Temple Sowerby and Improvements at Winderwath 2006–07
  A66 Carkin Moor to Scotch Corner Improvement 2006–07
  A66 Greta Bridge to Stephen Bank Improvement 2007–08
  I hope this is helpful. If you would like any further information on the A74 Upgrading you may wish to contact the Agency's Project Sponsor for this Ziad El Balbisi, at Sunley Tower. Piccadilly Plaza, Manchester, Ml 4BE telephone number 0161 930 5822. For further information on any of the proposals forming part of the A66 Upgrading would you please contact the Group Leader, David Harvey, at the same address telephone number 0161 930 5601.

  Virgin Trains
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when all Virgin Pendolino trains will be operating on the west coast line. [109670]

  Mr. Jamieson
  All Virgin Pendolino trains are expected to be in service by the early part of 2005.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many school playing fields have been sold in each of the last 10 years. [114170]
  547W
  Mr. Miliband
  There are no central records of how many school playing fields were sold before October 1998. Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 was introduced on 1 October 1998 to stop the indiscriminate sale of school playing fields that occurred in the 1980s and early to mid 1990s.

  Applications to sell school playing fields are only approved where it is clear that any proceedswill be used to improve school sports provision or education facilities. All applications made since 16 July 2001 are scrutinised by the School Playing Fields Advisory Panel to make sure that they meet our published criteria. The panel comprises representatives from the National Playing Fields Association, the Central Council of Physical Recreation, Learning through Landscapes, the National Association of Headteachers and the Local Government Association.

  The table shows the number of applications to sell school playing fields larger than a small sports pitch for the under 10s, that is larger than 2,000 m2, that were approved in each year since October 1998. In 27 of these applications new or replacement sports pitches of the same size or greater were to be bought from the proceeds. A further 45 applications involved land at closed or closing school sites and in 37 of the remaining 56 cases, the proceeds are to be used to improve sports faculties, such as new all-weather pitches, sports halls or improved grass sports pitches. In the remaining 19 cases, the proceeds are to provide better education facilities at schools, such as new classrooms and performing arts facilities.

  Calendar year

  Sports pitch applications approved

  October-December

  1998

  7

  1999

  42

  2000

  32

  2001

  22

  2002

  23

  Notes:

  1. The table includes applications to sell school playing fields from local authorities, foundation, voluntary and former grant-maintained schools.

  2. All sale proceeds are used to provide new or improved sports or education facilities at maintained schools.

  3. 'Sports pitch' means an area of open grassed land which is equal to, or larger than, the Football Association's recommended 2,000 m2 area for games played by under 10s and which has a configuration making it suitable for sports, whether laid out as a sports pitch or not.

  A-Levels
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils have(a) been entered for and (b) taken a General Studies A-level in each of the last five years; and what estimate he has made of the number who will sit the exam this year. [109422]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the number of 16 to 18-year-old candidates who attempted GCE A-level General Studies in 1998 to 2002.548W

  Number of 16 to 18-year-old candidates attempting GCE A-level General Studies

  1998

  78,971

  1999

  84,411

  2000

  87,765

  2001

  90,874

  2002

  58,311

  Estimates of the number of candidates who will sit General Studies GCE A level in 2002/03 are not available.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will publish the agreement between his Department, QCA and the awarding bodies in line with clause 95 of the Tomlinson Inquiry into A-level Standards to establish clear lines of responsibility and accountability. [110103]

  Mr. Miliband
  We will publish a Memorandum of Understanding between the Department and QCA shortly.

  A2/4S Examinations
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what methodology his Department uses to calculate the numbers of students studying for A2 and AS examinations. [112853]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 12 May 2003]: The numbers of students studying for A2 and AS examinations are collected through the Department's Annual Schools Census (ASC) and the Learning and Skills Council's Individualised Learner Record (ILR). The ASC information is a snapshot as at the third Thursday in January of each year. The ILR is a snapshot as at 1 November of each year

  In both these data sources, information is collected on all the qualifications a student is studying for. However students often combine qualifications. In the departmental publication on the participation of 16–18 year olds, the figures are calculated on the basis of the highest qualification being studied. Part of this hierarchy of highest qualification is:

  Higher education

  NVQ3

  VCE A/AS level

  GCE A/AS level

  So, for example, someone studying for a GCE AS level alongside a Double Award VCE would be considered as having the VCE as their highest aim.

  The department also collects and publishes details of the number of A and AS level course enrolments by adults on course offered by Local Education Authorities.

  Adult ESOL Core Curriculum
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which schools in the Wycombe constituency work as partners with the Buckinghamshire Lifelong Learning Partnership in relation to the Adult ESOL Core Curriculum. [l12372]
  549W
  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 12 May 2003]: There are no schools working as key partners within the Buckinghamshire Lifelong Learning Partnership's Adult ESOL Core Curriculum project.

  The key partners in the project are Aylesbury college, Amersham and Wycombe college and Buckinghamshire county council.

  Autism
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what plans he has to introduce a specific qualification for young people with(a) autism and (b) similar disabilities; [112675]

  (2) what the form is of assessment for autistic children in (a) mainstream and (b) special schools; [112676]

  (3) what plans his Department has to enable autistic young people to follow further education and higher education courses. [112677]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Special Educational Needs (SEN) Code of Practice gives statutory guidance to schools, local education authorities and others on assessing children's special educational needs and making provision to meet those needs, including the needs of children with autism.

  Autism is a spectrum disorder with children across the spectrum showing the full range of intellectual abilities. Many children within the spectrum can, with the right support, achieve in National Curriculum assessments and external qualifications alongside their non-autistic peers. Special arrangements are available under the National Curriculum and from awarding bodies to allow children with SEN to take examinations and tests on an equal footing.

  There are no assessment arrangements or qualifications that are specific to children and young people with autism or similar disabilities. However, there are a range of arrangements available for assessing the progress and recording the achievements of children with special educational needs, including those with autism, for whom the usual assessment arrangements and public examinations are not suitable. The Department, with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, has published guidance to help schools, including special schools, set targets for children with SEN who are performing below National Curriculum Level 1 or within Levels 1 and 2 in English, mathematics and science. The guidance contains Performance Criteria, the 'P' scales, which can be used to assess pupils' progress. Award schemes areavailable through which the key life skills of young people with SEN can be recognised and 'Progress Files' can be used to record their academic and non academic achievements. The Working Group on our 14–19 reforms, under the chairmanship of Mike Tomlinson, will be looking at assessment arrangements and how they can be used to motivate all learners.

  A primary aim of SEN support is that young people with SEN make successful transitions from school to further education, training and adult life. The revised SEN Code of Practice, effective from January 2002, contains strengthened transition planning arrangements involving the Connexions Service In addition, under
  550W
  the Learning and Skills Act 2000, the Connexions Service, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must carry out assessments of all young people with statements of SEN who are in the last year of compulsory schooling and are intending to go on to further education or training or higher education and may carry out assessments in other circumstances. The assessments are of the young person's education and training needs and the provision required to meet those needs. The Learning and Skills Council must have regard to these assessments and the Connexions Service is expected to work with the Council and other providers to make suitable learning opportunities available to young people with SEN. Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 further and higher education and training providers must make reasonable adjustments to prevent discrimination against disabled students and potential students.

  More generally, the Government is developing an SEN Action Programme of practical measures to support local education authorities and schools, working in partnership with others, in improving provision for children and young people with special educational needs.

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to introduce ring-fenced funding in education for children with autism. [112683]

  Mr. Miliband
  We currently have no plans to introduce ring-fenced funding in education for children with autism or for any other type of special educational need.

  British Sign Language
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he is taking to address the implications for schools and colleges of the decision to reorganise British Sign Language, with particular reference to(a) teacher supply, (b) validation and (c) funding issues. [112849]

  Mr. Miliband
  While the Government has recognised British Sign Language as a language in its own right, we remain committed to preserving diversity and choice in relation to the different communication methods available for deaf and hearing impaired people. Children with hearing difficulties will continue to be taught in accordance with their and their parents' preferred style. Under the terms of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, it is now unlawful for schools and further and higher education institutions to discriminate against disabled learners by treating them less favourably than others. In addition, institutions have a duty to provide reasonable adjustments to provision where people with disabilities might otherwise be substantially disadvantaged. The Government does not expect the statement of recognition to have any new implications for schools and colleges in relation to teacher supply, interaction between deaf children and others, or funding. We shall however be keeping all these issues under close review.

  The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is providing £1 million to fund a discrete programme of initiatives to support the Government's statement of

  551W
  recognition. The DWP will shortly be consulting organisations of and for deaf people about how this funding should be allocated.

  Capital Projects
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which local authorities are planning to use revenues intended by the Government for schools to finance capital projects in 2003–04. [113159]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table lists the 116 local education authorities who plan to use some of their revenue funding to support spend on capital projects in 2003–04, with the amount each authority has budgeted, as recorded on their section 52 budget statement.

  £million

  LEA

  Capital Spending funded from Revenue

  Barnsley

  1.36

  Bath and North East Somerset

  0.51

  Bedfordshire

  0.86

  Bexley

  1.10

  Birmingham

  1.98

  Blackburn with Darwen

  0.74

  Blackpool

  0.32

  Bolton

  1.10

  Bournemouth

  0.28

  Bracknell Forest

  0.26

  Bradford

  0.25

  Brighton and Hove

  1.10

  Bristol City of

  0.89

  Bromley

  0.10

  Buckinghamshire

  4.39

  Calderdale

  1.28

  Cambridgeshire

  0.39

  Camden

  1.55

  Cheshire

  2.30

  Cornwall

  2.04

  Croydon

  3.33

  Cumbria

  5.11

  Derby

  0.78

  Derbyshire

  3.11

  Devon

  1.75

  Doncaster

  2.34

  Dorset

  0.08

  Dudley

  0.06

  Durham

  3.62

  Ealing

  1.17

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  1.17

  East Sussex

  3.02

  Enfield

  0.49

  Essex

  0.99

  Gateshead

  0.68

  Gloucestershire

  1.94

  Greenwich

  1.50

  Hackney

  1.19

  Halton

  0.32

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1.70

  Hampshire

  9.07

  Haringey

  0.66

  Harrow

  0.12

  Hartlepool

  0.71

  Havering

  0.65

  Herefordshire

  0.13

  Hertfordshire

  9.11

  Hillingdon

  0.64

  Isle of Wight

  0.34

  Islington

  0.68

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0.81

  Kent

  1.38

  Knowsley

  0.60

  Lambeth

  0.93

  552W

  £ million

  LEA

  Capital Spending funded from Revenue

  Lancashire

  3.17

  Leicester

  3.04

  Leicestershire

  0.33

  Lewisham

  2.60

  Lincolnshire

  6.03

  Liverpool

  1.57

  Manchester

  3.37

  Medway

  0.16

  Merton

  0.38

  Middlesbrough

  3.22

  Milton Keynes

  0.79

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0.90

  Newham

  3.53

  Norfolk

  3.38

  North East Lincolnshire

  0.44

  North Lincolnshire

  0.84

  North Somerset

  1.00

  North Tyneside

  0.52

  North Yorkshire

  4.34

  Northamptonshire

  0.01

  Nottingham

  1.60

  Nottinghamshire

  2.69

  Oldham

  1.01

  Oxfordshire

  5.69

  Peterborough

  0.16

  Portsmouth

  1.03

  Redbridge

  2.24

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1.14

  Richmond upon Thames

  0.50

  Rochdale

  0.84

  Rotherham

  0.33

  Salford

  0.78

  Sandwell

  1.03

  Sheffield

  2.78

  Shropshire

  2.23

  Solihull

  1 98

  Southend-on-Sea

  0.48

  Southwark

  3 55

  St. Helens

  1.57

  Staffordshire

  5.33

  Stockport

  0.91

  Stockton-on-Tees

  0.99

  Stoke-on-Trent

  0.42

  Sunderland

  0.35

  Surrey

  4.26

  Swindon

  1.14

  Tameside

  1.43

  Telford and Wrekin

  0.27

  Thurrock

  0.38

  Torbay

  0.67

  Tower Hamlets

  0.61

  Walsall

  0.01

  Waltham Forest

  3.61

  Warrington

  1.32

  Warwickshire

  3.86

  West Berkshire

  0.47

  West Sussex

  0.46

  Westminster

  0.38

  Wiltshire

  1.34

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  0.14

  Wirral

  0.97

  Worcestershire

  4.64

  York

  0.34

  Total

  189.52

  Child Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of state for Educatation and Skills (1) pursuant to the answer of 1 May 2003,Official Report, column 485W, on looked after

  553W
  children, on what dates he held meetings with the Independent Schools Council; what issues were discussed; and when he plans to hold future meetings; [113349]

  (2) pursuant to the answer of 1 May 2003, Official Report, column 485W, on looked after children, what steps his Department is taking to encourage co-operation between local education authorities and the Independent Schools Council on the education of looked after children. [113350]

  Mr. Miliband
  My right hon. Friend last met representatives of the Independent Schools Council (ISC) on 7 April. A range of issues were discussed, including the ISC's proposal that some looked after children could be educated in independent boarding schools, where that would be appropriate and beneficial to the young people concerned. No arrangement has yet been made to hold further meetings. We are actively considering how best to build on these productive discussions.

  Children Act
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the answer of 29 April 2003,Official Report, column 351W, on Command Paper 5778, which parts of the Children Act 1989 are failing to be implemented effectively in his Department as set out in paragraph 2.22 of Command Paper 5778. [112184]

  Mr. Miliband
  Paragraph 2.22 of Command Paper 5778 neither states nor implies that the Children Act 1989 is not being implemented effectively. As the then Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn) noted in the answer that he gave on 29 April, the Children Act is a shared responsibility across Government, and our aim, as set out in the Command Paper, is to increase the range of family support provisions that can be made available through the Children Act, as part of our response to tackling anti-social behaviour.

  City Academies
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what systems he has in place for measuring the effectiveness of city academies. [l10098]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department for Education and Skills will monitor the performance of each Academy against the targets in its School Development Plan and against national trends for schools with similar characteristics. A wider evaluation of the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and impact of the Academies Programme is being undertaken by the University of York in partnership with PricewaterhouseCoopers. This exercise will run to September 2007.

  Completion Rates (University Degrees)
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many mature students have 554W
  (a) applied for, (b) taken up, (c) dropped out of and (d) completed a degree course at universities in England in each academic year since 1997. [104704]

  Margaret Hodge
  The latest available information from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) on applicants and acceptances to full-time undergraduate courses is shown in the table. UCAS does not cover students applying to part-time courses, the majority of whom are mature.

  Around three quarters of all mature students enter part-time courses. Information on completion and non-completion rates of HE students is published annually by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) in "Performance Indicators in Higher Education (HE)", but these figures do not separately identify mature students.

  UK domiciled students aged 21 or over applying to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses at HE institutions in the UK

  Academic Year

  Applicants

  Acceptances

  1996–97

  90,687

  59,193

  1997–98

  97,401

  65,799

  1998–99

  85,859

  58,557

  1999–2000

  81,882

  57,439

  2000–01

  82,060

  58,169

  2001–02

  86,467

  63,707

  2002–03

  89,397

  67,011

  Source:

  Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS)

  Education Budgets
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list(a) maintained schools and (b) local education authorities which have made representations to his Department regarding their budget for the current financial year. [109423]

  Mr. Miliband
  As it does each year the Department for Education and Skills has received a large amount of correspondence concerning education budgets for the current financial year from both schools and local education authorities. It is not possible to collate this information without disproportionate cost.

  Education Funding
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will hold a meeting at the earliest possible date with representatives of Essex local education authority and Essex head teachers to discuss education funding in Essex. [112442]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 12 May 2003]: Officials in my Department are in close contact with representatives of all LEAs to discuss funding issues.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will increase the funding for specialist colleges in line with the rate of inflation. [113175]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department is currently considering the position in relation to whether to increase specialist school recurrent funding in 2003/04.
  555W
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the total funding allocated by the Learning and Skills Council to institutions(a) in each region of England and (b) in total in (i) 2001–02, (ii) 2002–03 and (iii) 2003–04 (estimated). [113210]

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

  Education Spending
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total amount carried forward was in its budget from financial year 2002–03 into 2003–04 by each school in(a) Norfolk, (b) Suffolk, (c) Kingston upon Hull and (d) Durham. [110255]

  Mr. Miliband
  This information is not yet available. It will be contained in the outturn statements for 2002–03 to be produced by local education authorities under section 52 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, but the deadline for production of these statements will not be until 10 October.

  Education Standards
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of students achieved the expected standard for their age in the Key Stage Two literacy tests between 1998 and 2002. [113075]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table as follows shows the percentage of pupils who achieved level 4 or above in the Key Stage 2 English test, and the reading and writing components, in England between 1998 and 2002.

  Age

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  11 years

  13NC test papers

  13NC test papers

  13NC test papers

  13NC test papers

  13NC test papers

  13NC test papers

  14 years

  7 NC test papers

  20 NC test papers

  20 NC test papers

  20 NC test papers

  20 NC test papers

  20 NC test papers

  16 years

  7 NC test papers and 8.2 GCSEs

  7 NC test papers and 8.2 GCSEs

  7 NC test papers and 8.2 GCSEs

  20 NC test papers and 8.2 GCSEs

  20 NC test papers and 8.2 GCSEs

  20 NC test papers and 8.7 GCSEs

  18 years

  7 NC test papers and 11.3 GCSEs and GCE A/AS and GNVQs

  7 NC test papers and 11.3 GCSEs and GCE A/AS and GNVQs

  7 NC test papers and 11.3 GCSEs and GCE A/AS and GNVQs

  7 NC test papers and 11.3 GCSEs and GCE A/AS and GNVQs

  7 NC test papers and 11.3 GCSEs and GCE A/AS and GNVQs

  7 NC test papers and 11.7 GCSEs and GCE VCE and A/AS

  Notes:

  1. Key Stage 1 tests for seven year-olds were introduced nationally in 1991.

  Key Stage 2 tests for 11-year-olds were introduced nationally in 1995.

  Key Stage 3 tests for 14-year-olds were introduced nationally in 1993.

  2. The number of papers taken for GCSE and GCE A/AS/VCE and GNVQ vary for each subject.

  3. The increase in the number of National Curriculum tests from 7 to 20 for 14-year-olds and from 7 to 20 for 16-year-olds reflects the fact that they were the cohort who took the first Key Stage 2 tests in 1994/95.

  4. The increase for 16-and 18-year-olds in 2002 is due to the average points increase in GCSEs.

  Faith Schools
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what approaches have been made to his Department by groups wishing to(a) establish new faith schools and (b) bring independent faith schools into the maintained sector in the last 12 months. [110183]

  Mr. Miliband
  Since April 2002 my Department has received eleven initial inquiries:

  (a) eight by groups interested in establishing new faith schools (one Morman, five Muslim, one Sikh, one Greek Orthodox); and
  556W

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  20021

  English

  65

  71

  75

  75

  75

  Reading

  71

  78

  83

  82

  80

  Writing

  53

  54

  55

  57

  60

  Notes:

  1 2002 data are provisional

  Examinations
  Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average number of exams taken by(a) an 11-year-old, (b) a 14-year-old, (c) a 16-year-old and (d) an 18-year-old throughout their school career to that point was, in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority. [110107]

  Mr. Miliband
  All Local Education Authority maintained schools, in England, are required to administer the National Curriculum tasks/tests for pupils at the end of Key Stage 1 and tests for pupils at he end of Key Stages 2 and 3 in the core subjects of English, mathematics and science. Schools may, at their discretion, choose to administer other non-statutory tests in addition to the statutory requirements.

  For GCSE and GCE A/AS/ and GNVQ schools enter pupils for the appropriate subjects and examination boards.

  The following table shows the total number of statutory National Curriculum test papers in English, mathematics and science which will have been taken by most pupils in the relevant age group; and the average number of GCSE and GCE A/AS and GNVQ examination entries for those age groups. (All ages are at the end of the academic year).

  (b) three by groups interested in bringing independent faith schools into the maintained sector (two Muslim, one Jewish).

  Financing of Maintained Schools (England) Regulations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received about the Financing of Maintained Schools (England) Regulations. [109958]

  Mr. Miliband
  These regulations are revised annually following consultation with local education authorities and relevant national organisations as to their content
  557W
  and wording. A number of consultees commented on the Regulations for 2003, which were laid before Parliament on 28 February 2003 (Statutory Instrument 2003 No. 453).

  Foundation Degree
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will report progress on the establishment of the Foundation Degrees Forward concept. [112201]

  Margaret Hodge
  Discussions are under way between officials in the Department and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Further details will be announced by the Summer.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made on the incorporation of Higher National Diplomas and Higher National Certificates within the Foundation Degree framework; and what representations he has received on this matter. [112203]

  Margaret Hodge
  Following the publication of The Future of Higher Education' (Cm 5735) Edexcel has announced its plans to integrate its Higher National Diplomas into the foundation degree framework. A working group comprising representatives from the Department for Education and Skills, Edexcel, the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, the Council of Validating Universities and employers has been established to oversee this work. This group will also consider the future of the Higher National Certificate.

  A wide range of representations have been received on the plans set out in Cm 5735. We are currently looking carefully at the views expressed.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the future funding of(a) development work, (b) validation, (c) institutional funding and (d) student support for those undertaking foundation degrees. [112204]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Government's plans are set out in "The Future of Higher Education" (Cm 5735). Details are currently being worked up, in collaboration with the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Further announcements will be made later in the year.

  Funding (Sunderland)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received from Sunderland city council on his figures for the percentage of education funds passed to schools by the council; and what action he plans to take. [113348]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Council replied to the Department's letter of 2 May about school funding on 9 May. The Department will be having further 558W
  discussions on the figures underlying the percentage of schools funding passed on to the authority's schools budget with the Council shortly.

  GCSE Point Scores
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average GCSE point score for pupils in(a) technology, (b) sports, (c) arts, (d) languages, (e) engineering, (f) science, (g) maths and computing and (h) business and enterprise specialist schools was in the last year for which figures are available. [113721]

  Mr. Miliband
  The 2002 results for schools, which were operational specialist schools1 as at September 2001, are shown in the table. There were no designated business and enterprise, engineering, science, mathematics and computing colleges in operation until September 2002, and therefore, no results are available.

  1 Special schools are excluded from these figures.

  2002 average capped1 GCSE/GNVQ point score2

  Technology colleges

  36.2

  Sports colleges

  33.7

  Art colleges

  34.2

  1 Average capped GCSE/GNVQ point scores are calculated using the best eight GCSE/GNVQ results.

  2 GCSE/GNVQ point scores are calculated as follows:

  GCSE grades A* to G count as 8 to 1 points respectively, GCSE Short Courses grades A* to G count as 4 to ½ respectively. The GNVQ grades D, M and P count as 71/2, 6 and 5 points respectively at Intermediate level, and 4, 3 and 11/2 points respectively at Foundation level. These points need to be multiplied by 2 for GNVQ Part One and by 4 for Full GNVQs.

  Higher Education
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of UK entrants to initial(a) full time and (b) part time higher education aged 21 or more was from each social class group between 1980 and 2000; and if he will make a statement. [106449]

  Margaret Hodge
  The available information for the years since 1994, showing students accepted to full-time undergraduate courses via the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) is given in the table. UCAS does not cover students applying to part-time courses, the majority of whom are mature. Around three-quarters of all mature students enter part-time courses. Comparable figures for earlier years are not held centrally. In 2002, a new socio-economic classification was introduced, which is not directly comparable with the social class figures for previous years. The Department has increased significantly its targeted support for mature students, through increased Access and Hardship funds but also through a package of help for student parents including a generous childcare grant introduced in 2001. In addition, the AimHigher HE roadshow and advertising campaign have been launched to promote the benefits of higher education.
  559W

  Accepted applicants aged 21 or over to full-time undergraduate courses in the UK UK domiciled students

  Year of entry

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Numbers

  I Professional

  5,686

  5,743

  5,044

  2,976

  2,695

  2,185

  2,017

  2,128

  II Intermediate

  18,588

  18,712

  17,656

  17,560

  15,473

  13,815

  14,159

  14,846

  IIIN Skilled non manual

  7,115

  7,228

  7,913

  11,324

  9,606

  9,228

  9,703

  10,716

  HIM Skilled manual

  9,995

  10,530

  8,868

  8,030

  6,911

  6,152

  6,202

  6,773

  IV Semi Skilled

  4,864

  5,339

  5,156

  6,767

  5,897

  5,801

  6,071

  6,308

  V Unskilled

  1,431

  1,561

  1,254

  1,321

  1,138

  1,077

  982

  887

  Total known

  47,679

  49,113

  45,891

  47,978

  41,720

  38,258

  39,134

  41,658

  Not Known

  8,623

  11,968

  13,301

  17,821

  16,837

  19,181

  19,035

  22,049

  Total

  56,302

  61.081

  59,193

  65,799

  58,557

  57,439

  58,169

  63,707

  Total I-IIIN

  31,389

  31,683

  30,613

  31,860

  27,774

  25,228

  25,879

  27,690

  Total IIIM-V

  16,290

  17,430

  15,278

  16,118

  13,946

  13,030

  13,255

  13,968

  Percentages1

  I Professional

  11.9

  11.7

  11.0

  6.2

  6.5

  5.7

  5.2

  5.1

  II Intermediate

  39.0

  38.1

  38.5

  36.6

  37.1

  36.1

  36.2

  35.6

  IIIN Skilled non-manual

  14.9

  14.7

  17.2

  23.6

  23.0

  24.1

  24.8

  25.7

  IIIM Skilled manual

  21.0

  21.4

  19.3

  16.7

  16.6

  16.1

  15.8

  16.3

  IV Semi-skilled

  10.2

  10.9

  11.2

  14.1

  14.1

  15.2

  15.5

  15.1

  V Unskilled

  3.0

  3.2

  2.7

  2.8

  2.7

  2.8

  2.5

  2.1

  Total

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  Total I-IIIN

  65.8

  64.5

  66.7

  66.4

  66.6

  65.9

  66.1

  66.5

  Total IIIM-V

  34.2

  35.5

  33.3

  33.6

  33.4

  34.1

  33.9

  33.5

  1Based on students whose occupation was known.

  Numbers

  2002

  Higher managerial/professional occupations

  3,680

  Lower managerial/professional occupations

  10,294

  Intermediate occupations

  9,438

  Small employers and own account workers

  2,076

  Lower supervisory and technical occupations

  1,293

  Semi-routine occupations

  9,512

  Routine occupations

  3,306

  Total known

  39,599

  Not known

  27,412

  Total

  67,011

  Percentages1

  Higher managerial/professional occupations

  9.2

  Lower managerial/professional occupations

  26.0

  Intermediate occupations

  23.8

  Small employers and own account workers

  5.2

  Lower supervisory and technical occupations

  3.3

  Semi-routine occupations

  24.0

  Routine occupations

  8.3

  Total

  100.0

  1 Based on students whose occupation was known.

  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action the Government are taking to encourage higher educational institutions to develop stronger structures of regional planning. [R] [113208]

  Margaret Hodge
  Our White Paper 'The Future of Higher Education' acknowledged the critical involvement of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in regional, social and economic development, it welcomed the involvement of HEIs in developing Regional Economic Strategies and the new Frameworks for Regional Employment and Skills Action. The White Paper proposed strengthening the growing HE partnerships with Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and confirmed a larger formal role for RDAs within the next round of the Higher Education Innovation Fund to ensure that the funding is properly focused on regional development priorities.
  560W
  The allocation of funding for additional student places, widening access, and higher education working with business and community is also informed by regional and sub-regional priorities. To help determine these priorities, the Higher Education Funding Council for England works with regional advisory groups which include the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs).

  Languages Teaching
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his estimate is of the proportion of schools in(a) deprived areas and (b) affluent areas which intend to permit 14-year-olds to drop language subjects; and if he will make a statement. [113389]

  Mr. Miliband
  "14 to 19: Opportunity and Excellence" confirmed that we intend to amend the statutory requirement at Key Stage 4 of the National Curriculum so that schools will no longer be required to teach modern foreign languages to all pupils. All schools will, however, be required to ensure as an entitlement that they are available to any pupil wishing to study them.

  We have made no estimate of the number of schools that might permit 14-year-olds to drop language subjects. In taking decisions about the curriculum at Key Stage 4, schools will be expected to consider carefully the needs and aspirations of their pupils, and the provision of opportunities which will best serve their future education and employability. Some schools may continue to require pupils to study languages as a compulsory part of their curriculum.

  Leadership Incentive Grant
  Miss Mclntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the impact of the leadership incentive grant in North Yorkshire. [110075]
  561W
  Mr. Miliband
  Three mainstream secondary schools in North Yorkshire are eligible for the new Leadershiplncentive Grant which began in April 2003. Each school will receive £125,000 for each of the next three years, plus £50,000 partnership funding per year, providing these schools with significant additional resources to raise standards, strengthen leadership at all levels and enable collaborative working. Eligible schools will be expected to revise their School Development Plan in the light of the additional funding, and, as a condition of funding, to work together to draw up a collaborative plan setting out their shared priorities. For schools such as these in North Yorkshire which are outside Excellence in Cities areas, Education Action Zones and Excellence Clusters and which are eligible for the funding, LEAs will be responsible for approving these collaborative plans.

  In addition, Aireville School, which was previously funded through the schools facing challenging circumstances and which has now improved, will receive £50,000 this year through the Targeted Improvement Grant to work collaboratively and secure continued improvements.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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. [110433]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The estimated cost in 2003–04 to the Department and its non-departmental public bodies arising from the increase in the national minimum wage from £4.20 per hour to £4.50 per hour is £33,000. The Department has no Agencies reporting to it.

  Office for Standards in Education
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total pay costs incurred by the Office for Standards in Education were in each year since 1997. [113387]

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

  Part-time Students
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps the Government are taking to promote foundation degrees as high-quality qualifications among(a) learners and (b) employers; and what steps the Government are taking to ensure that foundation degrees extend opportunities to study for part-time students. [R] [113198]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Government's plans for a significant expansion of foundation degrees are set out in 'The Future of Higher Education' (Cm 5735). Details are currently being worked up, in collaboration with the Higher Education Funding Council for England and other interested parties.
  562W
  The Quality Assurance Agency is responsible for safeguarding the standards and quality of the foundation degree as a higher education qualification. Employers and employer organisations are being involved in foundation degree design and development to ensure that qualifications meet professional standards and workplace needs. 50 per cent, of students currently studying for foundation degrees are part-time. A new promotion campaign to be launched later this year will continue to promote the message to both students and employers alike of the quality of foundation degrees and of the flexible modes of study available.

  This answer refers to England only.

  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps the Government are taking to encourage a more comprehensive system of credit accumulation and transfer for part-time students. [R] [113216]

  Margaret Hodge
  Credit systems which make it possible to break off and start again without having to repeat learning are increasingly important for part time learners in higher education. We recognised this in the White Paper and this is why we are encouraging HEFCE to work with other partners in the HE sector to identify and build upon good practice in the use of credit systems. HEFCE will be undertaking a two year programme which will include a number of pilot schemes using credit to support flexible progression and transfer between institutions and qualifications.

  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps the Government are taking to ensure that part-time students have access to a broad and balanced curriculum within easy travelling distance between their homes and place of study. [R] [113226]

  Margaret Hodge
  Higher education institutions themselves determine what programmes and courses they offer. They work increasingly with Regional Development Agencies and local Learning and Skills Councils to identify regional and sub-regional priorities and to develop appropriate programmes tailored to the needs of students and the economy.

  The Government recognise the importance of providing flexible ways of learning and new types of qualifications to meet the wide variety of needs of learners. Credit systems, which make it possible to break off and start again without having to repeat learning, will become increasingly important for part-time higher education students. We are building on the potential of e-learning to offer interactive, individualised learning at the pace, place and level most suited to the learner. The new foundation degrees are inherently flexible in how they are delivered: not only full-time or part-time at an institution but also through distance learning or in the workplace.

  As set out in our recent White Paper "The future of higher education" we are also improving the package of support for part-time students including a grant to help with the costs of travel.

  PFI Schemes
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1)how many local education authorities will be paying from their education budgets for the costs of PFI schemes in 2003–04; [113160]

  (2) what the total value is of payments for PFI schemes to be made by local education authorities from their education budget in the financial year 2003–04. [113161]

  Mr. Miliband
  All local education authorities (LEAs) with operational Schools PFI schemes contribute towards the costs of these schemes. Funding from this Department is intended to meet the capital repayment element of the unitary charge. LEAs must meet the facilities management element. They do this by recouping some of the funds which would otherwise have been devolved for this purpose to schools involved in the project, and by using their own resources.

  The contract for a Schools PFI scheme is usually between the LEA and the contractor. The DfES is not a party to the contract, so we are not aware of the unitary charge that the LEA would have agreed to pay each year. The size of the charge will of course be dependent on the overall value of the contract, however, a number of checks are put in place during the procurement process to try to ensure that LEAs agree deals that are affordable and offer good value for money.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent advice his Department has issued to schools in the London Borough of Havering regarding the(a) number of hours of physical education that should be taught to GCSE pupils and (b) the setting of homework tasks for GCSE pupils. [113472]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department has issued no advice specifically to schools in the London Borough of Havering about the number of hours of physical education that should be taught to GCSE pupils or the setting of homework tasks for GCSE pupils. Both are determined at local school level.

  However, the Government believes that all pupils should receive two hours per week of high quality physical education and school sport within and beyond the curriculum. To this end, the DfES and DCMS are working with a range of partners to deliver an ambitious Public Service Agreement target to ensure that, by 2006, 75 per cent, of all pupils will receive two hours per week of high quality PE and school sport within and beyond the curriculum. Delivery of this target is supported by Government investment of £459 million over the next three years.

  The Department last issued guidance to all schools on homework in November 1998 through the publication "Homework: Guidance for Primary and Secondary Schools".

  Pupils
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of pupils, after finishing their GCSEs,(a) remained at the same
  564W
  school, (b) went on to a different further education institution and (c) left secondary education, in each of the last five years. [113571]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table shows the proportion of the year group who, following their completion of compulsory education,(a) remained in the same school, (b) remained in education in a different institution and (c) did not continue in full-time education.

  Percentage

  1998

  2000

  2002

  Same school

  33

  33

  32

  Further education institution

  36

  38

  39

  Left education

  31

  29

  29

  Source:

  Youth Cohort Study, Cohorts 9, 10, 11.

  Figures are for England and Wales and are taken from the Youth Cohort Study (YCS). The YCS is a biennial survey; data for 1999, 2001 and 2003 are not available.

  School Toilets
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 8 May 2003,Official Report, column 842W, on school toilets, what steps his Department has taken to ensure that the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999 are adhered to; and on how many occasions in each year since the regulations, came into force the standards of hygiene in school toilets have been found to be below the required standard. [113271]

  Mr. Miliband
  Since the Education (School Premises) Regulations came into force on 1 February 1999, the Department's Schools Building and Design Unit has received five written (including E-mail) complaints concerning the condition of toilets in maintained schools, four in 2000 and 1 in 2003. It is not possible to assess the findings resulting for visits to schools by the Department's staff, or of telephone inquiries.

  School Uniforms
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his policy is on encouraging the use of school uniforms. [113572]

  Mr. Miliband
  It is for school governing bodies to determine whether their school has a uniform. The Department issued revised school uniform guidance in February 2002. This gives advice to schools and parents on issues relating to school uniform. The Secretary of State for Education and Skills recently confirmed his support for school uniform when he announced the results of our school uniform survey. He welcomed the results as they confirmed that the majority of parents were in favour of uniform and think it can contribute to improved behaviour and standards.

  Steiner Schools
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what decisions he has made about public funding for Steiner schools. [113518]
  565W
  Mr. Miliband
  The Department has been working with the Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship, and several LEAs, for three years to see whether independent Steiner Schools might be able to enter the maintained sector. As yet no decisions have been taken.

  Stoke-on-Trent LEA
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of 16 to 18-year-olds in Stoke-on-Trent LEA have moved into(a) further education and (b) higher education over the last five years; what percentage the figures represent of the total number of 16 to 18-year-olds in the area; and what the national average figures are. [112977]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The percentages of 16 and 17-year-olds participating in full-time education in Stoke-on-Trent LEA, in the four years for which data are available are set out in the table. Prior to 1997/98 Stoke on Trent LEA was part of Staffordshire LEA. Participation rates at sub-national level are only available for 16 and 17-year-olds.

  Participation in full-time further education1

  Percentage of age group

  End 1997

  End 1998

  End 1999

  End 2000

  16-year-olds

  Stoke-on-Trent LEA

  49

  52

  58

  60

  England

  70

  70

  71

  71

  17- year- olds

  Stoke-on-Trent LEA

  38

  38

  41

  46

  England

  57

  57

  58

  58

  1 Includes participation in schools, sixth form colleges and further and higher education institutions.

  Note:

  Population data do not include any revisions following the 2001 census.

  Source:

  DfES Statistical Bulletin, published 16 December 2002.

  Participation rates by LEA for 16 and 17-year-olds are published in an annual statistical bulletin, 'Participation in Education and Training by 16 and 17-Year-Olds in Each Local Area in England'. This bulletin is available on the departmental website www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics.

  (b) The proportion of students domiciled in Stoke-on-Trent LEA and England, aged 18 and accepted through UCAS to full-time undergraduate courses in the UK is given in the table.

  17-year-old population

  18-year-olds accepted to HE

  Proportion entering Higher Education (Percentage)

  Stoke-on-Trent LEA

  Autumn 1997 entry

  2,900

  331

  11.3

  Autumn 1998 entry

  3,000

  360

  11.9

  Autumn 1999 entry

  3,100

  339

  11.0

  Autumn 2000 entry

  3,000

  382

  12.8

  Autumn 2001 entry

  3,100

  502

  16.1

  Autumn 2002 entry

  3,000

  431

  14.6

  England

  Autumn 1997 entry

  601,100

  123,121

  20.5

  Autumn 1998 entry

  619,700

  124,533

  20.1

  Autumn 1999 entry

  612,100

  123,441

  20.2

  Autumn 2000 entry

  601,000

  123,708

  20.6

  Autumn 2001 entry

  610,900

  131,322

  21.5

  Autumn 2002 entry

  613,600

  134,840

  22.0

  566W
  Note:

  Participation rates have been calculated using the 17-year-old population from the previous year to reduce the distortion caused to LEA populations by the migration of students to their place of study. Figures include a very small number of accepted applicants of unknown English domicile. Population figures relate to persons aged 17 at 31 August in the year prior to entry, counts taken at the following 1 January; accepted applicants are aged 18 at 30 September in the year of entry.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will estimate the distribution of lifetime postgraduate income premiums by(a) types of course followed at university and (b) institution attended. [109333]

  Margaret Hodge
  We said in the White Paper, "The Future of Higher Education", that graduates enjoy different returns from different courses and according to the institution attended. Recent research found a 44 percentage point difference in average returns between graduates from institutions at the two extremes of the graduate pay scale. No specific estimates have been made of the distribution of lifetime earnings premia by type of course or institution attended, for either first-degree graduates or post-graduates. However, we will be publishing research evidence later this year on how lifetime earnings premia might differ according to institution attended.

  Academic research on graduate returns at a point in time shows that while higher education is a good investment for the average graduate, returns do vary according to degree subject. External research also indicates that graduate earnings vary according to the institution attended. These findings suggest that graduate lifetime earnings differentials may be influenced by degree subject and institution attended.

  Supply Teachers
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the number of supply teachers working in maintained schools, broken down by local authority area, in the current academic year. [109420]

  Mr. Miliband
  Occasional teacher numbers (teachers on contracts of less than a month who were in service for the whole of the survey date) in the maintained schools sector in England are shown in table 17 of the January 2002 edition of Statistics of Education: School Workforce in England. This table shows data for January 2002 the most recent data currently available. A copy of this volume has been placed in the Library. The table is also available on the statistics section of the DfES website at:www.dfes.qov.uk/statistics/DBA/OL/v0380/456–t17.htm.

  Teacher Numbers
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) male and (b) female teachers are employed in (i) primary schools and (ii) secondary schools. [110127]

  Mr. Miliband
  Full-time regular qualified teachers in the maintained schools sector in England by phase, grade and sex are shown in table 21 of the January 2002
  567W
  edition of Statistics of Education: School Workforce in England. This table shows data up to March 2001 which are the most recent available. A copy of this volume has been placed in the Library. The table is also available on the statistics section of the DfES website at: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics/DBA/OL/v0380/456–t21.htm.

  Teacher Pensions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many male partners of retired teachers would be eligible for more generous pension provisions on the death of their spouse if the rules on transferring teacher pension entitlement to a widower became uniform; and what estimate he has made of the cost of changing policy in this way. [113546]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Teachers' Pension Scheme has provided automatic cover for widowers' pensions since 6 April 1988. All female teachers have been given the option to purchase cover for pre-1988 service at favourable rates. Very many chose to do so and only those female teachers who did not take advantage of this opportunity have cover for widowers' benefits restricted to their post-1988 service. Information is not held on the number of female teachers who chose not to cover their pre-1988 service for widowers' benefit.

  To provide widowers' benefit cover from 1972 in respect of all serving female teachers would increase the contribution rate by around 0.15 per cent, of salary.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the impact of increased contributions to teachers superannuation on school budgets(a) in total and (b) for each local education authority area. [109414]

  Mr. Miliband
  It will not be possible to calculate the additional cost of the increase in employers' contributions to the Teachers' Pension Scheme for each local education authority for 2003–04 until we have analysed the contributions data for March and April 2003.

  Nationally, a total of £650 million has been transferred into provision for schools to meet the costs of the 4.75 per cent, increase in employers' contribution that arises from the inclusion of the costs of pensions increase on the scheme. This comprises a baseline adjustment to the Education Formula Spending total of £586 million; £20 million to meet the additional costs of
  568W
  Threshold grant payments; and a £44 million transfer to the Learning and Skills Council in respect of sixth forms.

  Teacher Qualifications
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of teachers in England in secondary schools hold a(a) Masters and (b) PhD in the subject area they are qualified to teach. [110129]

  Mr. Miliband
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Teaching Redundancies
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers have been issued with redundancy notices(a) in the past three months and (b) in the past year, in each local education authority. [109421]

  Mr. Miliband
  This information is not collected centrally.

SCOTLAND

  Postal Services
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland pursuant to her Answer of 4 February, Official Report, column 133W, on rural post offices (Scotland), how much of the money the Government is putting towards rural post offices over the next three years will be spent on Scottish post offices; and of the funding for Scotland, how much of this represents(a) a guarantee of existing subsidies and (b) investment in infrastructure. [114389]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Government has placed a formal requirement on Royal Mail to maintain the rural post office network and to prevent avoidable closures, in the first instance to 2006. This has been underpinned by a £450 million allocation to Post Office Ltd. The money will provide direct support to rural post offices and maintain front line services in local communities. It will also help to ensure Post Office Ltd provide reasonable access for all citizens to "over the counter" services and, in addition, it will give Post Office Ltd the financial flexibility to pilot modern innovative ways of delivering services in rural areas.

  Post Office Ltd will administer the fund within guidelines and parameters set by the Government.

TREASURY

  Children at Risk Green Paper
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the reasons are for the delay in publication of the Children at Risk Green Paper. [114737]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government are currently finalising the proposals to be detailed in the Children's Green Paper and will be publishing it shortly.

  Currency Design
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who(a) is consulted and (b) approves new designs for (i) coins of the realm, (ii) banknotes and (iii) postage stamps. [113849]

  Mr. Boateng
  When introducing a new coin, the Royal Mint takes into account the needs of the blind and the visually impaired, and regularly consults with representative bodies on these issues. It also consults representatives of the banks, the Post Office, retailers and the vending machine industry. The subject to feature on a new coin is approved by the Queen on the recommendation of the Chancellor in his capacity as Master of the Mint. Once the choice of subject has been decided, the Royal Mint Advisory Committee invites coin designers and artists to submit designs. The Advisory Committee recommends its preferred choice to the Chancellor for him to seek the approval of the Queen if he is content.

  Choosing the design of Bank of England banknotes is the responsibility of the Bank of England itself. The Bank consults with the Royal National Institute of the Blind. Exemplars of new notes are sent to the manufacturers of vending machines that accept banknotes, and are also offered to the commercial banks and the Post Office. Retailers are informed in advance of the new note.

  Consultation on new stamp designs takes place with the independent Stamp Advisory Committee, which includes representatives from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Royal Mail Board. New designs are submitted to the Queen for approval.

  Bank Interest (Research Council Funds)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much interest was earned by the Bank of England in respect of the account of the Natural Environment Research Council in the last financial year. [114320]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information regarding accounts held at the Bank of England is commercially confidential, and is not publicly disclosed. Inquiries about the Natural Environment Research Council should be directed to the Council itself.

  Crown Estate
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue has been received by the Treasury from rents paid for use of the Crown Estate's570W
  seabed in each year since 1973; and how much the Crown Estate has invested in marine research in each of those years. [113935]

  John Healey
  The overall net revenue surplus of The Crown Estate is surrendered to the Exchequer. This payment is not subdivided by the individual constituents of the Estate's property holdings. Figures for the gross surpluses from the operations of the different components of The Crown Estate are set out in the organisation's annual report which is available in the Library of the House.

  Since 1985 The Crown Estate has invested around £3.7 million in marine related research into areas such as fish farming and the environmental impact of dredging. A breakdown of the figures is as follows:

  £000

  1985

  56

  1986

  67

  1987

  71

  1988

  75

  1989

  100

  1990

  124

  1991

  425

  1992

  192

  1993

  208

  1994

  189

  1995

  228

  1996

  287

  1997

  383

  1998

  284

  1999

  304

  2000

  303

  2001

  164

  2002

  241

  Customs Confidential Hotline
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many(a) phone calls and (b) e-mails have been received by the Customs Confidential hotline since its inception, broken down by category of alleged offence. [113358]

  (2) what proportion of the (a) phone calls and (b) e-mails received by the Customs Confidential hotline since its inception produced information on which HM Customs could act. [113359]

  John Healey
  The Customs Confidential Hotline has only existed in its current format since May 2002. Prior to this paper records were kept, and the information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Since May 2002, 17,530 telephone calls have been processed, along with 832 e-mails and 341 Freepost letters. Additionally, 1,083 phone calls received (6.2 per cent.) are classed as wrong numbers, obscene or time wasting calls.

  In the past year, 18,703 pieces of information have been passed to Customs teams. Other Government Departments (OGDs) and to the police for consideration of further action.
  571W
  Many of these pieces of information are low-level intelligence which form part of a wider picture and need to be considered in that context; it is not always possible to determine immediately how useful this information is, and it is not possible to provide robust data on the correlation between information received by Customs and subsequent action taken by them.

  The approximate breakdown of the 18,703 pieces of information processed is given in the table.

  Category

  Proportion of pieces of information processed percentage

  VAT related

  34.2

  Tobacco

  27.4

  Alcohol

  18.0

  Oils

  10.4

  Drugs

  4.8

  Other (OGD/Police)

  2.3

  Criminal Finances

  0.6

  Counterfeit Goods

  0.6

  Gambling Taxes

  0.3

  Pornography (inc Paedophilia)

  0.3

  Firearms

  0.1

  Other Prohibitions and Restrictions

  1.0

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) arrests and (b) convictions have been attributable to information received by the Customs Confidential hotline since its inception; and what the costs of operating the Customs Confidential hotline were in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [113360]

  John Healey
  The Customs Confidential Hotline has only existed in its current format since May 2002. Prior to this paper records were kept and the information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  The costs of operating the Customs Confidential Hotline are estimated to be £12,500 a year for the free telephone hotline (0800 59 5000) and 6 staff years.

  In the last year information from the Customs Confidential Hotline has contributed to a number of operations across the country. However, it is not possible to provide robust data on correlation between information received by Customs and subsequent arrests and convictions.

  Deregulation
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the deregulation measures which have been implemented by his Department since February 2002; and if he will make a statement. [112834]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 12 May 2003]: The Government has taken forward a wide range of measures over the past year to reduce and simplify the regulatory burden on public, private and voluntary sectors. Many of these measures are described in detail in Chapter 3 of the
  572W
  Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report (web link http:// www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/budget/bud_bud03/budget_report/bud_bud03_repchap3.cfm and the accompanying press notice entitled Supporting Business and Entrepreneurship, both published on 9 April.

  In Budget 2003, the Chancellor announced that the Government had identified over 500 proposed deregulatory measures across government since February 2002, including, and building on, over 250 measures that were announced as part of the Government's Regulatory Reform Action Plan.

  Some of the most notable deregulatory measures that have been implemented by the Chancellor's departments' since February 2002 include:

  Optional flat rate VAT scheme for small business, enabling more than 650,000 to save up to £1,000 in annual compliance costs; annual accounting for Climate Change Levy; modernisation and simplification of existing regimes governing the taxation of debt and derivative contracts, repealing over 100 pages of legislation; simplification of Capital Gains Tax regime; Corporation Tax exemption for gains on substantial shareholdings; facilitation of electronic communication between building societies and their members; and removal/reduction of rustication on Credit unions to enable wider completion.

  Full details of these measures can be found on this Cabinet office web linkhttp://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/regulation/actionplari/docs/rrap.pdf)

  EU Savings Directive
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to encourage US compliance with the automatic exchange of information on savings held by EU nationals, as covered by the EU Savings Directive. [114302]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Her Majesty's Government holds regular discussions with the Government of the United States, in which a range of issues are discussed.

  Financial Statement and Budget Report
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a change to the main inflation index along the lines proposed in the Budget Statement will affect the annual uprating of pensions and other benefits. [114362]

  Mr. Boateng
  As the Chancellor made clear in his Budget speech the Treasury review of the inflation target is being examined from a monetary policy perspective. As has already been announced the Basic State Pension will rise each year by 2.5 per cent., or by the September RPI, whichever is higher. Social security benefits will rise in the normal way.

  Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of
  573W
  Clause 171 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill; and if he will make a statement. [113461]

  Mr. Boateng
  The provisions of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill will help deliver greater freedoms to high performing hospitals and trusts, as announced by the Chancellor in his Budget Statement on 17 April 2002. This is in line with the Government's policy of encouraging greater devolution in the delivery of public services to Departments and to front line organisations, within a clear framework of national standards and expenditure limits.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps with the World Bank as part of the HIPC initiative to resolve conflicts between the decisions made by the International Court for the Settlement of Investment Disputes and the obligations on heavily indebted poor countries. [113396]

  John Healey
  Generally the International Court for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) arbitration relates solely to the claim being considered, and need not have any bearing on how commercial debt should be treated under the Enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC) more widely, which primarily focuses on the cancellation of debt acquired through borrowing, and not with claims that might arise from the possibly illegal appropriation of assets.

  However, we would hope that any investor successfully claiming through ICSID would act in the spirit of the HIPC Initiative and settle for a smaller sum, in line with the Paris Club treatment of bilateral debt.

  Inspectorates
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 9April 2203,Official Report, column 269W, on Inspectorates, what the total costs incurred by the Inland Revenue were in each year since 1997. [113400]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue undertakes a variety of activities to monitor and ensure compliance. Chiefly, this concerns enquiries into the tax returns of individuals, businesses and companies, and reviews of employer compliance. Though figures are not available for earlier years, the number of staff engaged in this work and the staff costs to the Inland Revenue, were:

  Year

  Number of staff

  Total staff costs—£000

  1999–2000

  12,622

  439,689

  2000–01

  12,439

  446,761

  2001–02

  13,130

  490,020

  This involves staff employed at different levels working in local offices, the Large Business Office and the Special Compliance Office.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason his Department ceased issuing notices to people with an incomplete record of National 574W
  Insurance contributions in a given tax year; when and how this omission was noted; how many letters will now be issued; and if he will make a statement. [l14570]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to my written statement to the House on 16 May 2003,Official Report, column 26WS.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the question tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe for answer on 28 April, ref 109374, on tax credits. [114341]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I answered the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question on 30 April 2003, Official Report, columns 376–77W.

  My answer replied not only to question 109374 but also to questions 109369 and 109337 from the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell). Unfortunately, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question was not attributed to him in the Official Report. Arrangements have been made for this error to be corrected in the Bound Volume.

  State Retirement Pension
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what level the basic rate of income tax would have to be raised to meet the cost of raising the state retirement pension to 8 per cent, of GDP by 2050. [113547]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is not possible to provide accurate calculations of the revenue impact of rates of income tax as, far ahead as 2050. In particular, the structure of taxation and the distribution of income are likely to change materially over the long term.

  Tax
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the new tax credits on entitlement to(a) housing benefit and (b) council tax benefit; and if he will make a statement. [113588]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As a result of the increased generosity of the working and child tax credits that were introduced in April 2003, it is estimated that up to 50,000 households could be floated off housing benefit, while up to 150,000 households could be floated off council tax benefit.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) individuals and (b) households, broken down by those who are in work and those that are out of work and those in receipt of benefit and those that are not in receipt of benefit, face marginal rates of tax and benefit withdrawal of over (i) 40 per cent., (ii) 50 per cent., (iii) 60 per cent., (iv) 70 per cent., (v) 89 per cent., (vi) 90 per cent, and (vii) 100 per cent. [114413]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  575W
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how long on average each tax office is taking to process tax returns; and how many returns have been outstanding for(a) six weeks, (b) nine weeks, (c) 12 weeks and (d) more than 12 weeks. [113533]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue does not collect the exact information in the form requested.

  Annex A—Table 1 details the rate of capture for SA. Returns in respect of all return years over the past two financial years. This is shown as an age profile against the date of receipt of the return.

  Annex B—Table 2 details the number of returns which remain for processing that are more than 45 days from the date of receipt.

  Treasury Committee
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government will respond to the Treasury Committee's Fourth Report of Session 2002–03, HC 184; and what the reasons are for the delay in replying. [114568]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government response was delivered to the Committee on 2 May.

  UN Compensation Commission
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his Department's position is on repatriation claims in the UN Compensation Commission; if bis Department will advocate payment of these from liberated Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [111881]

  Mr. Rammell
  I have been asked to reply.

  We continue to support the work of the UNCC in assessing claims arising from Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The UNCC is currently funded from sales of Iraqi oil sold under the Oil For Food programme. The future of this programme is under discussion in the Security Council.

  Valuation Office
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the role of the Valuation Office Agency in Liverpool. [114195]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Valuation Office Agency (VOA) is an executive agency of the Inland Revenue with 85 offices spread throughout England, Wales and Scotland. This network of offices is arranged into 23 Groups and 9 District Valuers for different areas of work.

  The Liverpool Group has three offices located in Liverpool, Chester and Crewe and is headed by a Group Valuation Officer. The GVO is statutorily responsible for compiling and maintaining the business rating and council tax valuation lists for the 13 local authorities covered by his group.

  Additionally these three locations form part of the North West District Valuer Services. The District Valuer provides a comprehensive range of specialised
  576W
  property services to central Government and public bodies such as valuing property for the purposes of taxes administered by the Inland Revenue.

  It may be helpful for me to advise you that the VGA's website address is www.voa.gov.uk. on which there is further information about the VOA.

DEFENCE

  16 Air Assault Brigade
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will announce the date of the return to the UK from Iraq of 16 Air Assault Brigade. [113121]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 13 May 2003]: I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence's two written statements of 11 April 2003, Official Report, columns 38–39WS and 30 April 2003, Official Report, columns 15–16WS. In the latter, he announced the withdrawal of 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines, which is under way. We aim to bring home the other major deployed land units as soon as the situation allows, and will announce plans to do so once they are firm.

  Afghanistan
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the cost of NATO assistance for operations in Afghanistan will be met from the regular budget. [112484]

  Mr. Ingram
  NATO assistance does not affect the financing of United Kingdom military operations.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is his policy that one of the Invincible Class aircraft carriers will be used in a permanent landing platform helicopter role. [113953]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is not policy that one of the Invincible Class aircraft carriers (CVS) will be used in a permanent LPH role. The CVS have the capability to carryout the LPH function as a secondary role in support of amphibious operations, as demonstrated by HMS Ark Royal as part of Operation TELIC, but the Royal Navy's primary LPH capability is provided by HMS Ocean.

  Armed Forces' Equipment
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to balance the cost of modifying equipment against that of supporting unmodified equipment in theatre, when assessing cost effectiveness. [110551]

  Mr. Ingram
  Under the Smart Acquisition process all costs associated with the expected life of any new equipment are considered when decisions are taken on procurement, taking into account the global role of United Kingdom armed forces.

  In addition the particular circumstances of every operation are examined, and existing equipment modified for the specific operational environment, the

  577W
  particular threat faced and the potential scenarios envisaged. This includes improving supportability where it will increase operational effectiveness.

  Beef
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where beef for consumption by(a) the Army, (b) the airforce, (c) the Navy and (d) the marines is reared and produced. [114158]

  Mr. Ingram
  The latest percentages for the beef purchased is: 55 per cent, reared and produced in Britain, 21 per cent. Australia, 18 per cent. Brazil, 4 per cent. Uruguay and 2 per cent. New Zealand. There is no differentiation between the single services.

  Cluster Bombs
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to replace cluster bombs used by Her Majesty's armed forces in Iraq. [112480]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence has no plans to replace the cluster bombs used in Iraq.

  Defence Equipment Sales
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Government to Government memorandum of understanding between the UK and Qatar regarding the purchase of £500 million worth of defence equipment from the UK was resurrected; and which components of the deal are being renegotiated. [108989]

  Mr. Ingram
  There has been no renegotiation of any defence cooperation understandings with the government of Qatar since signature.

  European Security and Defence Policy
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the Le Touquet Summit declaration of 4 February, if he will place a copy of the text of NATO and EU agreements in the Library of each House; when they were concluded; and if he will make a statement. [111914]

  Mr. Hoon
  The strategic partnership arrangements between the EU and NATO in crisis management, known as "Berlin Plus", were agreed in principle by the North Atlantic Council and the European Council on 13 December 2002. The detailed arrangements implementing the agreement were then finalised, leading to a final exchange of letters between the NATO Secretary General, my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Robertson, and the Secretary General of the European Union Council of Ministers, Javier Solatia, on 17 March 2003.

  This exchange of letters and most of the detailed implementation documents were passed in confidence between NATO and the EU and member states and I am therefore withholding them under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to Defence, Security and International Relations. There are, however, two documents which do not fall within the scope of this
  578W
  exemption. I shall make arrangements for a copy of the "Agreement between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the European Union on the Security of Information" and a document "Defining the EU Capability Development Mechanism" to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Hawk
  Miss Mclntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence(1) what representations he has received concerning the Hawk Advanced Jet Trainer; and if he will make a statement; [113097]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the benefits of the Hawk aircraft programme in terms of (a) jet pilot training capability and (b) jobs. [113098]

  Mr. Ingram
  Representations have been made concerning the Hawk Advanced Jet Trainer from a variety of sources.

  We have continued to work closely with BAE Systems to determine whether Hawk 128 will best meet our need for an Advanced Jet Trainer and on 31 March 2003 received a final proposal from the company. We are currently considering the proposal to determine whether it does meet our requirement and offer value for money for the taxpayer. A decision on the way ahead is expected by the end of June 2003 and it would not be appropriate to make a statement until this time. It will be for BAE Systems to decide what effect, if any, the outcome will have on employment levels.

  HMS Glasgow
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason HMS Glasgow remained non-operational for 12 months. [112299]

  Mr. Ingram
  During the last 12 months HMS Glasgow has been held in extended readiness. She has undergone regeneration work in preparation for rejoining the fleet as I set out in my answer of 24 February 2003,Official Report, columns 305–06W, to the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock). I also refer the hon. Member to my answer to him of 12 May 2003, Official Report, column 38W, which stated that she has been unavailable for deployment as a result of manpower commitments to providing emergency cover in the event of a fire-fighters strike.

  Intelligence Units
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the remit is of the Joint Services Group. [112522]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am withholding this information under section la of the Code of Practice on Access to Government information.

  Iraq
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to establish a mechanism that can provide for investigation of allegations of the unlawful use of lethal force by members of HM armed forces in Iraq. [111844]
  579W
  Mr. Ingrain
  We are not aware of any allegations of unlawful use of lethal force by United Kingdom personnel in Iraq. However, were such an allegation to be made, and it could be substantiated, the Special Investigation Branch of the Royal Military Police, a detachment of which is currently deployed in the Gulf, would be responsible for carrying out an investigation into the circumstances.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions and orders have been issued to members of HM armed forces in Iraq concerning co-operation with investigations into allegations concerning the unlawful use of lethal force by members of(a) UK, (b) US and (c) other forces performing policing and public order duties in Iraq. [111845]

  Mr. Hoon
  Co-operation with investigations into allegations of unlawful use of lethal force, whether by members of the United Kingdom, the United States or other forces performing policing and public order duties in Iraq, is a matter for individuals, unless they are compelled to co-operate by a court order. Accordingly, no such orders or instructions have been issued.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what orders and instructions he has given concerning participation of Scots Guardsmen(a) Mark Wright and (b) James Fisher on foot patrols and other interface with the civilian population of Basra. [112547]

  Mr. Ingram
  None.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence(1)how many(a) Paveway II, (b) Paveway III and (c) 1,000 Ib bombs were dropped in Iraq; and what the cost was for each group; [113246]

  (2)what the total replacement value is of the ordnance dropped by British forces in Iraq. [113247]

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

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect of the use of cluster bombs in the war with Iraq on the long-term development of the country. [113739]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government recognise that, following conflict, all unexploded ordnance is a matter of humanitarian concern. That is why we are committed to the clearance of unexploded ordnance as part of the post-conflict reconstruction of Iraq.

  Missile Defence
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to sign a memorandum of understanding with the United States of America on missile defence; if he will place a copy in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [113902]

  Mr. Hoon
  As I informed the House on 5 February 2003,Official Report, column 11WS, we have agreed to the US request to upgrade the early warning radar at RAF Fylingdales for missile defence purposes, and are negotiating a technical memorandum of understanding to give us full insight into the development of the US programme and allow British industry the best possible opportunities to win work within it. Agreements to
  580W
  embody these decisions will comprise one framework memorandum of understanding setting out the principles under which UK/US cooperation may be undertaken plus associated memoranda covering technical cooperation and the upgrade of RAF Fylingdales. Final decisions on the releasability of these MOUs have not yet been made.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role(a) Army and (b) official personnel played in planning, preparing and carrying out the killing of Councillor Eddie Fullerton. [112274]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am not aware of any evidence or allegations to suggest that Army or official personnel were involved in the killing of Councillor Eddie Fullerton.

  I would urge anyone who has any evidence on this, or other deaths, to pass it to the police.

  Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Action Group
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost to his Department of the action against the MOD by the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Action Group. [113697]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 16 May 2003]: The Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Group action against the Ministry of Defence was heard in the Royal Courts of Justice between 4 March and 13 November 2002. Judgment will be handed down on 21 May 2003. The Ministry of Defence's legal costs and disbursements incurred from the commencement of the action up to 28 April 2003 was £3,530,379.

  Royal Fleet Auxiliary
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects(a) RFA Sir Galahad and (b) RFA Sir Tristram to be paid off. [112271]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on 13 March 2003,Official Report, column 389W, and 27 February 2003, Official Report, column 670W, to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr Keetch).

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the continued deployment of British forces to Saudi Arabia; and if he will make a statement. [113954]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence's two written ministerial statements on Iraq Force Level Adjustments of I1 April 2003,Official Report, columns 38–39WS, and of 30 April 2003, Official Report, columns 15–16WS, in which he made clear that the precise level of the continuing United Kingdom presence needed in the Gulf region is the subject of an on-going dynamic planning process.

  We will continue to inform the House of any firm decisions on the level of UK military presence required in the region.

  Security Cleared Contracts
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what discussions he has had with the Defence Vetting Agency regarding discrimination in advertisements for Ministry of Defence security cleared contracts; [113709]

  (2) what action he is taking to ensure that advertisements for Ministry of Defence security cleared contracts do not discriminate against potential applicants whose Ministry of Defence security clearance may have lapsed; [113707]

  (3) what action he is taking to inform recruitment agencies who advertise MOD security cleared contracts of the MOD policy that applicants do not need current clearance to apply for classified contracts. [113708]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have had no discussions with the Defence Vetting Agency (DVA) regarding discrimination in advertisements for Ministry of Defence security cleared contracts. I am, however, advised by the DVA and other Departments in the MOD that complaints are sometimes received from individuals who feel that advertisements placed by some employment agencies, seeking staff who already possess a security clearance, are discriminatory.

  Whenever the Ministry of Defence becomes aware that a recruitment agency is advertising for staff holding a security clearance to work on MOD protectively marked contracts, we write to the agency concerned advising them to stop the practice. The agency is told that the wording used is incorrect, discriminatory and counter to Government policy, and could potentially place the company in breach of equal opportunities legislation. The agency is also requested to use more suitable wording, as suggested by MOD, when advertising job vacancies, making it clear that the successful applicant will require to be security cleared prior to confirmation of their appointment.

  MOD have also taken action to ensure that United Kingdom defence contractors are advised along similar lines when advertising employment opportunities.

  Sierra Leone
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Kingdom troops are deployed in Sierra Leone; what the number was at its peak; what the timetable is for reducing the UN peacekeeping force; and what assessment he has made of whether the timetable is likely to be met. [113657]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at May 2003, there are 119 United Kingdom military personnel deployed to Sierra Leone. Of these, 21 personnel form the UK contribution to the UN Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL), and 98 personnel form the core of the UK-led International Military Advisory and Training Team (IMATT). At the peak of the UK's military deployment in February 2001 there were around 907 personnel in Sierra Leone.

  The key objective for UNAMSIL is to assist the Government of Sierra Leone in the consolidation of peace and security. Progress is regularly reviewed against a range of benchmarks relating to the security situation in Sierra Leone, and wider governance, justice and human rights issues. These benchmarks are set down in the Fifteenth Report of the UN Secretary
  582W
  General on Sierra Leone of 5 September 2002. UNAMSIL drawdown is driven by achievement of these benchmarks rather than by a set timetable. As a consequence of progress made, UNAMSIL started a phased drawdown in September 2002. Phase One of the drawdown is now complete, with Phase Two to be completed shortly. This will see a reduction in troop strength to around 13,000.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution the United Kingdom is making(a) to training the Sierra Leone army and police and (b) to the reintegration of former combatants. [113658]

  Mr. Ingram
  A United Kingdom-led International Military Advisory and Training Team (IMATT) continues to help build the Republic of Sierra Leone armed forces into an effective, professional and democratically accountable force and to improve the capacity of the Sierra Leone MOD. The IMATT currently involves 114 personnel, comprising 98 UK military personnel plus a number of internationals. In addition, there are two UK Ministry of Defence civil servants serving in the Sierra Leone MOD.

  The UK is also making a major contribution to the restructuring of the Sierra Leone Police (SLP) through training and the provision and repair of police infrastructure. Training for the SLP is being provided under a scheme, managed by the Department for International Development, worth some £13 million over three years. In all, about 4,000 police officers, from senior management to new recruits, have received some form of training under the project.

  In preparation for the gradual withdrawal of the UN Mission in Sierra Leone(UNAMSIL), the Government of Sierra Leone plan to recruit some 3,000 additional officers. The refurbishment and extension of the SLP training school is being paid for by DFID to enable training of these additional officers. The UK has also nominated 10 civilian police officers to UNAMSIL to work on capacity building programmes.

  The UK's reconciliation and reconstruction projects in Sierra Leone are carried out through the Community Reintegration Programme (CRP) and the ReAct Programme. Both of these provide community reintegration activities in the form of job opportunities and short-term skills training and education for ex-combatants. The activities are community-based, with ex-combatants working alongside other war-affected people. The CRP, to which £14.4 million has been committed by DFID, operates in the northern region of Sierra Leone; ReAct operates in the eastern region of Sierra Leone and is co-funded by DFID and UNHCR. The DFID contribution to ReAct is £1.8 million.

  Strategic Airfield Study
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the future of RAF Lyneham; [112690]

  (2) for what reason the Strategic Airfield Study was not published before the Easter recess; and when the Strategic Airfield Study will be published. [112689]
  583W
  Mr. Ingrain
  The outcome of the Strategic Review into the future of RAF Brize Norton, RAF Lyneham and RAF St Mawgan was not published before the Easter recess because of the requirement to take into account the experience of Operation TELIC. I hope to be in a position to announce the outcome of the review in the next few weeks.

  Territorial Army (NHS Personnel)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans are in place to return NHS employees to the United Kingdom following service with the TA medical services in the Gulf; and if he will make a statement. [113898]

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Territorial Army medical staff in the Gulf will return to their jobs in the national health service; and if he will make a statement. [114566]

  Dr. Moonie
  The majority of Territorial Army medical personnel are serving with either 34 Field Hospital (34 Fd Hosp) or 202 Volunteer Field Hospital (202 (V) Fd Hosp). On current plans, 34 Fd Hosp personnel should return to the United Kingdom by the end of May 2003. 202 (V) Fd Hosp personnel will be released from theatre through a staged process beginning in the next few weeks. It is hoped that all should have returned by the end of July 2003. There are some additional singleton appointments undertaken by medical personnel who will leave theatre as and when their parent Regular unit leaves theatre. TA personnel will be able to return to their employment with the national health service once they have been through the demobilisation process and taken their post operational tour leave which is commensurate with the period of their mobilised service.

  Troop Deployments (Persian Gulf)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of British troops deployed in the Persian Gulf have now returned home. [110705]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence's Written Statement of 30 April 2003,Official Report, columns 15–16WS.

  As at 11 May, over 11,000 United Kingdom servicemen and women had returned to their home bases from operations in the Gulf. This represents around 25 per cent of the total number deployed to the region.

  UN Non-proliferation Treaty
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Government's contribution is to the UN Non-Proliferation Treaty conference in Geneva. [112096]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 12 May 2003,Official Report, columns 84–85W, by my hon. Friend (Mr. O'Brien) the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith).

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  African Union Peace and Security Council
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries have(a) signed and (b) ratified the African Union Peace and Security Council. [112172]

  Mr. Rammell
  The following countries have signed the African Union protocol relating to the establishment of the Peace and Security Council: Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Western Sahara, Sao Tome & Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

  Algeria and Mali have completed ratification.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which members of the African Union have(a) signed and (b) ratified the African Peace and Security Council. [112731]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her today (UIN 112172).

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he is making to the UN force in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [112180]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are in regular contact with MONUC (the UN force in the Democratic Republic of Congo) and with the UN in New York. Our aim is the deployment of MONUC at its mandated strength of 8,700 to support the peace process in the DRC, including Ituri.

  Entry Clearance (Waiting Times)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for entry clearance are awaiting determination at the British high commission in Islamabad; how many have been outstanding for more than(a) six months and (b) three months; and if he will make a statement. [114565]

  Mr. Rammell
  In the six months from 16 November 2002–16 May 2003, the Visa section in Islamabad has received 37,881 applications for entry clearance. Of those applications, 22,416 resulted in visas being issued and 2,820 applications were refused. There were 12,645 unresolved applications.

  For the three month period between 16 February and 16 May, Islamabad received 20,067 applications. Of those applications 14,303 were successful and 784 were refused. 4,990 applications are unresolved.

  Out of these unresolved applications, we estimate that about 2 per cent, will lead to a decision. The remaining applications are those which cannot be resolved without an interview. As a result of the security situation, Islamabad is unable to offer such interviews and the

  585W
  remaining unresolved applications will therefore be returned to the applicant with a request that they make new applications once interviewing is resumed.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether United Kingdom military forces are authorised to kill Saddam Hussein if they receive reliable and authenticated details of his whereabouts. [111238]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are of course circumstances in which Saddam Hussein could be killed as a result of military operations to achieve our published campaign objectives. I am withholding information on the details of the Rules of Engagement under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. We will continue to act fully within the constraints of international law governing military conflict.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when(a) Foreign Office officials and (b) Government Ministers were informed of the visit to Iraq in December 1999 by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway); and what assessment the Foreign Office then made as to the purpose of the visit. [114182]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 16 May 2003]: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin has a long and well publicised association with Iraq. Like all hon. Members he enjoys the privilege of free association, without obligation to inform the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of his visits overseas. As far as we are aware, the FCO was aware of this visit as a matter of routine and courtesy.

  Nigeria
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the Government of Nigeria regarding(a) the conduct of the presidential and gubernatorial elections and (b) the murders of Dr. Harry Marshall and Mr. Ogbannaya. [112730]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs issued a press statement on 29 April following the Presidential elections noting the re-election of President Obasanjo, and expressing the UK's desire to support the President in pursuing strategic policies on economic and government reform. The statement also reflected our concern at reports of serious fraud and irregularities.

  Following the murder of Marshall Harry on 5 March, we condemned the use of political violence in the conduct of elections, and welcomed the Nigerian Government's declared intention to ensure a swift and rigorous investigation. Before the elections, our High Commissioner frequently called on the leadership of the main political parties to avoid violence and to take action against those who used it.
  586W

  Public Relations
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department has spent on public relations advice in the past five years. [93866]

  Mr. MacShane
  The total expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on public relations work in the past five years is:

  £ including VAT

  2002–03

  360,899,46

  2001–02

  815,842

  2000–01

  347,857

  1999–2000

  nil

  1998–99

  59,337

  This includes advice, design, branding, development and implementation of PR campaigns. It would take disproportionate costs to establish the element of this that was purely advice.

  The bulk of the funding for 2001–02 and 2002–03 relates to the "Know Before You Go" public awareness campaign aimed at encouraging UK travellers to be better prepared when travelling overseas.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what public relations companies his Department is consulting. [93867]

  Mr. MacShane
  The FCO's "Know Before You Go" campaign is managed by a firm of London-based communications consultants: Biss Lancaster Euro RSCG.

  Russian Federation
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on discrimination on grounds of race relations in the Russian federation. [110211]

  Mr. MacShane
  Combating racism and intolerance is an integral part of the protection and promotion of human rights and a key UK commitment at home and abroad. We are fully aware that discrimination on the grounds of race is a serious problem in Russia, as a result of human rights reporting produced by our embassy in Moscow and our regular contacts with NGOs including Amnesty International.

  The Russian Federation's most recent report to the committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination highlighted the many positive steps taken by the Government to implement the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. However, it also acknowledged some of the problems faced by minorities in Russia, including reports of nationality-motivated discrimination by law-enforcement officers and officials. Other recent reports on this issue include one by the Moscow Helsinki Group published in September 2002.

  Somalia
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on Somaliland. [111738]

  Mr. Rammell
  UK policy on Somalia and Somaliland has two objectives:to see peace and stability established throughout Somalia. We have encouraged the National Reconciliation Process initiated by the regional organisation the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and we welcomed the Declaration on cessation of hostilities signed on 27 October 2002.
  for Somaliland, which is not taking part in the Conference, to reach a political settlement with the rest of the country. This can only happen at a later stage in the reconciliation process. It will be for the people of Somaliland to decide for themselves if they are ready to engage in talks with the rest of Somalia.

  We provided over £150,000 to the electoral process in Somaliland to encourage local democracy and the development of a viable and legitimate administration. We are also considering how we might increase our development assistance.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Sudanese Government regarding their refusal to provide security clearance for the flights of the verification and monitoring team in Sudan. [112178]

  Mr. Rammell
  On 7 April the Government of Sudan lifted flight restrictions imposed on the Civilian Protection Monitoring Team in March. On 7 April the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) Special Envoy announced that the Verification Monitoring Team's (VMT) mission to Bentiu had been suspended. This followed concerns expressed by the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army about the tasking of the VMT. The IGAD Special Envoy has now proposed a compromise position which we hope will be acceptable to both parties and we continue to work with the mediators to ensure the operationalisation of the VMT as soon as possible.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he is making to those countries who voted against the resolution to continue to monitor Sudan's human rights record in the UN. [112179]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are disappointed that the EU sponsored resolution on Sudan was not adopted by the UN Commission on Human Rights on 16 April. We lobbied members of the Commission on Human Rights about the resolution before the vote was taken, arguing that Sudan's human rights situation continued to deserve action by the commission. We will consult EU partners about what next steps to take to help address the human rights situation in Sudan.

  Turkey
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations his Department has made to the Turkish Government regarding EU recommendations that Turkey should guarantee access to legal counsel for all detainees from the moment of detention. [113139]

  Mr. MacShane
  FCO officials most recently discussed access to legal counsel for detainees with their Turkish counterparts at the latest round of the UK-Turkey Human Rights Dialogue, which took place in London on 26 November 2002.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the Turkish Government regarding the use of torture on juveniles in Turkish prisons and police precincts. [113140]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him today (UIN 113141). In addition, FCO officials discussed the use of torture on juveniles in prisons and police precincts with their Turkish counterparts at the latest round of an on-going UK-Turkey Human Rights Dialogue in London on 26 November 2002.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with(a) the Turkish Government and (b) the European Union regarding the use of torture in Turkish prisons and police precincts. [113141]

  Mr. MacShane
  FCO officials frequently discuss the use of torture in prisons and police precincts with the Turkish authorities, including in the context of the human rights projects that we run specifically to help Turkey put a stop to such abuses. The FCO also collaborated with the European Commission on the wording of the revised EU-Turkey Accession Partnership, which sets out priorities that Turkey must meet in order to open accession negotiations with the European Union. These priorities cover a broad range of human rights issues, including the use of torture.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with(a) the Turkish Government and (b) the European Union regarding the police raid on the Human Rights Association in Ankara. [113143]

  Mr. MacShane
  The British Embassy in Ankara raised the police raid on the Human Rights Association with a senior official at the Prime Minister's Office on 14 May. They will continue to discuss such human rights issues, at all appropriate levels, as part of our dialogue about reforms in Turkey. We are actively discussing it with our European partners—for example, at the 12 May meeting of the South East Europe Working Group in Brussels. The raid was also the subject of a debate in the European Parliament and a strong statement of concern issued by the European Commission on 13 May.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Craigavon Area Hospital
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the closure of the mortuary facilities at Craigavon Area Hospital. [113366]

  Mr. Browne
  From 23 December 2002 all post-mortem work was relocated from Craigavon Area Hospital to Belfast on a temporary basis. This arrangement is necessary to enable the existing mortuary facilities to be upgraded in compliance with current standards and to achieve accreditation by Clinical Pathology Accreditation (UK) Ltd. The upgrade will also provide improved facilities for use by both staff and visitors. It is anticipated that the work will be completed by October 2003. In the interim period the mortuary continues to provide a storage facility for bodies not requiring postmortem but awaiting collection by the family's funeral director.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether any(a) organs, (b) blocks and (c) slides (i) are being and (ii) have been retained in the last five years at Craigavon Area hospital. [113368]

  Mr. Browne
  Craigavon Area Hospitals Group Trust has retained organs or parts of organs following hospital post-mortem examinations within the last five years. At present there are parts of organs from three adult post-mortem examinations. These were previously declared to the Human Organs Inquiry in 2001. The Trust has confirmed that no organs have been retained since 2001 without the specific consent of the next of kin. They further advise that tissue blocks and slides have been retained from hospital post-mortem examinations within the last five years. Those prepared prior to 2001 have been returned to the next of kin on request. Those prepared since 2001 were returned, prior to the burial of the deceased, if this was requested in the hospital postmortem consent form.

  Crime (International Co-operation) Bill
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the consultations which have taken place with the Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman in relation to the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill. [109047]

  Jane Kennedy
  No consultations have taken place with the Police Ombudsman in relation to the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill.

  Departmental Creche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what créche facilities are provided by his Department; and at what cost. [104300]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Northern Ireland Office does not provide créche facilities for its staff, but it does provide assistance with the cost of child care for staff with preschool aged children. In the last financial year the Department and its Agencies assisted 166 staff at a total cost of £113,600.
  590W
  A number of departments within the Northern Ireland administration provide child care facilities.

  The Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) Holiday Play schemes are designed to look after school age children of staff during the summer holidays. They are operated by volunteer management committees and are funded by DFP.

  In addition, three departments offer limited financial assistance for child care to staff (selection is by way of an annual draw) and to assist parents encountering short-term child care difficulties one department operates an emergency Childcare Subsidy scheme.

  The total funding available for these child care provisions is £81,284.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total cost of his Department's website was in the last 12 months; and how many hits it received in the same period. [104198]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I am sorry for the delay in replying.

  The total cost of the Northern Ireland Office website from 1 April 2002 was £4,939.97 and it received 10,731,489 hits.

  The total cost of the Northern Ireland Administration's websites from 1 April 2002 is £369,814 and they received 54,494,035 hits.

  The Northern Ireland Executive also hosts a website with access to all the Northern Ireland Administration's websites which received 3,816,269 hits in this period.

  Firearms Certificates
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications for the renewal of firearms certificates by the holders of personal protection weapons have been made in each year since 1998; and how many of these renewal applications were approved during that period. [109216]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Chief Constable has advised me that the information requested, prior to 1 January 2001, is available only at disproportionate cost, but for the period from then to 31 December 2002 667 personal protection weapon applications were processed of which 552 (83 per cent.) were approved and 115 (17 per cent.) were refused.

  Health Funding
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what additional funding has been made available by the Eastern Health and Social Services Board to the Down Lisburn Trust in the current financial year to address the equity deficit. [113784]

  Mr. Browne
  The Eastern Health and Social Services Board have planned to allocate additional service development funds from April 2003 that are expected to reduce the current equity gap by £1.5 million for the population living in the Down Lisburn area.

  Human Organs Inquiry
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) organs, (b) blocks and (c) slides were destroyed prior to the Human Organs Inquiry. [113372]

  Mr. Browne
  The Report of the Human Organs Inquiry states that:"Each hospital we visited has kept records of post mortems conducted there. However those records were not designed to and do not provide a complete paper trail, revealing what exactly was removed, kept and then disposed of."

  In the absence of complete records it is not possible to answer this question. The Report does acknowledge however that human organs and tissue were destroyed and records the experience of the Royal Group of Hospitals thus:
  "At different times it seems that there were 'clearouts' of retained organs which were no longer required, sometimes on a weekly basis, sometimes every three months or so. The practices were too varied at different times for them to be usefully analysed in this Report".

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether deceased persons' relatives who participated in the Human Organs Inquiry can obtain copies of the paperwork they supplied to the inquiry. [113373]

  Mr. Browne
  Files opened by the Human Organs Inquiry, including those containing correspondence with relatives, were placed in the Public Records Office for Northern Ireland when the inquiry completed its work in May 2002. They are currently held under a 30-year seal, which was applied to the documents to safeguard the privacy of all those involved. The Public Records Office will consider requests for documents held under seal. Where a member of the public wants to see a record that is closed, an application should be made in writing to the Public Records Office who in turn will arrange for the appropriate authority to be contacted on their behalf. Every request will be considered on its own merits.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provision exists for young people leaving moderate learning difficulty schools in Northern Ireland; what research(a) has been carried out to date and (b) is planned; and when it is intended to publish such research. [113866]

  Jane Kennedy
  I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 29 April 2003,Official Report, column 334W, and can confirm that there has been no research commissioned by the Department of Education in this area other than that being undertaken by the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), nor is any other research planned by the Department.

  Manufacturing
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many jobs in the manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland have been lost since April 1998. [113501]
  592W
  Mr. Pearson
  There have been 23,979 redundancies in Northern Ireland confirmed to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment since the signing of the Belfast Agreement. Of these 18,077 (75 per cent.) were in the manufacturing industry. However, overall employment levels in Northern Ireland have risen by an estimated 68,000 over the same period.

  Mr. McKenna
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether Mr. McKenna of the Department of Education in Northern Ireland was informed of the aspects of his conduct which the complainant considered to be harassment, during the investigation which followed the formal complaint made in January 2001. [112353]

  Jane Kennedy
  My Department views very seriously all complaints of harassment and bullying. In its investigation of complaints it adheres fully to its internal policy on harassment and bullying. The policy affords those who have a complaint lodged against them the opportunity to obtain in full a copy of the written complaint of harassment. This will set out exactly the harassment complaint that has been lodged.

  In providing this response I am conscious of the need to balance your interest in obtaining this information, or that of the person on whose behalf you are seeking it, with the requirement to respect the identity of the complainant and the member of staff against whom the complaint was lodged. I am content that the information I have provided does not compromise the identity of either individual.

  Murders
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many killings have taken place in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years, expressed(a) as a total and (b) as a percentage of the population. [109377]

  Jane Kennedy
  The following table shows the number of murders, manslaughter and infanticide offences recorded by the police in Northern Ireland in the past five years. The 2002–03 figures are provisional and may be subject to revision. The percentage per population figures are based on NISRA revised mid-year population estimates.

  Financial year

  Murder

  Manslaughter

  Infanticide

  Total

  Percentage per population

  1998–99

  71

  4

  0

  75

  .004

  1999–2000

  29

  5

  0

  34

  .002

  2000–01

  44

  4

  0

  48

  .0029

  2001–02

  49

  3

  0

  52

  .003

  2002–03

  42

  3

  0

  45

  .0027

  Occupational Therapists
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many occupational therapists there were in each health and social services trust in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997. [113869]
  593W
  Mr. Browne
  Figures showing the number of occupational therapists there have been in each health and social services trust since 1997 are shown in the

  Table I: Headcount figures for Occupational Therapists within each Health and Social Services (HSS) Trust in Northern Ireland in each year since 19971,2

  HSS Trust

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  18

  18

  20

  23

  25

  24

  27

  Green Park Healthcare HSS Trust

  28

  31

  31

  37

  36

  34

  39

  South and East Belfast HSS Trust

  40

  45

  43

  44

  41

  41

  46

  Ulster Community and Hospitals Group HSS Trust

  41

  40

  43

  44

  42

  50

  46

  Royal Group of Hospitals HSS Trust

  18

  18

  19

  20

  23

  20

  19

  Mater Infirmorium Hospital HSS Trust

  5

  4

  5

  8

  5

  7

  8

  North and West Belfast HSS Trust

  30

  28

  36

  28

  32

  36

  38

  Down Lisburn HSS Trust

  34

  35

  32

  34

  37

  37

  42

  Causeway HSS Trust

  19

  18

  19

  19

  18

  20

  28

  Homefirst Community HSS Trust

  68

  75

  76

  85

  91

  91

  95

  Armagh and Dungannon HSS Trust

  27

  31

  31

  31

  33

  37

  37

  Newry and Mourne HSS Trust

  18

  16

  18

  18

  23

  23

  24

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community HSS Trust

  26

  30

  31

  38

  40

  45

  50

  Foyle Community HSS Trust

  28

  30

  33

  27

  31

  35

  38

  Sperrin Lakeland HSS Trust

  26

  25

  28

  29

  31

  31

  33

  United Hospitals Group HSS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Craigavon Area Hospital Group HSS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Altnagelvin Group HSS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  426

  444

  465

  485

  508

  531

  570

  Table 2: Whole-time equivalent figures for Occupational Therapists within each Health and Social Services (HSS) Trust in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997 1,2

  HSS Trust

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  17.00

  17.50

  18.60

  21.60

  23.18

  22.18

  24.60

  Green Park Healthcare HSS Trust

  25.32

  27.33

  27.64

  33.45

  31.77

  30.72

  34.21

  South and East Belfast HSS Trust

  33.54

  37.96

  36.11

  37.89

  35.68

  33.85

  38.77

  Ulster Community and Hospitals Group HSS Trust

  36.73

  33.96

  36.41

  37.47

  33.46

  41.46

  39.15

  Royal Group of Hospitals HSS Trust

  17.51

  17.50

  18.05

  19.05

  22.05

  18.95

  17.95

  Mater Infirmorium Hospital HSS Trust

  5.00

  4.00

  5.00

  8.00

  5.00

  7.00

  8.00

  North and West Belfast HSS Trust

  26.72

  24.52

  32.41

  25.60

  29.48

  31.63

  32.64

  Down Lisburn HSS Trust

  28.48

  29.63

  27.04

  28.77

  31.15

  31.32

  37.04

  Causeway HSS Trust

  15.63

  16.44

  17.25

  17.25

  16.35

  18.15

  26.10

  Homefirst Community HSS Trust

  59.92

  67.24

  65.01

  73.36

  80.38

  79.11

  82.75

  Armagh and Dungannon HSS Trust

  24.39

  28.05

  27.27

  27.33

  28.00

  30.04

  29.58

  Newry and Mourne HSS Trust

  18.00

  15.86

  17.16

  17.24

  22.24

  22.00

  22.92

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community HSS Trust

  22.79

  25.71

  27.02

  33.77

  36.35

  40.40

  45.51

  Foyle Community HSS Trust

  25.67

  28.28

  30.83

  24.64

  29.05

  32.88

  34.98

  Sperrin Lakeland HSS Trust

  25.16

  23.66

  25.97

  26.66

  29.08

  28.81

  30.78

  United Hospitals Group HSS Trust

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Craigavon Area Hospital Group HSS Trust

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Altnagelvin Group HSS Trust

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Total

  381.86

  397.64

  411.77

  432.08

  453.22

  468.50

  504.62

  1 Bank staff have been removed from these figures.

  2 Figures are at March of each year.

  Oversight Commissioner
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many days the Oversight Commissioner for Policy in Northern Ireland has spent in Northern Ireland in each year since his appointment; and what the total amount paid to him has been to date. [113871]

  Jane Kennedy
  I assume the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Oversight Commissioner for Policing.

  Since his appointment, in May 2000, to the post of the Oversight Commissioner, Mr. Constantine has spent 99 days in Northern Ireland.
  594W
  following tables. Tables 1 details headcount figures and Table 2 details whole-time equivalent figures.

  The breakdown of these days is as follows:

  2000: 27 days

  2001: 35 days

  2002: 28 days

  2003: 9 days (to 7 May)

  In addition, he has been engaged in Commission duties in the US, for example in the preparation of his reports. The total number of days, including days spent in Northern Ireland, is 309.

  The Oversight Commissioner's total remuneration to date is £191,981.13.

  Personal Security
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria he uses to determine who shall be given personal protection in Northern Ireland. [112903]

  Jane Kennedy
  The provision of personal protection by police officers in Northern Ireland is an operational matter for the Chief Constable.

  Police Ombudsman
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what meetings he has had with the Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman during the last six months. [109046]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Secretary of State has not had any meetings with the Police Ombudsman during the last six months. However, I met with the Ombudsman on 26 November 2002, 19 February 2003 and 20 March 2003, and regular contact with the Ombudsman's office is maintained through officials of the Northern Ireland Office.

  Post Mortems
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether(a) organs, (b) blocks and (c) slides from hospital post mortems are kept separate from coroners' post mortems. [113371]

  Mr. Browne
  Organs, blocks and slides retained following hospital post mortems are archived with those retained following coroners' post mortems performed by hospital pathologists. Measures are in place to ensure that the origin of each organ, block or slide is easily identifiable. The State Pathologist holds a separate archive of organs, blocks and slides relating to coroners' post mortems.

  Prisons (Self-Harm)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many self-harm incidents were recorded in Northern Ireland Prison Service accommodation in each establishment in each of the last five years. [110452]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is set out in the following tables.

  £

  Total Spend

  Parliamentary Constituency

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Grand Total

  Belfast East

  726,529

  667,998

  1,250,079

  266,595

  426,242

  3,337,443

  Belfast North

  302,446

  209,063

  156,582

  417,696

  586,620

  1,672,407

  Belfast South

  623,456

  1,688,742

  692,583

  366,786

  947,995

  4,319,562

  Belfast West

  176,054

  183,668

  181,855

  376,509

  438,974

  1,357,060

  East Antrim

  1,634,546

  347,051

  276,004

  188,856

  923,755

  3,370,212

  East Londonderry

  1,342,260

  171,422

  28,766

  138,612

  1285,669

  1,966,729

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  305,648

  313,033

  432,731

  279,156

  228,980

  1,559,548

  Foyle

  866,844

  594,642

  127,167

  345,264

  214,547

  2,148,464

  Lagan Valley

  2,098,708

  281,168

  332,491

  325,900

  326,973

  3,365,240

  Mid Ulster

  356,232

  333,077

  342,743

  562,050

  392,521

  1,986,623

  Newry and Armagh

  290,622

  278,699

  156,836

  469,398

  300,559

  1,496,114

  North Antrim

  299,697

  138,549

  148,838

  321,172

  246,212

  1,154,468

  North Down

  168,899

  136,485

  74,491

  14,561

  43,371

  437,807

  South Antrim

  2,487,334

  885,523

  378,983

  1,339,077

  708,793

  5,799,710

  South Down

  51,093

  31,406

  59,503

  5,058

  9,874

  156,934

  596W

  Hydebank Wood

  Number of self-inflicted injuries

  1998–99

  23

  1999–2000

  7

  2000–01

  8

  2001–02

  26

  2002–03

  69

  Maghaberry

  Number of self-inflicted injuries

  1998–99

  66

  1999–2000

  55

  2000–01

  60

  2001–02

  62

  2002–03

  72

  Magilligan

  Number of self-inflicted injuries

  1998–99

  8

  1999–2000

  22

  2000–01

  10

  2001–02

  5

  2002–03

  n/a

  Research and Development
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much Government funding has been provided for research and development spending in the private sector in each Northern Ireland constituency over the last five years. [112352]

  Mr. Pearson
  Government funding in Northern Ireland to the private sector for research and development is channelled mainly through Invest NI. Since 1998–99, some £37,757,019 has been provided by Invest NI (and prior to its formation in 2002 by its predecessor bodies) to support research and development activities in the private sector. This is detailed by constituency in the following table. This funding has been made available against total commitments over the period by Invest NI (and its predecessor bodies) of some £62,735,441, and has primarily been aimed at supporting commercially focussed research projects and the development of an improved research infrastructure.
  597W

  £

  Total Spend

  Parliamentary Constituency

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Grand Total

  Strangford

  204,558

  158,440

  144,923

  129,206

  195,920

  833,047

  Upper Bann

  574,328

  303,860

  199,979

  71,070

  474,919

  1,624,156

  West Tyrone

  184,034

  320,035

  240,697

  160,208

  289,521

  1,194,495

  Grand Total

  12,693,288

  7,042,861

  5,225,251

  5,777,174

  7,041,445

  137,780,019

  1Includes £23,000 Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure funding

  Royal Irish Regiment
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with Sinn Fein on the future use of the home battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment in security duties in Northern Ireland. [110789]

  Jane Kennedy
  I have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals. As with previous Administrations, it is not the Government's practice to provide details of all such meetings under exemptions 2 and 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Security Situation (North Belfast)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent assessment he has made of the security situation in North Belfast. [112613]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government condemns the recent attack by dissident republicans on the constituency office of the hon. Gentleman. The police are continuing to investigate this incident to bring those responsible to justice. Such an attack is an attack on the political process.

  Loyalist paramilitary attacks in the area have reduced significantly since the UDA announced an end to their internal feud. Increased co-operation between the police and local community representatives in the area has assisted in the easing of tensions at interfaces.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the salary bill was for special advisers in his Department in 2002–03; and what it is expected to be in 2003–04. [108509]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  In 2002–03 the estimated total expenditure on salaries in the Northern Ireland Office for the two special advisers was £90,068.

  As there is currently one special adviser to the Secretary of State, we would expect the salary bill in 2003–04 to be approximately half that of the previous year.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff are employed by his Department. [106283]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The following number of staff were employed within the Northern Ireland Office and its Agencies and NDPBs, as at 1 January 2003.
  598W
  Full-time equivalent numbers

  1,449 Northern Ireland Civil Servants

  174 Home Civil Servants

  1,764 Prison Grades

  1 special adviser

  Actual staff numbers

  1,525 Northern Ireland Civil Servants

  185 Home Civil Servants

  1,764 Prison Grades

  1 special adviser

  Within the Northern Ireland Administration on 1 January 2003 there were 9,848 staff (full-time equivalents) employed. This figure excludes staff employed in Agencies.

  Tourism
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what public funding has been provided to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board over the past five years; and what research has been undertaken to ascertain the opinions of visitors to the Province, other than those visiting friends and relatives, regarding the facilities on offer. [112611]

  Mr. Pearson
  The total amount of public funding provided to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board over the past five years was £66,504,000.

  The following is a breakdown of the public funding provided in each of these years.

  £ million

  1998–99

  14,162

  1999–2000

  12,583

  2000–01

  13,445

  2001–02

  13,180

  2002–03

  13,134

  NITB carried out surveys in 1995, 1998 and 2000 of visitors on holiday in Northern Ireland to identify factors important to them when choosing a holiday destination and to rate Northern Ireland against those factors. As part of the survey, participants were asked to rate their satisfaction with a range of Northern Ireland tourism products and services. A further survey is planned for summer 2003.

  Victims Organisations
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland by what means he monitors publicly-funded publishing activities of(a) Families Acting for Innocent Relatives and (b) other victims' organisations. [108442]
  599W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  To answer my hon. Friend's question will require substantial research. I will give a substantive reply when this is complete. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what guidance he has issued to(a) Families Acting for Innocent Relatives and (b) other victims' organisations on the use of publicly-funded internet facilities to publish information. [108658]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  To answer the hon. Gentleman's question will require substantial research. I will give a substantive reply when this is complete.

HEALTH

  "Agenda for Change"
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with unions regarding the Agenda for Change; and what progress has been made in ensuring that pay and conditions for staff are the same across the NHS in all hospitals. [112829]

  Mr. Hutton
  The proposed new pay system for non-medical staff in the national health service, "Agenda for Change", has been designed to ensure fair pay and conditions of service and is underpinned by equal pay principles. Negotiators representing the four United Kingdom Health Departments, NHS employers and 17 NHS staff organisations successfully concluded talks on the package of pay modernisation proposals in November 2002. The Department of Health published full details of the proposed agreement on 3 March 2003. Copies are available in the Library.

  If the proposed agreement is ratified following consultation by staff organisations, it will be introduced in a number of early implemented sites from June 2003 and will be implemented across the rest of the NHS from October 2004. We intend that those NHS trusts chosen as prospective NHS foundation trusts will form a further wave of "early implementer" sites before national implementation of the new pay system begins.

  The information in this answer relates to England. Pay for NHS staff in Scotland and Wales is a matter for the devolved administrations. While the institutions in Northern Ireland are dissolved, responsibility rests with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to ensure that foundation trusts will not be able to deviate from the "Agenda for Change" process and develop their own pay and conditions for staff. [112830]

  Mr. Hutton
  If the proposed new national health service pay system, "Agenda for Change", is ratified following consultation by staff organisations, we intend that those NHS organisations chosen as prospective NHS foundation trusts will become early implementer sites. This would mean they begin to implement the new pay system in advance of national implementation from October 2004.
  600W
  Under the proposed agreement, NHS foundation trusts will be among the organisations specifically represented on the new NHS Staff Council and the Pay Negotiating Council for NHS staff groups not within the remit of the Pay Review Bodies.

  The proposed agreement includes a range of pay flexibilities for all NHS organisations. NHS foundation trusts, as NHS organisations with a track record of good performance, will have greater freedom to use these flexibilities.

  Accident and Emergency (Waiting Times)
  Chris Grayling:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what week the most recent NHS-wide assessment of accident and emergency waiting times was carried out. [111030]

  Mr. Lammy
  We continually monitor performance of accident and emergency (A and E) waiting times and publish the results every quarter.

  A national health service-wide assessment of total time in A and E was carried out in the week ending 30 March to assess performance against the national end of March 2003 milestone for 90 per cent. of patients in England to be admitted, transferred or discharged within four hours of arrival at accident and emergency.

  Air Quality
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the possible impact on health of the bad odours affecting Castle Point, with particular reference to(a) children, (b) elderly people and (c) people with breathing conditions; and what advice he provides to these groups on how to deal with the effects of bad odour. [113790]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 16 May 2003]: The existence of intermittent bad odours related to local refineries and landfill sites in the Castle Point area has been known for some time. Castle Point and Rochford Primary Care Trust are unaware of any medical evidence that people in the area are clinically affected.

  Asthma
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action he is taking to promote guidance for asthma sufferers to control the condition during the summer months; [113108]

  (2) what action he is taking to improve treatment for asthma sufferers. [113197]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are aware that the summer months can cause particular problems for patients with asthma because of factors such as high pollen counts. This phenomenon is however, well understood by both clinicians and patients so we do not feel that specific extra guidance is needed to help manage this. Patients with asthma are able to access the full range of national health service support services in both primary and secondary care settings throughout the entire year.

  We have welcomed guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) on inhalers for children under five in September 2000 and for older children, in the age range five to 15, on 11 April 2002.
  601W
  The NICE recommendations provide clear evidence based on guidance on the most suitable inhalers for children.

  A new general medical services contract agreement was launched on Friday 21 February 2003 which, if accepted by the profession, will lead to an unprecedented level of new investment in general practice to deliver a wider range of high quality services with better clinical outcomes for all patients.

  The national service framework (NSF) for children is being developed to set standards for the care of children and young people to ensure they have access to good quality care. While it is not the intention to look at specific conditions in the NSF, it has been agreed that asthma, as one of the most common childhood conditions, should be used as one of the exemplars which will accompany the main NSF report. These will illustrate how the standards should be applied to ensure that services delivered to children are effective and meet their needs.

  I welcome the publication of the National Asthma Campaign's Ten Point Charter. Those general practitioners who participate in the chronic disease management programme, around 93 per cent. of all GPs, are already providing services that help to meet many of the charter rights.

  Bed Rails
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment(a) his Department and (b) the Medical Devices Agency has made of the effectiveness of bumpers in reducing incidents associated with the use of bed rails. [113040]

  Jacqui Smith
  As part of its evaluation programme on Disability Equipment, the Medical Devices Agency, now the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, published a report on bed safety equipment in February 2002—EL8 "Bed Safety Equipment—An Evaluation"; ISBN 1–84182–568–9.

  The report gives information and guidelines to assist users, purchasers and providers to identify and select the most appropriate bed safety product, or product features, to meet the individual needs of different users.

  The combined use of bed safety rails and protective covers, or bumpers, was evaluated and described in the report. The report concluded that covers for bed rails are primarily used to prevent impact injuries. They will not necessarily reduce the risk of entrapment and should not, therefore, be regarded as a means to prevent entrapment.

  Biopsies
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where the scanned image of biopsies is in use. [111025]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health does not collect this information centrally. As part of its Pathology Modernisation Programme, the Department is funding a pilot project, based at Leeds Teaching 602W
  Hospitals National Health Service Trust, to evaluate the use of digital scanning technology in histopathology. The project will run from 2003–04 to 2005–06.

  Care Homes
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in residential care homes in England and Wales require 24 hour health care; and how many of these pay for their care costs. [113778]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not collect this information on the basis of location. It would be most unusual for an individual in a care home not providing nursing care to require 24-hour health care. Six out of 10 care home residents receive some or all of their care costs from public funding.

  Child Welfare
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the(a) report by the Social Exclusion Unit into the education of looked after children, (b) response to the Laming Inquiry and (c) Green Paper on children at risk will be published; and what the reasons are for delays in publication. [113239]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Children's Green Paper, the Government's response to Lord Laming's report into the death of Victoria Climbié and the Social Exclusion's report into the education of children in care will all be published shortly.

  Choice of Doctor
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reasons the Southend on Sea Primary Care Trust has given for not offering a choice of doctor to patients transferred following the closure of the Walker Drive GPs practice. [113127]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 13 May 2003]: The primary care trust has written to affected patients proposing transfer to a practice close to where they live and offering support if they wish to exercise a different choice.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was of the publication of the 2001 departmental report. [112817]

  Mr. Lammy
  The cost to the Department of publishing its 2000–01 departmental report was £37,865. This included costs for design, typesetting and artwork. The report is produced by staff as part of their regular duties. All remaining costs for printing and publication were met centrally by The Stationery Office.

  Doctors
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors there are per head of population in(a) Staffordshire and (b) England. [113152]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of doctors per head of population in Staffordshire and England is shown in table 1.
  603W

  Table I: All GP Practitioners1 and HCHS Medical and Dental staff2, per head of population in England, North Staffordshire HA and South Staffordshire HA, as at 30 September 2001

  Numbers (headcount)

  All GP practitioners1

  All medical and dental staff2

  Population

  All GP practitioners per head of population

  All medical and dental staff per head of population

  England

  31,835

  68,484

  49,181,339

  0.001

  0.001

  Of which:

  North Staffordshire HA

  256

  570

  457,013

  0.001

  0.001

  South Staffordshire HA

  328

  448

  590,562

  0.001

  0.001

  1 All GP Practitioners includes: GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs, PMS Salaried GPs, Restricted Principals, Assistants, GP Registrars, GP Retainers, Salaried Doctors (Para 52 SFA) and PMS others.

  2All medical and dental staff includes Hospital Medical Hospital Practitioners and excludes Hospital Practitioners and Clinical Assistants, most of whom are GPs working part-time in hospitals

  Note:

  Ratio data rounded to three decimal places.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics, Department of Health Medical & Dental workforce census and ONS 2001 resident based population estimates.

  The standard ratio used in the Department is per 100,000 of the population. This data is shown in table 2.

  Table 2: All GP practitioners1 and HCHS medical and dental staff2, per 100,000 of population in England, North Staffordshire HA and South Staffordshire HA, as at 30 September 2001

  Numbers (headcount)

  All GP practitioners1

  All medical and dental staff2

  Population

  All GP practitioners per 100,000 of population

  All medical and dental staff per 100,000 of population

  England

  31,835

  68,484

  49,181,339

  64.7

  139.2

  Of which:

  North Staffordshire HA

  256

  570

  457,013

  56.0

  124.7

  South Staffordshire HA

  323

  448

  590,562

  54.7

  75.9

  1 All GP Practitioners includes: CMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs, PMS Salaried GPs, Restricted Principals, Assistants, GP Registrars, GP Retainers, Salaried Doctors (Para 52 SFA) and PMS others.

  2 All medical and dental staff includes Hospital Medical Hospital Practitioners and excludes Hospital Practitioners and Clinical Assistants, most of whom are GPs working part-time in hospitals.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics, Department of Health Medical & Dental workforce census and ONS 2001 resident based population estimates.

  E-government Projects
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by project, the consultancies his Department and its non-departmental public bodies have used on e-Government projects since 1 January 2001. [112835]

  Mr. Mutton
  [holding answer 12 May 2003]: A list of consultants used to support work on e-Government initiatives within the Department of Health and its Agencies has been placed in the Library.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to ensure that diabetes patients have access to effective eye treatment to detect early signs of deterioration in sight. [113723]

  Mr. Lammy
  A systematic screening programme for the signs of diabetic eye disease (diabetic retinopathy) was one of two specific national targets published as part of the diabetes national service framework delivery strategy on 9 January 2003. It states that, by 2006, a minimum of 80 per cent, of people with diabetes are to 604W
  be offered screening for the early detection and treatment, if needed, of diabetic retinopathy as part of a systematic programme that meets national standards, rising to 100 per cent, coverage of those at risk of retinopathy by end 2007.

  Funding totalling £27 million for the national health service to purchase state-of-the-art digital cameras and related equipment for screening people with diabetes for the signs of diabetic retinopathy was announced on 22 April.

  A copy of the "Diabetes National Service Framework Delivery Strategy" is available in the Library.

  Foundation Hospitals
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Welsh Assembly Government on his proposals for foundation hospitals, with particular reference to(a) staff recruitment, (b) pay levels and (c) other cross-border issues. [113190]

  Mr. Hutton
  As is normal Government practice, the devolved Administrations are consulted in the development of policy and the introduction of legislation.
  605W
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated patient electorates are of each of the hospital trusts he has authorised to proceed with application for foundation status. [114517]

  Mr. Hutton
  Subject to legislation, an application will not be able to go forward without the approval of the Secretary of State. As part of the second stage of the application process, applicants for national health service foundation trust status will set out proposals for the size and composition of their membership community. Applicants will need to show how they will ensure that the full range of stakeholders' interests are represented, with a proper balance between different interest groups within the membership.

  General Practitioners
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of GPs in Essex over the next two years; and if he will make a statement. [113103]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department of Health makes no estimates of the number of general practitioners below national level. However, the NHS Plan aims to deliver an additional 2,000 general practitioners by 2004, based on the 1999 baseline figure.

  Health Authority Chair (Powers)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers the chair of a health authority has to initiate legal action arising from or relating to duties as chair. [112305]

  Mr. Hutton
  A chair has no authority to take legal action in his or her own right. This can only occur following a decision by the strategic health authority board.

  Home Adaptations
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent assessment he has made of the unmet need for level-access showers in(a) England, (b) Staffordshire and (c) East Staffordshire; [113155]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the number of individuals who are unable to have baths or showers in their own homes because of the need for a level-access shower in (a) England, (b) Staffordshire and (c) East Staffordshire. [113156]

  Mr. McNuIty
  I have been asked to reply.

  I announced on 10 February this year a substantial increase in Government funding for the disabled facilities grant budget for England. The increase to £99 million will be for each of the next three years. This was in response to requests from local authorities for additional resources to deal with an increasing demand for housing adaptations from disabled people and their families, (including the need for level-access showers).
  606W
  The Government do not, however, monitor in detail the level of outstanding work under this programme, or the unmet need for level-access showers, either at national or local authority level.

  Hospital Food
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the amount of hospital food wasted in terms of returned meals in the NHS in England in each year since 1997. [110821]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on returned meals is not collected centrally.

  Intermediate Care
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what spending was allocated to each region for intermediate care provision in 2002–03; and what sums have been spent. [113068]

  Jacqui Smith
  Of the additional investment for intermediate care and related services to promote independence announced in the NHS Plan, £120 million was made available for national health service investment in intermediate care in 2002–03. This is in addition to £150 million made available recurrently from 2000–01. Full details are in the intermediate care circular HSC 2001/01:LAC (2001)1, published in January 2001, which is available in the Library. This additional investment is included in general allocations. It is not identified separately.

  As part of the additional funding for intermediate care announced in the NHS Plan, new NHS capital investment of £66 million was made available over the two years 2002–03 and 2003–04 (£33 million each year) to support the development of intermediate care and, in particular, a growth in bed numbers. Of the £33 million allocated in 2002–03, around £15 million has been spent on new intermediate care schemes. The remainder has been deferred to 2003–04.

  Information on expenditure on intermediate care is not identified separately in published NHS accounts or financial returns.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether spending allocations for new intermediate care projects will be available in 2003–04; what the total sums in each(a) government office region and (b) strategic health authority are for 2003–04; and whether new bids will be invited. [113069]

  Jacqui Smith
  As part of the additional funding for intermediate care announced in the NHS Plan, new national health service capital investment of £66 million was made available over the two years 2002–03 and 2003–04 (£33 million each year) to support the development of intermediate care and, in particular, a growth in bed numbers. All of this funding has been allocated. No further capital funding for intermediate care schemes is to be made available. Allocations agreed for 2003–04 by Directorate of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and Strategic Health Authority (SHA) are shown in the table.
  607W

  Intermediate care capital allocations 2003–04 by DHSC and SHA

  £000

  DHSC

  SHA

  2003–04 allocation

  London

  North East London

  1,008

  London

  North West London

  1,545

  Total

  2,553

  Midlands and Eastern

  Birmingham and the Black Country

  3,457

  Midlands and Eastern

  Essex

  2,103

  Midlands and Eastern

  Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire

  250

  Midlands and Eastern

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland

  620

  Midlands and Eastern

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  1,151

  Midlands and Eastern

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  30

  Midlands and Eastern

  Southern West Midlands South

  1,663

  Midlands and Eastern

  Trent

  859

  Total

  10,133

  North

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  3,200

  North

  Co. Durham and Tees Valley

  330

  North

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  850

  North

  Greater Manchester

  2,149

  North

  North East Yorkshire and North Lines

  1,000

  North

  Northumberland and Tyne and Wear

  2,200

  North

  West Yorkshire

  1,183

  Total

  10,912

  South

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  1,963

  South

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  450

  South

  Kent and Medway

  2,100

  South

  South West Peninsula

  90

  South

  Surrey and Sussex

  4,450

  South

  Thames Valley

  350

  Total

  9,403

  IT Systems (GPs)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many different IT systems are being used by GPs; and what plans he has to harmonise them. [111752]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are 11 system suppliers who have a range of systems tested and accredited against Requirement for Accreditation (RFA) 99 (ver 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2) for use by general practitioners. Full details of each of these systems are available from the NHS Information Authority (NHS1A) website at: http://www.nhsia.nhs.uk/napps/rfatest/pages/temp.asp. The list does not include systems accredited against earlier versions of RFA, many of which are still being used by some primary care organisations.

  The national programme for information technology in the National Health Service is currently developing an output based specification for the integrated care records service (ICRS), which will be made available to system suppliers to develop the next range of systems to support the needs of the NHS. This will include the requirements of primary care organisations. The purpose of the ICRS is to support the provision of high quality care across whole health communities. Ensuring the interoperability of applications and systems is a fundamental part of the specification for the ICRS and the supporting work of the National Design Authority.

  Medical Assistants
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what administrative support he envisages will be provided by medical assistants. [111022]

  Mr. Hutton
  A wide range of jobs have the title of medical assistant. Each post is designed to meet local service needs and is tailored to ensure the delivery of 608W
  efficient, high quality care to patients. Since the content of each medical assistant post reflects the skills and expertise required locally, some posts will have an administrative element while others will not.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are taken by mental health professionals to ensure a full assessment of personality and character disorders are included in the diagnostic procedure. [114323]

  Jacqui Smith
  Mental health professionals take great care to assess all aspects of an individual, including their personality and character, when arriving at a diagnosis. They are assisted in this, not just by their clinical judgment, but by a large number of standardised and validated measures of various aspects of personality.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what targets he has to increase awareness of myalgic encephalomyelitis; and if he will make a statement; [113044]

  (2) if he will make a statement on regional variations in the incidence of myalgic encephalomyelitis. [113045]

  Jacqui Smith
  We helped raise awareness of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), which is also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), by publishing the report of the Independent Working Group in January 2002. In October 2002, we made the national health service aware, through the "Chief Executive's Bulletin" and the "GP Bulletin", of the guidance produced by Action for ME called "Guidance on the Management of CFS/ME".

  On 12 May 2003,I announced that £8.5 million would be made available for services specifically designed for people with CFS/ME. The funding will be used to develop services for people with CFS/ME. In July, health organisations will be invited to bid for development funds to set up centres of expertise to develop clinical care, support clinical research and expand education and training programmes for health care professionals and to establish satellite community multidisciplinary teams. The first phase of development will commence in April 2004.

  Information on the prevalence of individual conditions is not collected centrally. The report of the independent CFS/ME working group, published in January 2002, estimated a population prevalence of around 0.2–0.4 per cent, in adults and around 0.07 per cent, in children. They made no analysis of regional variations.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission a research project into myalgic encephalomyelitis and the(a) suspected causes, (b) the scale of the problem, (c) the treatments available and (d) the number of specialists employed by the NHS to whom GPs can refer patients with ME-like symptoms. [113800]

  Jacqui Smith
  The main Government agency for research into the causes and treatment of disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives its
  609W
  funding from the Department of Trade and Industry via the Office of Science and Technology. The MRC published a research strategy for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) on 1 May.

  The strategy will enable researchers and funders to develop research proposals on all aspects of this illness. It was developed by an independent research advisory group in response to a request from the Chief Medical Officer, and was informed by contributions from pstients, carers, charities, researchers and clincians via a consultation exercise in summer 2002.

  The MRC has announced two initiatives in response to the strategy. One is a notice to the research community welcoming high quality proposals across the entire spectrum of CFS/ME research. The other is a scientific meeting to discuss the potential to use existing UK resources and infrastructures to undertake epidemiological studies in this country. In addition, the MRC has just announced funding for two trials that will look at the effectiveness of various treatments for CFS/ME. The results of these trials will help patients and their doctors to choose the best treatment. These complementary trials will assess a variety of treatments and in doing so will both help address important issues for those with CFS/ME.

  The first trial known as PACE (Pacing, Activity and Cognitive behaviour therapy: a randomised Evaluation) will make the first assessment of a treatment choice popular with patients called 'Pacing'. The second trial, known as FINE, (Fatigue Intervention by Nurses Evaluation) will test two different treatments that are particularly suited to helping reach those who are too ill to attend a specialist clinic as patients will be treated by nurses in their own homes.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average amount of time has been to implement NICE guidance on the use of drugs; and if he will make a statement on the delays in implementing the NICE recommendation for the use of modern antipsychotic drugs for the treatment of schizophrenia. [l13796]

  Jacqui Smith
  National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraisals must be funded by National Health Service trusts within the three months of the

  Health bodies within Wakefield Health Authority-Payments to acquire fixed assets

  (£000)

  NHS Body

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Wakefield HA

  0

  53

  5

  61

  0

  Wakefield and Pontefract Comm NHS Trust

  2,355

  2,723

  13,500

  1,731

  1,447

  Pinderfields and Pontefract NHS Trust

  1,332

  1,569

  4,125

  3,916

  10,997

  Eastern Wakefield PCT

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wakefield West PCT

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  3,687

  4,345

  17,630

  5,708

  12,444

  Sources:

  1997–98 to 2001–02—NHS audited summarisation schedules

  1997–98 to 1998–99—Health Authority audited annual accounts

  1999–2000 to 2000–02—Health Authority audited summarisation forms

  2001–02—Primary Care Trust audited summarisation schedules
  610W
  guidance being released as per the direction, unless it is specifically stated otherwise. The necessary funding has been made available to the NHS to allow this to happen.

  Clinicians will still have to make a judgement on the appropriateness of the guidance for each individual case they deal with, on the basis of clinical evidence.

  No research on the precise time taken for each piece of appraisal guidance to be implemented has been conducted by the Department of Health at this time.

  The share of atypical antipsychotics within the total number of prescription items for all antipsychotic drugs thai: are dispensed in the community has risen from 44 per cent, in the period October to December 2001 to 53 per cent, in the same period in 2002.

  New Deal
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health(1)if he will make a statement on his Department's policy regarding NHS trusts' participation in the New Deal; [112193]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his Department's policy with regard to NHS trusts using the services of Job Centre Plus. [112192]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health and the Department of Work and Pensions are working closely together to develop links between national health service employers and Jobcentre Plus, to promote the use of Jobcentre Plus and its policies to assist with NHS recruitment activities.

  The Department of Health encourages NHS trusts to use Jobcentre Plus programmes, such as New Deal to ensure the local NHS workforce grows and reflects the local community. As part of national NHS recruitment campaigns, joint letters are sent from the Department of Health and the Department of Work and Pensions to all human resources directors in NHS trusts, encouraging trusts to register their vacancies with their local Jobcentres and Jobcentre Plus offices. Corresponding letters are sent to all Jobcentre Plus managers in England, with a selection of NHS careers posters and booklets to advertise careers in the NHS.

  NHS Capital Investment (Hemsworth)
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much capital investment there has been in the NHS in the Hemsworth constituency since 1997. [109872]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 28 April 2003]: The information requested is shown in the following table.
  611W
  There have been no major (greater than £20 million) or medium sized (greater than £10 million) private finance initiative (PFI) schemes which have either been signed or completed in the Hemsworth constituency since 1997. However, a £200 million PFI scheme has started on the procurement route when it despatched a contract for publication in the "Official Journal of the European Communities" in November 2002. Part of this development at the Pontefract General Infirmary will involve a purpose-designed ambulatory care and diagnostic centre, together with an accident and emergency unit, specialist rehabilitation facilities, and a midwife-led maternity unit.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of NHS dental treatment places available for people in East Staffordshire in each of the past 10 years. [113150]

  Mr. Lammy
  The number of patients registered with a general dental service (GDS) dentist at 28 February 2003 in East Staffordshire Primary Care Trust (PCT) was 58,000.

  The number of patients registered in the health authorities covering the East Staffordshire area for 30 September in the years 1993 to 2001 and for 31 August 2003 is shown in the table.

  GDS dentists are obliged to provide dental treatment to patients that are registered with them.

  National health service dental treatment is also provided by the personal, community and hospital dental services in East Staffordshire as well as the salaried service of the GDS. These services do not require the patient to be registered before treatment and so are not included in this table.

  General dental service: Number of patients registered in with a dentist, 1993 to 2002: England and the East Staffordshire area

  Thousand

  As at 30 September

  Staffordshire FHSA

  South Staffordshire HA

  1993

  598

  n/a

  1994

  578

  n/a

  1995

  557

  n/a

  1996

  n/a

  319

  1997

  n/a

  317

  19981

  n/a

  282

  19991

  n/a

  279

  20001

  n/a

  275

  20011

  n/a

  269

  20021.2

  n/a

  265

  n/a = Not available

  1 Affected by the change in the registration period to 15 months in September 1996

  2 At 31 August 2002

  NHS Finance
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the national health service revenue budget is allocated directly to primary care trusts; and what plans he has to increase this percentage. [113929]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 16 May 2003]: The 2003–04 allocations to primary care trusts announced in December 2002 represented 77 per cent, of the national
  612W
  health service revenue budget. In addition to these main allocations, a number of revenue budgets initially held centrally, for example, funding for nursing care, are issued to PCTs during the course of the year.

  NHS Funding
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total(a) revenue and (b) capital funding to NHS institutions (i) in each region of England and (ii) in total in (A) 2001–02, (B) 2002–03 and (C) 2003–04 (estimated). [113212]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department made revenue allocations to health authorities in 2001–02 and 2002–03, and to primary care trusts in 2003–04.

  Information on revenue allocations to health authorities for 2001–02 and 2002–03 aggregated to regional offices, and revenue allocations to primary care trusts for 2003–04 aggregated to strategic health authorities, has been placed in the Library.

  Strategic health authorities were established on 1 October 2002. The Department does not make revenue allocations directly to strategic health authorities. The national health service regional offices determined the distribution of NHS capital in 2001–02 and 2002–03, details of funding has been placed in the Library.

  In 2003–04, the distribution of strategic capital and the Access Fund is determined by strategic health authorities, whilst operational capital is allocated direct to NHS trusts and primary care trusts. Information on the total capital in 2003–04 shown aggregated by strategic health authority has been placed in the Library.

  NHS Pilots
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the outcome of the NHS Digital TV pilots. [111023]

  Mr. Lammy
  Following the completion of a successful series of pilot projects exploring possible health applications of digital television, the Department of Health is beginning a programme of work to develop a version of NHS Direct for digital television, and to make it available nationwide.

  Working with commercial partners from the media and broadcasting industries, the Department and the National Health Service will develop a service which will enable people to have easy and fast access at home to trusted information and advice on health, healthcare and the NHS. Such a service will complement the already very successful NHS Direct telephone help-line and the NHS Direct online website.

  The independent evaluation report on the pilot projects can be found on the web at: http://www.soi.city.ac.uk/organisation/is.research.dhrq/reports/ ditv-fmal-full.pdf

  Information on the procurement process currently under way to select a commercial partner to develop and run the digital television information service,

  613W
  including the tender notice information pack for potential suppliers, is on the Department's website at:www.doh.gov.uk/purchasing/digitaltv.htm

  NHS Treatment Abroad
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether there will be a common UK position on the definition of unreasonable periods of delay for treatment within the NHS, as phrased in the European Court of Justice ruling on treatment of patients abroad; and if he will make a statement; [109877]

  (2) what definition he uses for an unreasonable period of delay for treatment within the NHS, as referred to in the European Court of Justice ruling on treatment of patients abroad; and if he will make a statement. [109975]

  Mr. Hutton
  'Undue delay' is a term used in Netherlands' national law, which was considered by the European Court of Justice in case C157/99 Geraets-Smits/Peerbooms. The Court did not define what it meant by 'undue delay', by implication leaving that a matter for determination by the member state in question.

  If an application for treatment elsewhere in the European Economic Area or Switzerland is made on grounds of delay by patients resident in England, Scotland or Wales under the referral scheme in Regulation (EEC) 1408/71, the Department takes account of the national targets for waiting times as published in England, Scotland and Wales and of the individual patient's clinical need. Applications in Northern Ireland are authorised by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and take account of similar considerations.

  A further European Court of Justice judgment was published on 13 May 2003 in case C385/99 Muller-Faure/Van Riet. The Department is considering its position in the light of that judgment, in consultation with the Devolved Administrations.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trusts there are within the NHS. [111907]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are 301 primary care trusts, 272 National Health Service trusts including 32 ambulance trusts and 29 mental health trusts and seven care trusts.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the projected deficit is of North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust for 2002–03. [110653]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer I May 2003]: At the last board meeting on 1 May 2003, the North Cheshire Hospitals National Health Service Trust reported the projected deficit for 2002–03 as being £5.8 million. In order to ensure that the trust did not fail in its statutory duty to achieve financial balance, the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority (CMSHA) has made provision to cover the deficit with repayable brokerage.

  The CMSHA has asked for revised recovery plans from the North Cheshire NHS organisations, as the plans, agreed in June 2002 and revised in October 2002,
  614W
  were not felt to be working. The CMSHA has also asked the Audit Commission to review these financial recovery plans in order to identify the key factors contributing to the deficit, as well as to assess the effectiveness of the corporate governance arrangements of the organisations concerned. The Audit Commission is due to conclude its work in the near future.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the National Health Service (Amendments Relating to Prescribing by Nurses and Pharmacists etc.) (England) Regulations. [114130]

  Mr. Lammy
  None.

  Primary Care
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions his Department has had with Essex Primary Care Organisations on the provision of enhanced services and Information Management and Technology through the primary care organisations under the new NHS primary care contract for the provision of General Medical Services; and if he will make a statement. [113095]

  Mr. Lammy
  The NHS Confederation has been negotiating on behalf of the Department of Health with the General Practitioners Committee of the British Medical Association on the new general medical services contract. As an integral part of the communication exercise, the Confederation has held a number of events around the country for primary care organisations, work force development confederations and strategic health authorities to explain the specifics around the funding of the new contract. The Department of Health itself has had no direct negotiation with any primary care organisation in relation to the contract.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which primary care trusts have been the subject of independent review since they were established. [112433]

  Mr. Hutton
  Primary care trusts are independent national health service bodies accountable to the Secretary of State for Health and as such, they are subject to independent review from a range of organisations; for example, overview and scrutiny committees, the Audit Commission and the Commission for Health Improvement (CHI).

  CHI is carrying out a rolling programme of clinical governance reviews, which report on the adequacy of clinical governance arrangements of NHS organisations in England and Wales.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what use his Department has made of the 2001 census in the restructuring of York Formula for Primary Care Trust funding; and if he will make a statement. [113434]

  Mr. Hutton
  Up to 2002–03, the weighted capitation formula used to inform the allocation of national health service revenue resources was based on work by researchers from York University. The formula has recently been reviewed by the Advisory Committee on
  615W
  Resource Allocation. The work on the new formula was carried out by a team of researchers led by University of Glasgow and ISO Scotland.

  The new formula has been used for the latest round of NHS allocations to primary care trusts. These allocations for the period 2003–04 to 2005–06 were based on population estimates from the 2001 Census.

  Radiologists
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacant NHS posts for consultant radiologists there were in March in(a) England, (b) each NHS region and (c) each NHS trust. [112194]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on vacancies for consultant radiologists at March 2002 has been placed in the Library. Before April 2002, the 95 health authorities were grouped into eight regional offices. The regional offices have since been abolished, therefore data for 2002 are presented according to the new 28 strategic health authority boundaries.

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS): Medical consultants and registrars within the radiology group1 by region—England

  Numbers (headcount)2

  1997

  1998

  1999

  consultant

  Register Group

  Consultant

  Register Group

  Consultant

  Register Group

  England total

  1,473

  534

  1,514

  552

  1,540

  612

  of which:

  Northern and Yorkshire

  196

  63

  209

  67

  211

  67

  Trent

  138

  56

  139

  51

  145

  62

  West Midlands

  146

  42

  141

  50

  150

  56

  North West

  220

  81

  223

  83

  229

  96

  Eastern

  131

  19

  134

  24

  142

  30

  London

  271

  184

  288

  184

  287

  200

  South East

  230

  57

  232

  55

  233

  56

  South Western

  141

  32

  148

  38

  143

  45

  2000

  2001

  March 2002

  Consultant

  Registrar Group

  Consultant

  Registrar Group

  Consultant

  England total

  1,616

  655

  1,683

  743

  1,723

  of which:

  Northern and Yorkshire

  217

  75

  225

  89

  225

  Trent

  148

  63

  148

  66

  145

  West Midlands

  150

  58

  166

  71

  171

  North West

  238

  114

  242

  120

  245

  Eastern

  143

  26

  146

  33

  147

  London

  308

  215

  331

  241

  342

  South East

  245

  63

  252

  71

  266

  South Western

  167

  41

  173

  52

  182

  1 The radiology group comprises doctors who with specialties in clinical radiology or nuclear medicine.

  2 Data as at 30 September each year, except for 2002, where data as at 31 March.

  SHAs
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are in place for hon. Members to contribute to reviews of the performance of a chair of a strategic health authority. [112304]

  Mr. Hutton
  Appraisal of the performance of a chair of a strategic health authority is a matter for the National Health Service Appointments Commission. Hon. Members can raise any matters they wish with the Commission. However, they have no formal part in the appraisal process.
  616W
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many additional(a) specialist registrar training places in radiology have been created and (b) consultant radiologists have been employed in (i) England and (ii) each NHS region in each of the last six years. [112195]

  Mr. Hutton
  There has been an increase of around 14 per cent, in the number of consultants in the radiology group and 39 per cent, in doctors within the registrar group between September 1997 and September 2001. Specialist registrar data were not collected in the March 2002 mini-census.

  In 2003–04, central funding will be distributed to support the implementation of 78 additional specialist registrar posts in clinical radiology and one additional specialist registrar post in nuclear medicine. This represents a significant proportion of the centrally funded posts available.

  Available information is shown in the table.

  Smoking Areas
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which hospitals have smoking areas or rooms se aside for(a) staff, (b) patients and (c) visitors. [113266]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Specialist Stroke Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the required standard for specialist stroke services, set out in the national service framework for older people, will be in place by April 2004. [110327]
  617W
  Jacqui Smith
  Our document, "Improvement, Expansion and Reform", which sets for the national health service a priorities and planning framework for 2003–06, makes clear that implementation of the older-people's national service framework is a top priority, and that the 2004 milestone around specialist stroke services is a key target.

  There have been significant increases in the number of stroke physicians, the proportion of patients being treated in specialist stroke units and the number of patients returning home following hospital treatment. There have been important improvements in care. For example, 83 per cent, of patients are receiving brain scans to improve diagnosis, which is more than ever before, and over the last four years, the proportion of hospitals with specialist stroke units has gone up from 45 per cent, to 73 per cent. We also know that 83 per cent, of the hospitals already now have plans to have a specialist stroke service in place by April 2004.

  Sponsorship
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [112404]

  Mr. Hutton
  In line with the Government's commitment in its response to the Sixth Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, details of individual amounts of sponsorship valued at more than £5,000 will be disclosed in departmental annual reports,

  Telemedicine
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research the Government have done into the risks associated with telemedicine. [111021]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has an extensive programmed of research into all aspects of health care, including telecare and telehealthcare. Specific major projects on telecare and telehealthcare include an economic evaluation carried out by the Health Economic Research Group in the area of paediatrics, and a 'virtual outreach' study by the Health Technology Assessment Programme.

  Clinical effectiveness and patient safety are, of course, paramount concerns, and before any new medical technology is used, it must, as a minimum, comply with UK and European regulations for medical devices, and with clinical protocols agreed with the relevant professional bodies.

  Details of Department of Health research programmes are published online at: http://www. disco.port.ac.uk/ictri/ The Department also supports the Telemedicine Information Service (www.tis.bl.uk), which covers telemedicine and telecare research and development projects.
  618W
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent assessment he has made of the use of telehealthcare devices in the monitoring and treatment of chronic diseases; and if he will make a statement; [111178]

  (2) what recent assessment he has made of the financial and care benefits of the use of telecare and telehealthcare; [111179]

  (3) if he will estimate the potential savings to his Department of the use of telecare and telehealthcare devices; [111181]

  (4) what guidance he will issue to local authorities and primary care trusts in the use of telehealthcare and telecare units which monitor patients health care and the environment in which they live; [111176]

  (5) what recent discussions his Department has had with (a) other Departments of State and (b) the commissioners and providers of community based health and social care about the use of telecare devices; [111177]

  (6) what recent assessment he has made of the use of telecare devices to promote early discharges and independent community based living. [111174]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has an extensive programme of research into all aspects of health care, including telecare and telehealthcare. Specific major projects on telecare and telehealthcare include an economic evaluation carried out by the Health Economic Research Group in the area of paediatrics, and a 'virtual outreach' study by the Health Technology Assessment Programme. The Department also has ongoing discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry on the deployment and use of telemedicine and telecare.

  Details of Department of Health research programmes are published online at: http://www. disco.port.ac.uk/ictri/ The Department also supports the Telemedicine Information Service (www.tis.bl.uk), which covers telemedicine and telecare research and development projects.

  The Department also has on-going discussions with local authorities and primary care trusts on the implementation of integrated care records services, including where relevant and appropriate, the deployment of telemedicine and telecare. The potential of telecare devices in the monitoring and treatment of chronic diseases, and to support early discharge and independent community living is well understood. The use of telehealthcare and telecare units is being taken forward by a number of local health communities where they are most appropriate to local needs and local working practices, and can deliver real benefits to patient care. The Department of Health's Modernisation Agency is in place to support new practices and innovative approaches, and will help to make a significant contribution in this area.

  Clinical effectiveness and patient safety are, of course, paramount concerns, and before any new medical technology is used, it must, as a minimum, comply with UK and European regulations for medical devices, and with clinical protocols agreed with the relevant professional bodies.

  Trust Finances
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which(a) PCTs, (b) hospital trusts and (c) other trusts ended the year 2002–03 in debt. [112470]

  Mr. Hutton
  The audited information in respect of the 2002–03 financial position of all national health service trusts will be published in their individual annual accounts and will be available centrally in autumn 2003. We have no plans to publish un-audited information. These figures are considered to be exempt under Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government information.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice his Department has given hospital and health trusts, who ended either or both of the last two financial years in debt, on the relative importance of(a) clearing their debts and (b) meeting government performance targets; [112472]

  (2) what guidance has been offered to those hospital and health trusts which have (a) ended the year in debt and (b) ended at least the last two years in debt; [112471]

  (3) what targets his Department has set (a) primary care, (b) health and (c) hospital trusts for (i) debt recovery and (ii) end of year debt avoidance. [112476]

  Mr. Hutton
  All national health service organisations have been asked to plan for and achieve financial balance.

  Where this is not achieved, in line with the Government's policy of the shifting the balance of power, discussions are undertaken locally with relevant commissioners and if required the relevant strategic health authority. These discussions should result in the joint development and agreement of a robust and realistic plan for financial recovery together with achievement of non-financial targets.

  In 2002–03, the shadow NHS Bank has made available a total of £100 million to three strategic health authority areas; Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire (£45 million), Surrey and Sussex (£30 million) and Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire (£25 million) to assist with managing financial difficulties within these health economies.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which and how many(a) PCTs, (b) hospital trusts and (c) other health trusts have been permitted by his Department or the strategic health authority to carry forward accumulated debt; and in which cases and for what period of financial years they have been permitted to carry the debt forward; [112473]

  (2) what advice his Department has offered to each of the PCTs, hospital and health trusts which have requested authority to carry forward end of year debt (a) for one year, (b) for two years and (c) for three or more years. [112475]

  Mr. Hutton
  In line with the Government's policy of shifting the balance of power, discussions about such issues are undertaken locally with relevant commissioners and if required the relevant strategic health authority. The audited information in respect of the 2002–03 financial performance of all primary care 620W
  trusts and national health service trusts will be published in their individual annual accounts and will be available centrally in autumn 2003.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance is available from(a) his Department and (b) a strategic health authority to PCTs and hospital or health trusts which experience (i) avoidable and (ii) unavoidable end of year debt. [112474]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department and the national health service have to live within the overall spending limits agreed by Parliament. In doing so no distinction is made between 'avoidable' or 'unavoidable' end of year debt positions when managing this overall position.

  In 2002–03, the shadow NHS bank has made available a total of £100 million to three strategic health authority areas; Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire (£45 million), Surrey and Sussex (£30 million) and Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire (£25 million) to assist with managing financial difficulties within these health economies.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which PCTs inherited a debt legacy from their predecessor organisations or authority; and of these how many and which PCTs ended their(a) first and (b) second financial years in debt. [112477]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on primary care trusts inherited debt legacy is not collected centrally.

  The audited annual accounts for 2000–01 and 2001–02 show no primary care trust reported an overspend against their revenue resource limit. The audited information in respect of the 2002–03 financial performance of all primary care trusts will be published in their individual annual accounts and will be available centrally in autumn 2003.

  Whistleblowers
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the NHS is taking to introduce measures to protect workers who raise concerns about bad practice. [113909]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government expect a climate of openness and dialogue in the national health service that encourages staff to feel able to raise concerns about healthcare matters sensibly and responsibly without fear of victimisation.

  On 27 August 1999, the Department of Health issued new guidance in Health Service Circular (HSC) 1999/198—'The Public Interest Disclosure Act: Whistleblowing in the NHS', to all NHS trusts and health authorities. The HSC advises that all NHS trusts and health authorities are expected to issue guidance to staff so that they know how to raise concerns in a reasonable and responsible way. All NHS employing organisations should have in place policies and procedures that comply with the provisions of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which is widely regarded as providing the most far reaching whistleblower protection in the world.
  621W
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what progress has been made in ensuring that NHS whistleblowers are not persecuted in the work place for reporting malpractice; [111763]

  (2) what progress has been made in improving protection for whistleblowers in the NHS. [112695]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government expects a climate of openness and dialogue in the National Health Service that encourages staff to feel able to raise concerns about healthcare matters sensibly and responsibly without fear of victimisation.

  On 27 August 1999, the Department of Health issued new guidance in Health Service Circular (HSC) 1999/198—'The Public Interest Disclosure Act:Whistleblowing in the NHS', to all NHS trusts and health authorities. The HSC advises that all NHS trusts and health authorities are expected to issue guidance to staff so that they know how to raise concerns in a reasonable and responsible way. All NHS employing organisations should have in place policies and procedures that comply with the provisions of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which is widely regarded as providing the most far reaching whistleblower protection in the world.

  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Buffer Zones and Wind Farms
    Mr. Blizzard
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what guidance he will give local planning authorities on the creation of local buffer zones beyond the boundaries of national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty; [113972]

    (2) if he will adopt the noise standards contained in the DTI document, "Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms", as a standard planning guideline on wind farm applications; [113977]

    (3) if he will encourage local planning authorities to identify landscape areas suitable for wind farm development in local land use plans. [113973]

    Mr. McNulty
    Current Government guidance on renewable energy is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 22 and its associated annexes. PPG22 is currently being revised and a draft for public consultation will be published later this year. Policy on the use of buffer zones, noise and the location of wind farm developments will be included in that draft.

    Built Environment (London)
    Mr. Pickles
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proposals he has to improve the built environment in London. [113567]

    Mr. McNulty
    The Government is committed to improve the quality of the built environment and we are working with a wide range of partners to deliver this through a number of policy initiatives and actions. The Government's recently launched Sustainable Communities action programme is central to achieving this. Through Sustainable Communities and as part of the wider agenda to raise the quality of life in our 622W
    communities, we are providing a total of £41 million over the next three years to support, among a range of initiatives, the work of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment to improve the design standards of buildings and spaces and the skills needed to deliver this. We are also promoting the establishment of "design champions" at both regional and local level and are working with the construction industry to develop the Design Quality Indicator (DQI) system that was launched in July 2002. Government planning policies have for some time made it clear that when submitting planning proposals applicants should be able to demonstrate how they have taken account of the need for good design. PPG1 "General Policy and Principles", for example, underlines that "good design should be the aim of all those involved in the development process and should be encouraged everywhere". The policy is supported by good practice guidance, "By Design". The Government will restate its commitment to good design when it updates PPG1.

    In London, we are continuing to promote good quality higher density development through our planning powers, local authority development plans and we are working with the mayor, CABE, English Heritage and others to promote better design through good practice and pilot projects. We are also committed to establishing regional centres of excellence to promote best practice in the design and management of public spaces.

    Costs
    Mr. Norman
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 7 April,Official Report, column 115W, on Inspectorates, what the total pay costs incurred by the (a) Single Housing. Inspectorate and (b) Planning Inspectorate were in each year since 1997. [113399]

    Mr. McNulty
    Between 1997 and March 2003 inspection of local authority housing was carried out by the Audit Commission. In 2001 the Housing Corporation commenced a programme of inspection of registered social landlords. From 1 April 2003 both sectors are being inspected by a single housing inspectorate within the Audit Commission.

    Estimated staffing figures and associated pay costs incurred by the Audit Commission and the Housing Corporation on inspection are set out in table 1.

    Table 1 (at constant 2001–02 prices)

    £ million

    Year

    Estimated pay cost of staff in Inspection Directorate of the Audit Commission engaged in housing inspection work

    Estimated pay cost of staff employed by the Housing Corporation on inspection

    1997–98

    0.04

    —

    1998–99

    0.12

    —

    1999–2000

    0.43

    —

    2000–01

    2.46

    —

    2001–02

    2.82

    10.80

    2002–03

    —

    21.50

    1 This figure represents costs of inspection staff recruited gradually during 2001–02. By 31 March 2002 there were 43 inspection posts, including 3 subject to contracts which ended on 31 March 2003.

    623W
    2This figures includes the costs of 3 contracted posts which ended on 31 March 2003.

    Note:

    1.The Audit Commission's financial year runs from 1 November to 31 October. The Housing Corporation and Planning Inspectorate's financial year runs from 1 April to 31 March.

    The Audit Commission is responsible for carrying out inspections of local authority planning functions. The Planning Inspectorate deals with appeals and other casework under planning, housing, highways and allied legislation and is an executive agency of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The costs for the Planning Inspectorate shown in Table 2, are therefore not comparable with those for the Housing Inspectorate.

    Table 2 (at constant 2001–2002 prices)

    £ million

    Year

    Pay cost of staff employed by the Planning Inspectorate

    1997–98

    20.8

    1998–99

    20.64

    1999–2000

    22.25

    2000–01

    23.25

    2001–02

    23.38

    2002–03

    24.99

    Departmental Photocopiers
    Mr. Pickles
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many new photocopiers his Department has(a) purchased and (b) leased in each year since 1997; and at what cost. [104187]

    Mr. Leslie
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created in May 2002. Since that date the lease on the purchase of photocopiers has been managed under a joint contract with the Department for Transport, therefore, the information requested is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Disabled Facilities Grants
    Mrs. Dean
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent assessment he has made of the total estimated value of outstanding disabled facilities grant work in(a) England, (b) Staffordshire and (c) East Staffordshire. [113154]

    Mr. McNulty
    I announced on 10 February this year a substantial increase in Government funding for the disabled facilities grant budget for England. The increase to £99 million will be for each of the next three years. This was in response to requests from local authorities for additional resources to deal with an increasing demand for housing adaptations from disabled people and their families, (including the need for level access showers).

    The Government does not, however, monitor in detail the level of outstanding work under this programme, or the unmet need for level-access showers, either at national or local authority level.

    Elections
    Mr. Pickles
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on how all-postal election pilots will operate next year under the Government's624W
    proposals for the 2004 English local elections and European parliamentary elections to take place on the same day. [113543]

    Mr. Raynsford
    Subject to Parliament's approval of the provisions in the local government Bill, it is the Government's intention that the European parliamentary elections, Greater London Authority elections and the English local elections in 2004 will be combined. In these circumstances, further legislative provisions would be needed to allow piloting of any sort to take place. As indicated in the consultation paper 'Combining English Local Authority, Greater London Authority and European Parliament Elections in 2004' announced to the House in October 2002, the Government is currently considering very carefully whether we should hold pilots at the proposed combined elections in 2004.

    For local elections generally, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will decide what steps to take on extending all-postal voting at local elections in the light of the Electoral Commission's evaluation of each of the 2003 pilot schemes, and will consult widely on any such proposals. In the meantime the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will continue to consider applications from local authorities seeking to conduct all-postal pilots at by-elections.

    High Hedges (No. 2) Bill
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to the statement on 7 April 2003,Official Report, column 94, when he will publish the draft guidance on the High Hedges (No. 2) Bill. [114564]

    Mr. McNulty
    The draft guidance on the High Hedges (No. 2) Bill will be available before the Report stage on 20 June 2003.

    Local Government Finance (Shropshire)
    Mr. Paul Marsden
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of total costs were represented by administration costs for(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council and (b) Shropshire County Council, in each of the last five years; and what the average percentage for local government was. [113050]

    Mr. Raynsford
    Gross expenditure on administration and support services, expressed as a percentage of net current expenditure for Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council, Shropshire County Council and all England, in the last five years, were as shown in the following table. Averages for shire counties and shire districts are also shown for comparison.

    Percentage

    Shropshire

    Average shire country

    Shrewsbury and Atcham

    Average shire district

    All England

    2001–02

    7.8

    4.1

    21.9

    40.3

    8.6

    2000–01

    7.5

    4.1

    23.4

    42.5

    9.1

    1999–2000

    6.4

    4.9

    30.1

    44.8

    10.3

    1998–99

    6.1

    5.3

    27.6

    46.4

    11.0

    1997–98

    5.3

    5.8

    28.1

    46.9

    11.2

    Source:

    RS and RO6 forms 1997–98 to 2001–02

    Ordnance Survey
    Mr. Gordon Marsden
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what consultations were undertaken by Ordnance Survey with(a) English Heritage, (b) the Church Conservation Trust, (c) archaeological groups and (d) religious organisations and churches about the proposed deletion of symbols of churches no longer used as places of worship; and what guidance he gave to Ordnance Survey on the consultation process. [113661]

    Mr. McNulty
    The recent review of the 1:25 000 OS Explorer map series specification by Ordnance Survey has been conducted with an extensive consultation with users. This was carried out through focus groups and also in discussions with around 50 organisations whose members are major users of mapping at this scale.

    Ordnance Survey has resolved not to proceed with any change to the way places of worship are shown on Explorer maps. Current and former places of worship with towers, spires, minarets or domes are helpful navigational aids and these buildings will continue to be shown with the traditional symbols. However, the description 'place of worship' in the key will be amended to read 'building/place of worship with …etc' to reflect the fact that some have changed their status.

    Mr. Gordon Marsden
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Macclesfield on 10 March,Official Report, column 111W, on Ordnance Survey maps, if he will ensure that Ordnance Survey publishes the results of consultation and research among users to which he referred. [113663]

    Mr. McNulty
    Ordnance Survey has consulted widely on proposed changes to the 1:25 000 OS Explorer map series and has decided upon a number of specification changes. The outcome of the consultation is currently being made known to those individuals and organisations that contributed views and information. A summary of the changes has been posted on the Ordnance Survey web site.

    Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the operation of outline planning permission and its replacement by the statement of development principles as contained in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. [114015]

    Mr. McNulty
    The statement made in July last year, "Sustainable Communities: Delivering through Planning", said that statements of development principle might eventually replace outline planning permission. Outline planning permission will not be abolished until statements of development principles have been shown to be an effective alternative. Until then the two systems will work in parallel. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will review the take up and success of statements of development principles two years after they come into effect. At that time the consequences would be of removing outline planning permission will be considered. Full consultation will take place before removing outline planning permission.

    Regional Government Proposals
    Mr, George Howarth
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received from(a) business organisations, (b) trade unions and (c) community groups in support of his regional government proposals; and if he will place copies in the Library [90004]

    Mr. Raynsford
    Responses to the White Paper on regional governance—"Your Region, Your Choice"—were received from 20 business organisations, 10 trade union groups and 143 interest groups. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister did not record responses from community groups separately from those of other interest groups.

    A full analysis of responses to the White Paper was made available in the Library of the House on 12 February 2003. The analysis document is entitled: "White Paper Your Region, Your Choice—Revitalising the English Regions. Summary of the comments and enquiries received following the publication of the White Paper on Regional Governance". The document can also be found on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister website at http://www.regions.odpm.gov.uk/governance/progress/response/index.htm

    Responses to the soundings exercise on the level of interest in each English region in holding a referendum on an elected regional assembly are still being received. We asked for responses by 16 May. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will publish a summary of responses to the soundings exercise in due course.

    Regulatory Reform Orders
    Mr. Lansley
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what accumulated reduction in compliance costs for United Kingdom business has resulted from the passage of Regulatory Reform Orders. [113656]

    Mr. Alexander
    I have been asked to reply.

    The Cabinet Office oversees the Regulatory Reform Order programme. All Regulatory Reform Orders made have to be accompanied by a full Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) when laid before Parliament for scrutiny, setting out the costs and benefits of that proposal. These RIAs are shown on the Cabinet Office Website: http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/regulation/ act/made2.htm and Departments have been asked to make these available to the House of Commons Library.

    Right to Buy
    Mr. Pickles
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on plans to extend the reduction in right to buy discounts; [113564]

    (2) how many authorities have applied to his Department to have the reduction in right to buy discounts extended to their local authority area. [113565]

    Mr. McNulty
    The Government's recent decision to lower maximum Right to Buy discounts in 41 areas that are under the greatest housing market pressure led to calls for further, more widespread, reductions, including from 11 local authorities. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not rule out further changes and will keep the matter under review. However, the
    627W
    Government is committed to the principle of the Right to Buy and to helping social tenants into home ownership in ways that do not damage the interests of others in housing need. The Home Ownership Task Force, announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in February as part of the Sustainable Communities action plan, is currently considering the various schemes currently available to potential homeowners on low or modest incomes, with the aim of identifying the most effective ways of promoting sustainable home ownership.

    Swale Borough Council
    Mr. Wyatt
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will ask the Audit Commission to investigate the delays and loss of correspondence in the housing benefits department at Swale Borough Council. [114194]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The Audit Commission's work is restricted to auditing the relevant performance indicators and the housing benefit grant claim, and reviewing internal audit's work on housing benefit. The Audit Commission last undertook direct work on housing benefit delays in Swale in 2000–01. The authority has also been subject to two detailed reviews of the authority's benefit administration by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate—in September/October 1999 and February/March 2002. A further assessment will be made of Swale's performance as part of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment to be undertaken later this year.

    Wind Farms
    Mr. Blizzard
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to encourage regional workshops on wind farm planning applications for councillors and planning officers. [113976]

    Mr. McNulty
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be consulting on a revision of planning policy guidance on renewable energy (PPG 22) later this year. When PPG 22 has been finalised, the Government will consider how best to support dissemination of Government policy on planning for renewable energy: In the meantime, the Renewables Advisory Board, chaired by my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Construction, is keen to support initiatives, including regional workshops, aimed at providing relevant information about renewable energy to a range of people.

  WORK AND PENSIONS

    Pensioners
    Mrs. Dean
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of pensioners in the Burton constituency who will benefit from the pension credit. [113148]

    Maria Eagle
    Estimates of pension credit entitlement are not available at individual constituency level due to the insufficient sample cases in the survey data used. However, around half of all pensioner households across Great Britain will be eligible for pension credit.628W
    Such information as is available relates to pensioners in the Burton constituency receiving the minimum income guarantee (MIG) and is as follows:

    As at November 2002 there were 2,300 MIG recipients in the Burton constituency.

    Source:

    Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry November 2002.

    Mrs. Dean
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) male and (b) female pensioners aged between 65 and 80 there are in the Burton constituency; and what percentage of them receive means-tested benefits to reach the minimum income guarantee. [113145]

    Maria Eagle
    As at September 2002 there were 5,800 male and 6,800 female pensioners aged between 65 and 80 in receipt of a state pension in the Burton constituency.

    As at November 2002, 10.1 per cent, of male pensioners and 9.1 per cent, of female pensioners aged between 65 and 80 in the Burton constituency were claiming the minimum income guarantee.

    Source:

    Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 2002 Pensions Strategy Computer System as at 30 September 2002

    Mrs. Dean
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of pensioners in the Burton constituency who live(a) alone, (b) as a pensioner couple and (c) in a residential or nursing home. [113146]

    Maria Eagle
    The information is not available in the format requested but such information as is available shows that the number of pensioners receiving a state pension in Burton parliamentary constituency at September 2002 was 17,700.

    Source:

    Pensions Strategy Computer System at 30 September 2002.

    Mrs. Dean
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) male and (b) female pensioners aged over 80 there are in the Burton constituency; and what percentage of them are in receipt of means tested benefit to reach the minimum income guarantee. [113158]

    Maria Eagle
    As at September 2002 there were 900 male and 2,100 female pensioners aged 81 and over in receipt of a state pension in the Burton constituency.

    As at November 2002, 11.4 per cent, of male pensioners and 39.4 per cent, of female pensioners aged 81 or over in the Burton constituency were claiming the minimum income guarantee.

    Source:

    Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 2002 Pensions Strategy Computer System as at 30 September 2002

    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leicester East of 28April 2003,Official Report, column 191–92W, on pensioner households, what the average women's state pension as a percentage of the average men's state pension was in each of the last 10 years. [112362]
    629W
    Maria Eagle
    The information is in the table.

    Average amounts of State Pension in payment in Great Britain and Overseas

    £per week

    September

    All

    Men

    Women

    Women's pension as a percentage of men's

    1993

    57.68

    70.24

    50.88

    72.4

    1994

    60.12

    73.58

    52.78

    71.7

    1995

    55.76

    67.21

    49.56

    73.7

    1996

    58.57

    70.78

    51.82

    73.2

    1997

    60.39

    73.14

    53.22

    72.8

    1998

    60.68

    73.47

    53.44

    72.7

    1999

    65.95

    79.97

    57.83

    72.3

    2000

    67.40

    81.71

    59.05

    72.3

    2001

    72.57

    87.82

    63.57

    72.4

    2002

    75.96

    91.67

    66.60

    72.7

    Notes:

    1. Includes Great Britain and overseas pensioners but excludes the majority of Northern Ireland.

    2. Figures for 1993 and 1994 include Attendance Allowance paid with the State Pension.

    Sources:

    1. Information for 1993–1994–1995 is from the Social Security Statistics publication 1995.

    2. Information for 1996 onwards: 5 per cent, sample from the Pension Strategy Computer System at date of extraction.

    Judy Mallaber
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners there are in Amber Valley; how many(a) are over 80 and (b) qualify for (i) additional winter fuel allowance and (ii) a free TV licence; and how many receive minimum pensions guarantee; and what the average payment was in the last 12 months. [113391]

    Maria Eagle
    As at November 2002 there were 18,700 pensioners receiving a key benefit in the Amber Valley constituency. 5,000 people are aged 80 and over and if they are entitled to a winter fuel payment from this winter, they will also be entitled to the additional payment announced in the Budget. There were 8,400 people aged 75 and over receiving a key benefit who would therefore be eligible to receive a free TV licence. 2,800 people received an average weekly minimum income guarantee of £43.34.

    Table 1: Benefit spending on pensioners in cash terms

    £ million

    Retirement pensions

    Winter fuel payments

    Income related benefits

    Over 75 TV licences

    Other benefits

    Total

    1992–93

    27,944

    0

    7,290

    0

    2,572

    37,806

    1993–94

    29,548

    0

    8,105

    0

    3,027

    40,680

    1994–95

    30,178

    0

    8,363

    0

    3,314

    41,855

    1995–96

    31,222

    0

    8,529

    0

    3,752

    43,503

    1996–97

    33,031

    0

    8,618

    0

    4,148

    45,797

    1997–98

    34,379

    191

    8,626

    0

    4,466

    47,661

    1998–99

    36,154

    194

    8,577

    0

    4,793

    49,718

    1999–2000

    38,077

    759

    8,869

    0

    5,086

    52,792

    2000–01

    38,854

    1,749

    9,426

    306

    5,434

    55,769

    2001–02

    42,023

    1,692

    10,183

    365

    5,820

    60,083

    2002–03

    44,513

    1,712

    10,644

    374

    6,120

    63,363

    2003–04

    46,628

    1,891

    11,479

    406

    6,398

    66,802

    2004–05

    48,767

    1,911

    13,044

    426

    6,710

    70,859

    2005–06

    51,088

    1,933

    13,975

    448

    7,072

    74,515

    630W
    Note:

    Key DWP benefits for pensioners are state pension, minimum income guarantee, attendance allowance, disability living allowance, incapacity benefit, and severe disablement allowance.

    Source:

    Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry. November 2002. IAD 1C Client Group Analysis of the population over state pension age on key benefits (SP, MIG, AA, DLA, IB, and SDA)

    Helen Southworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners there are in Warrington, South; how many(a) are aged over 80 and (b) qualify for (i) additional winter fuel allowance and (ii) a free television licence; how many receive minimum pensions guarantee; and what the average payment was in the last 12 months. [113858]

    Maria Eagle
    As at November 2002, there were 17,800 pensioners receiving a key benefit in the Warrington South constituency. 3,500 people are aged 80 and over and if they are entitled to a winter fuel payment from this winter they will also be entitled to the additional payment announced in the Budget. There were 6,700 people aged 75 and over receiving a key benefit who would therefore be eligible to receive a free TV licence. 2,400 people received an average weekly minimum income guarantee of £43.46.

    Note:

    Key DWP benefits for pensioners are state pension, minimum income guarantee, attendance allowance, disability living allowance, incapacity benefit, and severe disablement allowance.

    Source:

    Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 2002. IAD 1C Client Group Analysis of the population over state pension age on key benefits (SP, MIG, AA, DLA, IB, and SDA).

    Pensioner Benefits
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate expenditure(a) in cash terms, (b) in current prices and (c) as a share of GDP on (i) retirement pensions, (ii) winter fuel payments, (iii) means-tested benefits for pensioners, (iv) all other benefits for pensioners and (v) free TV licences in (A) 1992–93 and (B) each succeeding year to the end of the public expenditure planning period. [112332]

    Maria Eagle
    The information requested is given in the tables.
    631W

    Table 2: Benefit spending on pensioners in real terms (2002–03 prices)

    £ million

    Retirement pensions

    Winter fuel payments

    Income related benefits

    Over 75 TV licences

    Other benefits

    Total

    1992–93

    36,060

    0

    9,407

    0

    3,319

    48,787

    1993–94

    37,210

    0

    10,206

    0

    3,813

    51,229

    1994–95

    37,507

    0

    10,394

    0

    4,119

    52,019

    1995–96

    37,729

    0

    10,306

    0

    4,534

    52,570

    1996–97

    38,688

    0

    10,094

    0

    4,858

    53,640

    1997–98

    39,062

    217

    9,801

    0

    5,074

    54,153

    1998–99

    39,980

    215

    9,484

    0

    5,301

    54,979

    1999–2000

    41,112

    820

    9,575

    0

    5,492

    56,999

    2000–01

    41,020

    1,847

    9,952

    323

    5,737

    58,878

    2001–02

    43,284

    1,743

    10,488

    376

    5,994

    61,885

    2002–03

    44,513

    1,712

    10,644

    374

    6,120

    63,363

    2003–04

    45,380

    1,840

    11,172

    395

    6,227

    65,014

    2004–05

    46,305

    1,815

    12,385

    405

    6,371

    67,280

    2005–06

    47,325

    1,790

    12,945

    415

    6,551

    69,026

    Table 3: Benefit spending on pensioners as a percentage of GDP

    Precentage

    Retirement pensions

    Winter fuel payments

    Income related benefits

    Over 75 TV licences

    Other benefits

    Total

    1992–93

    4.5

    0.0

    1.2

    0.0

    0.4

    6.1

    1993–94

    4.5

    0.0

    1.2

    0.0

    0.5

    6.2

    1994–95

    4.4

    0.0

    1.2

    0.0

    0.5

    6.1

    1995–96

    4.3

    0.0

    1.2

    0.0

    0.5

    6.0

    1996–97

    4.3

    0.0

    1.1

    0.0

    0.5

    5.9

    1997–98

    4.2

    0.0

    1.0

    0.0

    0.5

    5.8

    1998–99

    4.2

    0.0

    1.0

    0.0

    0.6

    5.7

    1999–2000

    4.1

    0.1

    1.0

    0.0

    0.6

    5.7

    2000–01

    4.0

    0.2

    1.0

    0.0

    0.6

    5.8

    2001–02

    4.2

    0.2

    1.0

    0.0

    0.6

    6.0

    2002–03

    4.2

    0.2

    1.0

    0.0

    0.6

    6.0

    2003–04

    4.2

    0.2

    1.0

    0.0

    0.6

    6.0

    2004–05

    4.2

    0.2

    1.1

    0.0

    0.6

    6.0

    2005–06

    4.1

    0.2

    1.1

    0.0

    0.6

    6.0

    Notes:

    1. Forecasts for 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06 consistent with Budget 2003 DWP benefit expenditure forecasts, and published in the DWP 2003 Departmental Report.

    2. Expenditure for 2002–03 reflects the latest benefit-by-benefit estimate of outturn, and not the amounts voted by Parliament.

    3. Includes all spending on pensioners including that outside the departmental objective to "Combat poverty and promote security and independence in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners".

    4. Widow's/bereavement benefits and incapacity benefit paid to pensioners are included in the Retirement Pensions spending.

    5. All numbers are on a Great Britain basis except over 75 TV licences which also includes Northern Ireland.

    6. Pensioner spending on income related benefits and winter fuel payments includes payments to men aged 60–64.

    7. Housing benefit and council tax benefit spending (included in income-related benefits) covers benefits paid to pensioners, regardless of whether the payments are funded by DWP, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister or the Welsh Assembly Government (and predecessor Departments), or from local authorities' general funds.

    8. Figures for 1999–2000 onwards are on a Resource Accounting and Budgeting basis. Previous years' figures are on a cash basis, but the impact of the change is unlikely to be significant.

    Autism
    Linda Perham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will introduce an autism compact with employers to make it easier for autistic people to gain access to employment. [112674]

    Maria Eagle
    We are committed to improving employment opportunities for all disabled people, both through the help available from Jobcentre Plus and by extending basic rights through the Disability Discrimination Act. To this end, we support the National Autistic Society's Autism Awareness Week as an important campaign in ensuring that people with autism and their families are aware of their rights and the support available to them.
    632W
    We have no plans at present to introduce an 'autism compact' with employers. However, we recognise that the employment needs of people with disabilities vary and we have been working with the National Autistic Society to improve our understanding of how best to help people with autism find and keep jobs. In addition, Disability Employment Advisers within Jobcentre Plus provide support to disabled people facing complex barriers to work and help employers develop good recruitment policies. They can offer help to disabled people with finding work and can refer them, where appropriate, to occupational health assessments training and the full range of Jobcentre Plus disability programmes.

    Civil Service (People with Disabilities)
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress has been made in meeting targets for the proportion of people with disabilities in senior posts in the Department. [110532]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    The Department for Work and Pensions has made progress in meeting targets for disabled staff in senior posts as follows: 5 per cent, of Senior Civil Service Managers currently in post are disabled compared to a target figure of 3.2 per cent. In addition 4.1 per cent of staff at grades 6, 7, and SEO are disabled compared to a target figure of 3 per cent.

    The Department is committed to increasing the number of disabled people in senior posts in the Department by for example using open competition to provide a wider pool of diverse applicants for senior posts. The Department is also involved in various developmental schemes for disabled people such as Fast Track, a graduate development programme for disabled people co-ordinated by SCOPE. This is a work based development programme that aims to provide disabled people with their first step into a chosen career. As part of this programme we currently have two graduates on six month placements. In addition we are during the period 2002–04 supporting 11 staff as part of the Civil Service Bursary scheme for disabled staff.

    The Department also plays an active role in the Cabinet Office Disability working party that has been established to examine better ways of collating and monitoring disability data.

    The European Commission has designated 2003 as the European Year of Disabled People. The Department is playing a key role in co-ordinating the UK programme of activities for this year. The UK theme for the year is "Promoting Rights and Participation".

    Departmental Staff
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of regional variations in staff turnover in his Department. [112746]

    Maria Eagle
    Information on turnover by Government office region in the Department for Work and Pensions for the year ending 31 December 2002 is in the following table. The overall turnover rate and the variation between regions have been stable since the Department's formation in June 2001.

    Percentage

    Region

    Wastage rate

    East Midlands

    7.7

    East of England

    8.5

    London

    8.6

    North East

    4.7

    NorthWest

    7.1

    Scotland

    6.0

    South East

    9.9

    South West

    8.7

    Wales

    6.4

    West Midlands

    6.9

    Yorkshire and the Huniber

    6.0

    Total

    7.1

    Entertainment
    Mr. Gray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he has entertained Labour hon. Members at public expense in the last 12 months; and at what cost. [106389]

    Maria Eagle
    My ministerial colleagues and I meet hon. Members from all political parties from time to time to discuss various issues which concern the work of the Department for Work and Pensions. To establish the exact cost of hospitality supplied specifically to Labour MPs, we would need to examine the diaries of all our Ministers for the last 12 months. This would enable us to identify any meetings where Labour MPs were present and only then could we establish what, if any, hospitality was provided. Understandably, this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    All offers of hospitality are made in accordance with published departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in Government Accounting. The giving and receiving of hospitality is conducted fully in accordance with the guidance set out in the Ministerial Code.

    EU Discrimination Committee
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list(a) the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU committee for implementation of the action programme to tackle discrimination, (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. [110288]

    Alan Johnson
    I have been asked to reply.

    The Community Action Programme to combat discrimination has met twice in the last 12 months, in May and December 2002. The current UK representative is Cathy Rees who is the responsible Assistant Director of this Department's Selected Employment Rights Branch.

    I will place copies of the agenda for both meetings in the Libraries of the House. These show where agenda items were for information, and where decisions have been taken.

    An evaluation of the programme will be reported to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A copy of the evaluation report will be placed in the Libraries of the House once available.

    Invalid Care Allowance
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many beneficiaries there would be and what the cost would be of extending the carers premium to all those eligible for invalid care allowance but disqualified because of the overlapping benefit rule. [112670]
    635W
    Maria Eagle
    The carer premium in the income-related benefits can already be paid to people who have an established entitlement to carers allowance, previously known as invalid care allowance, but do not receive it as a result of the overlapping benefit rules.

    Part-time Workers' Pensions
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of women who are affected by the ECHR ruling on occupational pension provision for part-time workers: what estimate he has made of the number that have successfully exercised their rights following that ruling; and if he will make a statement. [114512]

    Maria Eagle
    It is not possible to estimate precisely the total number of women part-time workers who might be affected by the European Court of Justice ruling on access to occupational pension schemes. About 60,000 claims were originally lodged with Employment Tribunals and aspects of the Court rulings are still awaiting clarification. Some claims have been struck out because they were lodged too late; while other part-time workers could still make claims.

    In order to be successful, claims have to be lodged in time (ie while the individual is in work or within six months of leaving employment with the relevant employer); it has to be accepted that the part-time worker's exclusion from the particular scheme amounted to indirect sex discrimination; and agreement has been made regarding the appropriate rates of contributions to be paid in respect of the claim.

    We understand that some private sector employers have already reached settlement with their applicants and negotiations are well advanced for public service schemes.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Criminal Records
    Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to respond substantively to the recommendation of the Review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 in relation to the deletion of offenders' criminal records at 18 for the purposes of employment. [113420]

    Paul Goggins
    The Government response to the Review was published in April 2003, and a copy placed in the Library. The recommendation attracted little support and the Government has deferred consideration of it until the impact of other elements of the proposed new disclosure scheme on the resettlement of young offenders can be assessed.

    The number of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, as reported to the Home Office, issued within, the West Mercia MCC area, by local authority and quarter, up to 30 November 2002 (latest available)

    Local authority1

    October- December 2001

    January- March 2002

    April- June 2002

    July- September 2002

    October- November 2002

    Total

    North Shropshire District Council

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    2

    Oswestry Borough Council

    0

    2

    0

    0

    0

    2

    Total

    0

    2

    0

    0

    2

    4

    1Local authorities within the constituency of Shropshire North.

    Child Prisoners
    Mr. Paul Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children are in prison. [111915]

    Paul Goggins
    On 28 February 2003 there were 2,346 juveniles (aged 15–17) held in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales.

    Anti-Semitic Crime
    Linda Perham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent steps he has taken to tackle anti-Semitic crime. [112542]

    Beverley Hughes
    The Government are fully committed to tackling anti-Semitism and racism generally wherever it occurs. Under part III of the Public Order Act 1986 it is an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent or likelihood to stir up racial hatred. It therefore covers inflammatory comments made in public or in the media as well as the distribution of printed material. The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 increased the maximum penalty for incitement to racial hatred from two to seven years' imprisonment.

    The investigation of possible breaches of these laws is an operational matter for the police and then the Crown Prosecution Service to pursue.

    Police forces continue to be alert to crimes being committed against members of Jewish communities and take appropriate steps to safeguard officials, places of worship, community centres and other premises. The police act in accordance with the publication "Breaking the Power of Fear and Hate" which is a guide to identifying and combating hate crime.

    Antisocial Behaviour
    Mr. Paterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Anti-Social Behaviour Orders have been made in each of the last 12 months in the North Shropshire constituency. [113177]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    Official statistics on the number of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (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 local authority areas involved. The number of notifications received by the Home Office of ASBOs issued in the West Mercia MCC, in which the North Shropshire constituency is located, from 1 October 2001 to 30 November 2002 (latest available), are given in the following 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.

    Badger Baiting
    Mark Tami
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions for offences relating to badger baiting there have been in each police authority in each of the last five years. [113021]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    The information requested is not available centrally.

    Capita
    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what penalties have been incurred by Capita on the Criminal Records Bureau contract; and if he will make a statement. [114845]

    Paul Goggins
    There is provision for liquidated damages and service credits for delay or poor performance in the contract. The details of such damages and credits are commercial in confidence, and accordingly, would normally come within exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. However, I have concluded that in this instance, it would be in the public interest not to continue to use the exemption.

    The following are details of all liquidated damages and service credits that have been incurred and agreed by Capita up to 31 January 2003:
    liquidated damages for the delay of the development programme 2001–02—£555,000;
    liquidated damages for functionality relating to National Intelligence Service 2002–03—£47,500;
    liquidated damages for the delay of the web-based application channel 2002–03—£87,500; and
    service credits up to 31 January 2003 (excluding those for September 2002, which by mutual agreement have been refunded, as they were mainly caused by the CRB Teacher Prioritisation exercise)—£1,123,697. (Service credits are sums deducted for failure to meet service standards e.g. turnaround times).

    This gives a total £1,813,697 for liquidated damages and service credits that have been incurred up to 31 January 2003.

    Service credits have continued to be deducted since 1 February 2003. However, agreement on the amounts are part of the on-going contractual negotiations relating to the implementation of the recommendations by the Independent Review Team appointed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

    To put the above figures in context, Capita has been paid £20.4 million for their work associated with processing Disclosure applications up to 31 January 2003. This figure does not include ancillary charges for processing applications from organisations wishing to become registered bodies and for the accommodation, workstations and postage provided by Capita for use by the CRB's civil service staff; these charges amount to £2.9 million over the same period.

    Counterfeit Road Tax Discs
    Mark Tami
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were convicted of offences involving counterfeit tax discs in each police authority in each of the last five years. [113026]
    638W
    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    The Home Office Court Proceedings Database for England and Wales does not separately identify the offence of fraud or forgery associated with vehicle excise duty.

    Criminal Cases Review Commission
    John Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases have been referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission since March 1997. [92312]

    Paul Goggins
    Pursuant to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn) on 28 January 2003,Official Report, column 754W. Due to an administrative error, the number of applications received that prove to be ineligible for case review, is estimated to be at least "a quarter" and not "three quarters" as originally written.

    Deportations
    Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) children, (b) women and (c) men were deported under Immigration Acts powers in 2002. [113426]

    Beverley Hughes
    Data on the number of people deported from the UK in 2002 are not available. Data on the age and gender of deportees would only be available by examination of individual case-files at disproportionate cost.

    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/imm igra tionl.html.

    Drug Testing
    Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 28 April 2003,Official Report, column 64W, whether the research study on mandatory drug testing will be assessing the impact of the time that the different types of drug tested for stay in the system on (a) prisoner attitudes to drug taking and (b) the class and type of drug consumed in prisons by prisoners with (i) a history and (ii) no history of Class A drug offences. [111792]

    Paul Goggins
    The research study considered all of these issues. Patterns, causes and effects of drug taking are, however, complex and analysis of the research findings may not prove straightforward.

    Drug-related Crime
    Dr. Kumar
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of recorded crime in(a) Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East and (b) all English police forces was drug related in each year since 1996. [112723]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    Recorded crime figures do not include details of whether drugs are an aggravating factor in offences, for example for burglary or robbery. Information on the number of recorded drug offences are available only at police force level. This information is not published at Basic Command Unit, or Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership level.

    Percentages of drug offences recorded for the 39 police force areas in England are given in the following table.

    Recorded crime from 1996 to 2001–02, for police forces in England: Percentage which are drug offences

    Police force area

    1996

    19971

    1998–992

    1999–2000

    2000–013

    2001–023

    Avon and Somerset

    0.4

    0.3

    1.4

    1.4

    1.3

    1.0

    Bedfordshire

    0.5

    0.5

    2.3

    2.0

    1.8

    1.9

    Cambridgeshire

    0.2

    0.3

    1.7

    1.5

    1.3

    1.1

    Cheshire

    1.2

    1.1

    3.8

    2.9

    2.6

    2.2

    Cleveland

    0.4

    0.4

    1.7

    1.5

    1.5

    1.5

    Cumbria

    0.7

    0.6

    4.0

    3.6

    2.9

    2.5

    Derbyshire

    0.3

    0.4

    2.0

    1.9

    1.7

    1.8

    Devon and Cornwall

    0.7

    0 7

    3.5

    3.4

    3.3

    4.0

    Dorset

    0.5

    0.4

    2.1

    2.6

    2.5

    2.5

    Durham

    0.6

    O.8

    2.8

    2.6

    2.7

    2.5

    Essex

    0.4

    0.4

    2.4

    2.4

    2.1

    2.0

    Gloucestershire

    0.3

    0.4

    2.4

    2.5

    2.6

    2.4

    Greater Manchester

    0.3

    0.3

    1.5

    1.3

    1.4

    1.2

    Hampshire

    0.6

    0.6

    3.3

    3.1

    2.6

    2.5

    Hertfordshire

    0.5

    0.4

    2.4

    2.2

    2.2

    2.0

    Humberside

    0.3

    0.4

    1.3

    1.3

    1.2

    1.2

    Kent

    0.6

    0.6

    3.0

    2.9

    2.3

    2.5

    Lancashire

    0.5

    0.5

    3.5

    2.9

    2.7

    2.3

    Leicestershire

    0.2

    0.4

    1.5

    1.6

    1.6

    1.8

    Lincolnshire

    0.4

    0.5

    2.6

    2.1

    2.0

    2.2

    City of London

    1.1

    0.9

    7.1

    4.6

    3.6

    4.6

    Merseyside

    0.4

    0.6

    4.0

    3.3

    3.1

    2.9

    Metropolitan Police District

    0.4

    0.6

    3.4

    2.5

    2.4

    2.5

    Norfolk

    0.6

    0.6

    2.7

    2.6

    2.0

    2.1

    Northamptonshire

    0.5

    0.5

    2.0

    1.9

    1.7

    1.6

    Northumbria

    0.2

    0.3

    2.6

    3.0

    3.1

    3.5

    North Yorkshire

    0.3

    0.3

    2.8

    2.6

    2.4

    2.5

    Nottinghamshire

    0.3

    0.3

    1.5

    1.3

    1.4

    1.3

    South Yorkshire

    0.3

    0.4

    3.0

    2.7

    2.8

    2.5

    Staffordshire

    0.4

    0.4

    2.1

    1.7

    1.6

    1.9

    Suffolk

    0.8

    0.9

    4.0

    3.3

    2.7

    2.6

    Surrey

    0.5

    0.4

    3.7

    3.3

    2.9

    3.1

    Sussex

    0.6

    0.6

    1.7

    1.7

    1.5

    1.9

    Thames Valley

    0.4

    0.4

    2.2

    1.9

    1.8

    2.1

    Warwickshire

    0.3

    0.4

    1.8

    2.0

    1.7

    1.6

    West Mercia

    0.5

    0.6

    2.9

    2.5

    2.6

    2.1

    West Midlands

    0.2

    0.3

    2.3

    1.8

    2.1

    2.0

    West Yorkshire

    0.7

    0.7

    2.5

    2.2

    1.9

    1.4

    Wiltshire

    0.5

    0.6

    3.1

    3.0

    2.8

    2.8

    England total

    0.4

    0.5

    2.6

    2.2

    2.1

    2.1

    1 Crime statistics were collected on a calendar year basis up to 1997, and on a financial year basis thereafter.

    2 The number of crimes recorded in that financial year using the expanded offence coverage and revised counting rules which came into effect on 1 April 1998.

    3 Due to some police forces adopting the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard earlier than its national introduction across England and Wales on 1 April 2002, figures for 2000–01 or 2001–02 may not be comparable with other years.

    Note:

    Prior to April 1998, the only drug offences recorded were 'Trafficking in controlled drugs', which were recorded within the Other Offences Group. After this date, the Home Office Counting Rules were revised and expanded to include the further drug offences of 'Possession of controlled drugs and 'Other drug offences'.
    640W
    There was a change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, which would have the tendency to increase the number of offences counted. Prior to April 1998, the only drug offences recorded were 'Trafficking in controlled drugs', which were recorded within the Other Offences Group. After this date the Home Office Counting Rules were revised and expanded to include the additional drug categories of 'Possession of controlled drugs', and 'Other drug offences'. Numbers of offences for years before and after this date, and figures calculated from them, are therefore not directly comparable.

    As a result of some police forces adopting the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) prior to its national introduction across England and Wales on 1 April 2002, percentages given for 2000–01 or 2001–02 may not be comparable with other years.

    Extradition Arrangements (Bosnia)
    Mr. Wilshire
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals in Bosnia are involved in proceedings intended to extradite them to the UK. [113093]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    None.

    Mr. Wilshire
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are in place following the break up of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for the extradition from Bosnia of persons suspected by law enforcement agencies of criminal acts in the UK. [113094]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    Extradition between the UK and Bosnia and Herzegovina is governsd by the 1901 UK/ Serbia bilateral extradition treaty, which was extended to include the territory for the former Yugoslavia in 1931.

    Faith Communities Working Group
    Mr. Grieve
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the Sikh organisations that have been sent a questionnaire by the Home Office Working Group looking at the relationship between the Government and faith organisations; and what criteria were used in their selection. [114178]

    Beverley Hughes
    [holding answer 16 May 2003]: My noble Friend Lord Filkin will write to the hon. Member with a list of the 38 national and local Sikh organisations which have been sent the questionnaire.

    The list of organisations to receive the questionnaire was compiled from various authoritative sources. The only criterion for their inclusion was that they should make claim to represent the views of the Sikh community in its dealings with Government Departments.

    Mr. Grieve
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why Sikh Gurdwaras were excluded from the mapping exercise to decide on the interface between the Government and faith communities. [114179]

    Beverley Hughes
    [holding answer 16 May 2003]:The purpose of the mapping exercise is to determine the extent to which faith bodies with a national remit represent their respective faith communities, so that Government Departments can be confident that they are approaching the most appropriate organisations in future consultations. Organisations with a purely local remit have therefore generally been excluded.

    However, a number of Councils of Sikh Gurdwaras from areas with large Sikh populations have been included, since we recognise that such Councils can often represent the views of the Sikh community at a national level. It would be helpful to have some idea of how they are constituted and operate.

    Mr. Grieve
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria were used to select members for the Home Office Working Group looking at the relationship between the Government and faith communities; and what consultation with faith communities took place upon the selection. [114180]
    642W
    Beverley Hughes
    [holding answer 16 May 2003]: Members of the working group were selected either as representatives of Government Departments with a particular interest in consulting the faith communities, or as individuals from the faith communities with significant personal experience of having been involved in such consultations by Government. The need to restrict the group to manageable size meant that only one such individual could be included from each of the five largest faith communities, as well as two further members to represent the Black-led Churches and the smaller faith communities.

    All the faith community members of the group are members of the Inner Cities Religious Council or of organisations linked by the Inter Faith Network for the United Kingdom, or both. These highly experienced bodies are fully representative of the wide range of faith communities living in the United Kingdom. Both were consulted over the membership of the group, and both are themselves represented on it.

    Firearms Amnesty
    Dr. Kumar
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department's total spending was on the advertising and promotion of the firearms amnesty between April 2002 and March 2003; and what proportion was spent on(a) television, (b) radio and (c) print media. [111255]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    The firearms amnesty ran from 31 March to 30 April 2003.

    Total spending on advertising and promotion for the amnesty during the period of April 2002 and March 2003 was £460,000. This included radio, press and online advertising.

    (a) Television: no advertising

    (b) Radio: £230,000

    (c) Press (national and regional): £190,000

    The amnesty was also supported by local police force publicity. Over 40,000 guns and over 957,000 rounds of ammunition were handed in. The amnesty was launched at the request of the Association of Chief Police Officers.

    Inspectorates (Pay Costs)
    Mr. Norman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 5 March 2003,Official Report, column 1096W, on prison inspectors, what the total pay costs incurred by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons were in each year since 1997. [113386]

    Paul Goggins
    The total pay costs for Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons since 1997 were as follows:

    £

    1997–98

    724,000

    1998–99

    740,502

    1999–2000

    886,247

    2000–01

    896,000

    2001–02

    1,270,989

    2002–03

    1.568,475

    643W
    The jump in pay costs between 2000–01 and 2001–02 reflects the creation of a third inspection team which the Government funded to meet significant increased demands on the inspectorate.

    Intermediate Supervision and Surveillance Programmes
    Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the aim of the intermediate supervision and surveillance programmes to reduce offending by 5 per cent, this year will be achieved; and if he will make a statement. [112937]

    Paul Goggins
    The Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme (ISSP) is the toughest community intervention for persistent young offenders. ISSP is being evaluated by Oxford University who will report in March 2004. It does not have a separate reconviction target but we do expect it to contribute to delivery of our new overall Public Service Agreement target of reducing juvenile re-offending by five per cent, by March 2006 compared to 2000.

    Nadhmi Auchi
    Norman Lamb
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the French extradition warrant in respect of Mr. Nadhmi Auchi was first received; what subsequent communications there were with the French Government; and if he will make a statement on the action taken between the receipt of the extradition warrant and March 2003. [112874]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    The French Government first submitted a request for Mr. Auchi's extradition in December 2000. There followed a number of detailed but otherwise routine exchanges with French authorities about matters raised in the extradition request. The Secretary of State decided on 18 March to issue his authority to proceed in the case. Mr. Auchi was arrested on 31 March. He has since submitted himself voluntarily to the French courts.

    Norman Lamb
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from(a) Mr. Nadhmi Auchi and (b) others acting on his behalf (i) in respect of the extradition warrant and (ii) on other matters over the last two years. [112875]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    Between September 2000 and October 2001, the Home Office received a number of representations on Mr. Auchi's behalf. In the main, these were to the effect that the Secretary of State should decline to issue his authority to proceed in respect of any extradition request he might receive.

    Night Flights (Immigration/Customs Control)
    Mr. Stunell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the monitoring of night time passenger arrivals at UK airports in respect of(a) immigration control and (b)customs. [113525]

    Beverley Hughes
    Immigration controls at all major UK airports are already staffed 24 hours a day. Local managers monitor flight schedules on a regular basis and adjust staffing rotas to ensure adequate coverage at all times.
    644W
    The Immigration Service is notified of all passengers who are subject to immigration control arriving on flights at small airports not permanently staffed by immigration officers. Such passengers are examined in accordance with the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

    Nowadays the vast majority of Customs work is intelligence led and officers are deployed to meet the highest risk flights arriving or departing at any particular time to meet the Government's law enforcement priorities. Staffing levels throughout the day are commensurate with the assessed risk posed by the arriving or departing flights.

    Police Pay
    Mr. Hunter
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reasons underlie his policy that officers of adjacent police forces carrying out the same duties and responsibilities may receive different levels of remuneration. [112437]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    The Special Priority Payment (SPP) Scheme, under which extra rewards may be paid to officers in the most difficult and demanding posts, was agreed by all parties in the Police Negotiating Board (PNB) as part of a ground-breaking package of reforms to police pay and conditions of service. The parties in PNB include representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers, of police authorities and of the Police Federations. PNB decided that posts might qualify for a SPP where they: carry a significantly higher responsibility level than the norm for the rank; or present particular difficulties in recruitment or retention; or have specially demanding working conditions or working environments.

    PNB agreed that chief constables and police authorities should draw up a local scheme of payments in line with the national criteria. This was because PNB believed that the chief constable and police authority were best placed to decide locally which posts in their force met the national criteria. Consequently, the decision as to which posts in a given force qualify for a SPP is for the chief constable and the police authority, not for the Secretary of State. Where, therefore, a post qualifies for payment in one force but not in an adjacent force, it is due to the decision of the chief constables and police authorities of the forces concerned.

    All federated ranks officers, regardless of whether they get a special priority payment, received an increase in basic pay of at least £402 from 1 April. This increase comes on top of the annual police pay award this September.

    Prison Service
    Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 11 April 2003,Official Report, column 449W, on prisons, what the length of detention was of (a) convicted and (b) convicted unsentenced prisoners on 28 February 2003; and what the figures were for 30 June 2002. [112129]

    Paul Goggins
    The length of time since first remand into a Prison Service establishment of untried and convicted unsentenced prisoners is given in the table.
    645W

    30 June 2002

    28 February 2003

    Untried

    Less than 1 week

    1,010

    760

    1 week

    0

    120

    More than 1 week up to and including 1 month

    1,890

    2,100

    More than 1 month up to and including 3 months

    2,840

    2,420

    More than 3 months up to and including 6 months

    1,380

    1,480

    More than 6 months up to and including 12 months

    500

    530

    More than 12 months

    250

    300

    All lengths

    7,880

    7,720

    Convicted unsentenced

    Less than 1 week

    620

    520

    1 week

    0

    110

    More than 1 week up to and including 1 month

    1,520

    1,600

    More than 1 month up to and including 3 months

    1,480

    1,230

    More than 3 months up to and including 6 months

    960

    1,030

    More than 6 months up to and including 12 months

    420

    500

    More than 12 months

    190

    260

    All lengths

    5,200

    5,250

    Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which prisons in England he plans to market test; and if he will make a statement. [112152]

    Paul Goggins
    There are no current plans to market test prisons in England or Wales. The Prison Service has, however, set up a programme of performance testing under which under-performing public sector prisons are required to deliver improvements. Failure to deliver improvements may ultimately lead to the prisons being contracted out to the private sector in a competition without a Prison Service in-house bid. Two prisons have been awarded service level agreements (Reading and Leicester) and two are being performance tested at present (Dartmoor and Liverpool); two more will be performance tested later in 2003 and a further six in 2004.

    Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) pursuant to his answer of 1 May 2003,Official Report, column 527W, on prisons, how many prisoners at each of the prisons listed were engaged in average or above average levels of purposeful activity; [113428]

    (2) pursuant to his answer of 1 May 2003, Official Report, column 527W, if he will provide a breakdown of activities in which prisoners were engaged at each of the prisons listed in 2001–02. [113427]

    Paul Goggins
    A breakdown of the activities in which prisoners were engaged at Her Majesty's Prison Altcourse, Her Majesty's Prison Rye Hill and Her Majesty's Prison Wolds in 2001–02 is shown in the following table.

    Activity

    Altcourse

    Rye Hill

    Wolds

    Accredited offending behaviour programme

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    Non-accredited offending behaviour programme

    Yes

    Yes

    No

    Basics and key skills education

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    Education (full time and part time)

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    Other education

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    Catering

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    Chaplaincy

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    Cleaning and maintenance

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    Counselling

    Yes

    No

    No

    Work on drugs

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    Family social visits

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    Gardening

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    Induction

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    Industries

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    Laundry

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    Library

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    646W

    Activity

    Altcourse

    Rye Hill

    Wolds

    Media centre

    No

    Yes

    Yes

    Orderly work

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    Physical education

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    Prison maintenance

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    Resettlement

    Yes

    No

    Yes

    Sentence management

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    The level of activity of each prisoner is not routinely collated and the calculation of whether the levels are above, at or below average can be made only at disproportionate cost.

    Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average length of stay per prisoner was at(a) HMP Altcourse, (b) HMP Rye Hill and (c) HMP Wolds in 2001–02. [113429]

    Paul Goggins
    The information needed to answer the question is not recorded in the format asked and can be retrieved only in that format at disproportionate cost.

    Raves
    Mr. Grogan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of discussions between his Department and the Association of Chief Police Officers regarding the issue of illegal rave gatherings on private property. [113171]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    During the last 12 months, my officials have held discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers on raves. We will bring forward legislative changes to deal with this problem when parliamentary time allows.

    Restorative Justice
    Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce programmes based on restorative justice principles in prisons. [112153]

    Paul Goggins
    In its White Paper, Justice for All (CM 5563) the Government said that they were developing a national strategy that would consider the availability of restorative justice across all age groups and all stages in the criminal process. The Prison Service, in conjunction with the National Probation Service, and other stakeholders, is contributing to the development of that strategy. The Government will issue a consultation document on the development of Restorative Justice in the criminal justice system during the summer.

    While awaiting the results of the consultation the Prison Service will continue to support the diverse range of restorative practices that are already taking place within prisons. The Prison Service is participating in Home Office funded pilot projects under the Crime Reduction programme which are testing the effectiveness of restorative justice at different stages, from caution through to custodial sentences. The final reconviction studies will be produced at the end of 2005 and these results will play an important role in the development of the long-term restorative justice strategy. Outside the pilots, direct victim-offender mediation work is taking place in a small number of prisons, victim awareness courses are also taking place

    647W
    and most prisons are involved in reparative projects where prisoners give something back to communities through activities such as Braille translation services, community artwork and refurbishment of wheelchairs.

    Road Accidents (Dogs)
    Mark Tami
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reports of dogs run over on roads in each police authority were received in each of the last five years. [113029]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    This information is not collected centrally.

    Shoplifting
    Mark Tami
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions for offences relating to shoplifting there have been in each police authority in each of the last five years. [113024]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    The information requested is contained in the table.

    Statistics for 2002 will be available in the autumn.

    Persons1 convicted of thefts from shops, by police force area— England and Wales

    Number of persons

    Police force area

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    2001

    Avon and Somerset

    1,341

    1,397

    1,921

    1,911

    1,952

    Bedfordshire

    610

    717

    798

    805

    867

    Cambridgeshire

    502

    594

    704

    872

    895

    Cheshire

    1,232

    1,400

    1,530

    1,622

    1,497

    Cleveland

    1,145

    1,420

    1,949

    2,097

    2,082

    Cumbria

    654

    621

    670

    616

    702

    Derbyshire

    581

    607

    825

    1;029

    1,241

    Devon and Cornwall

    1,315

    1,301

    1,481

    1,464

    1,634

    Dorset

    533

    820

    855

    918

    798

    Durham

    382

    491

    821

    1,005

    1,064

    Essex

    1,637

    1,714

    1,622

    1,578

    1,744

    Gloucestershire

    515

    637

    643

    757

    795

    Greater Manchester

    4,181

    4,121

    4,309

    4,488

    4,628

    Hampshire

    1,898

    2,338

    2,522

    2,353

    2,390

    Hertfordshire

    576

    611

    779

    889

    917

    Humberside

    1,128

    1,408

    1,719

    1,815

    1,705

    Kent

    1,921

    2,352

    2,281

    2,394

    2,433

    Lancashire

    2,635

    2,825

    2,747

    2,954

    2,930

    Leicestershire

    764

    954

    1,034

    1,036

    1,172

    Lincolnshire

    542

    692

    922

    921

    982

    London, City of

    113

    127

    178

    184

    220

    Merseyside

    2,521

    2,591

    2,712

    3,119

    3,174

    Metropolitan Police

    10,437

    11,745

    11,893

    10,887

    10,697

    Norfolk

    713

    928

    1,027

    991

    1,088

    Northamptonshire

    497

    687

    853

    855

    869

    Northumbria

    1,857

    2,342

    2,772

    2,851

    3,097

    North Yorkshire

    724

    806

    988

    1,002

    1,010

    Nottinghamshire

    1,175

    1,352

    1,694

    2,044

    2,182

    South Yorkshire

    1,701

    1,961

    2,505

    2,781

    2,833

    Staffordshire2

    786

    921

    1,178

    1,777

    1,325

    Suffolk

    586

    681

    666

    749

    771

    Surrey

    485

    489

    526

    544

    627

    Sussex

    1,607

    1,725

    1,733

    1,599

    1,781

    Thames Valley

    1,390

    1,619

    1,738

    1,945

    2,087

    Warwickshire

    401

    472

    461

    455

    510

    West Mercia

    691

    883

    1,235

    1,265

    1,428

    West Midlands

    2,695

    3,428

    3,869

    4,578

    5,427

    West Yorkshire

    2,559

    3,064

    3,752

    3,874

    3,636

    Wiltshire

    447

    625

    720

    644

    833

    Dyfed Powys

    332

    355

    392

    370

    321

    Gwent

    501

    550

    713

    734

    842

    North Wales

    630

    744

    909

    921

    952

    South Wales

    1,461

    1,575

    1,704

    1,849

    1,795

    England and Wales

    58,401

    66,690

    74,350

    77,542

    79,933

    648W
    1Principal offence basis.

    2Staffordshire Police were only able to supply a sample of data for magistrates courts proceedings covering one full week in each quarter of 2000. Estimates based on this sample are included in the figures, as they are considered sufficiently robust at this level of analysis.

    Vehicle Theft
    Mark Tami
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the five most common makes and models of vehicles stolen in each police authority were in the last five years. [113028]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    The Home Office publishes an annual Car Theft Index showing which models and makes of car are most at risk of being stolen in England, Scotland and Wales. The following tables are based on data used to construct the Car Theft Indices published in 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002. No such index was published in 1998. The 2003 Index will be published towards the end of this year.

    No breakdown of the information contained in these indices is available by police authority area, and producing one would involve disproportionate cost.

    Top five cars with highest risk of theft in 2001

    Make

    Model

    Variant

    Year

    Theft rate1

    Number stolen

    Vauxhall

    Astra Mk2

    SX

    1990–92

    117

    129

    Ford

    Orion

    Other

    1987–89

    108

    329

    Vauxhall

    AstraMk2

    SR and Sri

    1987–89

    106

    607

    Vauxhall

    AstraMk2

    L

    1987–89

    105

    4,945

    Vauxhall

    AstraMk2

    L

    Pre-1987

    101

    1,073

    1 Theft rate is the number of cars stolen per 1,000 registered.

    Source:

    2002 Index

    Top 5 cars with the highest risk of theft in 2000

    Make

    Model

    Variant

    Year

    Theft rate1

    Number stolen

    Vauxhall

    AstraMk3

    Merit

    1989–91

    141

    57

    Vauxhall

    AstraMk2

    SX

    1989–91

    121

    142

    Rover

    Metro

    Other

    1989–91

    102

    3,027

    Ford

    Granada Mk2

    Other

    Pre-1986

    98

    138

    Vauxhall

    AstraMk2

    L

    Pre-1986

    98

    811

    1 Theft rate is the number of cars stolen per 1,000 registered.

    Source:

    2001 Index

    Top 5 cars with the highest risk of theft in 1999

    Make

    Model

    Variant

    Year

    Theft rate1

    Number stolen

    Nissan/Datsun

    Laurel/Skyline

    All

    Pre 1985

    109

    169

    Porsche

    911

    All

    1988–90

    99

    51

    Vauxhall

    AstraMk2

    GTE

    1985–87

    93

    866

    Ford

    Orion

    Other

    1988–90

    92

    775

    Porsche

    911

    All

    1997–99

    92

    60

    1 Theft rate is the number of cars stolen per 1,000 registered.

    Source:

    2000 Index

    Top 5 cars with the highest risk of theft in 1998

    Make

    Model

    Variant

    Year

    Theft rate1

    Number stolen

    Toyota

    Carina

    All

    Pre–1984

    154

    407

    Ford

    Orion

    Other

    1987–89

    114

    612

    Daimler

    All

    All

    1987–89

    110

    50

    Proton

    Persona

    All

    1993–95

    97

    38

    Nissan

    Bluebird

    All

    Pre-1984

    96

    394

    1 Theft rate is the number of cars stolen per 1,000 registered.

    Source:

    1999 Index
    649W

    Top 5 cars with the highest risk of theft in 1996

    Make

    Model

    Variant

    Year

    Theft rate1

    Vauxhall

    Cavalier

    SR, SRI, STD

    1980–82

    106

    Vauxhall

    Cavalier

    SR, SRI, STD

    1983–85

    96

    Vauxhall

    Cavalier

    SR, SRI, STD

    1986–88

    95

    Austin/Morris

    Metro

    MG

    1986–88

    94

    Vauxhall

    Cavalier

    LS, LI, LX

    1986–88

    93

    1 Number stolen was not published for 1996

    Source:

    1997 Index

    Victims of Crime
    Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of victims of crime for which an offender is brought to trial are informed of(a) the date of the trial and (b) the outcome of the trial. [112105]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    No statistics are gathered on the percentage of victims of crime who are kept informed of the trial date and outcome of the trial. The 1996 Victim's Charter states that, if a victim chooses, the police will give them this information. There are pilots taking place, or planned, in several parts, of the country to establish better ways in which the police and the Crown Prosecution Service can keep victims better informed and to provide better services to them generally.

    One of our 2001 manifesto commitments was to legislate for a Victims of Crime Bill during the course of this Parliament. The Bill, which will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows, is likely to include a statutory victims' Code of Practice to replace the Victim's Charter. The Code will place some 70 to 80 obligations on criminal justice agencies to deliver specific services to victims and within prescribed deadlines. The obligations will include the police informing victims of trial dates and their outcomes. If the obligations in the Code are net delivered, victims will have an avenue of complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. We plan also to legislate for a Commissioner for victims, not only to oversee the effectiveness of the Code and protect victims' needs within the criminal justice system as a whole, but also to promote their interests across Government more widely, in areas such as, for example, health, housing and social security.

    West Mercia Constabulary
    Mr. Paterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police officers have retired from the West Mercia constabulary in the last 12 months for which figures are available; [113163]

    (2) how many police officers have been recruited in the West Mercia area in the last 12 months for which figures are available; [113164]

    (3) how many (a) police officers and (b) civilian staff there are in (i) England and (ii) West Mercia constabulary on the latest date for which figures are available. [113162]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    Information on police personnel in England and West Mercia constabulary is set out in the table.650W

    England

    West Mercia

    Police officer strength1

    122,374

    2,048

    Civilian support staff strength2

    54,913

    1,116

    Special constabulary strength2

    10,897

    339

    1 Latest available published police officer strength is for 30 September 2002.

    2 Latest available civilian and special constable strength is for 31 March 2002.

    In the 12 months to 31 March 2002 147 officers were recruited to West Mercia constabulary and 117 West Mercia officers left the police service. The number of officers who left included ordinary and medical retirements, resignations, dismissals and deaths in service.

    Youth Offenders
    Mr. Hepburn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further measures are planned to reduce the reconviction rate of young offenders in(a) the UK and (b) the Jarrow constituency. [111671]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    For England and Wales we have made a number of proposals on juvenile offenders in the Criminal Justice Bill and the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill both of which are under consideration by this House. We believe these will help to strengthen the youth justice system's work to reduce reconvictions which is already showing good results. Our most recent results, published in February this year for offenders dealt between January and March 2001, show a 22.5 per cent, reduction in reconvictions compared to 1997. In addition, we plan to publish further proposals in the next few months new proposals in a Children's Green Paper. Youth justice in Scotland and Northern Ireland do not fall within my responsibility.

    These proposals will apply in the same way to Jarrow as to other areas. However I understand a local Youth Crime Prevention Strategy Group has been established. It is carrying out a Young People and Crime Audit which will help the development of a future local strategy.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Bail Applications
    Simon Hughes
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many applications for bail were heard by the Immigration Appellate Authority(a) in 2002 and (b) in the first quarter of 2003; of these what proportion were (i) granted, (ii) refused and (iii) withdrawn on the day; and what proportion of the applications were applications for the same individual. [113363]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) held 8,399 bail hearings in 2002; and 1,494 between January and March 2003. Outcomes on the IAA database show that 57 per cent, were granted, 22 per cent, refused and 14 per cent, withdrawn in 2002: between January and March 2003, the figures were 58 per cent., 22 per cent, and 15 per cent, respectively. No record is kept on the proportion of applications for the same individual.

    Coroners Office (Research Studies)
    Mrs. Iris Robinson
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in what research studies the Coroners Office in Northern Ireland is participating. [113407]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The Coroners Office in Northern Ireland is not currently participating in any research studies.

    Departmental Pay
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department pursuant to her answer of 8 April 2003,Official Report, column 125–26W, on departmental pay, if she will place copies of her forthcoming action plans in the Library. [112318]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    It is anticipated that action plans relating to equality audits of pay and related systems in the Lord Chancellor's Department, and the other departments, and non-departmental public bodies for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible, will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses in due course, following discussion with the Cabinet Office.

    Departmental Staff
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment she has made of regional variations in staff turnover in the Department. [112755]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    Staff turnover is reviewed on an on-going basis. For the year ending 31 March 2003 the turnover rate of the total workforce was 8.63 per cent, compared to 10.60 per cent, for the previous year. This reduction was reflected across all regions (apart from Wales where the rate increased slightly from 8 per cent, to 8.8 per cent.) due to a number of transfers to other Government Departments. The north west has the lowest turnover rate at 6 per cent. London has the highest rate, at 11 per cent.

    Resignations remain the highest single factor for leaving and this is consistent across all regions followed by transfers to other Government departments and retirements. There is no single factor behind the reasons for resigning. In line with the recent announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my Department will be updating its workforce development plans to assist the review being conducted by Sir Michael Lyons on relocation.

    National Land Information System
    Mr. Hawkins
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what(a) representations and (b) external advice she has received on the operations of the National Land Information System; what assessment she has made of its compliance with competition regulations; and what plans she has to review the governance arrangement of NLIS; [114366]

    (2) what plans she has to review the operation of the National Land Information System; and what role she envisages for the private sector in the future operations of NLIS; [114367]
    652W
    (3) when she last met board members of the National Land Information System; and if she will publish minutes of the meeting; [114368]

    (4) what representations she has received from local authorities concerning the operation of the National Land Information System; [114369]

    (5) when the Department last reviewed the National Land Information System business plan; and what assessment she has made of the viability of its future operations. [114370]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The National Land Information Service (NLIS) is ultimately intended to be a one stop electronic shop for information about land and property in England and Wales. It was developed and piloted in the 1990s by a group of public sector bodies led by the Land Registry. The work was then taken forward by the Local Government Information House Limited (LGIH), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Improvement and Development Agency.

    NLIS is now financially independent and receives no state aid. It comprises LGIH; a hub operated by Macdonald Dettwiler Associates (MDA); and three competing service channels, operated by NLIS Searchflow, Transaction Online and TM NLIS Search respectively. There is no NLIS board. Central Government were not a party to the contract and licence negotiations between LGIH and the hub and channel service providers and are not a party to NLIS now.

    Following criticism of the governance arrangements for NLIS in the Quinquennial Review of the Land Registry in June 2001, a Central Government Stakeholder Group (CGSG), chaired by the Land Registry, was set up to provide such assistance as central Government could to help NLIS become an established feature of the conveyancing process and to provide a means of communication between the NLIS partners and those stakeholders. We are reviewing the role of the CGSG. But the operation or governance of NLIS, the business plans of the NLIS service providers and their future viability are not matters for government. Any questions of possible infringement of competition law should be pursued with the Office of Fair Trading in the normal way. The Government continue to encourage local authorities to transfer their land and property information to electronic local land and property gazetteers so as to improve access to information.

    Since September 2001, when the commercial NLIS service was launched, neither I nor my ministerial colleagues at the Lord Chancellor's Department have received any external advice on the operation of NLIS or any representations from local authorities about its operation. In the same period, we have received a small number of letters from Members of Parliament and others commenting on a range of matters relating to the operation of NLIS.

    Potters Bar Rail Crash
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement about the availability of legal aid to the families bereaved in the Potters Bar rail crash. [112990]
    653W
    Ms Rosie Winterton
    Public funding for the civil courts is available to applicants provided that the case is within the scope of the Community Legal Service scheme and that they satisfy the Legal Services Commission's means and merits tests for funding.

    Families bereaved by the Potters Bar rail crash have the same access to public funding as others wishing to bring, defend, or be party to, civil proceedings. Individual claims would be expected to be pursued privately if the claimant's means exceed the financial eligibility criteria for public funding. However, the Commission also has discretion to waive the upper financial eligibility limit in order to fund a case where funding relates to the generic issues in a multi-party action, where there is likely to be a significant wider public interest in doing so.

    QC Status
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what his policy is on the awarding of QC status to non-practising barristers. [113550]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    My noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chancellor, regards Queen's Counsel as a working rank within the profession. Only lawyers who have, and are entitled to exercise, full rights of audience in the High Court or Crown Court, and who regularly appear as advocates in appropriate courts and tribunals, are eligible to apply for appointment. He also recommends to Her Majesty the Queen the appointment of a small number of lawyers who are not in private practice, but who have made a significant contribution to the law, as Queen's Counsel 'honoris causa', a purely honorary appointment.

HEALTH

  Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn)
  I am responding on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the 32nd report of the review body on doctors' and dentists' remuneration (DDRB) which is published today. Copies of the report are available in the Library. The report covers career grade hospital doctors and dentists (including doctors in public health and the community health service), doctors and dentists in training (excluding general practice registrars) and ophthalmic medical practitioners. The DDRB will report later on general dental practitioners and those in the salaried primary dental care services and are awaiting further developments on the proposed new contract for general medical practitioners. I am grateful to the chairman and members of the review body for their hard work and for the action they have taken to deal with each of their remit groups with the least possible delay.

  The review body has recommended general increases in remuneration of 3.225 per cent. for career grade hospital doctors and dentists and doctors and dentists in training with effect from April 2003. In addition, the DDRB has recommended adjustments to the pay scales, for associate specialists and staff grade practitioners.

  The review body's pay recommendations are being accepted in full by the Government and without staging.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Guantanamo Bay
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien)
  British officials paid a fifth visit to Guantanamo Bay between 21–28 April 2003. The officials were from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Security Service.

  The purpose of the visit was to ask questions relevant to national security, to establish the identity and nationality of a detainee believed to be British and to check on the welfare of all UK detainees. The identity and British nationality of the detainee concerned was confirmed. There are therefore nine UK detainees in Guantanamo Bay. All were seen by the visiting officials.
  30WS
  The FCO official saw all the UK detainees individually. US officials observed all the meetings. The FCO official passed family messages and mail to the detainees and brought replies back to the UK which have now been passed to the detainees' families. Detainees are able to send and receive mail through the Camp authorities and ICRCA. Delivery can be slow.

  The FCO official asked all the UK detainees about their health, medical and non-medical treatment, diet, accommodation, exercise and other Camp facilities with them.

  The UK detainees appeared to be in sound physical health. The medical issues raised by them are being addressed by the Camp's medical services. The medical facilities available to the detainees are the same as those for US military personnel at Guantanamo Bay and are of a high standard.

  Overall, the UK detainees thought the diet provided satisfactory though repetitive. The detainees continue to be housed in accommodation with individual sleeping, washing and toilet facilities. They continue to have access to exercise, to practice their religion and to an expanded collection of reading material, which continues to include the Koran and Bible.

  The FCO official did not see or hear of mistreatment of UK detainees by the Camp authorities.

  The visiting officials found the Camp authorities open and co-operative within limits dictated by security considerations.

  National Arms Embargo
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien)
  The Government have recently issued a licence for the export of night vision goggles which are of military specification. These goods are for use on the Iran/Afghanistan border against heroin smugglers, and the export is funded by the UN Drugs Control Programme (UNDCP). The UN offices in Vienna have confirmed that this application is legitimate. HMG is therefore satisfied that these goods would only be used for the end-use stated, and there is no risk of these goods being diverted for use by the Iranian military.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Rivers Agency (Performance Targets)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson)
  Rivers Agency is an exclusive agency of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland. It acts on behalf of the Department as the statutory drainage and flood defence authority for Northern Ireland.

  I have set the following key targets for the agency for the 2003–04 business year:
  To construct or refurbish 562 metres of urban flood defences.
  To accommodate increased storm run-off from 39 hectares of development land.
  To replace or refurbish 225 metres of dangerous culverts.

  31WS
  To complete identified maintenance work on 1225 of the 1559 designated open watercourses included in the notice of annual maintenance as part of a 6 year scheduled maintenance programme.
  To issue substantive replies to 80 per cent. of written enquiries within 15 working days of receipt.
  To respond to 98 per cent. of Schedule 6 applications within 6 months.
  32WS
  Subject to any agreed end year flexibility adjustments, to control programme expenditure to within 0.5 per cent. shortfall of the final cash control total.
  Subject to any end year flexibility adjustments, to control programme expenditure to within 6 per cent. of the agreed resource budget.
  To control DRC expenditure to within 1 per cent. shortfall of the final control total.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

United Nations: Collaboration on Health and Security
Lord Hunt of Chestertonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What lessons they are pressing upon the United Nations, its agencies and its member countries about greater collaboration in monitoring international health and security dangers, including improved verification and exchange of information.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Government strongly believe that an effective way to address global concerns, such as international health and security dangers, is by encouraging close co-operation throughout the United Nations. Ideally, that would involve national governments, civil society and business, as well as the UN Secretariat and various agencies and bodies.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: I thank my noble friend for that reply, but will our Ministers and officials urge all countries, even the largest, to allow international monitoring, including of bio-weapons, health, and environmental disasters? Does she agree that the selective and negative approach adopted by some countries, which I witnessed at the United Nations conference on international disasters, can have serious adverse consequences both locally and worldwide?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with much of what my noble friend said. The fact is that the United Kingdom welcomes international monitors. For example, we think that the work that the World Health Organisation has undertaken in relation to severe acute respiratory syndrome, monitoring and addressing the problem on the ground in a number of countries, has been enormously important. My noble friend addressed the wider question of other forms of monitoring. He will know that in a number of countries there are particular sensitivities. We always encourage those countries to adopt international standards and to co-operate with international monitoring where possible.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, does the Minister agree that SARS indeed shows how important international institutions are today? After all, it was
488
the WHO that urged action on countries that were reluctant to take such action because of fear for their economic position. As she will know, the WHO's powers are limited. Will the Government press the international community to extend those powers—to start with, to give the WHO the right to go in to monitor suspected outbreaks of disease?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that the SARS outbreak shows how important the international organisations are. The noble Baroness will know that the Government have closely followed World Health Organisation advice, because it is the international health organisation and because it has the resources and expertise on the ground to deal with an outbreak such as SARS.
Yes, of course we want more countries to welcome such monitoring, as I implied in my Answer. However, if the noble Baroness is asking whether we support now the intervention of the World Health Organisation, I think that several other international organisations would similarly feel that they should have the right to enter—I am thinking especially of the International Labour Organisation. That might raise difficulties in a number of countries. So at present, I think that it is better to proceed by encouragement.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, there is a reciprocal aspect to the noble Lord's Question: how much is this country collaborating with the international community? I ask that because, as chairman of the sub-committee on fighting infection of the Science and Technology Committee, I was in Geneva several weeks ago. One comment made by the World Health Organisation was that the United Kingdom was not as good as other countries in providing experts for either the short or long term. We shall attend to that question in our report, but does the Minister have any comment to make on that?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I should like to know the detail of the claim about which the noble Lord has informed the House. In the past year, the Foreign Office has initiated regular meetings on UN issues, including with the specialised agencies, which include colleagues from all interested government departments.
In addition, the United Kingdom has played a leading role in setting up the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria, which was launched by the Prime Minister and his G8 colleagues in Genoa in July 2002. So there are specific examples of the leading role that the United Kingdom has taken in co-ordinating with such international bodies. I am concerned if that is not recognised and would welcome a further conversation with the noble Lord, at which he may be able to give me some details.

Milk Production
2.42 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshieasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the break-up of Milk Marque is in line with their policy of encouraging co-operation in the farming community.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, Milk Marque was broken up in 1999 following a Monopolies and Mergers Commission report which found that it was exploiting its monopoly position in a way that operated against the public interest and to the detriment of its customers. I see no conflict between that decision and the Government's policy of supporting co-operation within the farming community.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, although I did not like it. Is he aware that, since 1999, the dairy farmers of this country have been operating mostly at a loss? It has been a very hard time for them. However, in Denmark, with its large co-operatives wielding some influence, and with the same thing in Germany, dairy farmers have prospered and kept the price of milk up to a reasonable level. A new organisation called Milk Link has been set up, which is exactly the kind of body advocated by Sir Donald Curry. It is growing fast, but if it grows too big or if the Government think that it has become too large, will they then use the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to declare that it must be broken up as well?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is important to recognise that, under competition law, the key issue is not the market position of an organisation; in accordance with that threshold, it is what a co-operative or other body does with its position. In the case of Milk Marque, it was found that it was exploiting its position to the detriment of consumers. That would not be the case for a large number of companies operating in a similarly dominant market position. Indeed, since the Milk Marque decision, a number of mergers have taken place both within the dairy sector and in farming more generally which have not been subject to any restriction by the monopoly authorities.
It is of course true to say that many in the dairy industry have feared that, in the light of the Milk Marque decision, such intervention might take place. I hope that the Office of Fair Trading has now taken steps to reassure the industry that that is not the case.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I declare an interest as a former managing director of the Milk Marketing Board, the predecessor of Milk Marque. Could someone undertake an analysis of' exactly how the consumer has benefited to date from the break-up of Milk Marque? Certainly the farmers have not benefited and, in my view, the consumer has not
490
benefited either. Before we embark on another competition exercise, it would he much better if we knew all the facts.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, a number of analyses have already been undertaken, the latest of which, by KPMG, looked at the whole structure of the dairy industry. It concluded that the lack of market power on the part of both producers and processors in relation to the retail sector is a problem for the industry, but it is not the key problem. That relates to product mix, the supply chain and, indeed, various international aspects regarding prices and subsidies. A number of structural issues have been highlighted, many of which have already been analysed. However, it is important to reiterate that a number of structural changes have been made without any intervention by the Competition Commission or the OFT since the Milk Marque decision was taken.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Question mentions "encouraging co-operation". Is my noble friend aware that today saw the official launch of English Farming and Food Partnerships? I declare an interest as vice-chair of the organisation. It was formed as the result of a recommendation from the Curry commission to set up such bodies in order to encourage co-operation. Can my noble friend indicate what level of support the Government will be giving to it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for pointing out the launch today of English Farming and Food Partnerships. It is an industry body, led by industry, but closely following the lines recommended by the Curry commission to encourage all forms of collaboration and co-operation both within the farming sector and across the food sector as a whole. It is an important initiative which enjoys the Government's full backing and some financial support in relation to certain projects. However, it is important to make it clear that it is an industry-led body set up to carry out some of the recommendations made by the Curry commission.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I hear what the Minister has said, but is he as worried as I am that, although the Government have set out their policy, when it comes to applying regulations, they are not followed through? Perhaps I may ask him what he thinks of the example I could cite with regard to the fallen stock directive, which is particularly applicable to dairy farmers. Is he aware that a farmer may operate a small-scale incinerator under a regime that is easy to comply with, but if a small group of farmers want to operate an incinerator for the same purpose, they must enter into a completely different management regime and apply for a waste regulation order?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that goes somewhat beyond the question of the impact of competition in the dairy sector. Of course the multiple use of an incinerator raises wider issues of bio-security and therefore protection against animal disease than

491
would an incinerator used solely by one producer, whether that is a dairy farmer or a farmer of any other form of livestock. That is the rationale behind the distinction in such regulations. Furthermore, the various ways in which a multiple-use incinerator could be operated must be considered.
The key issue before the House, however, is whether the dairy industry in particular can operate with the agreement of the competition authorities in a way that is in line with what the Curry commission has suggested. That is now the case and the organisation just referred to by my noble friend Lord Carter is an extremely good example of how the industry is being encouraged in that direction.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is it not true that formerly, under Milk Marque, dairy farmers in far outlying districts such as north Wales were much advantaged from the point of view of being able to reach their market by being part of an organisation which worked very well and was in competition with our European friends? What has happened since to make things any better for our dairy farmers than they were under Milk Marque?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the decision on Milk Marque was taken by the independent competition authorities in relation to issues of public interest and that of consumers, and with a view to securing a better service for consumers. However, so far as concerns dairy farmers, the successor organisations to Milk Marque have mobilised a significant proportion of farmers working in difficult market conditions. We are certainly seeking to encourage relationships between milk producers and milk processors to enable them to secure a stronger market position than has been the case in recent years.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, does the Minister agree, with hindsight, that the break-up of Milk Marque was a mistake? It took place after several years of falling prices at a time when farm-gate prices were unsustainably low and broke up one organisation which could, in terms of economic power, compete with the enormous power of the processors and retailers. Will the Government do everything that they can to support future co-operative ventures in line with the philosophy of the English Farming and Food Partnerships and welcome participation and share ownership by farmers in processing and retailing activities so that they can increase their economic power?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, even given the temptation of the right reverend Prelate, I am loath to engage in hindsight in relation to a body which has, rightly, been made immune from ministerial interference and which based its decision on exploitation and abuse of the market position not on the existence of the market position as such. But today I hope we are looking to the future with the launch of the English Farming and
492
Food Partnerships, which points the way to delivering a system that is more structured and powerful in the market as regards milk production and processing.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister understand why some people might suspect that his answer to my noble friend Lady Miller is an example of a government succumbing to the temptation to take decisions in the interests of their filing system?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as ever, the noble Earl loses me in the logic of his position. The Government's filing system, particularly in Defra, is absolutely immaculate. But it is important, if this is the point behind his question, that we have a holistic approach to regulation and do not adopt decisions in one field that cut across the objective in another. That is why the Government, partly at the behest of the Curry commission, are moving to whole-farm regulation rather than the multiple level of regulation that we currently have on farming.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the reality is that basic agricultural commodities are traded internationally and freely, and it is the international market that determines what happens. Does the Minister consider that determining the internal UK market in the interests of consumers, and a nominal abuse of position, has done anything to help anybody when the reality is that the main purchasers purchase where they can at the cheapest price? The cheapest price is very often from areas where the same health and sanitation standards are not so rigorously applied as in this country, and that gives others a competitive advantage that we cannot cope with.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not accept that. The EU has very tight regulations on the trading of commodities. But the noble Lord is particularly wrong in relation to liquid milk. In that market, which we are concerned with here in relation to Milk Marque, there is very little international penetration. The issue is, therefore, the market within the UK and not one which is affected by the international price except in so far as there is price support in relation to the EU. Whatever the noble Lord's points may be in relation to other regimes, they are not applicable to liquid milk.

Iraq: Compensation of Civilian Casualties
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camdenasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether action will be taken to ensure that civilian casualties of the conflict in Iraq are compensated for injuries and loss.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, a party to an armed conflict is liable to pay compensation if it violates the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Conventions or of Additional Protocol I thereto, if the case so demands. As the United Kingdom has conducted the

493
conflict in accordance with these provisions, no question of compensation arises. Nevertheless, we have always been, and will remain, in the forefront of efforts to help the Iraqi people. And we have always tried to minimise the adverse effects of our military action on Iraqi civilians.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. But was it not repeatedly stated that coalition forces would not target civilians and that therefore damage, injuries and death must have been caused by accident? In that case, is not the coalition responsible for the accidental damage to Iraqi civilians in view of its declared policy that Iraqi civilians would not be targeted?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right that we stated that we would not target any civilian objectives, and we did not. Where civilian targets were hit, there is still a good deal of dispute about the exact circumstances. I can think of one or two incidents where it was claimed that they were accidents caused by our own coalition forces and counter-claims that the damage was caused by Iraqi return of fire. Under the Geneva Convention, the military action should always be such that does everything and takes all appropriate steps to avoid such casualties. In choosing targets, method of attack and proportional response, that was exactly what the coalition forces did. That does not render them in any way subject to compensation for damage caused.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister remember that after the first Gulf War, the UN Compensation Commission paid out substantial sums? I think it met 2.6 million individual claims, and there are still corporate and state entity claims outstanding. Those have been so prolonged that some say they will not be settled until 2070, which is rather far ahead. For the second Gulf War, will not the same procedure be adopted and if it is, could the UN Compensation Commission be encouraged to keep separate the individual claims which it settled quite promptly from the obviously much more legalistically complicated claims from corporations and state entities?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right: there are outstanding claims from the first conflict. As the noble Lord and most of your Lordships will be aware, there is no provision under the Geneva Convention for an individual to make a claim against the state. The Geneva Conventions provide for inter-state compensation, not for compensation to individuals. But I have a certain amount of sympathy with what the noble Lord says about trying to speed up the process at the UN. which takes a very long time. As your Lordships discussed
494
last week, there is much to be done in looking at the way in which the UN operates, and this might be one area where scrutiny would be particularly appropriate.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, the reason given for this war was to uncover weapons of mass destruction which Saddam Hussein had apparently hidden. Now the Foreign Secretary says that these weapons may never be found and that it is not significant. Therefore, the question of the legality of this war is obviously pertinent. In the light of last night's "Panorama" programme about the influence of neo-Conservatives on the US administration, does the noble Baroness feel concerned to be the junior partner in such a coalition? Can she confirm that should the US plan to take action of a similar nature of doubtful legality, the UK Government will not take any part in any attack on Iran or Syria?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I did not see all of last night's programme—I saw a little bit. I am bound to say to the noble Baroness that I do not think it is my job here to answer questions on "Panorama". My job is to answer for the British Government to your Lordships' House. We went over the legality of our participation as a coalition member in a very extensive debate in your Lordships' House. The noble Baroness may recall—if she does not I will remind her that the Attorney-General's advice was that the conflict in Iraq was legal under UN Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. Finding the weapons of mass destruction, as the noble Baroness knows and as we have been over many times in your Lordships' House, may well take a very long time. The question of justification for our participation was under the UN resolutions. I remind the noble Baroness that all three of those UN resolutions were adopted by the UN and that the most important one, 1441, was adopted unanimously.
Lord Rea: My Lords, about two and a half years ago I met, at a conference in Spain, Dr Akram Hamoodi, who is a senior surgeon and director of the Basra teaching hospital, and formed a high opinion of him. I heard a few days ago that while he was on duty at the hospital, four of his children, aged 17, 18, 12 and 13, his mother and four other members of his family had been killed in a stray missile hit on his family home. Is this man, and many others like him, not entitled to some form of compensation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is a tragic situation, but he is not legally entitled to compensation. He is entitled to our sympathy and to any help that we can give. As the noble Lord will know, we have given help in relation to some children who were hurt during the course of the conflict. I answer, as I am bound to, that within international law he is not entitled to compensation for what happened, however tragic the accident was.

House of Lords Appointments Commission
3 p.m.
Lord Barnettasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have asked the House of Lords Appointments Commission, chaired by the Lord Stevenson of Coddenham, to recommend a new list of Peers.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, no, we have not. However, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister hopes to make a statement shortly on appointments to the House of Lords Appointments Commission and on related matters.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am sorry to have to trouble my noble friend to answer this Question, in the absence of the noble and learned lord the Lord Chancellor. Is she aware that, even if they do come to a decision on this matter, there are already 179 Cross-Bench and independent Peers? There are more of them than there are Labour Peers. In those circumstances, would she agree that her noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor should follow the Cranborne deal and appoint political Peers to your Lordships' House? Is that what he has in mind?
Would she accept that it is even more important to know whether there is to be a House of Lords reform Bill in this Parliament? Could she tell us whether anyone has told her that?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, my noble friend tempts me. He believes that I am more innocent and young than I am, in fact.
Although my noble friend is right in saying that there are 179 Cross-Bench Members of your Lordships' House, there are in fact 182 Labour life Peers. Therefore, I regret to tell him that there are actually three more.
In answer to the wider question, I can only reassure the House that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister very much understands the need for appointments. As I say, he hopes to make a statement shortly on the Appointments Commission and other related matters.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords—
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it was the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, who caught my eye first. Perhaps he would like to go first.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, aware of how spellbound with admiration we all are at the ease with which she resisted apparent temptation?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am always grateful for your Lordships' flattery.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords—
Lord Peston: My Lords, I think that it is this side.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, no, it is this side.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Lord is on that side and we are on this side. I do not mind—go ahead.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Do the Government agree that a political
496
party that has two Members of the European Parliament, seven Members of the Scottish Parliament, three Members of the Greater London Authority but is unlikely to win a seat in the Commons owing to our electoral system deserves more than one 74 year-old Peer in your Lordships' House? Will they therefore take steps to ensure that the Green Party is better and more fully represented?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot see how the Green Party could be better represented than by the noble Lord. However, all issues in relation to membership of this House will be considered and, if history repeats itself, they will he raised and debated in this House at length and on a number of occasions.
Lord Peston: My Lords—
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords—
Lord Peston: My Lords, I really do think that it must be this side by now. When my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and others make statements on this matter, we might be told two things. First, will someone tell us what are the deficiencies of the House at the present time that requires the addition of new Peers—especially given the size of the House? Secondly, what are the qualities and experience of the members of the Stevenson Commission that suggests they would have any idea what was needed in this House for its future development? That is me in my nasty mode.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I seem to be tempted all around by my noble friends today, but I shall resist commenting on the other matters.
Noble Lords will know that the latest report of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform has made a number of recommendations about the future of the Appointments Commission. The Government will consider those and make their response in due course. I am sure that those issues, along with many others, will be considered.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords—
Lord Jacobs: My Lords—
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am bound to say that we have not yet heard from the Liberal Democrat Benches on this matter.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, of the 3,166 applicants to the House of Lords Appointments Commission last time, only 51 applicants were interviewed. Indeed, apart from the chairman, no member interviewed more than 16 applicants. Does the Minister agree that there must have been many more applicants who qualified for interview? Will the Government encourage the commission next

497
time—if there should be a next time—to give at least preliminary interviews to all those who meet the interview parameters?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, one of the beauties of the commission is that it was entirely independent. I remind your Lordships that, as a result of its efforts, we have had some really tremendous contributions from the Cross Benches, from those who were appointed. I am sure that no one would like to deprive us of their company.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Howe!
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, far be it from me to comment on the last point made by the noble Baroness. Will she bear in mind, having resisted the temptation to endorse in primary legislation the recommendations of the Joint Committee, that consideration should be given to the appointment of a new and manifestly independent commission, endorsed as an alternative to primary legislation by an Order in Council from both Houses of Parliament?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly assure the noble and learned Lord that every consideration will be given to the recommendations made by the Joint Committee. Noble Lords will know that, in the normal way, one would anticipate and hope to be able to respond to such a Joint Committee report within two months. I assure the House that we shall do everything to ensure that our response is made as soon as reasonably practicable.

Aviation (Offences) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
Marine Safety Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
Sunday Working (Scotland) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Business of the House: Standing Order 41
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
498
Moved, That Standing Order 41 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Tuesday 10th June to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Brookman to be taken before the Motions standing in the names of the Lord Norton of Louth and the Lord Scott of Foscote.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Local Government Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 19,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 20 to 42,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 43 to 101,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 102 to 106,

Schedule 4,

Clause 107,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 108 to 126,

Schedules 6 and 7,

Clauses 127 and 128.—(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Courts Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 4 [Establishment of courts boards]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 23, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (6A),"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 3 and therefore consequential upon it. The amendments stand not only in my name but in that of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
The objective of the amendment is to ensure that the courts boards are local in their extent and effect. That is vital to maintain the local nature of the delivery of justice within the new centralised, unified courts administration created by the Bill.
On Report, we accepted the Government's redrafted Clauses 4 and 5, but only with great regret and for the reasons that I gave then, at cols. 1187 to 1191. I am aware that all magistrates, including those represented by the Magistrates' Association and those represented by the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees,

499
would have preferred as their first choice local bodies with full executive powers, if that had been both legally and practically possible. However, that was not to be. So we accepted the Government's new clauses, but only on the basis, as I said at Report, that significant changes needed to be made to improve them.
One of those changes will be achieved by the amendment. When I moved a similar one at Report the Minister's response made me realise that I had not properly addressed the definition of the police areas with regard to London. I therefore withdrew it so that it could be redrafted to overcome that problem. That has now been done with the help of the Public Bill Office and of the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees. The latter supports the amendment, as does the Magistrates' Association. I anticipate, however, that support goes much wider. The evidence is to be found in the Government's own interim report on the feedback from regional discussion groups on the proposed unified courts administration. Paragraph 6.2 of the report states:
"All the groups have given a clear message that the 42 criminal justice areas form a sound and sensible building block for the new organisation, although consideration needs to be given to the arrangements for London. It has been acknowledged that civil and family work is not driven by the 42 configuration, but delegates generally thought that it could be made to work so long as boundaries arc flexible and the ability to transfer work across boundaries was retained."
I agree entirely. That is the position the amendment achieves—a focus on 42 areas, plus London; consideration of the position of London separately; and flexibility overall for the boundaries to be different where appropriate. In addition the Government solved the issue of the transfer of work across boundaries by one their own amendments to Clause 25 on Report.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, at that stage indicated that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, believed,
"that there is some pressure for a single courts board to cover the whole of Wales",—[Official Report, 8/5/03: col. 1197.]
perhaps including Cheshire as well to maintain an area based on the old Wales and Chester circuit. The noble Lord acknowledged that my amendment was so flexible that it would allow that to happen if a merger were the wish of the people involved in the area. That is the clear advantage of the amendment. It is not prescriptive. It is flexible to meet the needs of different areas. It states that the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the areas should be coterminous with the police areas. It does not force him to adopt them where it would be inappropriate. I am being reason itself.
The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, has acknowledged that the Government want the police areas to be the building blocks of the new courts boards system. However, so far she has resisted my amendment on the basis that it puts too much emphasis on those same police areas. That is precisely where we disagree and where I agree instead with all those people across the country who were consulted by the Government. I believe that police areas form an effective, efficient and clearly understood basis for the
500
first allocation of boundaries for the courts boards provided there is the flexibility I have built into the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, my name appears on the amendment as well as hers. I shall be brief because this is Third Reading and there is another important Bill to come. I agree that it is desirable that the initial order dividing the country into areas should create areas coterminous with those of the existing magistrates' courts areas. That would avoid too much disruption. It would be most unfortunate if we coupled at the same time the introduction of the transfer of the administration from the magistrates' courts committees to the courts agency with a major geographical reorganisation of the bases on which the local areas are defined.
In those circumstances we hope that the Government will be able to accept the amendment. We recognise that it is not and should not be mandatory in form, because, as the noble Baroness said, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford has indicated that there is some pressure in Wales. That is based particularly on the Crown Courts rather than the magistrates' courts for unification of Wales and possibly Chester into a single area. Having said that, I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I too support the amendment but for slightly different reasons from those put forward strongly by my noble friend Lady Anelay and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. It must be remembered that the police have always brought most cases to the magistrates' courts and to the courts in London. That is why so often those courts have for years been described as "police courts"—rightly or wrongly. We should bear that in mind and it is important that it should continue; first, to simplify administration; secondly, to maintain continuity, which is worth maintaining; and, thirdly, to preserve the police sense of responsibility for their part in the administration of justice.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for their contributions. We have had an opportunity to discuss the issue on a number of occasions. I note that the noble Baroness tabled her amendment as an amendment to new Clause 4, requiring the Lord Chancellor to "have regard to" to the desirability of coterminosity with the police areas, specifying the courts boards boundaries under Clause 4(2). I understand the breadth of the amendment.
We do not object in principle to the idea that the Lord Chancellor must bear in mind the structure of other criminal justice agencies in specifying the areas for the courts boards. Indeed, as the noble Baroness said, we have already said that the 42 criminal justice areas will be the building blocks of the courts boards areas. But there are many other factors which must be taken into account—an effective fit with other

501
agencies in the civil and family jurisdictions, the needs and nature of local communities, the volume of workload in each area, and the distribution of court houses.
The noble Baroness is right to say that participants in discussion groups emphasised the need to take into account the needs of different parts of the country. I think the point made on the last occasion was not that Wales needed to be one unit but that it might be necessary for north Wales and Chester, because of their historic link and the importance of the way in which the courts work in that area, to remain a unit. South Wales perhaps would be a separate unit. Those are factors that have to be borne in mind. Wales and London in particular, where the criminal justice areas were not felt to be the overriding factor, are matters for our consideration. The participants in the group recognised that the 42 areas were of no relevance in civil and family business and that a flexible approach was therefore needed.
The implication of the amendment is that the link to the 42 areas is the single most important factor and an end in itself. It is not. I had hoped that we had clearly established that as we dealt with the Bill. The single most important factor is that the structure chosen must support the effective and efficient administration of the courts. It must enable us to deliver a better service. That must be the overriding criterion. The amendment demonstrates an admirable understanding of the criminal justice system structures. However, I repeat what I have said many times previously. These reforms are not just about criminal justice.
At Report, the noble Baroness said that she intended to reconsider her amendments in discussion with the Magistrates' Association and the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees. I am pleased that she has done so. Indeed, my colleague Yvette Cooper also has had a number of meetings with those groups during the development of these provisions. I am disappointed, however, that the net has not been cast a little wider. These amendments do not affect just the magistracy—the reforms affect the professional judiciary, some of whom work in the magistrates' courts; the unions who represent staff of both services; the Bar and the Law Society, who represent clients in all the jurisdictions; the numerous advice and support agencies who operate in the family arena; and the range of users of the civil courts, from large-scale businesses to individuals bringing forward small claims.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, my noble friend has used the word "flexible". However well intentioned, the one thing that this amendment is not is sufficiently flexible. Having regard to that, does she agree that when we have a new system, the Lord Chancellor should be given the right to be much more flexible than usual, albeit within constraints? This provision has also settled the constraints.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, my noble friend is right. The noble Baroness says 42, but she
502
accepts that we may need to change the boundaries to reflect the needs of North Wales, Chester and London. I believe that she would respond that that is why she has put the amendment in terms of the Lord Chancellor having "regard to the desirability". I accept that that is how she puts it, but I also agree with my noble friend that it creates a degree of rigidity.
To properly design an organisation fit to run the unified administration, the Government are talking to representatives of all those groups. With the greatest respect, it seems that the noble Baroness is not doing so. She seems to be receiving a very one-sided view, that represented by the magistracy.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, surely the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, dealt with that last point by referring to the consultations that are under way across the country. Is it not fair to say that they lean strongly in favour of the amendment?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not think that it is right to say that. The research agrees with us that although the 42 criminal justice areas will be the building blocks, there has to be flexibility. The family and other jurisdictions do not respond to the 42 CJAs. Geographical areas such as North Wales, Chester and London, for example, may also have special needs on which we need to reflect and in relation to which we need to be flexible. That is what we are doing.
I should like to pick up a point which the noble Lord made when we last debated this issue. There is almost a tendency to suggest that magistrates' courts do the majority of the work in the system. Although I would be the first to give total credence to the good work that the magistracy does, that tendency distorts the true position. In 2001, more than 1.7 million claims were issued in the High Court and county courts a sizeable and important chunk of work which needs to be administered, but much of which does not go near the court room. In the Court Service there were 151,722 sitting days on civil and family work. In the same year there were 112,012 private law applications in family matters, 86,601 of which were made in the High Court or county courts compared with 25,411 in the family proceedings courts. In the same year there were 87,688 sitting days in the Crown Court and 1,153,865 sitting hours in the magistrates' courts. A huge volume of work is done by our courts, but we need to consider them together and not separately.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, the Minister is being provocative in stringing out these many undigested statistics—the last two of which I think are crucial, on Crown Court sitting days and county court sitting days as against—
Baroness David: My Lords, is this in order on Third Reading?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: If it is not, my Lords, I shall not persist. I have made my point in any event.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I was trying to demonstrate that the work of the civil and family

503
jurisdictions is significant in terms of workload and in terms of the issues at stake. The new administration must equally support the needs of that business. I know that some members of the judiciary are very concerned that the civil and family courts will be shoehorned into a structure designed only with the interests of criminal business in mind. We have all, I think, recognised that that would be a mistake. This amendment sends entirely the wrong message to them and to stakeholders and users of those courts. They are all of equal importance, even if they do not appear to have had a similar number of champions to voice their cause in this House.
We seek parity of treatment. We have given the assurance that the 42 areas will be the building blocks, but we will want to see flexibility. I reassure the noble Baroness that the Lord Chancellor really will take these issues into account in determining that. I assure her that when we have culled the information we need to come to a final conclusion, this matter will come back before the House and the House will have an opportunity to debate it. The affirmative resolution procedure will be the one adopted and the House will have its say on the final design.
All those amendments were made to enable us to do what I genuinely believe the noble Baroness wants us to do—to devise a system that is really fit for purpose, which will not only meet the needs of the criminal justice system and honour the structure that has been in place, but support and enable the civil jurisdiction in family and other issues to have their work dealt with properly. We do not think, with the greatest respect, that Amendment No. 1 assists us to do that. It is not necessary. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept what we say and be reassured that this is very much what we intend to do.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and to my noble friend Lord Renton for their support for this amendment. I listened very carefully to the Minister's response and to the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, but I am not reassured. The Minister said that although the Government do not object in principle, there are other factors which they must properly take into account. I agree with her. That is why my amendment seeks to be flexible.
The Minister says that the police areas are not the single greatest factor and that one has to look overall at efficient and effective delivery, for something that is fit for purpose. That is also what I am trying to achieve. However, I am trying to achieve that without creating a temptation for a Lord Chancellor—not this Lord Chancellor, as I always say, but a future incumbent—who believes that, in a centralised system, efficiency can be best driven by perhaps just a handful of areas rather than local areas.
The Minister takes me to task and says that I should have cast my net wider to obtain views on my amendments. I started casting my net—fisherman I am not, but I did my best—from the day that the Bill started its passage in your Lordships' House more than five months ago, on 9th December. Seldom has a
504
Bill taken so long to make progress through your Lordships' House. In that time, I have not received one telephone message, letter or e-mail objecting to Amendment No. 1. I really have tried to gain as many views as possible. In his interjection, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that he thought that 1 was not being flexible enough. If I were any more flexible I would come apart at the seams. This amendment is so reasonable.
We have to remember that the Government are taking into the embrace of a unified courts administration the whole magistrates' courts system. Although it is, as the Minister says, just one part, it is important that the whole reflects the needs of all parts. I agree with that. That is why we should insert into this Bill a reminder that when the courts boards are set up to deliver justice, we should keep them local wherever it is possible and appropriate to do so. On that basis, I seek the opinion of the House on Amendment No. 1, which is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 3.
3.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 136; Not-Contents, 115.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Ackner, L.

Fowler, L.

Addington, L.

Freeman, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar. L.

Astor, V.

Goodhart, L. [Teller]

Astor of Hever, L.

Goschen, V.

Avebury, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Hamwee, B.

Barker, B.

Hanham, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Blatch, B.

Henley. L.

Bowness, L.

Higgins, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Home, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Howe, E.

Burnham, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Buscombe, B.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Byford, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Caithness, E.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Jacobs, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Jenkin of Roping, L.

Chadlington, L.

Jopling, L.

Chalfont, L.

Kimball, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Cockfield, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Lane of Horsell, L.

Cuckney, L.

Luke, L.

Denham, L.

Lyell, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Elles, B.

MacGregor of Pulham Market L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Ezra, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Falkland, V.

Mackie of Benshie. L.

Fearn, L.

Fookes, B.

505

Maclennan of Rogan, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

McNally, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Maddock, B.

Roper, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Russell, E.

Marlesford, L.

Saatchi, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Methuen, L.

Sandberg, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Seccombe, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Selsdon, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Newby, L.

Sharples, B.

Northover, B.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Onslow, E.

Stewartby, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Park of Monmouth. B.

Strathclyde, L.

Patten, L.

Swinfen, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Taveme, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Thatcher, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Plumb, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Pym, L.

Tordoff, L.

Rawlings. B.

Trefgarne, L.

Razzall, L.

Trumpington, B.

Reay, L.

Vivian, L.

Redesdale, L.

Wakeham, L.

Rennard, L.

Walmsley, B.

Renton, L.

Wilcox, B.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ahmed, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Filkin, L.

Alli, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen. B.

Andrews, B.

Golding, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Ashton of Upholland. B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bach, L. Barnett, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L. [Teller]

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Berkeley, L.

Harrison, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Haskel, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hayman, B.

Borrie, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Bragg, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Brightman, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe. L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Brookman. L.

Jeger, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jones, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Jordan, L.

Carter, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Christopher, L.

Layard, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Levy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lipsey, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Crawley, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Marsh, L.

David. B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Desai, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dixon, L.

Mitchell, L.

Donoughue, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Dubs, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Elder, L.

Nicol, B.

Erroll. E.

Orme, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

506

Palmer, L.

Slim, V.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Smith of Leigh. L.

Pendry, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Peston, L.

Strange, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Thornton, B.

Puttnam, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Uddin, B.

Richard, L.

Varley, L.

Rooker, L.

Weatherill, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Whitaker, B.

Sawyer, L.

Whitty, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Sheldon, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Simon, V.

Winston, L.

Woolmer of Leeds. L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
3.41 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 23, at end insert—
"(2A) Before the Lord Chancellor specifies areas by an order under subsection (2) he shall consult the chairman and deputy chairman of lay justices in all local justice areas in England and Wales."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 7.
As I mentioned when we were discussing the previous group of amendments, the Lord Chancellor's Department has carried out a consultation on courts boards at regional meetings this year. With this group of amendments, we are looking forward to the future. We are asking the Government to clarify some of the remaining uncertainties about how they expect consultation to continue about their plans for the unified courts administration. One assumes that the Government will already be in the process of putting pen to paper to work out how they will carry forward the plans, once the Bill has passed through both Houses.
The nub of the question is quite simple: what is the system of communication—I shall say it again, now that I have the noble Baroness's attention—the system of communication that the Lord Chancellor's Department will set up between the department and magistrates to take forward the consultation process? Bearing particularly in mind the points properly made by the Minister about the previous group, what system of communication will exist between the Government—the Lord Chancellor's Department—and other parts of the judiciary to carry out the same process?
I was prompted to put down the amendments for two reasons. First, there was the letter of concern that I received from a Bench chairman on the matter of future consultation. I have received a lot of letters, but the one that struck me particularly was from Mr I. C. Clark, chairman of North Sefton Bench in Merseyside. I have

507
his permission to quote from his letter, in which he summarises clearly the views that I have received from all over the country. He said:
"Having only just begun to recover from the problems of the last reorganisation. many magistrates are feeling disillusioned and disaffected by what we fear will be a further series of remotely imposed changes, and, whilst we applaud the purposes behind them, we fear the problems we shall face in implementing them".
Mr Clark says that a statement clearly defining a process of consultation based on Bench structures over local justice areas and then over the courts board areas will go a long way towards allaying those fears. He hopes that, ideally, a document alongside the Bill will set out the means and the timetable by which the discussions will take place. That is what I am trying to get at. What are the mechanisms by which the Government will consult the Benches and the Magistrates' Association? Whom will they consult and how will they do it?
The second reason why I tabled the amendments was that I noted that the Government had already put on record their plans to consult the Justices' Clerks' Society—rightly so. It is important that they should also put on the record today their plans to consult magistrates. Noble Lords may have seen the speech by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, which is on the Home Office—I mean the Lord Chancellor's Department website. The noble and learned Lord has not yet taken over the Home Office; I tried to expand his empire in one fell swoop there. I hope that he will excuse me—at least, I hope that Mr David Blunkett will excuse me.
At the annual conference on 9th May, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that a series of regional discussion groups had taken place. He went on to look at the future and said that justices' clerks had been invited to he represented on the unified administration judicial committee, chaired by Lord Justice Judge. He went on to say:
"I welcome this co-operation. You"—
justices' clerks—
"are at the front; your insight into how the magistrates' courts work in practice is second to none; and your input into how they might work better in future is essential".
In that case, I invite the Minister to put on the record the role that the Government see for the magistrates and other judges in the process of consultation on the development of the unified system. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I do not know why the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, is in lonely eminence on the Marshalled List for the amendments. On these Benches, we wholly support them, for the reasons that she stipulated.
The only point that I shall add to what was so clearly said is that, in Clause 17, there is provision for the election of Bench chairs and deputy chairs. The Bill formally recognises their importance. It is worth reminding the House that, with the abolition of the magistrates' courts committees, which included a justice of the peace elected by justices in the area concerned, there will be no elected position, other than
508
Bench chairs and deputy chairs. Clause 18 prescribes the only role, so far—without the amendments—namely, that of presiding at sessions where they are present.
I wholly concur with what was said about the importance of the role of the Bench chairs. Under the new aegis and given the fact that the new courts boards are—rightly—comprised of many other interested parties, it would go a long way towards assuaging the anxiety that exists among justices of the peace that, whatever the Government intend, their role is being inadvertently undermined and their status reduced. For those additional reasons, the amendments arc worthy of the Government's support and would reinforce what the Government say about the Bill and the role of justices.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, have refused to consider the other parts of Clause 5. In that connection, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is providing for proper consultation with the boards. How can that be improved? Neither speaker said anything about that.
It is important, as we approach the issue anew, that the Lord Chancellor is not bound by any rigid proposals. My noble friend the Minister is considering the issue of flexibility. That is all-important.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for what she said on the matter. I take from the totality of her contribution that the amendment was tabled as a probing amendment, to discover what we intend. Therefore, I shall try to give a more comprehensive answer, so that the House can receive what I hope will be better information.
The amendment to Clause 4 would require the Lord Chancellor to consult all chairmen of local justice areas and their deputies before making an order specifying the courts boards areas under subsection (2). The noble Baroness has tabled an amendment to Clause 5 that would require the Lord Chancellor to consult all Bench chairmen and their deputies, in preparing the guidance for the courts boards.
Clause 21, which was the result of an amendment tabled by the Government and accepted by the House on Report, already provides that the Lord Chancellor will,
"take all reasonable and practicable steps"
to ascertain the views of magistrates about matters that affect them in the performance of their duties in the local justice area. That would include taking steps to ascertain the views of magistrates about proposals to change their local courts board area. We have said that we will draw up draft guidance in consultation with all of our stakeholders. We will do so, not favouring one group over another, but listening to all of their concerns, taking into account all of their knowledge and experience, to develop something that will meet our objectives. 'There is no reason for Bench

509
chairmen to have a particular status above judges, court staff, community representatives or professional court users, all of whom have a stake in the courts.
The 10 regional discussion groups, the last of which will be held tomorrow, Tuesday 20th May, in Bath, have been very productive. There has been consensus around a number of issues, some of which have already been touched on in that a unified administration is the way forward; that customer service is paramount; that one size will not fit all in designing the courts boards and area structure; and that there must be flexibility to move resources and work to respond to fluctuations in demand. There is also a clear message emerging, as we have already said as regards the other groups, that 42 criminal justice areas should be the building block for the new organisation and that, at least initially, the number of boards should follow suit, although the particular needs of London and Wales need to be looked at closely.
There has also been recognition from all stakeholders that the organisational design needs to support all of the courts' business, civil, family and criminal. The discussion groups have provided us with a vast amount of information about the needs of different areas and different jurisdictions. They have given us an opportunity to hear from our customers what they expect from the unified administration. All of this information is invaluable to us as the design process continues.
The groups have also provided a useful forum for staff and stakeholders in the Court Service and the magistrates' courts service to learn more about each other's organisations and to discuss their expectations and concerns about the unified administration.
The noble Baroness asked specifically about the system of communication between the department and magistrates on the development process. Following the discussion groups, we are holding meetings with national bodies like the AJCE and the CCMCC, the senior judges and the Magistrates' Association. We are holding a conference for Bench chairmen on 4th June. We have issued three editions of a news bulletin, which is made available to all magistrates and staff. The CCMCC, the senior presiding judge and the AJCE continue to sit on the programme board, which oversees all work on this programme. We hope that that will be an effective way forward. We will also hold further meetings around the country to work out the detail and the structure. We have already touched on the particular issue of North Wales, Chester and London. We shall have to do a little more work on that. We shall obviously seek to bring magistrates and the Court Service staff together again so that they have an opportunity to give added value to that work.
A total of 302 delegates have attended the first nine events. Of the attendees 40 per cent represented the magistrates' courts community. We invited the magistrates' court committee chair and one Bench chairman to each event, and invited the Magistrates' Association to nominate a local representative. Twenty-one per cent were from the Court Service, 14 per cent from the professional judiciary and 25 per stakeholders.
510
Overall, this provided a sample of the main players from the key organisations that will be affected by unifying the courts administration. Participants have included local representatives of the judiciary and the magistracy, justices' chief executives, Court Service managers, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Probation Service, police, victim and witness support organisations, the Law Society, the Bar, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, the Civil Court Users Association and Citizens Advice. All the participants are being encouraged to pass information to their colleagues and to feed back their views to us so that we can reach as many people as possible.
Your Lordships also know that the Auld review itself received over 500 written responses during the period for public comment, including comments from 69 individual magistrates, 44 Benches and 29 magistrates' courts committees. There was a formal period of public consultation after the Auld report. In addition, the report was discussed at a series of regional events which I have already mentioned. The noble Baroness will remember that in November last year we held a large conference to discuss the unified administration and established the structure for work.
We are developing options for the structure of the new agency taking into account the views from regional discussion groups and the views of others. We shall continue to do that. We are beginning to develop work on the role, membership, selection and operation of the courts boards, which will enable us to prepare the regulations, again drawing on the views expressed at the discussion groups and the import from the outcome of the further consultation, including the Government's arrangements for the new agency such as the inspection arrangements and how the agency should run during the proposed period of shadow running prior to full establishment. We shall continue to develop our plan in partnership with all of our stakeholders in the magistrates' courts community, the judiciary. professional and lay court users and consult them where necessary. For example, we would certainly not bring the guidance or regulations to Parliament without having involved our stakeholders. I hope that I have given a comprehensive answer as to how we are going to do that.
There is a small drafting point, but I do not believe that I need trouble the House with it because this was a probing amendment. I hope that the probe has been satisfactory and that the noble Baroness has drawn from the well that which she desires.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding so carefully and fully to what was a probing amendment. At Third Reading we cannot call it that, so with one eye to my left to the Clerk of the Parliaments, I make clear that it was to clear up remaining uncertainties to make sure that I was clearly within the rules. I did give advance notice to the Minister's office that that was the purpose of these amendments because of the views which have been brought to me from outwith this House.

511
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for his support. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that I did not need to worry because there is already a provision in the Bill for the Lord Chancellor to consult the courts board. I was seeking from the Minister—and she gave it in abundance—information broader than consultation with the courts board. This is consultation about how the whole process of setting up the courts administration unified system will be taken forward as soon as this Bill becomes an Act.
I am very grateful to the Minister. I am sure that the bodies outwith this House will look carefully at her words. If they wish, they will have the opportunity to take up any of these matters in another place when the Bill passes there. It is right that we take time to digest what the noble Baroness has so carefully set out. At this stage I shall not try to respond because I believe that it might be unhelpful if I did. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 33, at end insert—
"(6A) When making an order under subsection (2) the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the areas specified in the order are coterminous with—

(a) those for the time being established under Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996 (c. 16), and

(b) the area comprising the Metropolitan Police District and the City of London police area."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Functions of courts boards]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 4, leave out "provided" and insert "made"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, subsection(1) of Clause 5 refers to the duty of the courts boards,
"to scrutinise, review and make recommendations"
so it is more consistent to use the term "made" rather than "provided" in subsection (2).
As regards Amendment No. 5, it is a drafting amendment to the new subsection (3) of Clause 5 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and accepted by the House on Report. Subsection (3) requires the Lord Chancellor to give written reasons to a courts board in the event that he rejected its recommendations about a final business plan. We have considered the wording of the amendment further and suggest that it could be improved. I hope that the noble Lord agrees.
The new wording inserted in the Bill refers to recommendations,
"about the final business plan".
But once a business plan is "final" there is little reason for a board to make a recommendation "about" it. If it is final, it cannot be changed until the next plans are made. However, where a courts board disagrees with something in a final plan, what it may do is say that, in the light of that plan, it wishes to make a recommendation—as
512
subsection (1) envisages—about the way in which the Lord Chancellor is discharging his general duty in this area as described in the final business plan, a board would be able to make recommendations to the Lord Chancellor about how it believed that he should be discharging his general duty. The obligation to give written reasons would arise in relation to the rejection of those recommendations, and would amount to an explanation of why the Lord Chancellor was implementing the plan without their approval.
This is a rather technical point, but the amendment achieves what the noble Lord intended. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I accept that Amendment No. 5 is a drafting improvement. I considered that if there were to be a series of drafts, it would be inappropriate to have to give reasons when rejecting recommendations made in the early stages. However, when what was anticipated to be the final version, albeit still in draft, was produced, if recommendations were made at that stage that were not accepted, the Lord Chancellor should be required to give a reason. Although the amendment has a slightly different method of operation, it achieves substantially the same result. Since the Government have decided to make improvements to the draft of subsection (3), is the inference to be drawn that they would not waste their time on something that they were intending to throw out in the other place? Do the Government intend that subsection (3), as amended, will remain in the Bill?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, on Report, I put my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I agree with him and share his hope.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Lords have that hope. Of course, I could not possibly comment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 6, leave out from "board" to "written" in line 7 and insert "under subsection (1) as a result of the board's consideration of a final business plan, he must give the board his"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 14, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert—
"(5) The Lord Chancellor must make regulations about the way in which boards should carry out their functions under subsection (1).
(6) The regulations may in particular contain provisions—

(a) about the procedures to be followed in connection with draft and final business plans;

(b) conferring on the boards functions supplementing their functions under subsection (1)."

513
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 and to government Amendment No. 8.
The amendments are substantially the same as those that I tabled on Report as part of my amendments to what were Clauses 4 and 5. I did not press them at that stage and I retable them simply to give the Minister the opportunity to fulfil the undertaking that she gave on Report to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. She has responded fully and helpfully through her own amendments, so I shall not waste time. I shall give the Minister the opportunity to set our minds at rest. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I attach importance to the amendment. With great respect to the Government, it really does matter when establishing the new boards, which will be important in the constitution of our magistrates' jurisdiction, that matters should be clear. For them merely to be given guidance would not be clear or strong enough. The way that the boards are run will affect the administration of justice, and therefore my noble friend is right in suggesting that the definition of their functions should be part of regulations—governed by Parliament, I would hope—rather than mere guidance, which could be vague.
We must turn to Schedule 1 in order to find out exactly how important the courts boards will be and what they will have to do. I do not want to weary your Lordships by going through the schedule, but if one glances at it one finds that mere guidance would not be precise enough. We must have regulations.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope that I can quieten the beating heart of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on this issue. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, whom, I see with great pleasure, is in his place this afternoon, raised some concerns on Report about what is now subsection (6)(b) of Clause 5. He noted that it would be novel for guidance to modify the statutory functions of the courts boards. The Government promised to consider the matter further and in the light of what the noble and learned Lord said we have decided to remove this paragraph. As in so many things, the noble and learned Lord has proved wise.
A future Lord Chancellor who wishes to amend or supplement the functions of courts boards will be able to do so through primary legislation. I thank the noble and learned Lord for raising this point and the noble Baroness for indicating that she will not press Amendments Nos. 6, 9, 10 and 11 pursuant to the changes that we have made. I hope that all concerned are satisfied.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving effect to my concern. I venture to think that this is an improvement on the Bill. I also thank her officials for the brave way in which, in
514
correspondence with me, they sought to justify what was there before. Apparently, they have now arrived at an even more rigorous view.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 19, leave out paragraph (b).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Local justice areas]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 5, line 23, leave out "court administration council" and insert "courts board"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on government Amendment No. 18, which was moved on Report. The Bill currently contains a reference to a court administration council. As your Lordships have already agreed, court administration councils have been renamed courts boards. The amendment removes a previously overlooked reference and ensures consistency throughout the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 13:
Page 5, line 30, leave out "or" and insert—
"( ) the Common Council of the City of London, or"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment puts it beyond doubt that the Lord Chancellor must consult the City of London if he wishes to alter the boundaries of a local justice area that falls partly or wholly within the City. The amendment alters the definition of a local authority that appears in subsection (7) of Clause 8. Section 34 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 requires the Lord Chancellor or a magistrates' courts committee wishing to change the boundaries of a petty sessions area first to consult every relevant council affected by those changes. Section 34 defines "every relevant council" and Section 70 of the same Act extends that provision to cover the corporation of the City acting through its Common Council. The Bill does not currently contain a provision similar to Section 70. It could be argued, therefore, that the Lord Chancellor would not be required to consult the City of London over boundary changes to local justice areas that fell within the City. That is not our intention. Amendment No. 13 adds the explicit reference of the Common Council of the City of London to the meaning of "local authority" in subsection (7) of Clause 8. I hope your Lordships' feel able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Places, dates and times of sittings]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 14:
Page 14. line 16, leave out "locally accesible by" and insert "accessible to"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 14 simplifies the wording of Amendment No. 58 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on Report on 8th May.
The effect of Amendment No. 58 was to place a duty on the Lord Chancellor, when making directions as to the places at which magistrates' courts may sit, to have regard to the need to ensure that courthouses are locally accessible by persons resident in each local justice area.
Amendment No. 14 alters Clause 30 by changing the phrase "locally accesible by"—I am sure your Lordships will have noted the mistake—in subsection (2) to "accessible to". In drafting terms, it is not clear what the expression "locally accessible" means. We took it to mean geographical accessibility rather than physical accessibility. However, on Report, during the debate on Amendment No. 58, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, made a number of equally important points about the need to ensure physical accessibility to courthouses. I refer in particular to col. 1250.
Removing the word "locally" from Clause 30(2) will mean that the Lord Chancellor is simply under a duty to have regard to the need to ensure that courthouses are accessible to persons resident in each local justice area. The term "accessible" would not be limited in any way. I believe that that adds a useful simplification to the drafting of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. I hope that she will accept that it offers no detriment to her stated objectives and that perhaps in some way the simplification enhances its meaning. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I welcome the Government's suggested improvement to my drafting for two reasons. The first is one to which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, referred. It more properly takes account of the views expressed not only by myself but by my noble friend Lord Renton on Report. I had in mind very firmly that it was not just a matter of geographical access but also of physical access. In the European Year of Disabled People, it is particularly appropriate for such a helpful amendment to be on the face of the Bill.
My second reason perhaps echoes the earlier words of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I accept the Government's amendment in the hope that it presages that it may not return here from another place.
Lord Goodhart: I too welcome the amendment and one previously unmentioned aspect of it, which is the correction of the misspelling of the word "accessible".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Seccombemoved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause—
516
"TRAINING
(1) The Lord Chancellor may provide guidance as to the training of a fines officer.
(2) Guidance provided in accordance with subsection (1) shall be published—

(a) before the pilot scheme regarding fines officers is established, and

(b) after consultation with such persons as the Lord Chancellor may deem appropriate."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Bill introduces the role of fines officers and specifies their functions. However, nothing on the face of the Bill gives any guidance as to the training of these new civil servants. These officers will carry out quasi-judicial functions. It is essential that they have the best preparation for this new and important role. It is also essential that all participants in the court process understand their particular role and how they will dovetail in with all court users.
The Government have now made a clear commitment on the training of lay magistrates following discussion of amendments in the House, but not for fines officers. The amendment would ensure that the Lord Chancellor consults such persons he feels are appropriate before publishing any guidance. This will be subject to the pilot schemes. It would ensure the flexibility to provide the best training possible. It would also give outside organisations the opportunity to share their expertise in order to ensure that this new role works to enable the smooth running of the courts. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I support the idea that fines officers should be properly trained. But that goes for any official of the courts. It should not be confined to fines officers. I do not think that it is necessary to provide specific guidance so far as they are concerned. The courts have different functions. There are different areas. People have to subscribe to different practices as a result. I do not think, therefore, that there should be a centralised form of guidance. I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis for his comments. However, I say straightaway to the noble Baroness that I am sure that all Members of the House agree with her about the importance of ensuring that fines officers are properly trained. That will be vital to the success of the pilot schemes as well as to national implementation of the new measures.
Where we depart is on whether the amendment is necessary. Amendment No. 15, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, proposes that a new clause be added to the Bill to allow the Lord Chancellor to provide guidance for the training of fines officers. However, the effect of the amendment would be that the pilots could not commence until such guidance had been prepared in consultation with appropriate persons and published.

517
Clearly, before the pilots begin, there is need to consult the magistrates' courts committees concerned on the format and content of the training that will be needed. However, it is not generally the practice for the Lord Chancellor to publish training guidance and we see no need for a statutory requirement to do so. Any document published prior to the completion of the pilots will necessarily only be a first draft and will be largely untested in practice.
Furthermore, during the pilots not all fines officers will be applying the full range of sanctions set out in Schedule 3. Each fines officer participating in the pilots will be trained and given guidance about the particular package of measures from the fines collection scheme being piloted in their specific area.
The pilots themselves will provide an opportunity to test the quality and scope of the training given, and to identify any further training needs that may arise. It is therefore likely that training material will be refined and supplemented during the pilots. Following evaluation, the fines collection scheme will be adjusted in the light of experience of the pilots and the final scheme will be put before Parliament for approval.
The noble Baroness will remember from when we last discussed the matter that we are open to the fact that some suggestions we make may be more successful than others. It may be that some will not work at all. We have no hesitation in saying that we shall not seek to pursue those measures which do not prove successful. We only want that which actually works to be put forward and therefore to come before Parliament for its approval by the affirmative resolution procedure.
The evaluation of the pilots will include an evaluation of the training needs for the final scheme. The national guidance, which will be made available to all court areas, will be based upon material which has been tested in the field and which relates directly to the final scheme approved by Parliament.
I can assure your Lordships that fines officers will be suitably trained for their role. It is in the interests of the fines collection scheme that they are well trained, so that we can actually evaluate the different schemes properly. However, if the Government were to accept Amendment No. 15, it is likely that commencement of the pilots would be delayed and that the opportunity to test the quality of the guidance would have to be deferred. I am sure that that is not what the noble Baroness intends. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, assured that when the matter comes back after the final scheme has been tested she will have a proper opportunity to make whatever comments she and those opposite think right in relation to the scheme overall.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister. As I believe that we are both committed to the training of officers in the new role, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 [Disqualification of lay justices who are members of local authorities]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 16:
Page 20, line 28, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment's purpose is to remove subsection (5) from Clause 41, which basically says that a lay justice who is a councillor must not sit as a member of the court in proceedings to which the councillor in question is party. That seems absolutely obvious. Subsection (5) states:
"No act is invalidated merely because of the disqualification under this section of the person by whom it is done".
Under existing law, a party to proceedings has the right to an independent and impartial tribunal—as required by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which was introduced into our law under the Human Rights Act 1998. If a party to proceedings does not get an independent and impartial tribunal, they are entitled to have the decision set aside.
A tribunal is not independent and impartial if there is a possible perception of bias. It is not necessary to show that there was any actual bias. The first decision by your Lordships' House in the Pinochet case was set aside because of the involvement of one of the members of the appellate committee—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann—with Amnesty International. Amnesty was not a party to that case but had intervened for the purpose of addressing arguments to the appellate committee. No one suggested that it was necessary to show that the noble and learned Lord was actually biased.
The presence on a tribunal of a judge who has a personal interest in a matter means that the decision in which he participates can be challenged under the Human Rights Act. What, therefore, is the purpose of subsection (5)? The Government are suggesting that it does not really alter the existing law. If so, why is it there? It seems to go beyond existing law. If a person who decides something is disqualified, under the Human Rights Act that person does not constitute an independent and impartial tribunal—and the decision will be set aside if it is challenged. In other words, the decision will be set aside because of the disqualification.
It appears that subsection (5) requires something more than the mere fact of disqualification. That can only mean that there is a need to show not just the fact of disqualification but real bias or a real risk of bias by the individual in question. If the Government are correct, subsection (5) is unnecessary. If we are correct, subsection (5) is incompatible with convention rights. Why not drop it? I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I oppose the amendment because it fails to take into account the inconvenience and time wasting that could arise. After short or long proceedings have been completed, a decision could be overturned because of a technical breach of Clause 41. I agree with the noble Lord that a party should be enabled to seek to overturn a decision made by a

519
disqualified tribunal. I agree also that that should be enabled either on the basis of actual bias or on the basis of potential bias if it can be proved that Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights has been breached.
But if the decision of the justices were automatically void—which it would be if we deleted subsection (5)—in certain cases that could be against the public interest. It could, for example, lead to a litigant taking advantage of a technical breach, so abusing the judicial system. Think of a case typically decided by three magistrates in which the local authority is one of the litigants and one of the lay justices is a member of the local authority. He may not have been a member of the relevant committee or had anything to do with the matter but there would be a technical breach. If somebody wanted to avoid the decision on that ground, so be it—it could be challenged.
The Pinochet case to which the noble Lord referred arose because somebody challenged the decision. It was not automatically void.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that at a much earlier stage, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, pointed out that invalidation would only arise where the decision was challenged?
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I am happy that we agree. I recall the noble and learned Lord saying that if there were disqualification on the ground that one of the deciders was a member of the local authority, the decision would be voidable and could be challenged. Removing subsection (5), with its use of the word "merely", means that a decision so reached should have no effect even if nobody challenged it—which is unfortunate and would be better avoided.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 16, to which I have put my name. I shall not abuse Third Reading by repeating all the arguments. For those who are interested, they appear at cols. 528–530 of the Official Report for 10th February; and at cols. 1272–1273 of the Official Report for 8th May.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, questions why a decision should be annulled for just a technical breach. The tribunal member may not have been on the committee involved but might have been lobbied or be part of the party caucus. That is my answer to the noble Lord and why I continue wholeheartedly to support the amendment. The public need confidence in decisions taken by our magistrates.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I confess to being puzzled by the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. He said that it would be inconvenient and expensive to have a decision set aside. Of course it is—hut it was inconvenient and expensive to have the Pinochet decision set aside. It meant rather greater expense than setting aside the decision of a magistrates' court.
520
Let us suppose that Clause 41 was not in the Bill. Surely on a plain common-law basis, a decision made by a Bench of magistrates on which one member of the local authority in question was sitting would automatically be voidable under the Pinochet doctrine. While the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, says that the magistrate in question may not have had much connection with the decision by the local authority, there was no suggestion that my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann had any connection with Amnesty International's decision to intervene in the case or to take part. The point is that he was there and it looked like there was a connection.
I confess that I do not understand what the situation would be if subsection (5) stayed where it was and someone applied not under the Bill but under the common-law basis on grounds of apparent bias consisting of the fact that the magistrate was a member of the local authority. If the whole of Clause 41 was not there, he would win. Is it suggested that subsection (5) means that he will now lose, or does it leave the common-law doctrine available but say, "You cannot rely on the statute", in which case it makes no difference? It seems that the present clause is curious and the amendment must be right.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am not able to agree with the position advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. My noble friend Lord Borrie was correct in his analysis.
As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggested, he has brought back his amendment asking for the removal of subsection (5) of Clause 41—previously Clause 36. We have debated the matter in Committee and on Report, and I am not sure that there is a great deal that I can add. We had an extensive Committee debate and Report stage. I hear echoes of Committee-type debates this afternoon.
We remain content with the draft as it stands. We are content that it could not prejudice anyone's rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has agreed with that view, and as I said before, as it is satisfied with the clause we feel strongly that it would be inappropriate to go behind that view.
Although I am happy to repeat the detailed reasoning that I have already repeated twice, I hope that I do not need to do so, other than in "telegraphic form"—to adopt the mantle of the noble Lord who normally sits on the Benches opposite but is not in his place. As I explained in Committee and on Report, the use of the word "merely" in the clause avoids conflict with Article 6. If a local authority justice were to adjudicate where Article 6 of the convention is engaged and in circumstances where that article is violated by his so doing, that would be unlawful by reason of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
As noble Lords know, Article 6 refers to the determination of a party's civil rights and obligations, or of any criminal charge against him. Where the justice acts

521
in circumstances that do not engage the Article, or where his participation does not violate it—for example, as may be the case at an interlocutory hearing—the subsection provides that the action will not be invalidated merely because of the disqualification. It will always be open to a party to appeal if it is felt that Article 6 bites in any instance. But where no prejudice is caused by the magistrate's disqualification, it would be unreasonable and burdensome to invalidate those decisions.
I noted that when the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was explaining the rationale behind the amendment he said that a risk of bias must be shown. That is not entirely right, because a legitimate doubt as to bias must be established. That may not be the case in relation to interlocutory decisions.
Subsection (4), as I mentioned before, is drawn widely. It says "no act". It does not refer only to final decisions or to decisions of any substance. It will catch unobjectionable interlocutory decisions. I do not think that anyone would suggest that it would change the odds where the decision was a determination or could affect a determination under Article 6.
Clause 41 would not necessarily impinge on the same population of judicial decisions as much convention case law does. In a case as complex and sensitive as Pinochet, it may be that there is no interlocutory decision which is not of moment. That would not necessarily be true in all cases proceeding in the magistrates courts. Of course we accept that membership of a local authority that is party to a case may cause a lack of impartiality, but we do not believe that a complaint could be sustained in relation to every single act of the justice in question. As I have said, subsection (5) would cover every single act.
Finally, I want to repeat a point I made on Report—which, with the greatest respect, is a telling point: that the phrase in question has been extant since the Justices of the Peace Act 1949. I do not believe that it has given rise to any injustices or problems in all that time. The need for impartiality and independence is nothing new. If the phrasing of the subsection were as objectionable as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, believe it to be, someone would have challenged it before now.
We do not believe that the new climate of human rights has changed things so much that the provision has become unacceptable. If anything, the Human Rights Act has strengthened the position and should make it easier for those who wish to challenge to do so. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment and rely on the sagacity and good sense of the Joint Committee and our concurrence with its view.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, for their support. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, described this as a technical breach. I do not believe that it is. Clause 42 validates a technical breach. It deals with the validation of decisions taken by justices who turn out to have been invalidly appointed
522
because they were barred by the Act of Settlement. That invalidation of their appointment does nothing to show that they are in any way biased or likely to have a lack of ability to try a case as well as anyone who is authorised to do so. I have no objection to the passage in Clause 42 which validates decisions taken by magistrates who for that highly technical reason turn out to have been invalidly appointed.
I suggest that taking part in a decision by an interested party—for the purposes of the law—is never a technical breach. It must always give rise to the perception of a lack of impartiality. It is of course true to say that some such hearings may be interlocutory, but many interlocutory hearings may have an important bearing on the outcome of the case. We cannot divide hearings into interlocutory and substantive ones. So the subsection should be deleted. It may be true that those words have been present ever since the Justices of the Peace Act 1949, but now that we have the Human Rights Act 1998, we need to reconsider the matter. If we do so, we shall arrive at a different conclusion.
This is a significant amendment. I do not want to add further to the lengthy debate that we have held on two previous occasions, but I beg to test the opinion of the House.
4.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 141: Not-Contents, 122.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elles, B.

Ackner, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Addington, L. [Teller]

Elton, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Erroll, E.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Ezra, L.

Astor, V.

Feam, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Fowler, L.

Avebury, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Freeman. L.

Barker, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Blatch, B.

Geddes, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Goodhart, L. [Teller]

Buscombe, B.

Goschen, V.

Butterworth, L.

Gray of Contin. L.

Byford, B.

Hamwee, B.

Caithness, E.

Hanham. B.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Henley, L.

Chadlington, L.

Higgins, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Holme of Cheltenham. L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Home, E.

Colwyn, L.

Hooper, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Howe, E.

Craig of Radley, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Craigavon. V.

Howe of Idlicote. B.

Denham, L.

Howell of Guildford. L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

523

Jacobs, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Plumb, L.

Jopling, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Prior, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Pym, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Rawlings, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Reay, L.

Liverpool, E.

Redesdale, L.

Lucas, L.

Renton, L.

Luke, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Lyell, L.

Roper, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Russell, E.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Sandberg, L.

McNally, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Maddock, B.

Seccombe, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Selborne, E.

Marlesford, L.

Selsdon, L.

Marsh. L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Sharples, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Methuen, L.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Montrose, D.

Stewartby, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strange, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Newby, L.

Swinfen, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Noakes, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Northover, B.

Tordoff, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Trumpington, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Vivian, L.

Onslow, E.

Wakeham, L.

Palmer, L.

Walmsley, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Wilcox, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ahmed, L.

Dubs, L.

Alli, L.

Eatwell, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Elder, L.

Andrews, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Bach, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Barnett. L.

Fillcin, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L. [Teller]

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Berkeley, L.

Gale, B.

Bernstein of C'raigweil, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Blackstone, B.

Gilbert, L.

Blood, B.

Golding, B.

Borrie, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Bragg, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Brennan, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Brooke of Aherthorpe, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Brookman, L.

Greengross, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gregson, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Carter, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Christopher, L.

Harrison, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Haskel, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hayman, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hogg of Cumbemauld, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Crawley, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

David, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Dixon, L.

Jeger, B.

524

Jones, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Jordan, L.

Plant of Hightield, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Layard, L.

Rea, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Lipsey, L.

Richard, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Rooker, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Sawyer, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Sheldon, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Simon, V.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Mishcon, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Mitchell, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Morgan, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Thornton, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Nicol, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ouseley, L.

Uddin, B.

Parekh, L.

Varley, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Whitaker, B.

Paul, L.

Whitty, L.

Pendry, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Peston, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.52 p.m.
Clause 42 [Effect of Act of Settlement on existing justices of the peace]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 17:
Page 21, line 4, after "2002" insert "or after the coming into force of this section"s
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of Clause 42 is to validate appointments made before 31st January 2002 of foreign citizens as justices of the peace. Those appointments were not valid because of Section 3 of the Act of Settlement, something that was not realised until or around January 2002. I understand that although Section 3 of the Act of Settlement refers to people born outside the United Kingdom, it does not now apply to persons who are naturalised. Thus, people who become naturalised British citizens are eligible to be justices of the peace and to hold other judicial offices. However, nowadays many non-citizens living permanently or long-term in the United Kingdom would make excellent justices of the peace.
A parallel situation is that of my late father who, although an American citizen all his life, spent his working years in this country. During the Second World War he served as chairman of the Southern Region Price Regulation Committee, a post to which I imagine he would have been disqualified under the Act of Settlement if anyone had thought to look into it.
Under the terms of Clause 42, those who were invalidly appointed are now to be enabled to resume sitting, which is something that we welcome. However, I

525
ask why we should not allow the appointment of non-citizens to continue? Surely we do not have so many candidates for the office of justice of the peace that we can afford to dispense with that group. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment, to which I have added my name, for the reasons put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment for yet another reason, which I shall outline briefly. My mother, a British subject, was born in South America, but eventually came over here where she was educated, married and lived her life. The mere words, "born outside the United Kingdom" are very inhibiting. We must amplify them in the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, both this amendment and its earlier variant seek to avert the effect of Section 3 of the Act of Settlement. This would have the effect of enabling the Lord Chancellor to appoint foreign nationals as lay magistrates. On 8th May I gave an assurance in the House that we would consider our position and consult with government colleagues on how best to take this issue forward. We have not yet had the opportunity to obtain a definitive view from colleagues who are dealing with the wider implications of altering nationality requirements arising from the Act of Settlement.
I say again that we have every sympathy with the intention of the amendment. However, we need to consider carefully whether it would be appropriate to include provisions in this Bill because of the planned Crown Employment (Nationality) Bill, which will initiate changes designed to alter nationality requirements for certain holders of offices under the Crown. Both the professional judiciary and the lay magistracy are included in the ambit of that Bill. However, we are actively discussing whether it might be possible to bring forward an amendment to the Courts Bill at a later stage.
I hope that the noble Lord will exercise a little patience on this matter and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said on this issue. I shall exercise patience and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60 [Functions of Chief Inspector]:
Lord Hunt of Wirralmoved Amendment No. 18:
Page 28, line 30, at end insert—
"( ) The report made under subsection (1) shall highlight best practice and catalogue inefficiencies in the discharge of the functions of the Inspectorate."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I raise this issue to remind the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, that in regard to this subject he agreed to take away a previous
526
amendment and look at the wording in order to check it. The reason I thought it right to bring the matter forward again at this stage is that I have also looked very carefully at the wording and have found that it was word-for-word what the Lord Chancellor had said was the objective of the chief inspector and his functions. I am therefore confident that the noble Lord will say something rather positive about the amendment. In that light, I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the speaking notes say that I have,
"listened with considerable interest as to the reasons why the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, considers Amendment No. 18 to be necessary".
That line is rather more accurate than I had thought when I first read it. The aim of the amendment is to ensure that the annual report submitted by the chief inspector should include highlighting best practice and the cataloguing of inefficiencies. We certainly agree with that objective. However, as I shall explain, the drafting of the amendment does not achieve that aim.
The noble Lord has made it clear that this is a matter that was tabled and debated in Committee. During the debate on 1lth February, if our memories can stretch back that far, the noble Lord drew attention to the words of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in describing the wording in Part 5. When talking about the proposed new inspectorate at Second Reading, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said:
"It will ensure an improved and more consistent level of service to all court users by highlighting best practice and reporting on inefficiencies".—[Official Report, 9/12/02; col. 18.]
As I have said previously, one of the primary roles of any inspectorate must be to investigate and report on inefficiencies and to highlight, promote and promulgate best practices. Indeed, the Magistrates' Courts Service Inspectorate has been doing this since its inception. I find it hard to imagine how that reporting function could be properly discharged if the chief inspector, whether it be the current chief inspector of the MCSI or the chief inspector of the new inspectorate of court administration, failed either to highlight best practice or catalogue inefficiencies where appropriate.
On the drafting point, the amendment would seem to be flawed in that it appears to be suggesting that the chief inspector should highlight the best practices and catalogue the inefficiencies in the work of his own organisation. I assume that the noble Lord means that the chief inspector is to report on the best practices and inefficiencies in the functions he is inspecting. But if the noble Lord reads the words carefully, he will see that the meaning could be as I have suggested. For those reasons, and although we share the spirit behind the amendment, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw it.
5 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I merely wanted to remind the Minister that he said in Committee that he would take the amendment away and see whether the drafting could be improved. Therefore, I rather regret that he has occupied so much time in pointing out the

527
deficiencies of the drafting. I am merely waiting for his better wording. Now, as the Bill proceeds to another place, I look forward to seeing it there. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 70 [Criminal Procedure Rule Committee]:
Lord Hunt of Wirralmoved Amendment No. 19:
Page 33, line 22, at end insert—
"( ) Persons appointed under subsection (2) shall be appointed for a fixed period of three years and shall be eligible for reappointment for one future period of three years."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope noble Lords will accept that I studiously and constantly register my interests in these debates—not only as senior partner in a major firm of litigation solicitors, but also as the Minister who introduced the Nolan commission and took great pride in establishing that commission as safeguarding the best standards in public life.
In that context, we have had a previous discussion to clarify the uncertainties over the appointments system. The issue of the length of membership and the process of appointment to procedure rule committees was first raised in Committee. I asked whether the Nolan principles would be used in the making of appointments. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, put the point very clearly, and far more effectively than I had. He said:
"Under the classic Nolan principle there would normally be an appointment for a period of three years, renewable once but not more than once".—[Official Report, 11/2/03; col. 650.]
In responding to my amendment, the Minister had said:
"I do not have a pat answer".—[Col. 649.]
I must tell the noble Baroness that that has given rise to some mirth at the Bar, because her name is Pat. But I understand that she has never been known as Pat; she may have been known as Patsy or Patricia, but not Pat. But she assured us that she did not have a pat answer. So one of the reasons for tabling these amendments is to give either her or her noble friend the opportunity to say a little more.
Seriously, it is essential that the process of appointment to courts boards and to the procedure rule committee is transparent and impartial. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has said, I hope I can give him a short and succinct "Patricia" answer.
It is right that the noble Lord should take pride in the achievement of the establishment of the Nolan principles. I can assure the House that all appointments to the criminal and family procedure rule committees and to courts boards will be made in accordance with the code of practice issued by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments and will follow the Nolan principles on probity, openness and transparency.
528
I think that that might suffice as an answer. If the noble Lord wishes more, I can certainly entertain the House for a good live minutes with further and better information, but I hope that what I have said will suffice.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I hasten to curb the Minister's enthusiasm by quickly saying that I am greatly reassured and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 77 [Family Procedure Rule Committee]:
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Clause 93 [Award of costs against third parties]:
Lord Hunt of Wirralmoved Amendment No. 21:
Page 45, line 34, leave out "(whether or not constituting a contempt of court)" and insert "constituting a contempt of court"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we turn once again to the award of costs against third parties. There has been considerable consternation outside this House at some of the provisions. I see that Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are to be taken separately, so I shall speak first to Amendment No. 21.
Perhaps I may explain that the order-making power confers enormous discretion upon magistrates and trial judges to make orders that could require the payment of huge amounts of money by third parties. In those circumstances there should be legal certainty about the way in which the power can be exercised.
I do not believe that we should allow legislation to be enacted which would make third parties vulnerable to third party costs orders for lawful behaviour. They must be able to regulate their behaviour and avoid any act of serious misconduct by reference to recognised and consistent standards. The circumstances in which the powers of the courts can be exercised should, therefore, be limited to behaviour which is recognised as unlawful, and the power should be exercised in a consistent, proportionate and reasonable fashion. The legislation introducing this power should, therefore, at least set legal preconditions that will safeguard against a degree of uncertain, arbitrary and inconsistent use, and certainly against the levying of disproportionate awards in circumstances that do not merit orders.
We had a debate about rights of appeal. They are very valuable, and are vital as additional safeguards; but they can act as a check only after the event. The legislation, in defining the power, needs to delineate the circumstances more precisely, confine the courts' powers more tightly and ensure their consistent application. After all, third parties' successful appeals from the magistrates' court to the Crown Court will not set any legal precedent. Appeals alone, therefore, will not set the kind of consistent and binding standards on the courts which I believe are necessary to regulate their behaviour and prevent unjustified orders being made.
I believe that Amendment No. 21 would provide a better degree of legal certainty and consistency of application. It would mean that before an order could he made against anyone the action alleged to be serious

529
misconduct should actually constitute a contempt of court. As third party costs orders can be made at any time, proceedings ought to be delayed until there has been an actual finding of contempt by another court, thereby ensuring the safeguards of independent scrutiny. There would therefore be a known and consistent legal standard with expert, independent scrutiny in every case to ensure that this was maintained. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am slightly bewildered by the wording both of the amendment and of the clause as it stands. I do not understand why the words in brackets have been included at all. Perhaps my noble friend will be able to assure me that that is all right. At the moment, I am very confused about the matter. Why cannot we leave it that there has been serious misconduct by the third party?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, propose two amendments that would limit the circumstances in which a court could make a third party costs order. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has not spoken to either Amendment No. 21 or 22, but I will respond, if I may, to both—
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I am so sorry, I have not yet spoken to Amendment No. 22.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I shall confine my remarks first to Amendment No. 21. However, there is an inter-relationship between the two so, if I may, when I come to reply to Amendment No. 22, I shall rely on much of what I now say on Amendment No. 21.
The noble Lord proposes to limit the circumstances in which a court could make a third party costs order. The clause has been welcomed in principle on all sides of this House. I think we all agree that it fills an important lacuna in the powers of the criminal courts, and seeks to address a real mischief. But these amendments—and I speak for the moment to both of them—would render the clause virtually ineffective. The Government therefore cannot accept either Amendment No. 21 and/or Amendment No. 22.
I appreciate the concerns that noble Lords have expressed about the potential application of the clause and, in particular, concerns about a "chilling effect" on court reporting by local newspapers. I think that is how the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to them on at least one occasion. I agree that open and accurate reporting of the justice system in action is an important bastion of our democracy. But I believe that these concerns about the effect of the clause are, if I may respectfully say so, overstated. Indeed, I would go so far as to say they are misplaced.
The clause empowers the criminal courts to order costs against third parties in the event of serious misconduct. I come now to the point of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, and hope what I will now say will clarify matters. I stress "serious misconduct". The clause is not aimed at the minor misdemeanour, or
530
the honest misjudgement or mistake. It makes clear that the power is not limited in the way my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis fears.
Journalists engaged in court reporting have nothing to fear from the clause provided that they respect any reporting restrictions that may be in place, their own professional code of conduct and, of course, the law of contempt as it affects prejudicial publicity. Journalists are well aware of these things. To assist further, my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General will shortly be issuing for consultation guidance to editors and journalists on prejudicial publicity; and that guidance will touch on the impact of this clause.
There are two further safeguards. First, as we debated at Report, there will be a right of appeal to a higher court, and this will not require permission from the lower forum making the order. Secondly, in the unlikely event that the courts construe "serious misconduct" in a way that impacts unacceptably on, say, wider considerations of freedom of expression, there is a power in new Section 19B(4)(a) to prescribe in regulations that certain categories of "serious misconduct" shall not be subject to a third part costs order. We do not expect to have to exercise this power, but it is there should it ever be needed.
We have considered very carefully the best way to define and limit the scope of this power. We believe that the best approach is to use the term "serious misconduct" on the face of the statute and leave it to the good sense of the courts to apply that concept in the particular case before them. We believe it would be wrong to prescribe a more detailed definition or specific restrictions, in statute or in regulations, as this is likely to create as many problems as it solves and could unwittingly prevent the court from making a costs order when we would all agree it was appropriate. I heard what the noble Lord said about appeals and precedent, but we really do not see why appeals should not provide guidance and precedents in this way. It is no different from any other form of case law.
Amendment No. 21 would enable the court to order costs against a third party only if their serious misconduct also constituted contempt of court. This is over-restrictive and, we suggest, inappropriate. There are many forms of misconduct that might justify a costs order in circumstances that we cannot necessarily foresee. For example—and I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, could give me a little attention in this matter—the misconduct might be a crime that was not also a contempt or a tort or a breach of contract or professional code of conduct or none of these. Common law contempt requires intention to interfere with the course of justice, but misconduct that affected the costs of a case might have quite a different motive, with the perpetrator ignorant or reckless of the impact of his wrong actions on the proceedings.
In earlier debates we discussed the late delivery of prisoners, something which much exercised the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Say this occurred because the driver went off for an hour on a frolic of his own en route. Clearly that would be serious

531
misconduct, presumably a breach of his contract of employment, but not necessarily a contempt. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 provides for strict liability contempt in certain cases—that is, an intention to interfere with justice is not necessary. But separate proceedings, brought with the permission of the Attorney-General, are required. Limiting the new power to cases of contempt could therefore mean that the trial judge would be unable, as we intend, to make a third party costs order during or at the end of the proceedings.
Contempt is a serious matter, attracting punitive sanctions, including imprisonment—hence the need for separate proceedings. But these are not necessary or appropriate here, where only an issue of costs is at stake. There is no punitive element in terms of' loss of liberty. It is limited to the costs actually incurred by the parties. The court would have the discretion to order the third party to pay only some of the costs arising from the misconduct if the full amount would be disproportionate in all the circumstances, but it could order him or her to pay more. That is the importance of giving discretion to the court and allowing it to interpret "serious misconduct".
I have given various assurances, in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that his concerns are and would be included in the way the Bill is currently drafted. If Amendment No. 21 were to be carried, I respectfully suggest that the assurances I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, would not he able to be carried through. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to reconsider and withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, being ordered to pay huge sums of money can have a penal effect. It is not just restricted to the way the Minister has described.
I would like time to reflect on the Minister's points. In fact, she has persuaded me that the better amendment would be Amendment No. 22, to which I shall return in a moment. No doubt this debate will continue in another place; it is very important to get the matter right. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hunt of Wirralmoved Amendment No. 22:
Page 45, line 35, at end insert—
"( ) that misconduct has caused substantial prejudice to the administration of justice in those criminal proceedings, such that it has been frustrated or rendered impracticable, and
( ) the criminal proceedings have thereby been significantly delayed or abandoned, and"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I was explaining in the debate on the previous amendment, the Minister's words have persuaded me that one should concentrate on seeking to ensure that the serious misconduct should have actually seriously affected the administration of justice in the particular criminal proceedings. The prejudice caused by the serious misconduct should have necessitated delay or
532
abandonment of the proceedings ordered by the court. Certainly, third parties ought not to be penalised because there is a disproportionate reaction by a trial judge or magistrate. In the light of those comments, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, accepts the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I support the amendment. I found what the Minister said on Amendment No. 21 fairly persuasive, and it would not be right to go ahead with limiting the provision to cases of contempt of court. Nevertheless, this is a new and powerful weapon that is being deployed, in criminal cases at any rate, and I am well aware of the concerns expressed by the Newspaper Society, which I believe are justified. It would be right to emphasise that there must be serious interference with the course of justice, such as that outlined in the amendment, before it would be appropriate to impose an order for third party costs.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am not entirely sure about the issue, although the noble Lords who have spoken have been very persuasive. My noble friend the Minister should spell out what the court has to consider when considering the issue of misconduct. I do not know whether it should be included in statute, but a strong case has been made out, and I should like to think about it.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I pray in aid many of the comments that I made as regards Amendment No. 21, especially the reliance that 'will be placed on the Attorney-General's document, which will give a great deal of guidance about what will fall within and without appropriate professional conduct.
I must clarify a comment that I made in relation to costs. I hope that I said that, in relation to the amount of costs that could be awarded, the court could not order an individual to pay more than those costs. Therefore, the payment would be of the costs thrown away and the proportion that the court believed had been contributed by the conduct, which would not in any event be disproportionate in its nature.
For similar reasons to those given under the previous amendment, I cannot accept that Amendment No. 22 gives us a significant improvement. It introduces two new tests to be satisfied before an order can be made. The first test is that there must be "substantial prejudice", frustrating or rendering impracticable the administration of justice. That would impose an unduly high hurdle that would exclude many circumstances in which an order might be appropriate. The words "frustrated or rendered impracticable" seem to point solely to cases that have to be abandoned and could exclude misconduct that causes some delay or otherwise puts the parties to extra cost.
The second test is that proceedings were "significantly delayed or abandoned". To an extent, that is unnecessary. An order can be made only when costs are wasted or incurred unnecessarily, which will usually be as a result of delay or abandonment. It is right to emphasise that. However, there might also be

533
cases when the third party had lied or withheld information, for example, when the parties are put to significant extra cost examining a red herring.
As for the word "significantly", I accept that cost orders should not be made in respect of trivial delays. However, I am confident that that can be left to the court. The need to adjourn so that the third party can make representations will serve to remind the court that an order for costs of an odd half-hour delay may not be worth the candle. If one is going to expend half a day litigating over the loss of half an hour, the courts may be minded to suggest that it is not an appropriate expenditure of time. However, the court, which will be seized with the whole conduct of the case, will be given an opportunity to determine whether the conduct was serious, whether it has caused delay thereby causing cost and, if it has, to what extent the individual should be made to pay for those costs thrown away.
We believe that there are sufficient safeguards. I understand the concerns expressed by noble Lords, and I agree entirely that it is right that they should have been ventilated so that we could have on record the basis on which the Government would believe that the discretion should be exercised. That will he strengthened in due course by the Attorney-General issuing the consultation guidance, which will I am sure greatly assist all those who come to interpret the clause. I hope that with that full explanation, noble Lords are more content than they were.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, will the Minister tell us a bit more about the guidance from the Attorney-General? She has persuaded the House—I am sure rightly—that the words should be left as "serious misconduct", which is fairly vague. However, if the Attorney-General issues guidance as to what editors should and should not do, will that not enable him to write what is in effect a statutory definition of serious misconduct? When the Attorney-General has laid down what is and is not serious misconduct, one can hardly imagine a magistrates' court or even a Crown court saying, "Oh yes, that is what the guidance says, but that is not serious misconduct". Is it really right that someone outside Parliament should define what is to be the conduct that gives rise to the unfortunate consequence for the third party?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the reason why I say that the guidance should be helpful is that the Attorney-General will set it out only after he has been able to explore fully, through consultation, what the industry, the profession, the journalists and editors feel is appropriate. It is right that the profession has indicated that it would wish to have some indication as to what fell within and without. We hope that the provision is a very good response to that request.
Journalists engaged in court reporting need have nothing to fear from that. They are obliged to respect reporting restrictions that may be in place, their own professional code of conduct and, of course, the law of contempt as it affects prejudicial publicity. Journalists are well aware of those things, and it is in order to assist
534
further that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General will issue the consultation guidance. We do not believe that it will have a negative impact—we believe that it will be helpful. At the end of the day, courts will still have to take into account what has happened, how it happened, and whether they believe the matter falls within or without serious misconduct.
If there is further and other information that I can give about the consultation, I am happy to offer to write to noble Lords about the issue.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his support because we are dealing here with a major new power. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has put his finger on an important aspect—that somewhere in the legislation there should be some preconditions for that power to be exercised. Although the Minister has rightly said that the Attorney-General will be giving guidance, I believe that this House should give him some guidance on the circumstances in which that new power could be exercised—particularly as it has caused such concern amongst those who have to report court proceedings. In those circumstances I wish to test the opinion of the House.
5.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 120: Not-Contents, 125.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Fearn, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Fookes, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Fowler, L.

Astor, V.

Freeman, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Avebury, L.

Geddes, L.

Barker, B.

Geraint, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Biffen, L.

Goodhart, L.

Blatch, B.

Gray of Conlin, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Greenway, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hamwee. B.

Brittan of Spennithome, L.

Hanham, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Bruce of Donington. L.

Henley, L.

Buscombe, B.

Hooper, B.

Byford, B.

Howe, E.

Caithness, E.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Howe of Idlicote. B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Chadlington, L.

Jacobs, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Colwyn, L.

Jopling, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Kilclooney, L.

Craigavon, V.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Lane of Horsell. L.

Denham, L.

Liverpool, E.

Dixon-Smith. L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Luke, L.

Elton, L.

Lyell, L.

535

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Roper, L.

McNally, L.

Russell, E.

Maddock, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Mar, C.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Sandberg, L.

Marlesford, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Selsdon, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Montrose, D.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Stewartby, L.

Newby, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Noakes, B.

Swinfen, L.

Northover, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Tordoff, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Trefgame, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Trumpington, B.

Onslow, E.

Vivian, L.

Palmer, L.

Waddington, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Wakeham, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Walmsley, B.

Rawlings, B.

Wilcox, B.

Rennard, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Renton, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Filkin, L.

Ahmed. L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Alli, L.

Gale, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Andrews, B.

Gilbert, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Golding, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Bach, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Barnett, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L. [Teller]

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Berkeley, L.

Greengross, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Blackstone, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Blood, B.

Harrison, L.

Borrie, L.

Haskel, L.

Bragg, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Brennan, L.

Hogg of Cumbemauld, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Brookman, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hoyle, L.

Carter, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Christopher, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Hylton, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hylton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Jones, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Jordan, L.

Crawley, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

David, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Lipsey, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Desai, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dixon, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Dubs, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Eatwell. L.

Mallalieu, B.

Elder, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Mitchell, L.

Morgan, L.

536

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Rooker, L.

Moms of Aberavon, L.

Sawyer, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Nicol, B.

Sheldon, L.

Parekh, L.

Simon, V.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Smith of Leigh. L.

Paul, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Pendry, L.

Symons of Vemham Dean. B.

Peston, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Thornton, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Puttnam, L.

Varley, L.

Radice, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Whitaker, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Whiny, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Richard, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.40 p.m.
Clause 98 [Periodical payments]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 23:
Page 49, line 41, at end insert—
"(8) An order for periodical payments shall be treated as providing for the amount of payments to vary by reference to the retail prices index (within the meaning of section 833(2) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (c. 1)) at such times, and in such a manner, as may be determined by or in accordance with Civil Procedure Rules.
(9) But an order for periodical payments may include provision—

(a) disapplying subsection (8), or

(b) modifying the effect of subsection (8)."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 23 has been brought forward in response to an amendment tabled at Report stage by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I am aware that the issue of indexation has been a cause of concern and I hope that this amendment is able to offer some reassurance. In moving the amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 24, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral.
At Report stage, I explained that we did not think a provision to make explicit the court's power to index link periodical payments was necessary but agreed that such a provision might act as a useful guide to the courts and parties. Amendment No. 23 therefore provides that periodical payments orders shall be treated as providing for the amount of payments to vary by reference to the retail prices index. We expect that, as now, periodical payments will be linked to the retail prices index in the great majority of cases. However, subsection (9) preserves the court's existing power to make different provision where the court considers it appropriate in the circumstances.
I emphasise that the amendment is merely intended to reflect the current posit ion in respect of indexation. The Bill addresses how payments of personal injury compensation are to be made. It does not seek to deal with how such claims are to be valued. As I said, we expect that the retail prices index will continue to be

537
the norm and that the court will depart from it only where the particular circumstances of the case make it appropriate.
That position is parallel with that of the discount rate, which effectively incorporates the retail prices index in calculating the future loss element of lump sums. I am mindful of the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in 2001 when setting the discount rate using his powers under Section 1 of the Damages Act 1996. In his reasons, the Lord Chancellor emphasised the need for certainty for all parties while noting that it would remain open for the courts, under Section I (2), to adopt a different rate in a particular case if there were exceptional circumstances which justified their doing so. That view has since been supported by the Court of Appeal. We would expect the courts to adopt the same approach in the analogous case of periodical payments when considering whether to exercise their discretion under subsection (9). On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will be reassured about the effect of subsection (9) and will not press his amendment. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirralhad given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 23, Amendment No. 24:
Line 7, after "may" insert "in exceptional circumstances or by agreement between the parties"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to these amendments I very much welcome the Minister's comments. I was not able to respond to her previous comments, at Report stage, because I had already spoken. However, I did point out on that occasion my concern that people outside this House were beginning to think about trying to run arguments for higher indexation of future loss claims in a number of claims for lump sum payments. The effect of those arguments would be to seek to undermine the force of the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in 2001 when he fixed the discount rate at 2.5 per cent. I believe, however, that the Minister has now firmly closed that door. That will no doubt be a great relief to those facing such arguments, including the National Health Service.
As the Minister rightly emphasised, the purpose of these clauses is to introduce a new method of payment in personal injury claims. That is broadly to be welcomed. The overall effect of the Damages Act will now be to give a consistent definition for both the method of payment and the way in which claims for future loss are to be valued. By making it clear that in both respects the provisions apply to all save exceptional cases, the Minister has brought welcome certainty for all the parties involved. There will, I am sure, be no justification for satellite litigation on the meaning of subsection (9). In those circumstances, I feel able not to move the consequential amendment standing in my name.
[Amendment No. 24, as an amendment to Amendment No. 23, not moved.]
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. Amendment No. 23, as she said, takes up a point I raised at an earlier stage in the Bill. I am glad that the Government have accepted the argument for putting in a reference to the retail prices index. I also accept that a substantial element of flexibility should be available to the courts here. Therefore, although the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, is not intending to press Amendment No. 24, had it been in issue I would have preferred the version put forward by the Government as it stands now rather than as amended. I am very pleased with what the Government have done on this occasion.
On Question, Amendment No. 23 agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 25:
Page 50, line 9, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords. Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 make provision about the bankruptcy treatment of periodical payments. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for raising this issue in Committee. I hope that these amendments meet his concerns. I say without hesitation that it was right that he highlighted the issue; it might not otherwise have been given the attention it deserves. I genuinely thank him for that.
The amendments are based on the principle that I outlined in Committee. We believe that the bankruptcy treatment of periodical payments should strike a balance which recognises that payments for care costs should be protected but does not otherwise give those in receipt of periodical payments preferential treatment over bankrupts who are not in receipt of personal injury damages.
As I explained, at present the treatment of periodical payments in bankruptcy depends on whether periodical payments are considered to be in the nature of "property" or "income" for the purposes of the Insolvency Act 1986. If they are considered to be property, they would vest in the trustee in bankruptcy, but any personal element would be held on constructive trust for the bankrupt. If they are considered to he income, Section 310 of the Insolvency Act 1986 provides that income received after the date of bankruptcy may be claimed for the bankrupt's estate by way of an income payments order.
Amendment No. 26 prescribes that periodical payments for future pecuniary loss are to be treated as income. However, it also provides that payments made for expenditure incurred as a result of the personal injury—that is, for care and medical costs—cannot be claimed for the bankrupt's estate by an income payments order. An income payments order can still be made and put in place where necessary in respect of payments for other purposes. This ensures that periodical payments relating to loss of earnings are treated in the same way as the earnings of a bankrupt who has not suffered a personal injury.

539
The new subsection (4)(h) provides that the right to receive periodical payments and any arrangement designed to protect their continuity cannot form part of the bankrupt's estate. This ensures that the right to payments and any annuity used to fund them cannot be sold or disposed of for the benefit of the bankrupt's creditors.
Amendment No. 25 is a consequential amendment deleting the existing reference to insolvency law in Clause 98. I hope that these amendments will answer the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, raised in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am happy to say that these amendments entirely satisfy my concerns. I am very glad that they have now been inserted so that there is a provision that deals with the question of the bankruptcy of the claimant. I am entirely satisfied with the way this has been dealt with; that is, by treating this as income payments and excluding from an income payments order anything that is needed for the care and medical treatment of the claimant.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 99 [Periodical payments: security]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 26:
Page 53, line 38, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
"(4) Where an individual who has a right to receive periodical payments becomes bankrupt—

(a) the payments shall be treated for the purposes of the bankruptcy as income of the bankrupt (but without prejudice to section 329AA of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (c. 1)),

(b) neither the right to receive periodical payments, nor any property or arrangement designed to protect continuity of the periodical payments, shall form part of the bankrupt's estate for the purposes of the Insolvency Act 1986 (c. 45) or the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/2405 (NT 19)),

(c) an income payments order may not be made in respect of any part of the periodical payments identified (in the order or agreement under which the payments are made) as relating wholly to expenditure likely to be incurred by or for the individual as a result of the personal injury concerned,

(d) nothing in section 2 of the Damages Act 1996 (c. 48) shall present a court from making an income payments order (subject to paragraph (c)), and

(e) nothing in section 2 of that Act shall prevent entry into an income payments agreement.

(5) In subsection (4)—
"bankrupt" has the meaning given by section 381 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (c. 45) or Article 9 of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/2405 (N.I. 19)),
"income payments agreement" means an agreement under section 310A of that Act or equivalent legislation for Northern Ireland,
"income payments order" means an order under section 310 of that Act or equivalent legislation for Northern Ireland, and
"periodical payments" means periodical payments awarded or agreed, or in so far as awarded or agreed, as damages for future pecuniary loss by—
540

(a) an order of a court made in reliance on section 2 of the Damages Act 1996 (c. 48) (including an order as varied), or

(b) an agreement settling a claim or action for damages in respect of personal injury (including an agreement as varied).

(6) In this section—

(a) subsections (1) to (3) shall extend to the whole of the United Kingdom, and

(b) subsections (4) and (5) shall extend only to England and Wales and Northern Ireland."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Constitution and procedure of courts boards]:
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Schedule 3 [Collection of fines by fines officers]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 28:
Page 68, line 32, after "date" insert "of the delivery to him"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 28 I speak to Amendments Nos. 29, 30, 31 and 34 and also Amendments Nos. 33 and 35, which are in a different group but which I believe would be better taken in a single group.
Under Schedule 3 to the Bill various provisions are included for giving notice to the defendant about a decision. These relate to the various provisions for giving notice of things such as the increase of fines. The defendant is given 10 working days from the date of decision in which to appeal.
There are two things wrong with that. First, the 10-day period should run from the date when the notice is received, not from the date of the decision.
As I pointed out on Report, 10 days from the date of the decision may mean no more than seven days from the date when the defendant sees the notice, even if the defendant is living at home. The reason is that one has to take into account the fact that the decision—even if it is sent by first class post—may not be delivered the next working day, particularly if it is posted at the end of office hours. Also, the defendant may—and in many cases does—leave home for work before the post is delivered.
Amendments Nos. 28 to 31 cover this particular aspect and Amendment No. 34 is supplemental to them because it says that regulations can include presumptions about the date of service. Such presumptions are usually found in regulations providing for notices. The defendant should have the full two-week period—represented by 10 working days from receipt of the notice—in order to appeal against an order.
Secondly, there is no power on the face of the Bill to extend the 10-day period in which the appeal may be made. Without such a power, the period cannot be extended however justifiable the excuse for failure to act on the notice and whatever hardship may be caused. For example, a defendant may lose the right to challenge a substantial increase in the fine following default when the 10-day period expires.

541
The Government say that if pilot schemes show there is a problem, the Government can use the powers to modify the Bill following those pilots. I accept that is a possibility. However, the absence of the power for a magistrates' court to extend the time beyond the short period of 10 days, is such an obvious potential cause of hardship that the Bill should be amended now. We should not have to wait and see whether the Government decide to take appropriate steps. I believe this is a potential cause of real and serious hardship. I beg to move.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has expressed our views completely. We support these amendments most strongly.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I appreciate the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has raised. I will try to make a full response because I think the concerns that the noble Lord has mentioned may be reflected outside this House. Therefore, it would be important for those who read the debate to understand the basis on which the Government seek to assuage those fears and concerns.
Amendments Nos. 28, 29, 30 and 31 stipulate that the 10 working days allowed for the sender to lodge an appeal against the fines officer's decision should begin on the date of delivery of that notice to the offender.
Amendments Nos. 33 and 35 would effectively remove any time limit for appeals against the fines officer's decision. Amendment No. 34 requires regulations to state when a notice can be deemed to be delivered.
As I said on Report, I understand the concerns of the noble Lord and noble Baroness over the issue of time allowed for appeals. I have considered very carefully the points made on Report. However, I again resist these amendments.
First, I will address Amendment No. 34 and the definition of "deemed to be delivered". If we rely on the ordinary postal service, there will be no proof of delivery. Recorded delivery and registered delivery are costly and time-consuming procedures. They give no guarantees that defendants will be in the house to accept their post or even that defendants will accept the delivery when presented with a court letter. If I may respectfully say so, it would be dangerous to provide offenders with the excuse that they have not received a notice if that is because they did not sign for it or did not admit their identity to the postal employee making the delivery. There is no legal compulsion on them to do so. The only practical way the date of delivery could be deemed in regulations is by allowing a reasonable number of days for postal service. To deem that a notice is delivered within, say, two days is essentially the same as having those two days plus 10 working days to lodge an appeal. That is basically allowing 12 days for appeal.
The Government believe that one time limit, taking into account postal factors, is a more sensible approach. The time limit needs to strike a balance
542
between making it clear to offenders that fulfilment of their obligation to the court is an urgent matter and avoiding setting deadlines that are impracticable. We consider that 10 working days—that is two weeks plus allowance for public holidays outside the weekend—is a reasonable balance to begin with.
As I said in previous debates, the period will be piloted alongside other measures in the fines collection scheme. If the time limit of 10 working days is regarded to be too short a time, then this time limit can be extended before national roll-out.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 28, 29, 30 and 31. The matter of when the 10-day time limit should start was the other issue that the noble Lord raised. It would be unwise to accept the offender's word as to the date of delivery, and it is highly unlikely that offenders will let the court know when the letter has been delivered. However, the date that the letter is posted will be known and can be used as a valid start point for setting deadlines.
I should make it clear that the letters and notices to inform the offender about the right to appeal will not state "within 10 working days", as that would undoubtedly lead to confusion. The letters will clearly state a date by which any intended appeal against the decision specified in the same letter must be lodged. Guidance will also be given to fines officers about post-dating the notices. For example, a notice that is typed on Friday afternoon and will not be collected in the post until Monday can have Monday's date. Therefore, there will be a 10-day time limit from Monday, thereby ensuring that time is not wasted, with notices sitting in out-trays or post-rooms. The fines officer will also use discretion to post-date letters and notices due to local circumstances such as local postal strikes.
We must keep in focus the fact that appeals lodged will be against the enforcement action taken to collect the financial penalty, not against the sentence—the fine itself. An offender, even if successful in an appeal against a fines officer's decision, will still be liable to pay the fine. I should also point out that the fines collection and the sanctions available upon default will be made clear to the offender from the outset. None of the notices of increase or further sanctions will come as a surprise.
Two of the three opportunities that the fines officer has to make discretionary decisions are at the point at which the offender applies for a variation. It is intended that meetings to discuss such variations will be in person. That means that the offender will be given a decision there and then. If the fines officer refuses to vary the payment terms, the offender can lodge an appeal on the spot, if he so wishes. The number of appeals against a refusal to vary is, in any case, likely to be small. The court would have set the initial payment rate. If the offender could not prove the circumstances that warranted a variation to the fines officer, it is unlikely that, on the basis of the same evidence, the court that set the original rate will vary either. The third opportunity for the offender to appeal is on the decision that the fines officer can make in respect of further

543
sanctions. To have reached that stage in the scheme, the offender must have defaulted twice and would have shown a "won't pay" attitude.
I must address the example that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, gave on Report of offenders who are away on holiday when the further steps notice arrives. Perhaps the noble Lord was thinking more of those who had gone away to visit relatives or for some other purpose, as offenders who can afford to go on holiday should not have any problem in paying the fine. Offenders would have gone away, for any reason, in the knowledge that they had a fine to pay and knowing the consequences of non-payment. If those offenders were willing to pay, contact could have been made with the fines officer prior to going away, and arrangements could be made to overpay in advance to cover the weeks away. Direct payments to the court could be set up or other arrangements made for the time that they will be away. Offenders who go away and receive a further steps notice out of appeal time will have been defaulters before they went away and will have been warned on more than one occasion of the process of further sanctions.
To be at the point of a further steps notice, people will have a financial penalty to pay as a result of a criminal offence and will have avoided payment. That is the stage that they would have got to. The fines officer's decision ought to come as no surprise to the offender. Any appeal would only delay the inevitable payment of the fine, and any sanction or decision by the fines officer can be avoided by the paying of the money owed to the court. An offender who had the use of a vehicle would be likely to use it to go away, and it is not envisaged that those asked to clamp vehicles following service of the appropriate notices would pursue such matters across the country. The offender would, in fact, find the matter waiting to be resolved on his return.
No hardship will be imposed. As long as the payments according to the payments schedule are made, the increase will be disapplied. We have covered the issue of having two clear working days, about which the noble Lord expressed concern.
I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that we have thought carefully about the procedure. The procedure covers the position well and will not create any injustice to the person who has had a fine imposed and wishes to pay but has difficulty with the payment. For those who do not wish to pay or wish to avoid payment in its entirety, it will be an impediment. So be it.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am disappointed by the line that the noble Baroness has taken. I accept entirely that there are people who deliberately choose to frustrate attempts to make them pay fines that they can afford to pay. However, there are also people who are fined and are desperately juggling with competing debts. They must pay the debt, but there may be real
544
problems, and it is essential that they have a right to take their case on appeal so that it can be considered, to see whether there is justification for altering the terms of payment.
I was also surprised by the reaction of the noble Baroness on the question of changing the time from the time of the decision to the time of the receipt of notice. There are two aspects, in particular, that I shall point out. First, the statute requires that:
"A decision of the fines officer under this paragraph"—
there are various paragraphs in the same form—
"must be in writing, dated and delivered to P".
I was distinctly surprised by the suggestion that the fines officer or whoever it is might deliberately put a false date on the notice, simply to give an extension of time, if there were, for example, a postal strike. It would be improper to have that in the Bill. arid any fines officer would be advised not to do it.
The other point is that it is apparent from the schedule that there must be a delivery. I do not see how, if there is no delivery, the notice can be valid. The Bill says that the notice must be signed, dated and delivered. The problem is the time that the delivery may take. Under the Bill, it is still open to the defaulter to say that the notice was never delivered. That element of the argument was misconceived.
My other point is, perhaps, more important—more important than simply saying that the 10-day extension should be de facto increased to 12. It is vital that there be some power to extend. I would be content if the Government chose to put in a form of words that made it clear that good cause must he shown before an extension was granted. That is implied in my amendment and I would have no objection to making it express. It is not intended to be, and I believe that it is not, a charter for the indefinite delaying of hearings about fines. I disagree with what the noble Baroness said. I feel strongly on this issue and therefore ask for the opinion of the House.
6.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment ( No. 28) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 127.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller]

Maddock, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Methuen, L.

Barker, B.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Clement-Jones, L. Fears, L.

Newby, L.

Geraint, L.

Northover, B.

Goodhart, L. [Teller]

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay. L.

Hamwee, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Jacobs, L.

Rennard. L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank. L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Roper, L.

McNally, L.

Russell, E.

Sandberg, L.

545

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Tordoff, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Walmsley, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Alli, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Hylton, L.

Andrews, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jones, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Jordan, L.

Bach, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Barnett, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L. [Teller]

Lipsey, L.

Berkeley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Bhatia, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Bragg, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Brennan, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brookman, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Mitchell, L.

Carter, L.

Morgan, L.

Christopher, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Nicol, B.

Crawley, B.

Palmer, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Parekh, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Paul, L.

Desai, L.

Pendry, L.

Dixon, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dubs, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Eatwell, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Elder, L.

Puttnam, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Richard, L.

Filkin, L.

Rooker, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gale, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Sawyer, L.

Gilbert, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Golding, B.

Sheldon, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Simon, V.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Goudie, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sutherland of Houndwood, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B.

Greenway, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Thornton, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Harrison, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Varley, L.

Hogg of Cumbemauld, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Whitaker, B.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Whitty, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.21 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 29 to 35 not moved.]
Schedule 7 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 36:
Page 92, line 40, after "Wales" insert "within 12 nautical miles of the coast"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 37. I tabled the amendments to clarify uncertainties that were raised as a result of comments made on Report. when the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, moved a group of 128 government amendments in one block. The House was not given an explanation of the individual amendments at that stage. The Minister said that they were minor and consequential and that there had been careful checking. However, with his usual admirable candour, he went on to add:
"No doubt we shall find things that we should prefer not to find at some stage".—[Officia/ Report, 12/5/03; col. 79.]
That is the problem. The House then debated at some length the lack of information given by the Minister and objected without success to the first amendment in the group being made.
I should like to put it on the record that objections voiced from these Benches at that stage were in no way a criticism of the draftsmen and draftswomen who prepared the Bill. We recognise two factors. First, as we had anticipated, the Bill was introduced a little earlier in the Government's timetable than they had originally expected, so it was perhaps not as perfect as they had hoped it would be. More particularly, many of the changes in drafting that have occurred since December have come about as a result of the Government listening to the arguments put by noble Lords. They have responded with significant amendments and we are grateful for that.
The question that I raised on Report concerned the Behring Sea Award Act. I raise such questions every time I am asked to consider amendments that affect territorial waters or the boundaries between the waters off England and Scotland. My interest arises because of my Private Member's Bill and the Crime (International Cooperation) Bill. I cannot imagine the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, doing the same when it comes to the Criminal Justice Bill. However, with 90 or so amendments from the Scottish Law Society in the pipeline, who knows what will happen?
I remarked on Report (at col. 81 of the Official Report) that if the Minister was not able to answer my query, I would give him the opportunity to do so at Third Reading. I simply wanted to know what the boundaries were under the terms of the amendments that he tabled.
I should perhaps say something about my amendments, as I complained on Report that the Minister did not say anything about his. Amendment No. 36 defines the waters which the ship is in as within 12 nautical miles of the coast. Amendment No. 37 provides that the extent to which the coast may project into the designated waters should be defined by statutory instrument.

547
The amendments are rough and ready tools, but they have had the required effect, because since the Report stage the Courts Bill manager, Martin Jones, has written to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, on these matters and has sent a copy of the letter to me. Mr Jones states that the government amendment does not alter or affect the jurisdiction of ships that is already provided for in the Behring Sea Award Act. He also says that the amendment ensures that any offences committed on a ship lying off the coast can be dealt with by the court whose district includes or abuts the coast. He goes on to say that the amendment was drafted in pursuance of the policy of giving magistrates' courts national jurisdiction, but that it does nothing to alter the jurisdiction of the British Isles.
I am grateful to Mr Jones for giving the assurance that Scotland and Northern Ireland were consulted and copied in respect of changes to this Act and for any amendments to provisions in Acts that touched on their jurisdiction. If the Minister can confirm that this is the Government's position, then I will be able to thank him and withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am beginning slightly to regret my attention being drawn to the Behring Sea Award Act 1894. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me the opportunity to confirm the words that she read from the official's letter. We are happy to confirm that that is our understanding of the position on jurisdictions.
Jurisdiction over offences committed on foreign or British ships lying off the coast within British territorial waters is, as I am sure the noble Baroness knows much better than me, governed by the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act 1878. Therefore, the proposed amendments would allow the altering of the jurisdiction as set out in the Behring Sea Award Act and infringe on the jurisdiction covered by the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act 1878.
Perhaps the noble Baroness has been misled by the reproduction of Section 521 of the Behring Sea Award Act 1894. The current section is in keeping with much of the legislation passed at that time in that it is in one sentence. The provision has been reproduced to make it easier to read. The words used in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the government amendment replicate the words in Section 521 of the 1894 Act, the only alterations being to remove the local limitations of a court.
I assure the noble Baroness that the government amendment only removes the local limit of courts in which offences on ships can be tried. It would not be appropriate for us to amend that Act any further with this Bill. I hope that with that assurance, the noble Baroness will happily withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved]
An amendment (privilege) made.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I pay tribute to the Minister of State. She has had an tremendous task, which she has performed with devoted care, and she has carefully listened to what has been said in all parts of the House. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Anelay, who is not a lawyer, but who has shown great skill and understanding. We owe much to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who has shown great initiative and played a valuable part. This is a historic Bill, which makes a major change in our legal system. It transfers the supervision of our magistrates' courts from the Home Secretary—I spent four and a half years in the Home Office with some responsibility for this matter—to the Lord Chancellor, and wisely so. I said on Report that there had been such enormous changes by the Government at that stage—there have been more at this stage—that we should be given a little more freedom at Third Reading than we generally have. However, I understand that there is anxiety to pass the Bill as soon as possible so that it may go to another place. I shall not therefore say any more.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I join the noble Lord. Lord Renton, in thanking the Minister. She handled the Bill with great skill, effectiveness and care. I am grateful that the Government listened on a number of issues. The Bill leaves this House a better Bill than when it arrived.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am going to risk the wrath of the usual channels because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, asked us not to offer congratulations at this stage, but who could resist? I agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about the approach of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, who was assisted by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. Substantial changes have been made to improve the Bill. When it goes to another place, it will still have a job to do. I look forward to reading the deliberations in another place.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, none of this could have been achieved without my noble friends on the Benches opposite, including the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. It has been a great pleasure to work with such industry coming from all sides of the House. The Bill goes to another place in a better order. It speaks highly of this House that the work has been done with such good feeling and in comity.
On Question, Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Sexual Offences Bill [H.L.]
6.32 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 (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne) in the Chair.]
Clause 66 [Committing an offence with intent to commit a sexual offence]:
Lord Astor of Hevermoved Amendment No. 332:
Page 30, line 9, leave out "any offence" and insert "an offence of assault. kidnapping or false imprisonment"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 332 is a probing amendment, which seeks to clarify an important point in Clause 66. For cases such as abduction and assault, the clause is eminently sensible. It closes a loophole in the Bill to cover those sexual offences that were never actually committed but where it was obvious that they were intended and where the victim will clearly have suffered a very traumatic experience as a result of the preparatory offence.
Amendment No. 332, however, seeks to limit and define those preparatory offences that the clause is intended to target. We have suggested,
"assault, kidnapping or false imprisonment,"
but that is by no means set in stone and a healthy debate may flag up additional preparatory offences that it would be advisable to include. There is, for instance, a ready made list in Schedule 3 of offences that might incur a risk of sexual harm order. Why not adapt that to suit Clause 66 or create a new schedule of offences specifically for Clause 66? It seems absurd to say that any offence could be a preparatory offence as defined in Clause 66. The clause is clearly designed to target only the most serious offences and that should be made clear on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I want to ask about the restrictive nature of Amendment No. 332. As I understand it, Clause 66 is designed to punish those who commit an offence in order to facilitate them in the commission of a sexual offence. A person may break into a person's house, he may steal their keys to do so, he may even break into their car and lie in wait in the hack seat, or he may unlawfully detain them in a flat. He may assault them to subdue them. However, if he does not succeed in committing a sexual offence after any of those, he can still be charged under Clause 66, whereas under the amendment he would not be able to be charged.
Amendment No. 332 would allow Clause 66 to apply only where the prior offence, as I have just described, is,
"assault. kidnapping or false imprisonment".
550
That would remove protection from the person who finds, for example, a would-be sex attacker in their home. In any event, the amendment conflicts with subsection (3), which imposes a higher penalty where there is a kidnapping or enforced imprisonment.
Is my reading of the clause right, and is my reading of the amendment right? If so, the Government have got Clause 66 right.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, for giving us an opportunity to describe the policy behind the offence in Clause 66 and that in Clause 67, which is entitled:
"Trespass with intent to commit a sexual offence".
The policy behind both offences is that we want to ensure that those who show that they have a tendency to commit sexual offences are recognised as sex offenders and treated accordingly.
In the main, those seeking to perpetrate a sexual crime who are prevented from doing so by outside forces—such as the intervention of another individual or hearing the police arrive—are currently charged with any criminal act that is perpetrated only as a precursor to the intended sex offence. That is because, with the exception of a few "with intent" offences in the Sexual Offences Act 1956—an example is abduction with intent to have unlawful sexual intercourse the law provides for a defendant to he regarded as a sex offender only if he is found guilty of an attempted sexual offence. The law on attempts requires that any action is more then merely preparatory to the offence. That means that in cases where the intended sex offence is thwarted at an early stage, the sexual motivation of the offender may not be reflected in any charges brought.
That misses the opportunity to identify and treat those who are inclined towards sexual offending and who might very well go on actually to commit sex offences in the future. We do not feel that that provides either maximum protection or justice for victims of would-be sex offenders. Early identification, punishment, assessment and treatment of actual and potential sex offenders is a key element in the protection of the public from sexual abuse and exploitation and is an important step in securing justice for victims. Therefore, in the interests of offenders and victims, our intention is to frame the criminal law in such a way that it ensures that sex offenders are identified and sentenced accordingly, are offered places on appropriate sex offender treatment programmes whilst in detention and are monitored after release.
The offence that we are introducing in Clause 66 will enable the law to deal effectively and appropriately with anyone who commits any crime with the intention of subsequently carrying out a sexual offence. The approach that we have taken is that the specific nature of the preliminary offence is irrelevant. The important factor is that the defendant is carrying out another crime in preparation for committing a sexual offence. The offence at Clause 66 applies whether the intended sexual offence is a substantive offence or an offence of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring such an offence and it can be charged whether or not the sexual offence is committed. For example, the offence would apply where

551
a person kidnaps someone in order to rape him or her but is caught by the police before he is able to carry out the intended rape. It would also apply where a person detains someone in their flat with the intention of raping or sexually assaulting him, or where someone physically assaults a victim in order to subdue him so that he can more easily carry out the offence of rape.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, Amendment No. 332, which I fully accept is a probing amendment, would have the effect of restricting the offence at Clause 66 so that it covers only those situations where the defendant commits an assault with intent, kidnaps with intent or falsely imprisons someone with intent to commit a sexual offence. I realise that, taken together with the offence of "trespass with intent" at Clause 67, this would provide offences that broadly reflect the recommendations in Setting the Boundaries.
I agree that these are particularly heinous crimes and that they should be incorporated within the scope of the new offence, but I do not believe that restricting the offence so that it covers only those particular offences does enough to achieve the policy objectives I have outlined.
The important fact that needs to be recognised in law, regardless of the nature of the preparatory offence committed by the defendant, is the intention to commit a sexual offence. In such cases it must be recognised that the substantive offence would have taken place had the attacker not been intercepted or prevented in some way from carrying out his intent. The trauma suffered by victims in cases where the attacker clearly intends to commit a sex offence is directly comparable to that suffered by victims of actual sex offences.
Having an offence that brings any other offence within its scope will enable us to treat as a sex offender someone who, for example, neglects a child by withholding food and drink or medical care with the intention of weakening his resistance so that he can sexually abuse the child, or who commits another lesser sexual offence—such as indecent exposure—in order to frighten a victim before raping or sexually assaulting him. We would also be able to catch the defendant who, for example, stalks his victim, waiting for an opportunity to attack.
We firmly believe that anyone who commits another offence as a precursor to an intended sexual offence should be recognised under the law as a sex offender. He should be sentenced as such—that picks up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—and he should, depending on the seriousness of the case, be liable for registration on the sex offenders register and eligible for treatment under a sex offender treatment programme.
To fail to recognise the sexual element of preparatory offences would not provide justice for victims and would miss the opportunity to ensure the proper treatment of the offender. So, in accepting that
552
it was a probing amendment, I hope that the noble Lord will take the opportunity to read what I have said and reconsider his position before Report.
Lord Hylton: I believe that the Government's intention with regard to Clauses 66 and 67 is good, but how will the intentions of the offender be discovered unless he admits it? For instance, trespass or break ingin could be done for the purpose of burglary, although someone inside the premises could be a potential victim of a sexual offence. The matter is a little unclear.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It would be impossible for me to identify in every case how the intention has to be proved; but proved it must be. It could be proved, for example, by confession, by conversations with third parties before the event or by the equipment that the defendant brings with him. It could be proved in a whole variety of ways. I t would be wrong for me to commit myself to that. It is not uncommon in the law that a particular intention has to be proved. It will depend upon the facts in every case. It must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. But there needs to be evidence.
Lord Astor of Hever: As the noble and learned Lord says, this was a probing amendment. We did not intend it to be restrictive. I think this has been a useful debate. I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed clarification of the Government's thinking behind Clause 66. 1 beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 333 not moved.]
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clause 67 [Trespass with intent to commit a sexual offence]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 333A:
Page 30, line 24, leave out subsection (1) and insert"( I) A person commits an offence if—

(a) he is a trespasser on any premises,

(b) he intends to commit a relevant sexual offence on the premises, and

(c) he knows that, or is reckless as to whether, he is a trespasser."

The noble and learned Lord said: As I have indicated, our policy on the offence of trespass with intent to commit a sexual offence has always been that anyone who trespasses with the intention of committing a sexual offence in the place where he is a trespasser should be guilty of a sexual offence. That has not changed.
Amendments Nos. 333A and 333B, which are both government amendments, are designed to make sure that the wording of the offence at Clause 67 gives effect to that policy objective.
As currently drafted, the offence places a focus on the point in time when someone technically becomes a trespasser on the land where he intends to commit the sexual offence. That means that the prosecution would

553
be required to prove that the defendant intended to commit a sexual offence at the point in time when he enters the structure or land as a trespasser.
We think that that could lead to arguments in court about the concept of entry and the point in time when it occurs. Proving that the defendant had a sexual intent at the specific point of entry as a trespasser would create unintended difficulties for the prosecution and could make it difficult to secure any convictions.
The other possible problem with the current version of Clause 67 is that it does not make it clear that the person who trespasses must have an intention to commit a sexual offence in the place where he is trespassing.
Our amendments will remedy both problems. The offence will be committed where the person is a trespasser, on land or in a structure or part of a structure, and knows or is reckless as to whether he is a trespasser, and at some point in time while so trespassing, he has the intention to commit a sexual offence in that place. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: To a great extent, I found the original Bill a great deal clearer. In describing the effect of Amendments Nos. 333A and 333B , the noble and learned Lord suddenly talked about land. I am no lawyer, but does "premises" include a garden?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes.
Lord Lucas: Again, to clarify for non-lawyers, does the need to separate "premises" from "land" in this way result in something that is universal? In other words, there is nowhere that a person can go that he cannot commit this offence, unless he happens to own or have a right of entry to that particular premises or land? In other words, if a farmer is wandering on his own land and then sticks his nose in someone else's tent, is he a trespasser in that tent?
How do the two interlock? Why do we have to define "premises" in this way? I am sure that this results from my ignorance of how the law of trespass works. Are we leaving something out? Is there an intentional leaving out of some part of the world that would not be covered by either "premises" or "land"? Is there something in which a person might find himself which would not be either? If one is faced with a structure which is on land, to which one has a right of access—but the structure does not belong to one, as would be the case with a temporary structure—is one a trespasser if one enters that structure?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Noble Lords are perhaps overcomplicating the matter. "Premises" means going on to someone's land or buildings without permission. Going into someone's car is not going into someone's "premises". I do not think that going into someone's tent on one's own land counts as "premises". However, I shall write and confirm that. We have set out the matter clearly in the Bill. There is nothing
554
hidden, difficult or complicated about it. It is plainly intended to mean that if one goes on someone's land or into someone's building without permission, and the other elements are fulfilled, that is the offence we are trying to identify.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 333B:
Page 30, line 29, at end insert—
""premises" includes a structure or part of a structure;"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 334 not moved.]
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 68 [Sex with an adult relative: penetration]:
[Amendment No. 335 not moved.]
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 336:
Page 31, line 11, after "know" insert "and had no reason to believe"
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group. As my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford made clear in earlier amendments, we oppose a double reversal of the burden of proof. For example, in Clause 69 once the ingredients of the offence have been proved by the prosecution the burden shifts to the defendant to prove on a balance of probabilities that he did not know that he and the other party were related. If he succeeds, he may still be convicted if the prosecution then satisfies the jury, so that it is sure that the accused could reasonably have been expected to know. I find that confusing for a jury and dangerous. We adopt the approach of Clauses 33 to 42, where the burden throughout is on the prosecution to prove that the accused did know of the mental disorder or learning disability—or alternatively, that he could have reasonably been expected to know.
The amendment makes the matter simpler to understand and, save in the most exceptional circumstances, would produce the approach that the Government desire—that the knowledge of belief of the defendant must be reasonably based. We are forced to ask again why that approach seems necessary in cases involving sex with a relative. We are not looking for a particularly liberal approach but rather a consistent one. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: The principles behind the amendments have been debated many times. I reiterate the support that we have given in the past to the Liberal Democrat amendments. We find the arguments compelling.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I will not weary the Committee by repeating the arguments. We say that if the accused says that they did not know the victim was a relative, then the accused must prove it on the balance of probabilities. If the accused does prove it,

555
the prosecution must prove that it was unreasonable that the accused did not know. That does not cause much complication.
Lord Lucas: Which way would the verdict have fallen on Oedipus?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: We have debated this matter many times and I have discussed it with practitioners. I have not yet found anybody who considers that the Bill sensibly amends the law. It is confusing and will remain confusing. I hope that the Government will take that into account when we debate the matter again on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 337 and 338 not moved.]
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 [Sex with an adult relative: consenting to penetration]:
[Amendments Nos. 339 to 342 not moved.]
Clause 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Exposure]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): I am advised that I must call next Amendment No. 343A.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 343A:
Page 32, line 1, at end insert "and"
The noble and learned Lord said: The government amendments mean that the clause will cover a person who intentionally exposes his genitals in the knowledge or with the intention that somebody will see them and be alarmed or distressed. Being reckless as to whether alarm or distress will be caused will not be enough. As subsection (2) excluded recklessness with respect to behaviour within a dwelling, except when witnessed by children under 16, it is no longer needed.
A great deal of concern has been expressed, primarily by individual naturists and naturist organisations, that activities currently lawful might be criminalised. Although we believe those concerns to be unfounded, the Government propose to remove the lesser requirement of recklessness. I hope that will assuage such concerns.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I apologise for interrupting the Minister but Amendment No. 343A has been wrongly marshalled. It should follow Amendment No. 345. I apologise to the Committee. I thought that I had it right but did not. We move to Amendment No. 343.
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 343:
Page 32, line 1, leave out -genitals" and insert "penis"
The noble Baroness said: At the risk of generating more schoolboy humour in Private Eye, this is a probing amendment.
556
The report Setting the Boundaries recommended that the offence be drafted in terms of exposure of the penis. Little evidence was found of female exposure in public and it was felt that the existing Public Order Act offence was sufficient. Will the Minister say whether there is any reason, other than an excessive dose of political correctness, for the formulation of Clause 70 in a gender neutral way?
If the clause remains as drafted, will the Minister say precisely what constitutes "genitals" for the purposes of the Bill? According to my dictionary, "genitals" means the reproductive organs of men—especially the external organs. That is straightforward, which is why the amendment would replace "genitals" with "penis". Existing law is admirably clear, although it uses the rather quaint term "person". I invite the Minister to say what parts of the female body the Government intend to treat as being within Clause 70.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will specifically refer to female breasts. In Clause 71, breasts are specified separately from genitals—which tends to suggest that the draftsman believed that the latter does not include the former. When researching the matter at home using my husband's university textbooks—which I concede have been around a day or two—I found that the mammary glands, or breasts in common parlance, were classified as reproductive organs—and they are clearly external.
We will eventually reach government amendments to eliminate recklessness, which would overcome many of the problems with the clause if breasts were technically within it. There may still be an issue over whether exposure could cause alarm or distress. It is not absolutely clear that a woman breast feeding or sunbathing topless in public—thereby exposing her breasts would be beyond the scope of the clause. Those activities are not universally approved of and if breasts are included, will it be necessary for a woman first to ensure that no one is within sight whom she knows might be alarmed or distressed'? I emphasise that I am seeking clarity. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I know that my noble friend is trying to elicit clarification from the Government but if the amendment were accepted, it would prevent the offence being used against females who expose themselves. While that is uncommon, as my noble friend said, it is not unheard of. The amendment would unduly limit the law. It would be saying that the man and woman who paraded naked together in public could not be convicted of the same offence. Given that the Government are anxious that the Bill should be non-discriminatory, it would be strange to accept an amendment that discriminates between men and women.
The primary concern should be the protection of the public. A child may be as distressed by the sight of a naked woman in public as by a naked man. That child deserves to be protected. If Members of the Committee do not think that happens, there was a case in my area recently of a woman who deliberately exposed herself

557
in a large picture window overlooking a boys' playing field. That case was considered locally but offence was certainly given.
Restricting the offence to one particular part of the male anatomy leaves out the rest of the external male genitalia. There may be a technical issue about what is reproductive and what is not. Is it possible that a male flasher who is sufficiently careful could conceal part of his genitalia while exposing another part—thereby providing himself with a technical defence to a Clause 70 prosecution?
That might sound absurd, but we must remember that there are people out there for whom exposing themselves is an obsession. They spend time devising ways of exposing themselves and they present a menace to the public. If we are properly to address the problem and to improve on the current law against "exposing the person", which suffers from the same defect as this amendment, we must not legislate in ways that can be evaded.
This is a serious problem that must be tackled in a serious way. Indecent exposure or flashing in public is a serious public nuisance which causes great distress and alarm. The victims are often young women and children. It also appears to be frequent. Almost daily one hears of such cases. It does not take long to find examples. A trawl of local newspaper stories since the Bill was introduced on 28th January turned up over 50 reported cases of flashing in England and Wales.
On the very day the Bill was introduced a man indecently exposed himself to a 10 year-old girl on a train. It was reported in the Sheffield Star on 5th February, which stated:
"The 10-year-old remains scared to venture from her house … after a man flashed at her as she sat with her mum".
The article talks of the girl's continuing terror, which has resulted in time off school. We can have a schoolboy giggle about these matters, but for some people the experience is extremely distressing.
Indecent exposure ranges from the flasher waiting in park and woodlands to those who expose themselves in busy town centres. For example, on 2nd April a shopper indecently exposed himself to checkout girls while paying for groceries at a supermarket in Swindon. Last month, a young woman was flashed at while sitting in a Burger King in Walthamstow. These are all traceable examples. Another woman was indecently exposed to by a young man as she travelled on a bus to Kingston at 9.50 in the morning.
Such examples are the tip of the iceberg. They emphasise that there is a problem that the new law must address. We need to look at ways of strengthening the provision, not weakening it. I know that my noble friend Lady Noakes is looking for clarification from the Government about how it will work in practice. My only plea is that if a woman is guilty of this offence, she should be as guilty as a man would be because she causes equal distress.
7 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I seek clarification from the Minister. I always thought that the penis was part of the genitalia. If I am wrong, I stand corrected, but I thought that was the ordinary understanding of the matter. What on earth is the amendment about?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I appreciate that indecent exposure is characterised in people's minds as the flasher, commonly thought to be a male preserve. It is not beyond the bounds of the imagination to conceive of a situation where exposure of the female genitalia could be employed to alarm or distress someone. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, gave an example of the effect that might have on a young child. We do not think it right to make the provision apply only to men: therefore we do not think the amendment takes the right approach.
Female genitals do not refer to breasts, but to the external female genitalia. Male genitalia will include the penis, but it will also go beyond that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, mentioned. I believe that that answers all the questions raised.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that extremely brief reply. He asserted that the definition did not include breasts, but I do not think that that is absolutely clear. I shall take the matter away and, in the interests of progressing this evening, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): Before we come to Amendment No. 343A I have to advise the Committee that it was marshalled in the wrong place. I shall be calling it, but the next amendment we come to is Amendment No. 344.
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 344:
Page 32, line 1, at end insert "for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification"
The noble Baroness said: My concern in this part of the Bill has always been to protect naturists going about their perfectly harmless business and to prevent their falling foul of over-zealous police officers and magistrates. In that respect I greatly welcome government Amendments Nos. 343A and 348A. My amendment should also protect naturists from mischievous members of the public who might seek to use Clause 70 as a defence against accusations of voyeurism.
I do not practise naturism but I can certainly imagine its attractions. The human body is nothing to be ashamed of, and we must ensure that we are not over-prescriptive in what we allow people to do, either in private or in the company of other consenting, like-minded people. Exposing our skin to the sun and air is something we all like to do to a greater or lesser extent, especially when the sun shines and we are on a beach. It is estimated that there are about 1 million naturists in Britain. They enjoy swimming, walking, sports and

559
gardening while returning to the way they were born, unencumbered by clothing. In other parts of Europe there are many millions more.
There has been considerable concern among the naturist community about Clause 70. I am delighted that the Government have responded to it. Unless the Bill is amended, naturists run the risk of having their names added to the sex offenders' register and facing up to a two-year sentence. As one of them put it in a letter to me:
"There needs to be a clear distinction between those who enjoy nude recreation, which is harmless, and that which is unsuitable in any public place, even a beach on a hot day".
My amendment is simple and consistent with the wording in other parts of the Bill. The words,
"for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification",
appear elsewhere where there is a need to clarify that an offence is committed only when this caveat applies. Amendment No. 346 is not quite as clear. Adding the words, "the exposure is sexual," does not indicate the intention or mens rea of the person committing the exposure. Using those words in the Bill, an innocent activity could be interpreted by others as being sexual when it is not. I therefore prefer my own wording or that of the Minister to that proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: I welcome the Government's Amendments Nos. 343A and 348A, which are in this group. It shows that they have listened to the concerns expressed about Clause 70, in particular by naturists but also by artists' models. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, outlined naturists' concerns. I am sure that the Minister knows that many have taken the trouble to write to noble Lords who are taking part in the debates on the Bill. Naturists are a minority who intend no harm to others and simply want to be allowed to practise their way of life in a law-abiding way.
I am pleased that the Government have removed the element of recklessness from the offence, but I have a residual concern about Clause 70 as it will stand after the government amendments. Unlike the rest of the Bill, it does not deal with a sexual offence: it does not directly or indirectly refer to a sexual act. That partly lies behind the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
One could say that using the word "genitals" implies some form of sexual activity, but that cannot be the case as a matter of construction. That is why I tabled Amendment No. 346 to require the exposure to be sexual. I have not required the intention to be sexual, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, prefers: I am making sure that the act of exposure is in itself sexual. That problem may remain after the Government's amendments to remove the recklessness element.
I shall use the example of a naturist on Brighton's naturist beach to illustrate my concerns. By way of background, British Naturism commissioned a public opinion poll in 2001 that found that, although the vast majority regarded naturists as harmless, 2 per cent regarded their activities as criminal and 7 per cent thought them disgusting.
560
Let us consider the effect of the Bill after the Government's amendments for a naturist on the naturist beach in Brighton, which I am told exists. A naturist intentionally exposes his genitals; that is what naturism involves. He knows that someone will see them because, I understand, the naturist beach at Brighton is not especially well screened from the rest of the beach. He also knows that a person who sees them may well be caused distress, because the person may he one of the 7 per cent and the naturist knows that if one of them is there and sees his genitals, that person would be caused distress.
When we discussed the previous amendment, I raised the case in relation to women either breast-feeding or sunbathing nude. If breasts were included, the same question would arise of whether that activity, even if it could distress only a minority of people, would still fall under the clause, because it is not limited to sexual acts, unlike the rest of the Bill, which deals with sexual activity in one way or another.
So how can the Minister be sure that by removing recklessness, he has in effect produced the protection that is required, which could easily be achieved by including an amendment such as mine in the Bill?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the amendment; it is wholly essential. What happens if an elderly gentleman gets caught short in his motor car on the way home? First, he intentionally exposes his genitalia to spend a penny. Secondly, he knows that someone will see him, if he happens to be in an urban area. Thirdly, he knows not only that the person who sees him will be caused distress, but that he himself will be caused distress.
We must take on board the point made by my noble friend Lady Noakes: the intention must not be to expose one's genitalia when one gets out of a car to spend a penny; it must be in some sexual context. The amendment would save the old gentleman. I wholly support it and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will treat this rather jocular intervention somewhat seriously.
Lord Lucas: 1 have tabled three amendments in this group, although in fact I would be delighted if the Government were to accept the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which, I think, really deals with the problem at its heart.
We are here trying to deal with flashers—disgusting characters they are; I have come across them on too many occasions. We are not trying to deal with someone who for some other reason exposes his genitals. I would especially cite in this context the streaker. I do not want someone who streaks at a Lord's cricket match stuffed on the sex offenders' register. That is not a sexual offence; it may be due to a bit of alcohol and exuberance; but it has nothing whatever to do with intentionally offending the public.
If the Government do not want to pursue that route, there are other points that I wish to make and that are made by my amendments. First, I do not see that the law has or should have any part to play in what

561
happens in a person's private dwelling house, so I would like the words, "in a public place", inserted. Secondly, we should require that someone knows and intends that someone should be caused alarm and distress. There must be a guilty mind, an intention to cause distress. Just because your maiden aunt, whom you know shrieks at the sight of a naked ankle, happens to see you and you know that she happens to be around should not stop you sunbathing in the nude in your own garden if that is what you want to do. My third amendment does a bit of what the Government are doing, but more largely and successfully. I am delighted that they are doing it, but they have not gone far enough.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: I support my noble and learned friend's Amendments Nos. 343A and 348. I am delighted that he has paid attention to the letters that I know that all of us who have played a part in the Bill have received. Indeed, I must say that the naturists have conducted a superb campaign. They have made their points forcefully with superb individual letters. Few of us who have been on the receiving end can have received as large a post bag on many issues.
What is unfortunate is that they felt it necessary to do so in the first place. I know that others have said it at other stages, but I am bound to say that if the Bill had received proper pre-legislative scrutiny, we should not have alarmed a law-abiding group who, frankly, did not deserve to have to make the effort that they have to put right something that should have been made plain at the outset in even the most preliminary draft Bill.
That said, clearly we all accept that there is not only an offence but one that needs to be redefined. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has referred to the prevalence of that offence; in my experience both personally and at the Bar, those that are reported and prosecuted are only the tip of the iceberg. There can be few youngish women who have not at some stage had experience of it, often running into double figures.
Mostly, they ignore it, because it is a fact of life late at night, especially when women are on their own or travelling alone. It can sometimes be shrugged off and ignored or treated as a joke, especially in company; hut, equally, it can be extremely frightening late at night and extremely worrying for young people. It must be dealt with.
I hope that we will receive some guidance from my noble and learned friend. If I may say so, the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, about the elderly gentleman being caught short, is a defence which, as a member of the Bar, I have run on many occasions when defending people in such circumstances. It is very difficult to prove what is in the mind of the person accused of the offence.
I hope that the Government will state that, where there are instances of streakers, such as those referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, they do not intend to use the Bill to deal with such an offence. The clause
562
should be clearly aimed at people who cause distress late at night to women on their own or in circumstances in which they are away from others. I hope that my noble and learned friend can at least make that clear. I think that his amendments fit the bill, providing that he can assure us that they are intended to deal with those nuisances. After all, on the whole—I have not come across one exception to this—they are offences committed by inadequate men. That is the truth of it.
Baroness Blatch: Not for the first time, I fear, I find myself speaking alone on the Bill. The Government's new proposals for this offence are a retrograde step. They will radically weaken the protective element of the offence. I regret that.
I touched briefly on the scale of the problem of indecent exposure when I addressed Amendment No. 343, tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes. That is a serious problem that requires a serious law to address it. I was therefore keen to keep Clause 70 as drafted in the Bill.
Clause 70 is currently a good attempt to deal with that social nuisance and certainly could not be said to be casting its net too widely. It requires, first, evidence of intentional exposure of the genitals; secondly, an intention or knowledge that someone will see the exposure; and thirdly, an intention, knowledge or recklessness that it will cause alarm or distress. The example cited by my noble friend does not fall into any of those categories.
If anything, rather than being framed too widely, I am concerned that the "alarm or distress" test could be interpreted too narrowly by the courts. It is easy to imagine defence lawyers pushing the test of what is genuinely alarming or distressing to the margins by pseudo-sociological claims that the public is more tolerant of social nudity. We now find, however, that the Government are capitulating to pressure from nudists and making the test even harder. Whereas under the current wording a conviction can be secured where a person is "reckless" as to whether he causes alarm or distress by exposing his genitals. Amendments Nos. 343A and 348A raise the bar and require that he intended to cause alarm or distress, so causing alarm or distress would not be enough on its own.
Proving that intention may be extremely difficult. A man may stroll naked along the high street and enter a supermarket—it has been done—terrifying children and families as he goes, but if he can prove that he had no intention of causing alarm or distress he will be acquitted. Certainly government Ministers seem prepared to go a long way in defence of those who expose themselves in public.
In his evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on 29th April, Home Office Minister Hilary Benn made it clear that he did not wish to see this offence restricting the activities of naturists or activities such as the mass display of public nudity which took place just across the river at the opening of the new art gallery in County Hall. The White Paper which introduced this

563
Bill is entitled Protecting the Public, but here the emphasis seems to have shifted towards protecting those who wish to expose themselves in public. Mr Benn told the committee that,
"there is a world of difference between a streaker at a football match where it is quite hard to say that alarm or distress would be caused and somebody who exposes themselves to a woman when they are alone in a railway carriage".
I agree that there is a difference, but if the streaker runs in front of a stand containing dozens of schoolchildren or only yards from a young child and her mother at their first ever football match, should not they also be entitled to some protection? Interestingly, Mr Benn rejected calls for an amendment along the lines of Amendments Nos. 344 and 346, adding that a test of the exposure must be,
"for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification".
He stated:
"What matters and what should matter in relation to this offence is the alarm or distress that is caused to the individual rather than the particular motivation".
Surely that marks a great inconsistency in the Government's approach. On the one hand, a Home Office Minister says that the alarm or distress caused is the key factor. On the other hand, the Minister is today moving an amendment which requires proof, riot that alarm or distress was caused, but that the perpetrator intended to cause distress, a much more difficult test. Even if that was in fact alarm or distress, it will be a defence to say that it was not intentional. Presumably even a total lack of regard for whether anyone would be distressed is not enough, since that would be mere recklessness. In his evidence, the Minister volunteered the fact that the common law offence of outraging public decency would operate as a fallback if an incident of public nudity was not caught by Clause 70.
I shall speak briefly on the common law offence when we reach Clause 74. Suffice to say that it is a most unsatisfactory law with a very high test and a very low conviction rate. In practice, that means very low sentences. I am more concerned about where these government amendments will leave us.
There are people who claim to be quite serious about nudity as a form of political expression. They would argue that they had no intention of causing alarm or distress. An infamous example is that of Mr Vincent Bethell. According to one newspaper report, he had previously been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. It is clear that he is a man in need of help. He has been convicted repeatedly for stripping naked in public, something he claims to have done around 40 times, including in front of Parliament and Downing Street. He insists that it is all part of a campaign to urge people to get in touch with their humanity and to be less self-conscious about their bodies. Under the new wording, would Mr Bethell still be convicted? I think not.
Earlier this month, 160 people posed naked outside County Hall in the name of art. Under the new wording, it is difficult to imagine that the police could prove any intention whatever to cause alarm or distress on the part of those people. If scores of schoolchildren had been crossing Westminster Bridge
564
at the time and their teacher lodged a complaint with the police, would the new wording offer any protection? Again, I think not.
Then there are the naturists. On 8th April, the chairman of the Central Council for British Naturism gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee about Clause 70. He complained that, to some, naturism is,
"a very moral and proper way of life,"
He even went so far as to call it "a family activity". He said that he did not want naturists criminalised by the new offence and called for an amendment similar to the ones being proposed here.
When Mr Hilary Benn gave evidence to the same committee on 29th April, he said that Clause 70,
"is not in any way intending to criminalise naturists".
It is clear that these amendments are designed to give effect to that reassurance. But does he really mean that he does not wish "in any way" to criminalise naturists; that is, not in any circumstances? What if scores of them invade a public beach? What about those who cause the National Trust endless difficulties because they insist on exposing themselves on public land? Are the Government creating a kind of "nudists' charter"?
I shall comment briefly on the other amendments in the group. Amendment No. 349 deletes subsection (2). Although the Minister's name is not added to it, I assume he will adopt it since his own amendment, Amendment No. 348, does not make sense unless subsection (2) is removed.
Amendments Nos. 344 and 346 would also severely restrict the usefulness of Clause 70. Amendment No. 344 requires proof that the perpetrator intended to obtain sexual gratification from exposing himself. Amendment No. 346 similarly requires that "the exposure is sexual". Requiring proof that the perpetrator had a sexual motive could impose an impossible burden on prosecutors in many cases. Courts may have to deal with spurious claims from defendants that they were exposing themselves for reasons of art, culture, personal freedom or for other non-sexual purposes. The amendment would guarantee that people like Vincent Bethell could go naked wherever they liked without fear of conviction since they could easily adduce evidence, in the form of pamphlets and past speeches, that there was no sexual motive to their exposing themselves.
If someone is, as it were, a bona fide naturist with no sexual motive for exposing himself, these amendments would give him a legal right to stroll naked in public places. In some cases, proving a sexual motive will require a form of mind-reading since the only person able to give evidence of the defendant's intention is the defendant himself. Furthermore, those who do have a sexual motive for undressing in front of strangers could quite easily make a false claim that they were naturists. This would present prosecutors with the difficulty of disproving their claim.
The fact is that most victims of this kind of exposure will not care about the motive. If a mother with young children is confronted in a shopping arcade by a naked man, causing confusion, distress and fear to her

565
children, she will not care whether his motive was sexual. She will simply want to be able to tell her children that the police have arrested the man and that he will be punished for it.
Again, Amendment No. 345 would constitute an unnecessary restriction on the usefulness of this offence. It is a mistake to create a defence for the man who exposes himself somewhere which is not in itself a public place, but from where he can be seen by members of the public. For instance, would a man who stood naked in a shop window be able to escape prosecution under this amendment?
The effect of Amendment No. 347 would be to require proof that the defendant both "knows" and "intends" the consequences of his actions. This makes the mens rea for this offence more difficult to prove. Knowledge and intention are usually alternatives in criminal offences, the presence of either of which allow the court to conclude that there is a guilty mind. Confusingly, Amendment No. 348 appears to lessen the burden on prosecutors by deleting the requirement that there is knowledge or intention that his exposure will be seen.
As Members of the Committee will see, I have many concerns about these amendments. I have spoken at length deliberately because I think that the other side should be heard. I fear that the amendments would not improve the clause. Indeed, they risk substantially undermining its original effectiveness.
Lord Northbourne: I rise to say, with regret, how much I disagree with my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I am not a lawyer, but I rise to speak because I am rather bothered about the way this debate is going. Some of the examples that have been cited surely would be covered by public decency legislation, which I assume will not be altered by these amendments. I am a little perturbed, therefore, that we are seeking to bring in arguments that will not be covered by this Act but are already covered by public decency legislation.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I respectfully ask the noble and learned Lord whether, without commitment, he will give serious consideration to the reservations expressed in this group of amendments. Put simply, this is a sexual offences Bill. Clause 70 has nothing to do with sex. There is no sexual intention. There is nothing in the clause to involve criminal intent. With respect, the clause is a bit of a dog's dinner to find in a Bill such as this. Surely, if all that the provision as drafted means, without any qualification by these amendments, is ridiculous, unacceptable conduct, it is already covered by extant law. If I am wrong, will the noble and learned Lord correct me?
Lord Skelmersdale: If this debate shows nothing else, it shows that naturists do know that some people
566
will be caused offence by their actions. So knowing is perfectly respectable. Surely what really matters is the intention. A bona fide naturist would not intend to cause offence or harm to anyone, but I find that this clause is something of a muddle, with or without the various amendments that have been proposed.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: With respect, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is wrong in regard to the clause. I think that we have got the balance about right. First, we are removing the recklessness requirement, so that the naturist will be guilty of an offence only if he knew or intended that what he did would cause alarm or distress. It will not be an offence because he knows—because he has no doubt read about the opinion poll referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—-that there is a proportion of the population who, to use the phrasing of the opinion poll, find such actions disgusting. That would not, as a matter of law, make it a criminal offence, because he would not know in the circumstances that "alarm or distress" would be caused—which is the wording of the offence. "Recklessness" is about a risk. Knowing or intending that alarm will be caused is about actually knowing the facts.
So far as concerns the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—namely, if someone in the circumstances posited does what he described entirely because the necessary call of nature required it, without intending to cause alarm or distress—contrary to what the noble Lord says, the person would not know that alarm or distress would be caused. That would be not caught either. So I think that we have covered the two situations that noble Lords have raised in relation to the alleged problem in our draft. That is why we have done it in this way. We take out the dwelling-house exception, because we have removed recklessness; so we support Amendment No. 349. My name has not been added to the amendment, although that was my intention because it follows what we are trying to do. The amendment removes subsection
(2).
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, wants to remove the recklessness option, and we are with him in that respect.
Amendments Nos. 344 and 346 seek to make the offence apply only where the exposure is sexual or the motivation is one of sexual gratification. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, supports that because he says that this is a sexual offences Bill. We oppose it for the following reasons. Of course, where exposure is deliberately done manifestly for sexual gratification, that will be potentially enormously distressing and will cause alarm or distress to the victim. So it is plainly covered already. But there is no doubt that exposure that has as its purpose to alarm or distress can be no less frightening, irrespective of whether there is no explicitly sexual motive behind the action. It is not impossible to recognise and imagine that there are cases where the purpose of the act is to frighten and terrify with no sexual motive. It is that kind of occasion that I believe all noble Lords would wish to cover. What they would not wish to be the result of the proposed amendment is a difficult debate

567
in court about whether or not the motivation for what was unquestionably on the facts a deliberately alarming and frightening occasion—whether or not the motive was sexual gratification—and, the prosecution having failed to prove that it was for sexual gratification, the defendant being acquitted. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that this would be putting in place an unnecessary hurdle which does not reflect the reality of what happens.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, asks what happens if it is not sexual motivation, given that this is a sexual offences Bill. It is ridiculous in terms of the law to chop this provision and put it in one place because there is a sexual motivation and in another where there is no such motivation. One has to be sensible about the way in which one creates offences.
Lord Skelmersdale: I cannot let the noble and learned Lord get away with that. He defended the Government's stance on the Bill on the previous day in Committee, when we referred to trafficking for labour. He agreed with me that it would impugn the purity of the sexual piece of the Sexual Offences Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thornton: With respect, what we are talking about here in relation to exposure is the alarm and distress that is caused to people. It has plainly, if one looks at it in laymen's terms, a sexual element. What we are talking about, however, is the definition of the offence. If the noble Lord is seriously suggesting that one puts in sexual gratification as a necessary requirement of the Bill, with great respect to him I think that he is failing to catch what may be a very serious element of exposure and, as it were, leaving in only the matters that might otherwise be described as less important.
Baroness Blatch: I take what the noble and learned Lord says, but will he accept, as I accept, that the amendments provide a number of defences for someone who is offensive and is causing great alarm and distress—and it may be almost impossible to prove that it was for sexual gratification; nevertheless, the severity of the alarm and distress is very real?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In the circumstances I am positing, where there is exposure which causes alarm and distress and in the threatening manner I have described, of course the court must look to see what the intention was—whether it was inadvertent or not—but I should have thought that on the facts posited it would not be difficult, assuming that those facts were proved, for the court to come to the obvious conclusion that it was done with the intention of causing alarm or distress.
In every case there will obviously be difficulties about identifying precisely what proof is required—I do not mean in relation to each individual case, but as regards every offence there will always be circumstances in which a defence can be run. But if it is clear that what this provision is designed to catch is people who knowingly seek to cause alarm or distress
568
or intend to cause alarm or distress, that is the area that all noble Lords wish to cover. I believe that we have dealt with that adequately.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggests in one of his amendments that the provision should be restricted to a public place. With respect, we disagree. Think of the circumstance where someone comes into your house for some legitimate reason and then deliberately exposes himself to you. We have got rid of the problem about the casual guest by getting rid of subsection (2), but I can imagine terrifying circumstances in which, within a house—which is not a public place—this is a way of threatening or frightening someone. So, again, understanding the perfectly reasonable motive behind the amendment, we do not think that it is appropriate.
Finally, do we intend to catch the streaker? No, we do not. Do we intend to catch the naturist? No, we do not. Are we creating a nudist's charter? No, we are not. We are simply saying that being a naturist is not of itself a criminal offence.
Lord Lucas: I am much comforted by the noble and learned Lord's remarks, but will he clarify one point? If I were to drive at speed down the wrong side of a motorway, might I reasonably say that I did not know that I would cause an accident? In other words, in order to show that someone knows something, it must be shown that that person has actual knowledge, rather than just that he or she ought to have known that an action was likely to cause an accident. The wording is quite strong in that context. A great many of our fears can be dealt with by saying that he did not actually know rather than that it ought to have been obvious to him.
The other thing that might comfort my noble friend Lady Blatch is that if the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is right about the number of naturists in this country, there ought to be 10 of them in this House. One wonders who they are.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am not sure whether that would be of any comfort to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, although that might depend on who the 10 were. As for "knows" it means that a person knows that what he is doing will cause alarm or distress.
Baroness Noakes: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, decides what to do with her amendment, I should like to say that while I would welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, adding his name to Amendment No. 349, I suggest that he does not need to do so because his Amendment No. 348A achieves the same effect.
Baroness Walmsley: I very much welcome the removal of "recklessness" from the clause, but I am still not convinced that there is adequate protection for people such as naturists, streakers and artists' models in what the noble and learned Lord proposes. I do not intend to press the amendment at this stage. I shall read carefully what has been said. It is very important that we do not put in barriers to getting a conviction where we should get one. There needs to be a balance

569
between that and overly risking the criminalisation of perfectly innocent people. It is a question of looking at the balance of the two in the Bill and coming to a conclusion. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 343A:
Page 32, line I. at end insert "and"
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I confirm that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes is, as ever, completely right. Amendment No. 348A does the trick and therefore I do not need to support Amendment No. 349, much as I would like to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 345 to 348 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 348A:
Page 32, line 2, leave out from "them" to end of line 6 and insert "and be caused alarm or distress,"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 350 not moved.]
Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 71 [Voyeurism]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 350A:
Page 32, line 13, leave out subsections ( 1) to (3) and insert—
"(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he observes another person doing a private act, and

(b) he knows that the other person does not consent to being observed for his sexual gratification.

(2) A person commits an offence if—

(a) he operates equipment with the intention of enabling another person to observe, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, a third person (B) doing a private act, and

(b) he knows that B does not consent to his operating equipment with that intention.

(3) A person commits an offence if—

(a) he records another person (B) doing a private act,

(b) he does so with the intention that he or a third person will, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, look at an image of B doing the act, and

(c) he knows that B does not consent to his recording the act with that intention."

The noble and learned Lord said: Government Amendments Nos. 350A, 351A and 352A reframe the offence of voyeurism at Clause 71. It is a new offence, so we are concerned to achieve as good a definition as possible. The amendments revise subsections (1), (2) and (3) of Clause 71 as drafted, include a minor amendment to subsection (4) and provide a new interpretation clause to follow Clause 71.
570
On reflection, we had concerns that the offence as drafted in subsection (1)(a) criminalised those who looked at a moving or still image recorded through voyeuristic means. We thought there were problematic issues about criminalising simply looking at something unless it was an indecent image of a child which is already, in certain circumstances, against the law. It would often be difficult to establish whether that person knew that the person in the image did not consent to the image being recorded or viewed unless, of course, the author was responsible for recording the image. But the offence could potentially have caught readers of pornographic magazines, which seemed to us to be going too far.
These amendments remove from the offence completely the provision relating to looking at an image. They mean that the offence would then cover in subsection (1) a person directly observing, for his own sexual gratification, another person doing a private act, knowing that other person did not consent. This would include, for example, looking at someone having sexual intercourse through a window or peephole where the observer knew the person observed did not consent to being looked at for this purpose and where the observer looked in order to gain sexual gratification. This was already an offence under Clause 71 as drafted.
Subsection (2) would cover a person operating equipment with the intention of enabling someone else, for their sexual gratification, to observe a third person doing a private act where the operator of the equipment knew that the person being viewed did not consent to it. This would cover, for example, a landlord operating a webcam in his tenant's bedroom to allow people on the Internet using a pornographic website to view, for their sexual gratification, live images of his tenant getting undressed if he knew that the tenant did not consent to being so observed.
Subsection (3) would cover someone recording another person doing a private act with the intention of looking at the recording for his own sexual gratification or intending other people to look for their sexual gratification where he knows that the person does not consent to the recording of that act with that intention. This would cover the person who secretly films someone masturbating in their bedroom and distributes the images to others for their sexual gratification. Proof that the intention was the sexual gratification of others could he derived from, for example, the fact that the image was posted on a pornographic website or in a pornographic magazine.
In contrast to Clause 71 as drafted, the person recording the image would be caught by the offence, whether or not those looking at the image know that the person filmed does not consent to the image being shown for the purpose of sexual gratification and did not consent to the filming. The offence would not catch anyone who published the image because we feel this strays too far from the nub of the offence, which is the covert observation, for the purpose of sexual gratification, of someone engaged in a private act.

571
Subsection (4) of the offence remains as drafted in the Bill except for the removal of "or operates" in line 34. The operation of equipment is now covered for live observation by the offence at subsection (2) and for recorded observation by the offence at subsection (3). Subsection (4) covers a person who installs equipment, or constructs or adapts a structure or part of one with the intention of enabling himself or another person to commit an offence under subsection (1). This would cover someone who, for example, drilled a spyhole or installed a two-way mirror in a house or made a hole in the canvas of a changing room in a market stall selling clothes with the intention of spying on someone for sexual gratification or allowing others to do so. The person who installed the equipment would also be caught even if the peephole or mirror was discovered before it was used.
Subsection (4) does not cover a person who installs equipment with the intention of enabling a person to commit an offence under subsections (2) or (3). We consider that an offence of this nature would be too complicated. A jury would have to consider whether a person installed equipment with the intention of enabling another person to record a third person doing a private act with the intention of enabling a fourth person to obtain sexual gratification from looking at the image. However, if a person installs equipment in such circumstances, he may still be guilty of conspiring to commit a subsection (2) or (3) offence or of aiding and abetting such an offence.
The new clause after Clause 71 offers interpretation to the terminology used in Clause 71. With one exception, this interpretation is the same as that already in the Bill as drafted but has simply been moved to a new stand-alone clause for the purposes of clarity. The one exception is that there is now a definition of "observation", which makes it clear that observation can cover non-direct observation, for example, where a person observes another by using a mirror.
I apologise for the length and, to some extent, the complexity of this explanation, but I think it is of value to the House that I describe the amendments in some detail. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: In describing the amendments, the noble and learned Lord used the words "engaged in". I am not sure if it is normal drafting, but in Amendment No. 352A, under the proposed subsection (2) a person has to be "doing a private act" rather than being engaged in a private act. Is this normal drafting terminology? It strikes me as a little strange.
Baroness Noakes: Amendment No. 351 is separately grouped on the groupings list, but it will be pre-empted if the government amendments are passed, as I expect that they shall be since we have no major problems with them. I wish to speak to the amendment, however, so that my concerns are on the table.
572
The amendment would not fit in today, but I may wish to return to it on Report. It again relates to the concerns of naturists and how they are covered by the new offence of voyeurism. The offence of voyeurism means a "private act" under the current subsection (2). There is no requirement for the exposure to be sexual. but it must be in a structure. Naturists, however, whether within or outside of structures, have a problem with peeping Toms. The essence of naturism is that naturists are often outside, often on their own land and screened as far as they are able to keep people from looking in, as they have no desire to be seen by people who are not in their own group.
The amendment is designed to capture those who are outside and in naturist areas, but subject to the unwanted attentions of peeping Toms. The concerns of naturists are to be able to operate in privacy and not be subject to peeping Toms. I hope that it is not too much out of order to speak to the amendment, but otherwise it would be pre-empted.
Baroness Blatch: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 351. Again, I find myself out on a limb. Naturists have found many friends in this House. We know that they have areas that are properly set aside, usually away from the public gaze. However, my concern with the amendments, and especially with Amendment No. 351, is that a kind of naturists' charter is being established.
The amendment causes problems by making nudists a special category and by creating the concept of,
"a place in which social nudity is customarily practised".
It may be that social nudity is customarily practised on a very public beach, much to the annoyance of locals and holidaymakers who arrive at the beach, only to be confronted by dozens of naked people. I have already mentioned the problems on some National Trust land. Those people may be committing an offence under Clause 70, but if the amendment were accepted, the innocent passer-by who reported them to the police might find himself accused of being a voyeur, contrary to Clause 71.
The fact is that if nudism is genuinely private, its practitioners are already protected. Clause 71(1)(a) protects persons who are "doing a private act"—or "engaging" in one, as my noble friend put it. If, however, the act is public and itself constitutes exposure, it should not be protected. Indeed, it would seem remarkable—not to say impossible—to police, if a person could walk naked along a beach where nudists often gathered, then allege that particular passers-by were obtaining "sexual gratification— in the words of Clause 71—from looking at them.
The offence as redrafted by government Amendments Nos. 350 a nd 352A, which have just been dealt with in a previous group, protects those who are naked within a structure, such as a building or a tent, where privacy can reasonably be expected. To extend that protection beyond the walls of a structure to any,
"place in which social nudity is customarily practised",

573
could create a new legal right to social nudity. I am sure that that is not the intention either of the Bill or of my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, did not comment on my amendments. She spoke only to Amendment No. 351, which was not grouped with them, but I have no problem with dealing with it at the same time.
Baroness Noakes: I spoke on it only because it would have been pre-empted.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am happy to speak about it.
The offence at present protects only those engaging in private acts in places where they could reasonably expect privacy, such as houses and structures of various sorts. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is very unwise to suggest that it be extended in its coverage. No doubt some of those who engage in nude sunbathing or naturism would prefer not to be looked at by passers-by, especially when those passers-by are looking for sexual gratification. However, many of the places where such nudity is customarily practised, such as nudist beaches, are relatively easily overlooked. It would be quite wrong to criminalise those who witnessed such nudity while going about their daily business, even if they derived sexual gratification out of what they saw.
Those who choose to he naked in locations other than structures where they might reasonably expect privacy do so at the risk of someone seeing them and being sexually gratified. Those who engage in social nudity inside structures where they might reasonably expect privacy will be protected by the legislation. However, it would be imprudent to extend it. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will be gratified that the amendment is about to be preempted.
Lord Skelmersdale: Would the Minister answer my question about "doing" an act, as opposed to being engaged in it?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: That is a difficult question, and one that I shall take back to the parliamentary draftsman, as it would be unwise of me to deal with it myself.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 351 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 351A:
Page 32, line 34, leave out "or operates"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 352 not moved.]
Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 352A:
After Clause 71, insert the following new clause—
"VOYEURISM: INTERPRETATION
(1) The following apply for the purposes of section 71.
(2) A person is doing a private act if the person is in a structure which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy, and—

(a) the person's genitals, buttocks or breasts are exposed or covered only with underwear,

(b) the person is using a lavatory, or

(c) the person is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public.

(3) Observation means any observation, whether direct or by looking at an image produced in any way.
(4) In section 71 and this section—
"image" means a moving or still image, produced by any means, and
"structure" includes a tent, vehicle or vessel or other temporary or movable structure."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 72 [Intercourse with an animal]:
[Amendment No. 353 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 72 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lucas: I should very much like to understand the Government's motivations in the drafting of this clause. There are many things of a sexual nature that people choose to do in private and which most of us would find more or less disgusting. Intercourse with an animal is one of them, but it is one which in some societies is considered normal. As Masters and Johnson established, it is quite prevalent in parts of the country, especially in the countryside as such and among farm boys. They found a 50 per cent incidence in a bit of Ohio that they studied. It is not unknown or uncommon, certainly not in common parlance. To judge from the spam that arrives in your Lordships' House, a good deal of goes on in the world of pornography, too.
I want to know what the motivation is for making this particular sexual practice a crime. I cannot see that it has anything in particular to do with the human aspect of it—I imagine that it has to do with the protection of animals. I do not know whether the Minister has any evidence on the effect of this activity on animals. If the provisions relate to the effect on animals, why is it considered better that the sheep should be dead—should have been killed immediately before the act—rather than living through it? Why is that thought to excuse the act?
Why are animals such as gerbils excluded? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, may care to look up "felching" in his dictionary, or perhaps the box can do that for him. That is something that is widely referred to on the Internet and he will find it in such common books as the Darwin Awards. There, at least one incidence of that going wrong is amusingly recounted. I want to understand the Government's motivations. Why, among all human sexual perversions, is this one chosen to make

575
an offence? Why has the scope of the offence been set as it is? I am asking so that I can understand better at Report stage how I would like the clause to differ.
8 p.m.
Lord Monson: Is not bestiality already an offence—albeit one of those offences where the prosecution rate is well under one per cent of the incidents that take place?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: At present intercourse with an animal is an offence under Section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, which also covers buggery and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. We are repealing Section 12. We take the view that a specific offence is needed to cover sexual activity with an animal and should be separated from offences against people. Clause 72 covers intentional penile penetration of the vagina or anus of a living animal and makes clear that the offence also includes causing or allowing the penis of a living animal to penetrate a person's vagina or anus. That behaviour is generally accepted to be deviant. The offence is not included on the basis of cruelty to animals, which is dealt with in other statutes. We believe that it should be a criminal offence, but the previous maximum penalty of life imprisonment is disproportionate. We therefore propose a reduced maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment or a fine. That is our thinking. I hope that that answers the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Lord, Lord Monson.
Lord Lucas: I am still interested in why the Government think that committing that offence is different with a dead animal rather than a live one. Why should it be less of an offence if the man has killed the sheep just beforehand? Why should it be less of an offence if the animal involved is inserted as a whole object rather than part of the animal? I should like to hear the Government's justification of the scope of the offence and why it should have been phrased in this way.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It is the judgment made about the sort of conduct with animals which should be criminalised. We have drawn the line where we have drawn the line. There is no merit in saying that that is not this bad or that bad. What one has to do is see where we have drawn the line and ask whether we have done that in the right place.
Clause 72 agreed to.
Clause 73 [Sexual penetration of a corpse]:
[Amendment No. 354 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 73 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lucas: I come at the offence from the same point of view. Why have the Government phrased the clause in this way? Is the offence something which happens often? How many prosecutions are there for that sort of thing? How many incidents are there in any given year? Is it something that is frequent enough to
576
merit a separate offence? There are many things that one can do to dishonour a corpse. There was an incident recently when someone put a bacon sandwich into the mouth of a dead Muslim woman. which strikes me as a pretty ghastly thing to do. Surely we do not need to make that a separate offence. There are many ways in which one can mutilate and dishonour a corpse. I do not know which statute it is that they would be caught under. Why do we need a separate offence for something that is probably extremely rare, particularly given the fairly rare opportunities in our current society to commit that sort of offence? I should be grateful for the Minister's enlightenment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: There is currently no law that covers sexual penetration of a dead human body or part of it. That is a surprising omission from the criminal law, since it represents a violation of the respect that ought to be shown to human remains. When such behaviour comes to light it is profoundly distressing for the family of the dead person. Existing legislation covers exhuming a dead body without lawful authority, but there is no other protection for the body of the person once he or she is dead. Setting the Boundaries has anecdotal evidence that sexual penetration of dead bodies takes place, albeit in rare and unusual circumstances. It is impossible to quantify the extent of the behaviour, but that is not surprising when the law is silent on the issue. There is, however, no indication that it is anything other than extremely rare. As part of a comprehensive review of sex offences it is important for society to make clear which sexual behaviour is so profoundly deviant as to justify the intervention of the criminal law. The offence could be charged in relation to those who kill their victim and then sexually penetrate the corpse in addition to a charge of murder or manslaughter. It could also be charged against those who have had no role in the death of the individual but subsequently sexually penetrate the corpse.
Clause 73 agreed to.
Clause 74 [Sexual activity in public]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before I call Amendment No. 355, 1 should point out that in the group are Amendments Nos. 359 and 360. I have to advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 359 were agreed to, I would not be able to call Amendment No. 360.
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 355:
Page 33, line 26, at end insert—
"( ) A person commits an offence if—

(a) he is in a public lavatory,

(b) he intentionally engages in an activity within subsection (3), and

(c) the activity is sexual."

The noble Baroness said: The amendment concerns the issue of sex in public. We debated the issue extensively at Second Reading and many who spoke found defects in Clause 74. The Government have now said that they intend to withdraw the clause. To that

577
end the Minister has added his name to the objection to the clause standing part, which is included in the group of amendments.
There is no doubt that Clause 74 is a bad piece of draft law, which is why we propose major amendments to it. I shall not weary the Committee with a detailed exposition of those amendments, but I should like to outline some concerns that are not necessarily eliminated by removing the clause and relying on existing Public Order Act offences and common law offences.
I believe that we share with the Government the desire to ensure that the law proscribes acts that have an impact on the public and are considered by the public to be unacceptable. The Minister will be aware that the comments made by his ministerial colleague in another place, Mr Hilary Benn, led many to believe that this was not the principle which guided the Government. Many believed that the Bill gave a green light to sexual activity in public lavatories provided it was not seen.
I believe that my Amendment No. 355 captures a general public sentiment which is that public lavatories are not places for sexual activity. If we say anything less than this, we imply that there are circumstances in which sexual activity in a public lavatory is acceptable. If there is anything less than a total prohibition, we run the risk of making public lavatories no-go areas for the general public and in particular for children. There are already instances of public lavatories being no-go areas or having to be closed because the existing law, which is not an absolute and explicit ban, is either not good enough or not enforced. Simply removing Clause 74 will do nothing to improve the situation.
The Minister's very helpful letter of 15th April notifying his intention to withdraw the clause noted that the existing common law offence of outraging public decency had successfully been used to prosecute cases of sexual activity in public lavatories. The Court of Appeal case of Mayling, which the Minister cited, established that sexual activity in a public lavatory could be an act which outraged public decency, but the activity had to be seen to be within the offence. The judgment stated that,
"it is. in the view of this court, clear that more than one person must at least have been able to see the act complained of if the charge is to be made out".
So there are two problems with the common law offence. First, sexual activity has to be seen. Secondly, two or more people must have been able to see it. For my part I am not convinced that that is a sound basis on which to leave the issue of sex in public lavatories. The current law is not adequate. In any event, it is not enforced so as to prevent public lavatories becoming no-go areas. That is why we need an absolutely clear prohibition in the law. I shall listen very carefully to what the Minister has to say about Clause 74. I welcome the fact that the Government have thought
578
again about the subject, but I am not yet convinced that they have come up with the right answer. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: This is one occasion when I am absolutely at one with my noble friend. I believe that the Government's U-turn will leave a serious lacuna in the Bill, which in my view needs to be filled.
The Government appear no longer to believe that there should be a specific offence of sexual activity in public. During the Easter Recess, it was announced to the press that Clause 74 was to be dropped and replaced with an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill currently before another place. The amendment will make it possible to prosecute, in a magistrates' court, the offence of outraging public decency. Currently the offence can be tried only in a Crown Court, and thus it is meant to deal with the problem of sexual activity in public. One newspaper report also suggests that the public order offence of behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace could also be used to deal with the problem. If this truly is the full extent of the Government's proposals in this important area of protecting the public, as my noble friend said, they have many serious questions to answer.
On Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, introduced Clause 74 by saying:
"The offence will send out a strong signal of our intention to protect people from being the unwilling witnesses to overtly sexual behaviour in public that most people consider should take place in their own homes".—[Official Report, 13/2/03; col. 775.]
What has happened to the Government's strong signal? Although Clause 74 did raise various anomalies, I believe that the Government's general intention was right. Sexual activity in public is a real problem. In particular, as I shall show in a moment, there is a real problem with public toilets. The problem requires a specific statutory offence to tackle it. Instead the Government now propose to drop Clause 74 and fall back on the longstanding common law offence of outraging public decency. The common law offence is weak and difficult to prove. I shall outline the evidence of that later.
If it is true that the public order offence of behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace is being proffered as a solution, that, too, inspires little confidence. According to the case summary, the 1982 case of Parkin v Norman found that,
"Offensive or disgusting behaviour by a homosexual in a public lavatory does not amount to 'threatening, abusive or insulting…behaviour … whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned' under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936,"
I am not a lawyer, but it seems pretty clear to me that the public order offence provides no protection against sex in public toilets. I should be grateful to know whether the Minister really believes that we can rely on the public order offence to prevent sexual acts in public toilets.
In the absence of Clause 74, the weakness of the provisions on which the Government now claim to be relying is of especially great importance. This is because this Bill is repealing the law of gross indecency. Gross indecency will be removed from our statute book and nothing is to be put in its place. Gross indecency currently outlaws homosexual male activity in public

579
toilets and elsewhere in public. It specifically addresses public toilets because this has been a serious public problem for decades.
In February this year, a five-day police operation targeting lavatories at Baker Street Station led to 34 men being cautioned for gross indecency. In January, Guisborough Police in North Yorkshire were forced to launch Operation Newton to patrol public toilets in their area.
The police said:
"The toilets have become a meeting den for gay and bi-sexual men, and the problem has escalated to such an extent that on occasions, cleaning staff cannot gain access to clean and close up the premises at night, due to the number of men 'using' them".
The Yorkshire Post reported in October last year that Barnsley Council was forced to close a village's public toilets. According to the paper:
"Shocked Cawthorne residents had called for the toilets to be completely flattened after learning the block has appeared on a website advising men of the best places in England for 'cottaging'—casual homosexual sex in public toilets".
I have reports of similar problems in the toilets of Blackburn railway station and those of Aberdeen Central Library. The local press in Staffordshire have reported internet sites advertising public places across the county as venues for homosexual activity. All this proves that there is a great problem that needs to be addressed.
Although rare, there are also cases of heterosexual activity in public toilets. The case of R v Helen Georgina Waring in 200I concerned an act of sexual intercourse with a man in a night club toilet cubicle.
We need a clear and effective law to tackle an identifiable problem. We need a specific offence that criminalises any type of sexual activity—heterosexual or homosexual—in a public toilet.
It was only in 1967 that gross indecency was specifically framed to outlaw homosexual activity in public toilets. The Government boast about sweeping away Victorian laws, but the specific law against acts in public toilets is less than 40 years old.
In 1967, at the height of the swinging 60s and when Parliament was in the throes of legalising homosexual acts in private, it was felt necessary to make clear that "private" did not include, according to Section 1(2)(b) of the Sexual Offences Act 1967,
"a lavatory to which the public have or are permitted to have access".
The then Home Secretary, the late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, noted during the passage of that Bill:
"the view was taken in another place that there should be included this special provision relating to public lavatories, which is obviously a social feature of homosexuality as opposed to the heterosexual act".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/67; col. 1453.]
In one of the Bill's earlier incarnations, the Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, Lord Stonham, explained Section 1(2)(b) of the Act to the House of Lords on 23rd May 1966. He said it was,
"intended to cover a case where two men committed an act in a locked cubicle and it would clearly be objectionable if those two men were seen to enter the cubicle and their activities, though not seen, might well be thought to offend other persons who might be using the public part of the lavatory".
580
Outraging public decency existed as a criminal offence at the time of the 1967 Act. There was much discussion during the passage of the Bill about the offence. Yet it was still felt necessary to introduce specific provision for public lavatories. If outraging public decency had been adequate to tackle the problem of sex in public toilets, Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 would have been unnecessary.
Clearly, Parliament at that time believed no other law existed that would suffice. So what has changed? First, the problem has not gone away. The Home Office sex offences review published in 2000 concluded:
"some public facilities are extensively used for sexual purposes, and the law needs to be able to deal with this problem as part of wider powers to deal with sexual activity in public".
In 2003, surely we still cannot rely on outraging public decency. It is a weak offence that appears to be difficult to prove. According to Home Office figures, 173 persons were proceeded against in England and Wales in 2001 for outraging public decency. Only 34 were found guilty. That is a 20 per cent conviction rate, which I believe is too low compared with many other offences.
We should bear in mind that outraging public decency is a broad offence that is not targeted solely at sexual activity. One of the most famous cases involved a so-called art exhibit that displayed earrings made from human foetuses. The offence could not be said in any way to be designed specifically to cover the sorts of situations that Clause 74 was targeting. It contains a high test. In the leading case of Kindler (Publishing, Printing and Promotions) Ltd v the Director of Public Prosecutions, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said:
"'outrage' was a very strong word and 'outraging public decency' goes considerably beyond offending the susceptibilities of, or even shocking, reasonable people".
The noble and learned Lord went on to say:
"recognised minimum standards of decency—are likely to vary from time to time".
I am very concerned that some courts might regard this as a licence to stretch the bounds of acceptability. I have no doubt that there are defence lawyers who will willingly argue that moderate sexual activity in a public place is less likely to offend now than it was 20 or 30 years ago and so should not be regarded as outraging public decency.
Even if a conviction is secured, the offence appears to attract low sentences. Of the 34 people convicted of outraging public decency in 2001, only six were sentenced to immediate custody. Nineteen were given a community punishment order, two were fined and five were absolutely or conditionally discharged. Two were dealt with otherwise. There was an infamous example of a serious case that attracted a trivial penalty in 1998. A couple had full sexual intercourse on the bonnet of a car in the short-term car park at Terminal 4 at Heathrow Airport, followed by oral sex at four o'clock in the afternoon, all for the benefit of a film crew making a pornographic video. They were charged and convicted on two counts of outraging public decency and each received a conditional

581
discharge for 18 months. There was evidence that around 6,000 cars a day passed through that car park. Several members of staff at the airport witnessed the offence and gave evidence that they thought that the behaviour was outrageous. Yet, the perpetrators walked away without so much as a fine.
An infamous 1992 case of sex in public seems to demonstrate the lack of confidence that prosecutors have in the concept of outraging public decency. A couple engaged in oral sex on a train packed with families and then, half-dressed, performed full sexual intercourse. A mother with her children complained, as did other people on the train. According to newspaper reports, the couple appeared before magistrates. Outraging public decency is an indictable offence, so whatever they were prosecuted for, it was not that. They received a paltry fine of £50 and £25 costs.
The Government protest that they are strengthening the treatment of the offence by allowing it to be tried in a magistrates' court. That case does not encourage one to believe that that will help. In any event, magistrates will have the same difficulty with proving the offence as the higher courts had. Nor will they feel able to ignore the sentencing precedents set by the higher courts. There needs to be a straightforward offence, like gross indecency, that applies specifically to toilets. Gross indecency simply requires proof that the act took place in a toilet. Outraging public decency demands proof that the act gave rise to outrage, a potentially difficult hurdle to overcome in any case.
Another peculiar weakness is the requirement for proof that the act complained of must have been capable of being seen by at least two members of the public. That was confirmed in the 1995 case of R v Walker. Prosecutors relied on the offence in prosecuting a man who masturbated in his living room in front of a 10 year-old girl. The Court of Appeal overturned his conviction, stating that the offence carried a requirement that,
"the offence be committed in a place where there exists a real possibility that members of the general public might witness what happens".
In our Second Reading debate on Clause 74, some noble Lords caused great mirth by talking about amorous activities on mountainsides, in back gardens and so on. The Government's U-turn on Clause 74 seems designed to rescue it from such attacks. The greatest anomaly of all was caused by the cubicle door of a public toilet. The great question was whether an offence would have been committed under Clause 74, if the door were closed or only if it were open. The Government's new policy continues to overlook the issue of the cubicle door. The greatest anomaly may well remain.
A Home Office spokeswoman said:
"It always has been and will remain illegal to have sex in a public toilet—regardless of whether the door is open or closed".
Can the Minister tell us why his officials are so confident about that, in spite of the evidence that I rehearsed today? Can the Minister explain how there
582
could be two witnesses, if the cubicle door were closed? Even if the police have largely discounted the use of the offence of outraging public decency against sexual activity in public toilets, the Metropolitan Police's response to the Sexual Offences Bill called for sex in a cubicle of a public toilet to remain illegal. It did not even mention the possibility of falling back on outraging public decency.
On several occasions in Committee the Government have amended this Bill for the better. However, on the issue before us now they are not only failing to correct a weakness in their proposals but are actually making a situation worse. Unless the Minister can satisfy us otherwise, it seems that this Bill will leave a serious gap in the law as regards sexual activity in public. I regard the matter very seriously, as Members of the Committee will have gathered. I hope that we return to it at Report stage and that my noble friend's amendment receives some support.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I strongly support Amendment No. 355 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. At the same time I shall speak to Amendment No. 359, which seeks to delete Clause 74(2). It seems to me to be a very restrictive injunction worthy of the Government in nasty nanny mode and determined to interfere in every area of people's private lives. What constitutes a dwelling? Is an hotel bedroom a dwelling? Is a tent a dwelling? Is a sleeping compartment on a train a dwelling? Is a cabin on a ship a dwelling? Is the back of a car on a dark night a dwelling? I would hardly describe them as such, yet to prohibit sexual activity in any of them or indeed outside a building at all seems almost unbelievably puritanical and worthy only of the most bigoted ayatollah or the very nastiest nanny killjoy.
I suppose that it is easy for city dwellers to forget that there are huge tracts of virtually uninhabited countryside, woodland and moorland such as Dartmoor or the Highlands of Scotland, which, although now technically public places since the public are allowed to roam through them at will, are locations where young people have for centuries past pursued their romances which would not be possible in the family home.
Are all these people now to he in danger of fines or imprisonment should they have the misfortune to be seen? The clause should be deleted and replaced with one much more tightly drafted dealing with sex in public lavatories and public places which are populous such as public parks in towns and cities, railway stations and ordinary compartments of trains and so forth. It should not seek to criminalise the couple having a romantic interlude on a starry night on the moors.
Lord Alli: I hesitate to rise at the mention of a cubicle door, gay sex, and a public lavatory. It is a little too much to resist. I concur with what the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, said. I would certainly resist any extension of criminalising people for having consensual sex. We have to be very careful that we continue to do that.

583
I suppose that I am one of the few people who probably quite likes Clause 74 as drafted. I understand, however, that the noble and learned Lord intends to remove it and in doing so rely on Sections 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and the common law offences of outraging public decency.
Would he consider giving me some reassurance in the interpretation of those offences? The reassurance I seek really relates to making sure that they are "sexuality neutral" in their interpretation. That would go a very long way to reassure those of us in the gay community that it would be safe to rely on these Public Order Acts and public decency definitions. We would hate to see a repeat of the 1986 case of Matheson v Holden, in which the Divisional Court held that the magistrates were entitled to decide that heterosexuals might feel insulted at seeing a gay couple kissing in Oxford Street at 1.55 a.m. An assurance that the law would not be interpreted so that an activity indulged in by a homosexual couple would be deemed offensive, despite having a publicly acceptable heterosexual equivalent, would go a long way to reassuring many of us that the removal of Section 74 from the Bill and the reliance on the Public Order Act and the common law offence of outraging public decency would achieve what I understand to be the Minister's objective.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 361 and to oppose the Question that Clause 74 stand part of the Bill. I am delighted that the Government have agreed with the Liberal Democrats that the clause should be removed from the Bill. They have clearly not got it right, as the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, has just demonstrated.
However, I would like to talk about the issue that caused me to table Amendment No. 361. which attempts to ensure that a prison cell should be regarded as a private place for the purposes of the Bill. As I said at Second Reading, the Prison Service has a duty of care to those in its custody. That means that they have a responsibility to reduce harm wherever possible. We know that a great deal of homosexual sex goes on in prison. This carries with it an enormous risk of infection with HIV or hepatitis.
Unfortunately, the state of the law is uncertain and Clause 74 would have muddied the waters even more if it had passed into law unamended. The Prison Service says that sex in prison is unlawful, and they are unwilling to provide condoms, unless prescribed by a doctor, on the basis that to do so would be to condone unlawful behaviour. Many prisoners are unwilling to approach the prison doctor about this, and some doctors will not supply condoms anyway. It is left to charities to fill the gap.
Even if the clause is removed from the Bill, the situation will remain unsatisfactory. The Minister told me at Second Reading that the Prison Service is reviewing its policy on this issue. However, I would be grateful if he could make it clear from the Dispatch Box that the service's duty of care compels it to ensure that prisoners can obtain condoms if they need them. We cannot have cell-block prescribing in this area. It
584
is important to protect the health of prisoners. It is bad enough to be given a custodial sentence without being given a health sentence as well.
As far as the whole clause is concerned, I accept that the Government's intention was to clarify society's view that there are some places where sexual activity is simply unacceptable, as it will cause offence. There has been considerable misunderstanding about the effect of the clause. Some thought that it would ban sex in public toilets, and some thought that it would allow it with the door closed.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alli, that we must treat everyone, of whatever sexuality, equally under the law. Having said that, I do not believe that any kind of sex is appropriate in public toilets. They are public places, whether the door is closed or not, and sound carries. None of us wants to be witness to other people's private behaviour, and we certainly do not want our children to encounter adult behaviour unawares.
I welcome the Minister's statement in his letter on the matter that he is confident that the existing Public Order Act defences and the common law offence of outraging public decency are adequate to cover this matter. Everyone knows that the best way of discouraging sex in public toilets is to have them well lit, frequently visited by cleaning and maintenance staff and well used by the public. I hope that local authorities will, wherever possible, use this method to discourage unwanted bad behaviour, although I am quite aware that shortness of' resources is an issue. Where offences do take place, the police should use the tools that they already have to address the matter.
I am aware that the Government intend to introduce an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill in another place tomorrow, to make outraging public decency a summary as well as an indictable offence. My colleagues in another place will be exploring the effects of that change with the Government and I look forward with interest to the clarification that they will extract from Ministers there.
We do not want police officers to continue to act as agents provocateurs. We would like there to be a warning if a particular public toilet was causing concern to the public. A warning notice could be displayed in the same way that there are warnings about radar cameras. If people then choose to ignore the warnings, they should accept the consequences. We will return to this matter when we debate the Criminal Justice Bill.
I am a liberal and I believe in freedom and responsibility. In a free country, consenting adults should be able to do as they please in private, so long as they do not frighten horses. However, I should put sex in public toilets into the category of frightening the horses—or at any rate, the children. We should discourage it in a sensible and effective way without trespassing on the reasonable freedoms of other people.

585
I therefore oppose the Question whether Clause 74 stand part of the Bill and look forward to the Minister's response to my concerns about condoms in prisons.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As is obvious, I have added my name to those opposing the Question whether Clause 74 stand part of the Bill and will gladly explain why I have done so. Before I do that, I shall take up three points. The first point is about sexuality and neutrality in relation to enforcement, whatever the offences; we strongly support that. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, are reassured by that. Secondly, the points made by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, indicate some of the problems in the current draft of Clause 74. Thirdly, on the Prison Service's approach to condoms, the precise definition in Clause 74 does not affect what the policy is. I shall not go further than that at the moment; we are discussing the Sexual Offences Bill rather than wider prison policy.
We believe that sexual activity in public places, which we agree entirely includes public lavatories, can cause outrage or offence to those who witness it or become aware of it by other means, such as hearing what is going on. No one should have to witness or experience such activity as they go about their daily business. Our aim has always been to ensure that the law provides sufficient protection from such behaviour, which everyone in this House feels should take place in private; that means "not in a public lavatory".
Setting the Boundaries proposed a new additional public order offence, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, identified.
Baroness Blatch: I agree with the Minister's comments. Heterosexual activity or homosexual activity that takes place in a public lavatory, that is not witnessed and that does not outrage public decency when the event takes place, is still an offensive activity. I link that with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, who said that one way of eliminating the behaviour was to have such places well lit, to visit them frequently and to make sure that the public use them. However, whether they are well lit and clean, and whether the cleaners can go near them in view of the sort of people who use them, they are not used by the public because of the reputation surrounding them and because a meeting place is established around such public places. Must the people offend on the spot or are they deemed to be offending the public outraging the public—simply by having sex in a public toilet, although the act was not witnessed, heard or overseen by anyone?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It is our view that that does not have to be witnessed on the particular instance so long as it is capable of being witnessed or seen; that includes being heard.
The noble Baroness seeks to address me from a sedentary position, which is not normally how she addresses me. On the offence of outraging public decency
586
and in relation to public order offences, what is being referred to is the capability of being seen or the capability of causing offence. The noble Baroness shakes her head. Consider the situation in which no one else was there but acts of the sort that she described were filmed on CCTV. Could that found the basis of a charge under outrages against public decency or Section 5 of the Public Order Act? We say "Yes". That view is shared by Messrs Smith and Hogan, the authors of the leading textbook on criminal law. I hope that answers the question of the noble Baroness. She shakes her head. I have tried to do my best in relation to that.
Setting the Boundaries, as I indicated, proposed a new additional public order offence. It was intended to complement existing legislation, principally that in the Public Order Act 1986 and the common law offence of outraging public decency. However, Clause 74 was problematic because it required proof that one of the sexual acts specified in Clause 74(3) was involved, which meant—for the purposes of proof, subject to the CCTV point—that generally the specific activity would need to be observed. I do not criticise the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, but it incorporates all the subsection (3) acts, so it gives rise to precisely the same problem.
Moreover, following publication of the Bill, there was a perception that Clause 74 was intended to be the sole means of dealing with sexual activity in public and that its provisions, therefore, needed to cover comprehensively all such activity.
A number of amendments have been tabled by noble Lords to change the framing of the clause. These do not in our view solve the problem with Clause 74 because—and the noble Baroness has precisely put her finger on it—what about the closed cubicle door? That is exactly the problem with which everyone seeks to deal. It is difficult to know from hearing noises which act specified in Clause 74(3) is taking place. That is the problem with our draft and with all the amendments.
In the light of the confusion, we have decided that the best way forward is not to proceed with Clause 74 but rather to rely on the existing common law offence of outraging public decency which covers all lewd, obscene or disgusting behaviour that outrages public decency. It focuses, therefore, on the broad nature of the behaviour and on the impact it causes, rather than on technicalities. Currently, as has been pointed out, it is triable on indictment only. We take the view that cases under the Act should also be capable of being tried at the magistrates' court so that the law can be used more flexibly. As has already been said by noble Lords, we are tabling an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, to be discussed tomorrow in another place, to make it an either way offence.
In addition, Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 adds further protection in that it covers sexual activity within the sight or hearing of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. Sexual activity in public is an offence against public decency rather than abusive behaviour specifically targeted at a particular victim or victims, as are the other new offences in the Sexual Offences Bill. That is why we

587
have taken this offence out of the Sexual Offences Bill and included an amendment to outraging public decency instead in the Criminal Justice Bill to make the offence triable either way.
The maximum sentence on summary trial will be six months—the most that a magistrates' court can currently pass—although that will be raised to 12 months when the Criminal Justice Bill becomes law. That cannot be done in this Bill because outraging public decency covers more than sexual behaviour. We do not intend to propose any other amendments to the offence.
The common law is flexible, which enables it to adapt to changing circumstances and standards of behaviour. We are confident that outraging public decency and Section 5 of the Public Order Act between them are sufficiently flexible to cover unacceptable sexual behaviour in toilets and—I make this clear—including in cubicles behind closed doors.
I trust that the Committee will agree that the action we propose is the most effective and appropriate way to address the issue. We are agreed on what we wish to achieve in the context of the problem in relation to public toilets. I trust that noble Lords who have tabled these amendments will believe that we have the balance about right. For the reasons I have indicated, 1 support the Motion that the clause should not stand part of the Bill. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I do not address in detail amendments that deal with the detail of Clause 74.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that response. I hope I will not disappoint him when I tell him that I was not entirely happy with what he said about the extent to which sexual activity in public lavatories would be caught by a combination of the existing common law offence and the Section 5 offence. I am not fully convinced that the behind closed cubicle doors offence is seen as falling within the ambit of those offences. Such cases are typically about being seen. Clause 74 also has an element of that problem, but I believe that it is capable of being overcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Alli, made a plea for the law to be neutral in its approach to sexuality, which we completely support. I wonder whether the noble Lord would be satisfied to rely on the existing offences, which have been applied with a bias towards being disapproving of homosexual activity as opposed to being neutral towards homosexual and heterosexual activity. There remains a case for clear and unambiguous expression of the law on what is or is not allowed to take place in public lavatories.
I will consider the matter again carefully but believe that we should return to it on Report. I welcome the removal of most of the rest of Clause 74, which was very unsatisfactory, but we have not put all the other issues to rest in today's useful debate. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 356 to 361 not moved.]
Clause 74 disagreed to.
Before Schedule 1:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 362:
Before Schedule I, insert the following new schedule—
"EXTENSION OF GENDER-SPECIFIC PROSTITUTION OFFENCES
Sexual Offences Act 1956 (c. 69)
1 In section 36 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (permitting premises to be used for prostitution), at the end insert "(whether any prostitute involved is male or female)".
Street Offences Act 1959 (c. 57)
2 In section 1(1) of the Street Offences Act 1959 (loitering or soliciting for purposes of prostitution), after "prostitute" insert "(whether male or female)".
3 (I) Section 2 of that Act (application to court by woman cautioned for loitering or soliciting) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading of the section, for "woman" substitute "person".
(3) In subsection (1)—

(a) for "woman" substitute "person",

(b) for "her" in each place substitute "his", and

(c) for "she" in each place substitute "he".

(4) In subsection (2)—

(a) for "woman" in the first place substitute "person",

(b) for "he" substitute "the chief officer", and

(c) for "woman" in the second place substitute "person cautioned".

(5) In subsection (3), for "woman" substitute "person cautioned".
Sexual Offences Act 1985 (c. 44)
4 (1) The Sexual Offences Act 1985 is amended as follows.
(2) For the heading "Soliciting of women by men" substitute "Soliciting for the purpose of prostitution".
(3) In section 1 (kerb-crawling)—

(a) for "man" substitute "person",

(b) for "a woman" substitute "another person",

(c) for "women" in each place substitute "persons", and

(d) for "the woman" substitute "the person".

(4) In section 2 (persistent soliciting of women for the purpose of prostitution)—

(a) for the heading of the section substitute "Persistent soliciting",

(b) for "man" substitute ''person",

(c) for "a woman" substitute "another person", and

(d) for "women" substitute "persons".

(5) In section 4 (interpretation)—

(a) omit subsections (2) and (3),

(b) for "man" substitute -person",

(c) for "a woman" substitute "another person",

(d) for "her" in the first place substitute "that person", and

(e) for "her" in the second place substitute "that person's"."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 362A and 362B not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Section Offences to which Section 75 applies]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 363:
Page 67, line 9, leave out "to 67"
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 363 and 364 improve the accuracy of the wording in relation to two offences in Schedule 1—committing an offence with intent to commit a sexual offence and trespass with intent to commit a sexual offence.
The age of the intended victim of the sexual offence, not the offence or trespass committed, is relevant for the purposes of Section 75. The amendment seeks to improve the clarity of the paragraph. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 364:
Page 67, line 11, at end insert—
"(ba) an offence under section 66 or 67 where the intended
offence was an offence against a person under 16;"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 365:
Page 67. line 25, at end insert—
"( ) section 53 or 54 of that Act (abduction of woman),"
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 365 to 374 update the Northern Ireland offences in Schedule 1, which provides a full list of those offences that can be tried in Northern Ireland—even if they are committed outside the United Kingdom. The amendments ensure that all appropriate offences are included. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendments Nos. 366 to 374:
Page 67, line 29, at end insert—
"( ) section 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 (c. 69) (procuration of girl under 21),
( ) section 3 of that Act (procuring defilement of woman using threats, etc.),"
Page 67, line 30. leave out "the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885" and insert "that Act"
Page 67, line 3 I , leave out "or"
Page 67, line 33, at end insert "or
( ) section 7 of that Act (abduction of girl under 18);
( ) an offence under—
(i) section I of the Punishment of Incest Act 1908 (c. 45) (incest by males), or
590
(ii) section 2 of that Act (incest by females);"
Page 67, line 34, after "under" insert "—
(i) section 21 of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 (c. 34 (N.I.)) (causing or encouraging seduction, etc. of girl under 17), or
(ii) "
Page 67, line 34, leave out "the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968" and insert "that Act"
Page 67, line 37, after "children);" insert—
"(ea) an offence under Article 9 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (S.I. 1980/704 (N.I. 6)) (inciting girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse);
(eb) an offence under Article 15 of the Criminal Justice (Evidence, Etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/1847 (N.I. 17)) (indecent photographs of children);"
Page 68, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (i) and insert—
"( ) section 17 of this Act (meeting a child following sexual grooming etc.), or"
Page 68, line 5, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
"( ) Sub-paragraph (1), apart from paragraphs (e) and (eb), does not apply where the victim of the offence was 17 or over at the time of the offence."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 375:
Before Clause 76, insert the following new clause—
"EXCEPTIONS TO AIDING, ABETTING AND COUNSELLING
(1) A person is not guilty of aiding, abetting or counselling the commission against a child of an offence to which this section applies if he acts for the purpose of—

(a) protecting the child from sexually transmitted infection,

(b) protecting the physical safety of the child, or

(c) preventing the child from becoming pregnant,

and not for the purpose of causing or encouraging either the activity constituting the offence or the child's participation in it.
(2) This section applies to—

(a) an offence under any of sections 2, 4 and 6 (offences against children under 13):

(b) an offence under section 9 (sexual activity with a child):

(c) an offence under section 14 which would be an offence under section 9 if the offender were aged 18;

(d) an offence under any of sections 18, 28, 33, 38 and 43 (sexual activity) against a person under 16.

(3) This section does not affect any other enactment or any rule of law restricting the circumstances in which a person is guilty of aiding, abetting or counselling an offence under this Part."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 76 [Offences against children under 13]:
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 376:
Page 35, line 6, at end insert—
"( ) Where a person charged with an offence under section 4, 6, or 8 of this Act is, at the time of the alleged commission of the offence, under the age of 16 no prosecution is to be brought without the prior consent of the Attorney General."

591
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 376 is part of my campaign to have children treated differently from adults in the Bill. Under the amendment, anyone committing a so-called offence against a child who is himself under 16 at the time would not be prosecuted without the permission of the Attorney-General. The Law Commission report of 1998 on consent to prosecution contained recommendations for rationalisation in this area. It recommended, among other things, that the need for consent be retained if prosecution for the offence would violate the defendant's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
It is arguable that an offence that criminalises both parties in a snog on the back seat of a school bus or the male in the case of sexual intercourse when both parties are so young might be considered disproportionate and therefore violate the human rights of the people concerned. Therefore I hope that the Minister will agree with the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thornton: This amendment returns to an earlier debate. I am aware that concerns have been expressed about the prosecution of children who engage in apparently consensual activity. For example, a girl aged 13 could face a strict liability charge for mutually agreed sexual activity with her friend aged 12. We have had detailed discussions on the subject, during which I have made it clear, as I do again, that our purpose is to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation. That is why it is important for the law to make provision for children to face charges relating to ostensibly consensual sexual activity where there is evidence to suggest that it is exploitative or coercive.
It is not our intention to punish children unnecessarily. We would not expect the Crown Prosecution Service to bring charges against a child unless it were in the public interest. The code for Crown prosecutors and other CPS documents contain detailed guidance about the circumstances in which a prosecution would be in the public interest. The new legislation does not create any new issues with regard to the prosecution of children. It follows that existing guidance as to prosecution will be appropriate for the new offences created by the legislation.
It has not been suggested that the CPS does not exercise its discretion wisely in relation to the prosecution of children. On the basis of what we know I am satisfied that the CPS will continue to exercise that discretion in a fully competent manner following the Bill's introduction. I am also reassured by the fact that once the Sexual Offences Bill has been given Royal Assent, careful consideration will be given to the question of whether the guidance should be updated, not only in relation to the prosecution of children, but in relation to the prosecution of all offenders.
The right course is to rely on the CPS's discretion. There is not much difference between us in what we wish to achieve. We would not be justified in adding to the Attorney- General's workload by requiring his
592
personal intervention in every case involving a defendant aged under 16 at the time of the alleged offence. The statutory obligation that the noble Baroness proposes, for understandable reasons, is not necessary. I hope that in the light of what I have said she will feel reassured.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, returns to this issue, may I refer to a case that has arisen since we last met as a Committee? A 15 year-old lesbian girl has left home to live with a lesbian lover older than herself in some squalor—from what we can all gather and know about the case—and against her parents' wishes. Where does that leave the parents in terms of their rights as parents, given that the law would deem them to be responsible for their children? Social services have said that they have no intention of doing anything about the case; they do not intend to intervene. They are entirely happy and have condoned the relationship between the two people, yet the girl is only 15.
What is the position of that girl under the present law, and what would he her position under the Bill once enacted?
Baroness Walmsley: I remind the Committee that we are talking about offences committed against people under 16.
Baroness Blatch: I said that that girl was 15—under 16.
Baroness Walmsley: The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. does not tell us the age of the woman with whom the young girl of 15 went to live. The noble Baroness said that she was older. The amendment refers to everyone—both parties —being under 16, so I suspect that the intervention of the noble Baroness is not specifically relevant to my amendment.
Turning to the Minister's response, he showed touching confidence in the CPS guidance; I look forward to the guidance being reviewed and updated. But I feel that the inappropriate criminalisation of a young person and the experience that he or she would undergo during that process are so appalling and damaging that I have no shame in placing yet another hurdle in the way by suggesting that the Attorney-General be involved.
If the CPS guidelines have the effect that the noble and learned Lord suggests, there will be few such cases and it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to have to consider them, given the harm and damage that prosecution could do to a young person's recovery, development or future life opportunities. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 76 negatived.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I suggest that the Committee be adjourned and reconvene no later than 9.26 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.56 to 9.26 p.m.]
Clause 77 ["Consent"]:
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 377:
Page 35, line 8, leave out from "Part," to end of line 9 and insert "consent means free agreement by a person with the capacity to agree"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 377, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 378. The issue of consent and the capacity to consent is crucial in this Bill. Amendment No. 377 seeks to provide a clearer and better definition of consent than that contained in the Bill. The two things are quite fundamental and thus it is important to define them clearly.
Unfortunately, activities coming within the remit of the Bill lower the thresholds for sexual behaviour which could be deemed to be an offence, bringing in some which are in fact widespread among young people under the legal age of consent. For example, sexual touching is quite common and there is a great deal of actual intercourse among under 16 year-olds. Although some of this activity may be coercive, the vast majority is consensual and experimental. This means that any change to legislation must strike a delicate balance between protecting those who are manipulated while ensuring that those who willingly take part in early sexual experimentation are neither criminalised nor discouraged from seeking the health and education advice they need. It is therefore vital to be quite clear about issues relating to age and the capacity to consent.
Setting the Boundaries uses the definition of "free and genuine agreement" for consent and states that capacity for under 16 year-olds should include the need to demonstrate that the child understands the nature and reasonably foreseeable consequences and implications of the act. Clause 77 adds "capacity" to the proposed definition, but fails to define it; hence my amendment.
Experimental, mutually agreed early sexual activity must lead to a reasoned, proportionate and sensible response involving respect for the child's growing capacities as enshrined in Article 5 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which says,
"enabling the child to act according to his or her developing understanding and maturity".
Current Department of Health guidance on consent recognises that there is no set age at which a child becomes competent to consent to treatment. However, the courts have stated that under 16 year-olds can give valid consent if they have,
"sufficient understanding and intelligence to enable him or her to understand fully what is proposed".
That is sometimes known as the "Gillick competence". Even the Mental Health Act recognises that children aged under 16 are capable of deciding on their own treatment.
In my amendment I have used a phrase similar to that used in Clause 33(2) in relation to people with learning difficulties. It is not wholly satisfactory since
594
one might wonder exactly what "sufficient" means. However, I thought it might be acceptable since a similar phrase already appears elsewhere in the Bill. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As the noble Baroness indicated in her helpful speech, Recommendation 4 in Setting the Boundaries proposes that the word "consent" should be defined in statute as "free agreement". Her amendment seeks to adopt that proposal instead of the definition set out in Clause 77, while the second amendment in this group seeks to define "capacity".
We are all agreed that a definition is needed which makes the point that consent is agreement that is genuinely and voluntarily given, so that it is made quite clear in statute that submission—for instance, agreement given by someone who has been unlawfully detained or is under threat of violence to himself or a third party—could not be interpreted as consent.
There are probably a variety of words that could be used to achieve this policy objective and we have considered a number of options; but, after careful consideration, we have chosen the wording in Clause 77. I believe that it says exactly what we mean, in language that is clear and straightforward. We have moved away from the term "free agreement" that was proposed in Setting the Boundaries because of the concern, however remote, that it might give the impression that some pecuniary or other consideration may be involved in obtaining consent. However, we still give in effect the intention behind the words "free agreement" because we have ruled out submissions by requiring that the person must have the freedom to make the choice. We think that the test should be whether the complainant was in a position where he was able to make his own decision about whether or not to agree, and, being able to make the choice between agreeing and refusing, he chose to agree. We believe that the drafting of Clause 77 captures that position clearly.
The second amendment in the group, again moved very clearly by the noble Baroness, provides for a definition of "capacity"—a word that appears both in Clause 77 as it stands and in Amendment No. 377.
Whether a person has the capacity to consent is obviously relevant to whether he is properly able to consent. Those who might not have the capacity to consent are, as the noble Baroness rightly acknowledged, people with a mental disorder and children. Both categories are already covered separately by the legislation. The offence is designed to protect people with a mental disorder under Clauses 33 to 51, and those to protect children are in the earlier part of the Bill.
In the light of all those offences, it is unlikely that a court would have to look at issues of consent where such people are concerned. For example, if a child under 13 is raped, no issue arises as to consent. If a court has to consider consent—for example, in relation to a rape charge involving a child of 14—and therefore needs to consider the child's capacity to consent, I think we can rely on the court to give a

595
sensible interpretation of the word. I therefore think it unnecessary and unwise to include a definition of capacity in the generic definition in Clause 77.
I hope that that is helpful. I think that our intention is broadly the same, and for the reasons given I cannot accept the amendment.
Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for that clarification. I would not want to be accused of being inconsistent. Normally, I would say that I rely on the courts and should like to leave it to the courts. But in this particular case, where the Bill contains a number of definitions that are entirely necessary to a clear understanding of its provisions, I think that a definition of "capacity" is required. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 378 not moved.]
Clause 77 agreed to.
Clause 78 [Presumptions about the absence of consent]:
[Amendment No. 379 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 380 to 384:
Page 35, line I I, after "proved" insert "(a)"
Page 35. line 12, after "act," insert—
"(b) that the complainant did not consent to it, (c)
Page 35. line 13, after "and" insert "(d)"
Page 35. line 15, leave out paragraph (a).
Page 35, line 19, leave out "the defendant" and insert "he"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 385:
Page 35. line 20, leave out subsection (2).
The noble and learned Lord said: I support this amendment and beg to move it formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 386 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 387:
Page 35, line 23, leave out "referred to in subsection (1)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 388:
Page 35, line 25, leave out from "complainant" to end of line 27 and insert "or another person, causing the complainant to fear for his own or the other person's immediate safety"
The noble Lord said: I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 390 and 392, and, if I may, trespass at the same time on my noble friend's Amendments Nos. 389 and 391.
The effect of all the amendments is to broaden the ambit of Clause 78(3). There are several ways in which they would do that. First, they would add the concept of harm to the concept of violence. Secondly, my noble
596
friend's amendments would take out the word "immediate" to allow future expectation to be there along with present harm. Thirdly, they add the concept of "serious detriment", which takes us away from physical violence into something which might be more associated with property or some other comfort of life.
The purpose of the clause is to set out circumstances under which it can be presumed that someone has not consented to sex. I do not really see the difference in that context between saying to a woman, "If you don't have sex with me now, I will stick this knife in you", to saying, "If you don't have sex with me now, I will stick a knife in you tomorrow". I really do not see that one is a substantially lesser threat than the other. If it is proved that violence was threatened in the future, I cannot see that that is any less a circumstance under which the absence of consent should be presumed than if immediate violence is threatened.
Secondly, I do not see that violence is necessarily the only thing to threaten someone with. There are many things in life that one holds dear over which someone else may have power. If that is sufficient to trigger the provisions in my amendments or in some similar amendments, if that is sufficient to cause a man or woman to fear to such an extent that they would rather have sex than risk those things happening to them. I cannot see any great difference from the threat of immediate violence. If we are going down this road, we should not allow the inventive rapist to escape from the effects of the clause by slightly shifting the ground of that threat. We should seek to capture a threat of that magnitude and nature in whatever form it comes. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I have listened with respect and attention to the arguments of my noble friend. I am afraid that I do not find them at all convincing as a basis for amending these provisions.
Baroness Noakes: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 389 and 391 in this group. Unlike my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, I find what my noble friend Lord Lucas said very compelling. Although Amendments Nos. 389 and 391 are in my name, I associate myself with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Lucas in introducing the amendments in his name, particularly the concept of "serious detriment". We discussed this briefly in relation to the amendments to Clause 78 on our first day in Committee when I raised the issue of the absence from the list of "serious detriment" which had been included in Setting the Boundaries. If we have a list of circumstances in which a rebuttal of presumption will arise under Clause 78(3), it seems very odd to omit a major set of circumstances which should give rise to a rebuttal of presumption, at least alongside the other examples.
Amendments Nos. 389 and 391 deal with the removal of the word "immediate". The assumption behind including the word is that if a person is not to be harmed immediately, he or she can presumably go to the police and get adequate protection. Therefore, the threat of harm, if it is not immediate, is somehow not a real one to be taken seriously hen considering whether the offence of rape has been committed.

597
That is much too simplistic an analysis, however, and does not take account of the way in which rape, or other sexual offences, can take place in the context of existing abusive relationships. If threats are made of future harm, whether to the victim, to a child or to another relative or friend, those threats can carry an absolute conviction, very powerfully, to the person who is being attacked. That person, if he or she is in an abusive relationship, may feel completely powerless to resist. It is just as real as any other form of threat.
I do not believe that Setting the Boundaries recommended the use of the word "immediate". Indeed, it stressed that the test should be based on the perception of the victim, which is what we are discussing. How does the victim feel about the threat that is being made? For those reasons, we hope that the Government will consider these amendments.
Baroness Blatch: I support both my noble friends, because they have both made a compelling case. One is being asked to prove that the threat was of immediate violence, when the threat may be that the person making it will come and get the victim at another time, or a threat may be made some time later. The points that my noble friends made are very powerful, and I support them both.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The two essential points raised by this group of amendments are over the removal of the word "immediate" and the addition of "the serious detriment".
No one would dispute what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said about the potency of the threat of violence in future. Everyone would accept that it can lead to terror. However, the critical issue raised by the amendments in relation to the word "immediate" is whether it is appropriate to impose a persuasive burden in such circumstances. In effect it would mean that once the threat of violence had been established, the burden would shift to the defendant. That is the question. With respect, I do not believe the question to he whether one could have a threat in the future that was such as to deprive people of consent. Of course it could, but it should not be forgotten that quite a significant shift would be effected.
Before placing a persuasive burden of that kind on the defendant in relation to belief and consent, we must be sure that the circumstances included are those in which it is fair to conclude that consent was not present unless the defendant can prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he believed that the complainant consented.
We have been extremely careful to cover only actual or threatened violence immediately before the relevant act. The only exception to that is set out in subsection (4), which covers the situation in which there is a series of sexual acts, and the violence or threat occurs immediately before the first. In our view, threat and violence must be both realistic and immediate to justify
598
inclusion in Clause 78—for example, when an intruder holds a parent in one room and forces submission to sexual intercourse by threatening that his partner will assault or kill the child of the complainant in the next room.
The amendments that have been tabled will create a rebuttable presumption in relation to threatened harm or violence at any time in the future, enabling a complainant to claim that he had submitted, for example, because the defendant had made an unrealistic violence against someone who could expect to seek protection from the police. When one deals with such rebuttable presumptions, one must be careful to analyse their effect and ensure that they are properly targeted. I say that without in any way seeking to detract from the powerful case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for establishing how damaging such threats could be.
The threat of future violence is clearly a matter that the jury should be asked to consider, but they should be asked to do so in the normal way, taking into account matters such as whether there was a realistic expectation of the alleged threat being carried out and whether the complainant would have been able to take any steps to prevent the threat being realised. In short, juries might consider all the circumstances, as they are able to, as to what the effect of the threat might be. In my view, linking submission to the fear of violence at some unspecified time in the future is certainly not too distant or uncertain to found a conviction. However, it is too distant and uncertain to justify inclusion in the rebuttable presumptions list. It is an issue that needs to be tested by the jury in the normal way. Recognising the merit of the argument put in the general question, I do not think that it is appropriate to remove the word "immediate" from the list of rebuttable presumptions.
Amendment No. 391 would introduce into subsection (3) the situation where the complainant was in fear "of serious detriment to himself or another person". I appreciate that that would be in line with the proposal in Setting the Boundaries. However, we deliberately decided to exclude fear of serious detriment because we think that the term is too imprecise and would create uncertainty in the law. What might constitute serious detriment for one person might not be the same to somebody else. The question of whether the threat realistically could be carried out and whether the detriment could really be serious enough to justify submission would be wholly dependent upon all of the individual circumstances of each case—including subjective elements such as the age and mental capacity of the complainant. For example, the threat to kill a family pet would normally not be enough to persuade an adult to submit to a sexual assault, but it might have a devastating effect on certain adults, a child or a person with a mental disorder.
Similarly, the threatened loss of one's job could be extremely serious in some circumstances but not so serious in other circumstances, depending upon all of the facts. Again, I have no wish to underestimate the

599
potency and importance of such a threat. The question is not whether that can found a rape charge—it plainly can. The question is whether it is appropriate to include that in the rebuttable presumptions. We recognise the sincerity of the amendments. Nevertheless, we think that we could not agree to them.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I add a slightly different dimension to the matter. The fear of the threat of violence may be immediate. It may be so material that it governs the activities of the complainant. The violence may not be immediate, but the threat and the fear of that violence could be immediate. My noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Lucas had a point when they referred to "immediate". "Immediate", so far as subsection (3)(a) is concerned, means that the violence should be immediate. However, the fear of the threat of violence may well be immediate, but the actual violence could follow at another time.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The effect of the draft at the moment is that there would have to be violence used at the time that the offence was committed or that there was a threat of immediate violence; in other words, that the threat made was that violence would immediately be used. We do not wish to go beyond that so far as the rebuttable presumptions are concerned. Even a current fear that violence would be used at some unspecified time in the future, which I think is what the noble Baroness is implying, would not be good enough in the current draft. I have set out in detail why I do not think that that is enough. It plainly can be enough to found a conviction, but it should not be enough to give rise to a rebuttable presumption.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: As we are having an objective discussion on an extremely serious subject concerned with the due administration of the criminal law, I agree wholeheartedly with everything that the Minister said. His response was expressed in terms I might have sought to use myself, but much better. Many people who enter this domain have no concept of the conduct of a case, of the position of the defence, the prosecution or anything. They read many tracts that are sent by well meaning religious societies or this, that and the other organisation but with no practical experience of the courts. It is right that the Minister has put the matter straight.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: Having decided not to speak much this evening, I feel the need to say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that although some of us may not understand the detail of the law, our hearts are really with the victims of these crimes. Having listened to the previous debate, I understand the issue of rebuttal. However, I am concerned if we cannot deal anywhere in the Bill with situations in which victims are put in fear of a whole range of what the Minister
600
described as issues and threats. I should like reassurance that that issue can be addressed somewhere in the Bill or in other legislation.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I ask the noble Baroness, with respect, very quickly, whether she includes among the victims of a rape trial those who have been erroneously convicted under false accusation?
Baroness Noakes: Before my noble friend decides what to do with his amendment, perhaps I might say to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that although I am not a lawyer, I come with some humility to take part in our consideration of the Bill. I hope that we will be able to contribute some insight although we may not do so with the full lawyerly knowledge of others. I hope that many noble Lords will have a valid contribution to make.
I turn to the amendments. I was reminded of the debate that we had on our first day in Committee about Clause 78 and the role of presumptions whether rebuttable or conclusive. I think underlying some of the concerns which have surfaced in this debate is a concern about the construction of Clause 78 as we amended it on our first day. I suspect that it is that to which we shall return on Report.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, that where there is a case in which someone consents entirely because of a threat of violence in the future, that can found a conviction of rape. I hope that I have made it clear that nothing I have said should detract from that proposition—which was advanced very forcefully and effectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I also completely join the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in saying that these debates would be pointless if they were only debates between lawyers. I hope that I have made that absolutely clear in all that I have said and done. I hope it is also clear that, above all, I am speaking to this as a Minister rather than as a lawyer.
Lord Lucas: I always thought that the proper relationship between the rest of us and lawyers is that we decide what to do and the lawyers tell us how to do it. I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that long exposition of the Government's thinking behind the wording they have chosen for the Bill. Ultimately I do not share the relative lightness that he attaches to future violence. One can govern countries with the threat of future violence. Saddam did it very successfully for a very long time. As my noble friend said, we shall return to the subject in the context of Clause 78 as a whole. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 389 to 392 not moved.]
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 393:
Page 35, line 35, after "physical" insert "or mental"

601
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 393 which adds "or mental" to paragraph (e) of subsection (3) of Clause 78. We amended Clause 78 on our first Committee day, but the principle of the amendment remains in relation to the redrafted clause.
If accepted, the amendment would trigger a rebuttable presumption of lack of consent if the complainant could not communicate consent because of his or her mental disability. The paragraph as currently drafted triggers a presumption only if physical disability is involved. We do not understand the rationale for that. A person may not be able to communicate consent if he or she is so paralysed that he or she cannot communicate wishes. However, what is the logical distinction between a physical disability and a mental one?
I am aware that for the purposes of the offences under Clauses 33 to 37 a person who cannot communicate choice by reason of a mental disability is treated as being unable to refuse, and that hence they appear to be adequately catered for by the offences in the Bill.
My concern arises if for some reason the prosecution were mistakenly to commence proceedings for rape under Clause 1. That could happen because the nature of the mental disability was not immediately apparent. It is not a fanciful suggestion as some forms of mental disorder, such as autism, present themselves in more complex ways than, say, severe learning difficulties.
The Minister explained his reasons for moving his amendments to restructure the way the Bill dealt with under-13s. He said that one reason was to ensure that if there was an error as to age, and the defendant was charged under the wrong section, there may be a problem if the indictment had to be amended at a later stage and the defendant charged under another section. He explained the discretion that judges have and how they could not be relied on to accept an amended indictment.
If proceedings are commenced under subsection (1) and it is discovered that the defendant had not communicated lack of consent because of a mental disability, then the offence should have been charged under Clause 33. It may be too late to amend the indictment, according to the logic of what the Minister explained to us when he sought to restructure the way the Bill dealt with the under-13s clauses. My concern is that in a case such as this there may be no possibility to shift to Clause 33. There would not be a rebuttal presumption of lack of consent and it is possible that there would be an acquittal.
This amendment would give a belt and braces approach, which would allow the rebuttal presumption to come up under Clause 78 if an offence had been indicted under Clause 1, even though Clause 33 might turn out to be the better clause. My concern is that we
602
ensure that there is no possibility that some forms of sexual offence escape being brought to justice. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support this amendment for the reasons I have given on two previous occasions and that are fully reported in the Official Report.
I complement my noble friend on her manner of presentation.
Lord Lucas: I have a difficulty—and I hope the Minister will help me—in imaging what kind of physical disability would prevent someone being able to communicate consent. It would seem to require unconsciousness. If you have a mental facility and any means of communicating and any degree of consciousness, you can communicate consent. It is astonishing what people who have very little physical ability left can do by way of communication, as Stephen Hawking and others have demonstrated. I find it difficult to imagine what circumstances the Bill as drafted will catch and I would be grateful if the Minister could enlighten me.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, rightly acknowledges that we are already introducing a range of offences at Clauses 33 to 37 which are designed to protect those with a mental disorder that prevents them from being unable to refuse to take part in sexual activity. These offences specifically cover those who are unable to communicate their consent to sexual activity because of a mental disorder.
As I understand it, the noble Baroness is asks in her argument, what happens if you are charged under Clause 1 and it is too late to amend the charge to put it under Clauses 33 to 37? I accept this is a possibility although a remote one. We do not think it is appropriate to cover that by Clause 78. As the noble Baroness knows, the presumptions in Clause 78 relate only to the defendant's belief in consent. Even when the presumptions apply, as the noble Baroness knows, the complainant's lack of consent, as opposed to belief in consent, will have to be proved in the normal way. This will almost certainly involve cross-examination of the complainant. Very little is gained by what the noble Baroness is proposing. I entirely accept the circumstances that she posited, but is it sensible, in such a rare case—we cannot amend to cover a Clauses 33 to 37 offence—that would not normally, as the noble Baroness will acknowledge, involve cross-examination of a complainant. As we have said on previous occasions, they normally deal with medical evidence, which is the normal material that would be used under Clauses 33 to 37.
I understand the motive behind the amendment and understand why it has been tabled, but I do not think that it is necessary or appropriate or would provide much help. I hope that the noble Baroness will give that point some consideration when she is deciding what to do about the amendment.
10 p.m.
Lord Lucas: I had hoped that the noble and learned Lord would reply to my question too.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am sorry. I can easily imagine circumstances in which a physical incapacity would make it impossible or difficult for the victim to indicate that he or she did not consent. It might be that if the defendant knew the victim, he would know that he or she was not consenting. I can easily imagine circumstances in which the position of the victim was such that transmitting a lack of consent would, through physical incapacity—for example, unconsciousness or a medical condition that made any sort of communication impossible—be very difficult. It is wrong to rule that out.
Lord Lucas: That reaches the fringes of possibility. Unconsciousness or anything approaching it is covered by paragraph (d). I have never seen a physical disability that resulted in a total inability to communicate, unless it is, at the same time, a mental disability or unconsciousness.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I declare an interest as the vice-chair of the John Grooms association for disabled people. I could describe a wide range of physical disabilities in which people have quadriplegic disorders or communication or verbal disorders. It may mean that they are not intellectually impaired, but they are certainly physically impaired and would find communication—immediate communication, certainly—difficult. Sometimes, they take time to communicate, and, in those circumstances, that would cause considerable difficulties.
Baroness Blatch: Does it not also hinge on what constitutes consent? A case was brought to my attention not too long ago in which a person who was paralysed from the waist down was driving home in a modified car and stopped in a lay-by for a rest. A person came up intending, she thought, to assault her sexually. She simply said, "I'm paralysed and can do nothing, so have your way with me". It was not consent in the real sense of the word, but she knew that she was completely helpless. It so happened that God was on her side that night, and the other person was so shocked by what had happened that he moved away and did not continue his advances.
There is an issue about what is consent. In that case, it was not consent; it was someone saying, "I can do nothing about it, so you might as well get on with it".
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am very grateful. Noble Lords have given better answers than I gave. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, gave a sensible answer.
I may not have understood the facts fully, but, in the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, the victim, in fact, made it absolutely clear that she did not consent. In effect, she said, "I don't consent, but there
604
is nothing that I can do about it". That would not he caught by the subsection because she was able to indicate her view clearly.
Baroness Noakes: I thank all noble Lords who took part in this short debate. There are interesting issues relating to physical and mental disability to be debated.
I shall consider carefully what the noble and learned Lord said about the way in which a mental disability would fit into the presumptions as to belief in consent, set out in Clause 78. I am not convinced that it deals with the point. There may be an issue about the effect of mental disability in circumstances that are, perhaps, not that rare. I quoted autism, but there are other forms of mental disability that do not necessarily present themselves as showing that, at a particular point in time, a person did not have the capacity to consent. I shall consider the matter again, and I thank the Minister for his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 394:
Page 35, line 38, leave out "when" and insert "immediately before"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 395:
Page 35, line 40, leave out "when" and insert "immediately before"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 396 and 397 not moved.]
Lord Campbell of Allowaymoved Amendment No. 397A:
Leave out Clause 78 and insert the following new Clause—
"DEFENCE OF HONEST BELIEF AS TO CONSENT
The provisions of this Act as concerns England and Wales shall not abrogate the jurisdiction of the judiciary to entertain the defence of honest but mistaken belief as to consent as judicially established, and to ensure that an accused who had no guilty mind should not be convicted."
The noble Lord said: If this amendment were to commend itself to the Committee it would slight the mould not only of Clause 78, but of Clauses 1, 3, 5 and 7. There was no comprehensive debate on day one on Clause 11(3), as implemented by Clause 78, which lie in irreconcilable conflict with this amendment which inserts retention of the defence of honest belief in consent.
As yet it would not appear that Members of the Committee, who have given notice to move that Clause 78 does not stand part, have made common cause on retention of this defence supported by this amendment. But on this occasion, at this hour, on a matter of this importance, there is no prospect of deploying any reasoned argument of persuasion which could even persuade my own Front Bench.

605
The purpose today is to engender debate on which the opinion of the House shall not be taken until Report if leave for that purpose to withdraw this amendment were granted. I have said that I would take three minutes to open this matter so may I take one more? The salient questions arising are, first, why was this defence judicially established; how does it work in practice and why should it be abolished? Secondly, what are the intended consequences of abolition and are they acceptable? The third question is whether, by weighting the scales of justice to inhibit the prospects of acquittal, the unintended consequence of the collateral damage shall be the inevitable enhancement of the risks of erroneous conviction. Those are the three salient questions for consideration by the Committee.
It is no intended discourtesy to your Lordships in the Chamber to suggest that due examination of this question cannot truly be afforded at this hour today. Such debate should ensue on Report when the merits of the argument may be addressed objectively by the House. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We have already had a debate on the reasonableness defence. The noble Lord gives due warning that the issue is coming back on Report, but I do not think that anything would be served by our debating it again.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. We have not, with respect, had a comprehensive debate. The beginning and the end have been separated by a period of six Committee days. What we shall have on Report, if your Lordships give me leave, is a comprehensive debate on which an objective examination may be made. We have not yet had that debate—whatever the noble and learned Lord may say, we have not had it. Let us have it on Report.
Baroness Blatch: Before my noble friend sits down, I would like to ask a procedural question. If the Committee has dealt with the question of whether Clause 78 should stand part of the Bill, why was this amendment not pre-empted?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: If that question is addressed to me, I do not think that I can query—whatever may be the instructions from the Christian Institute on this affair and whatever other instructions may be given—the decision of the Table that the amendment is proper. I am greatly distressed that my noble friend, who is deputy leader of my party, should take such exception to the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I am deeply distressed that my noble friend should ascribe my question to the Christian Institute—it was a genuine, procedural question. I was neither against my noble friend nor for him. In fact, I have taken no part in the debate on Clause 78. I asked the question simply because the procedure seemed odd. If Clause 78 has been
606
considered by the Committee and deemed to stand part of the Bill, I thought that, procedurally, the amendment might have been pre-empted. It was an entirely innocent, procedural question on my part.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I ask, as that response has been made, why the objection was made by the deputy leader of my own party, and not by the Government?
Baroness Blatch: It was not an objection. It as an entirely innocent, procedural question.
Baroness Noakes: Perhaps I may help both of my noble friends. I heard it not as an objection but as a query. The Committee debated Clause 78 stand part, but the Question was not put when we did so, which was on our first Committee day. It is therefore perfectly proper to debate Amendment No. 397A where we find it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 398:
Divide Clause 78 into two clauses, the first (Presumptions about the absence of belief in consent) to consist of subsections (1) to (4) and the second (Conclusive presumptions about consent) to consist of subsections (5) to (8).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 79 [Section 78: relevant acts]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 399:
Page 36, line 27, leave out "section 78 applies, references in that section" and insert "sections (Presumptions about the absence of belief in consent) and (Conclusive presumptions about consent) apply, references in those sections"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 79, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Skelmersdale: I know that we have already debated the issue, but I omitted to ask a question earlier that I should have done, for which I apologise to the Committee. The second offence is that under Section 3—assault by penetration. Does the Interpretation Act apply to the relevant acts, which can be committed by women as well as men?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I believe that it does but I would like to confirm that in writing to the noble Lord.
Clause 79, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 80 ["Sexual"]:
10.15 p.m.
Lord Northbournemoved Amendment No. 399A:
Page 37, line 8, after "Part" insert ", subject to subsection (2),"

607
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 400, 400A, 400B, 400C, 401A, 401B, 403A, 403AA, 403B and 403C. That is what is called the scatter-gun approach.
This group of amendments is about the definition of the sexual touching of children. The sexual touching of children must he considered separately, as a different offence, from the sexual touching of adults. In the case of adults the victim can consent, but with the sexual touching of children there is no question of consent.
The Minister emphasised repeatedly during earlier stages of the Bill the importance of getting the correct balance between the need to convict the guilty and the need to protect the innocent. I am a member of the advisory boards of Toynbee Hall and the Caldecott Community, both of which care for damaged children. I have a real concern for the welfare of children and I have no doubt, from my own experience of children who have been damaged, about how much harm can he done by sexual abuse. It is against that background that I make hold to say that in Clause 80, the Government are in danger of getting the balance wrong.
There is a substantial and increasing body of evidence that shows that children—especially boys—have a better life chance if they grow up with suitable male role models in their lives. In our society today, about 25 per cent of boys are growing up in a family without a resident father. Many have lost all contact with their father. In those circumstances, male teachers, youth workers and mentors have an important role to play in our society. They can help a boy to learn how to grow up into a decent man. Today, more and more good and decent men in the professions that care for children are becoming concerned about the risk of false accusations of sexual abuse, which can, at a blow, ruin their career, their families and their lives even if, in the end, the courts acquit them.
I hope that noble Lords accept that I do not for a moment suggest that we should relax our efforts to catch and punish paedophiles; I am saying that with a little more thought and care, we could do more to make it clear that we are concerned to protect the innocent. If we do not do that, we shall see an accelerating drain of men from the caring professions working with children.
Already, there is a chronic shortage of male teachers. I have with me a fax from the general-secretary of the NAHT confirming that statement. I also draw the House's attention to a Written Question that I recently tabled about the joint inspectorate review published by Ofsted in October 2002. It states,
"that staff shortages in key social services, including schools and social services departments, are, in some local authorities, a problem seriously affecting the quality of the services they offer".—[Official Report, 28/11/02; col. WA62.]
The amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and I have tabled are probing amendments. They are intended to show that there are ways in which some comfort and reassurance could be given to ordinary, good, decent men and women who want to devote their lives—wholly or partly, and as professionals or
608
volunteers—to helping children. People working with children need to know what they can and cannot do. Relevant situations arise when one is working with a child: restraining a child, helping a child, comforting a child and providing medical attention for a child. Those situations may arise on a mountainside or in a boat—wherever—and need an instant decision from the person who must make the choice.
In today's atmosphere of suspicion and doubt, parents and grandparents need reassurance. At any one time in England there are about 2 million parents of children under the age of 16. Children, depending on their age, as they make the journey from the protective environment of the womb through to adulthood and independence, need varying degrees of unselfish physical love and affection from their parents, or of course from surrogate parents.
Today, parents are increasingly uncertain what they should and should not do—what is and what is not permissible. In the United States, false accusations of sexual abuse in the family are becoming common. They are often associated with the ending of a relationship and an attempt to gain care of the children.
For all those reasons it is highly desirable that the new crime—and it is new—of sexual touching of children should be defined as clearly as possible by Parliament, so that people can know in advance and understand as far as possible what we mean when we make this law.
In order to suggest how this might be achieved I want to unwrap the parcel of ideas containing the phrase "sexual touching" in relation to children. In my view there is a spectrum of kinds of touching which, depending on the circumstances in which they occur, may range from the highly desirable to the criminally damaging. I am trying to suss out what the Government intend to criminalise and what they do not.
The Government's intention is that the crime of sexual touching should include two elements. I should he grateful if the Minister will tell me if I am wrong. The first element is touching from which the adult obtains or intends to obtain sexual gratification either for himself or for another. The second element is that it causes physical or emotional harm to the child, or creates a significant risk of such harm. Taken together, those two characteristics of an act of touching fully justify criminalisation.
I want to try to identify what other kinds of touching the Government think should be criminalised. Is it, for example, the Government's intention that even if there is no harm or potential harm to the child, the sexual arousal of the adult will in itself make the act of touching a criminal offence? Is it the Government's intention that even if there is no sexual arousal and no harm to the child there are some other kinds of touching which are none the less criminal? If so, what are they?
Many of us fear that this Bill will criminalise a whole variety of touching behaviours, simply because they give rise in some people's minds to the fear that they indicate the kind of person who might commit an act

609
of sexual abuse at some time in the future. A great deal of thought needs to be given as to whether one can criminalise being a particular kind of person.
If the Government's intention is not clearly expressed in the Bill, the danger is that the damage will have been done. Parents will lose confidence in giving children the physical reassurance and love they need. Good men will no longer want to work in the professions. It is simply not good enough for the Government to say that the courts will decide. By the time the matter even gets to a police inquiry, the adult's career and reputation would have been destroyed. In addition, it will take the courts years to build up a body of case law on the subject. I believe that we in Parliament have the obligation to decide what we mean and to say it clearly.
Amendments Nos. 403B and 403AA seek to make clear that Parliament is primarily concerned for the safety and welfare of the child. The concepts of "harm" and "significant harm" that I have used are embedded in the Children Act and are clearly understood in law. Amendment No. 403B, includes touching which, although it does not actually cause harm, is "liable to cause" harm. Amendment No. 399 is a paving amendment. Amendments Nos. 400, 400A and 403C seek to define the parameters of sexual intent and sexual touching for the purposes of the Bill.
Amendment No. 403, interestingly, follows the formula used in Papua New Guinea. It has some merit because it is extremely clear. Amendments Nos. 400B, 400C, 401, 401A and 403 seek to reassure ordinary decent adults working with children that if they are accused of sexual touching, the reasonable person—if we must have the reasonable person test—who decides their fate will at least, as far as possible, not be biased or prejudiced.
I must say in parenthesis that I am profoundly unhappy about the concept of a reasonable person. People with so many different views can all be reasonable. I wonder what Sigmund Freud would have thought about various forms of touching.
Depending on the Government's response, I hope to withdraw the amendments and to bring forward something more carefully crafted at the next stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I speak to Amendments Nos. 401 and 403. I have great sympathy with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, but I remind him that many of his points were discussed at length in the leading case on indecent assault. The issue in the case of Court that came before the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House was whether and in what circumstances a particular assault was indecent—as opposed to being a simple assault.
I appeared for the appellant. My noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew appeared for the respondent—so one had two liberals disagreeing on the definition. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who gave the leading judgment, disagreed with the two of us. Your Lordships will appreciate that this area is one that causes a great deal of difficulty.
610
The formulation that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the other members of the Judicial Committee produced was to refer to the views of a right-minded person as opposed to a reasonable person. I have included those words in Amendments Nos. 401 and 403 to find out whether any specific or particular reason has caused the Government to move from the formulation that their Lordships, after three days of submissions, produced 10 or 12 years ago.
It seems to me that right minded is a concept that encompasses many of the noble Lord's points. For example, right-minded people will not think that the caressing of a child is an indecency or sexual act in any way unless there is something rather more. The Judicial Committee decided that the expression "right minded" was one that juries trying such cases—or magistrates in the case of indecent assault—would readily understand, which would allow them to determine the correct decision in light of the particular facts and circumstances.
I have great sympathy with the noble Lord. This is a fairly well-trodden path. I just happen to think that the more one tries closely to define things and box in the decisions that magistrates and juries have to make, the more likely one is to leave other things out. The use of "right-minded" was the considered view of the Judicial Committee. I want to know the reason for moving away from that expression.
Lord Lucas: I am happy to support a number of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne—though not Amendment No. 403C, which would land me in considerable trouble every time I changed my daughter's nappy.
Touching is a very important part of bringing up a child for parents, more distant members of the family and—at times of stress or when particular instruction is required—others into whose charge the child is given. It is an important way of communicating comfort, affection and solidarity. A child who is deprived of touching grows up a much lesser person as a result—and will find his or her journey through life much harder.
I am keen that we should do nothing in the Bill to discourage people who should be touching children from touching them when the time is right. I find the word "sexual" in that context difficult to interpret unambiguously to mean what I would like it to mean. In olden days, as the song goes, a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking. Many people now have trouble even seeing a woman's eyes and not thinking of that as something shocking. It goes with the fashion, the person and the beliefs a person has as to what is sexual.
Many people are uncertain as to whether any touching of a child has a sexual element; whether any relationship between a man and a woman necessarily has of it something sexual or may be thought to have of it something sexual. I find that using a word that is so broad in this context to deal with something relatively narrow leads us into the areas that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, finds difficult. It is making

611
life difficult, particularly for teachers and others who are not part of the family but who none the less have charge of a child and will from time to time need to give comfort and guidance to that child. It puts them in a position where they feel in danger and at risk from the interpretation of a phrase.
If they imagine how it could be used they can see it being used against their perfectly innocent—and indeed, entirely desirable—acts of touching a child in order to comfort them. I do not want that to be the position. I would therefore like to see something stronger and clearer in the clause. There are various ways of achieving that. I am attracted by what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said. That leads us to some extent in the right direction.
I am even more attracted by the direction indicated by Amendment No. 400 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, which makes it clear that sexual touching is intended to lead to the sexual arousal of one party or another and is not just sexual because touching a child or a member of the opposite sex always has a sexual element or because they are touching a part of the body that is considered sexual.
I understand that it is a difficult area, but as a man of plain English as opposed to a lawyer I find Clause 80 frightening. I can see it putting me off becoming involved in any profession where I might have to touch children to do the best by them. I can see why the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, feels the same. We should be careful of going down that road. There is an evil further down it. We should not cut off children from the love and support of which touching can be an essential part merely because we are frightened of what happens if one goes too far down that road.
Lord Monson: I had not intended to take part in the debate on this group of amendments, but my noble friend Lord Northbourne made such a good argument that I felt I must rise to support him. I would go even further than the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. The late Auberon Waugh wrote a great deal of good sense on this sort of thing. He must have been 10 or 11 years younger than me, but like me he was at school before the 1960s. Before the 1960s it was quite common in boys' prep schools and public schools to find masters who patted boys on the knee.
In retrospect they were obviously repressed homosexuals, but they were often extremely good masters and they did not do any harm. That is the point. That is why I believe that Amendment No. 403B is the crucial amendment in the group. If it does not cause harm to the child, it should not be an offence. It did not harm any of us; they would not have dreamt of going any further than patting boys on the knee. We laughed about it between ourselves, but that was all. I make no comment on the other amendments in the group, but I think that Amendment No. 403B is vital.
The Earl of Listowel: I rise to comment on what my noble friend Lord Monson just said. I recognise that that may well have been his experience, but I have spoken to other young people who have had someone, perhaps a rowing coach, pat them on the knee, and
612
that can shatter their confidence in someone whom they really admired, if they can work out what the touching was about. I am sure that my noble friend's experience is true; but there is another experience, which is also true. When a young person has trust in an adult and that adult uses that trust to abuse them, even in what would seem an insignificant way, that can be harmful.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I support the clause as drafted, but I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in his phrase "right-minded". As a professional who has touched a lot of children in my time to give them comfort, professionals know clearly where the boundaries are and how important it is to ensure that one uses those boundaries—by ensuring that other people are around and ensuring that one does not leave the child in a position in which it may feel uncertain. The most important saying is that young people themselves should feel comfortable with what is happening. The problem with the kind of experiences described is that most young people will giggle about it but do not know how to stop it happening. I am therefore uneasy about changing the basic phrases.
I am also concerned that there is discussion about false allegations. At present, research is available on both sides, showing that some such allegations are made but that on the whole, young people are confirming that they have actually been abused. Freud has been mentioned. Freud was seeing a lot of incest cases, from which he obtained his material. We must therefore recognise that we did not see much of what was happening in the past; much of it was accepted. It is up to our generation to stop that, while not preventing good, warm. physical contact.
I am a physical person; my father was a physical person; we had a close physical relationship, but nothing sexual. I do not accept that there is necessarily sexuality in every relationship. I therefore hope that we will be absolutely clear and recognise that professionals know how to draw the boundaries. A great deal is now written about all of that to add protection. We should retain those phrases to protect young people, but I like the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I hesitate to rise, but perhaps the Minister will confirm that the definition of "sexual" extends beyond children to the provisions in Clause 33 and onwards. I understand that in Clause 33(1)(b), for example, a jury will be invited to determine whether touching is sexual. I should he interested to know how a judge is supposed to charge a jury. The first of the two tests relates to the nature of the activity and asks the question whether a reasonable person would consider that it may be sexual. Having overcome the first hurdle, it goes on to ask a different question of the jury; that a reasonable person would consider that the activity is sexual, and cites its nature, circumstances or purpose,
"or all or some of those considerations".
I defer to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who has the task of addressing juries in this jurisdiction, but if I were north of the Border. I would

613
find it difficult to tell the members of a jury exactly how they should go about the task of determining for the purposes, for example, of an offence brought under Clause 33(1), whether the touching was sexual. The matter might be made much worse if the word "reasonable" were to be deleted and substituted by the word "right-minded".
These are questions which the Committee ought to address in some detail, given that the word "sexual" appears in quite a number of clauses in the Bill, and it may have different consequences and questions that need to be asked in relation to the offence contemplated in a particular clause.
Speaking personally, from what I have heard in the debate so far, I understand the concerns which gave rise to the amendments which have obviously been narrowly drawn in relation to the concerns of my noble friend Lord Northbourne in regard to children, although the matter extends further. Along with my noble friend, I am concerned about the use of the phrase, "may (at least) be sexual" in the first part of this clause. Surely it is unnecessary to have the words "at least", because while the touching may be mainly sexual, it may be other things as well.
Those are merely comments on the drafting of the clause which, I suspect, along with some of the early clauses of the Bill, may give rise to difficult questions when charging a jury. Indeed, at one stage I believe that the Minister offered to produce a specimen charge in relation to the problems which arose under Clause 1.
Baroness Walmsley: I do not intend to treat the Committee to the spectacle of two Liberals again disagreeing with each other. Therefore, although I strongly support the spirit of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I shall support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford because I feel that they could provide the solution.
I know that this issue is very important for men who work with children either in social services or in education. I visit many primary and nursery schools and, in particular in nursery schools, it is already rare to find a man working in those settings. That is very unfortunate. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has already remarked, many children do not have a close male relative or male role model at home. It is therefore important that we do not do anything to discourage the right kind of men from working with children and from showing them some form of affection within the bounds of the responsible professional, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth.
Touching is important. Often what a deprived child most needs is a jolly good hug and so it is important to set the parameters within which that can be done by professionals—in a caring manner, with no danger to their own professional future and no danger to the child. I believe that the amendments spoken to by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford may well move us in the right direction in that respect.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: No one who has spoken in the debate, and no one I know, wants to see entirely innocent people criminalised by the offences in the Bill. I do not know what the Minister intends to do about the amendments, but I am certain that he would agree with what I say.
Sadly, as was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, all too many children experience inappropriate touching and approaches. It is those who have an evil intent towards children whom we must keep in mind. I know from my time as Minister of State at the Home Office—from visits to prisons, young offender centres—just how many people were there because they were abused as children. Their lives had been completely blighted. That is no excuse for criminal behaviour, but their lives had been utterly thwarted in terms of being able to grow up naturally. The effect of inappropriate sexual behaviour towards them had a very real impact.
I have some concern therefore about tampering with Clause 80. I am particularly concerned and particularly sensitive to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne and by my noble friend Lord Lucas. But the definition of what is sexual goes to the heart of the Bill. That needs to be born in mind.
I am not a lawyer and I do not envy those who have to address their minds to this issue. Even those who sit in judgment in the courts sometimes need the wisdom of Solomon in order to arrive at a fair judgment. I am talking particularly about young people—on whom most of our discussion has been concentrated.
It seems to me that Clause 80 represents a fair attempt to ensure that the word "sexual" for the purposes of the Bill will be interpreted in a way that ordinary people would expect. For that reason, we should be reluctant to interfere with the wording.
It seems that the first amendments in the group, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and my noble friend Lord Lucas, are concerned that activity that is not sexual should not be in danger of falling within the scope of the Bill. They have a point. It would be dreadful if entirely innocent actions were deemed to be a sexual offence. However, I think that we can have confidence that under the existing requirement in Clause 80 a "reasonable person" must consider the action to be sexual, and the professionals are probably the best people to make that judgment.
My concern is that Amendments Nos. 399A, 400, 400A to 400C, 401 A, 401 B and 403A to 403C would go much further. If, as proposed in Amendment No. 400, Clause 80 were replaced with a test that the touching or penetration must be,
"intended to give rise to the sexual arousal of either party",
we should place on prosecutors an additional burden to prove that intention. A pecularity of the word "arousal" may be that the perpetrator could claim the defence that he was already aroused before the touching took place.
Amendment No. 403B would limit the definition of what constitutes the sexual touching of a child to circumstances where an offence would be committed

615
only if there was proof of harm or likelihood of harm to the child. This could radically undermine child sex offences. It could allow a perpetrator to adduce evidence that the child consented willingly and was not harmed physically or psychologically. It could require prosecutors to prove by physical evidence or using expert witnesses that harm was caused or was likely to be caused.
Amendment No. 401A would allow a conviction for, say, the Clause 9 offence of sexual activity with a child only if a reasonable person,
"of the same gender, sexuality, age and ethnic, social and cultural background",
as the defendant could be conjured up in the mind of the jury to say that the touching was sexual. That really is going too far.
Amendment No. 401 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, replaces the concept of a reasonable person with that of the right-minded person. I am not familiar with the phrase "right-minded person" but the courts are very familiar with the phrase "a reasonable person" and, in my book, that should stand.
I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about Amendment No. 402. I do not want to see the words "at least" removed from the clause, as the amendment suggests, but it will be interesting to hear what the noble and learned Lord says will be the effect. I suspect that the words help to ensure that activity which has an additional purpose or a pretext is not excused. For example, if a gym coach holds an athlete in a particular posture and uses the occasion to touch the person improperly, I trust the wording makes it more difficult for the coach to argue that the sexual touching was merely incidental and therefore not criminal.
I shall be interested in the Minister's reply. Just as judges in court need the wisdom of Solomon, I suspect that the noble and learned Lord will need it in responding to this debate.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Notwithstanding the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, does not support my Amendments Nos. 401 and 403, there is a great deal of force in what she says in the broader context. There is a great danger in refining and defining the various offences before the Committee in that all one is doing is adding extra things to prove, as the noble Baroness said, and as she and I agreed in relation to an amendment at the Committee's previous sitting.
Lord Northbourne: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Several noble Lords, being lawyers—the noble Lord in particular—think of this issue in terms only of what the courts will do. The burden of my introductory speech and my amendments is about the people out there who have to make a decision long before the matter goes to court and, I hope, in such a mode that it will never go to court.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Again, there is a great deal of force in what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, says. He is right that those who are working with children
616
require some rules by which they order their conduct. I can appreciate the point that he makes. I suppose that lawyers tend to look at what has to be proved when a case is actually brought to court. I come back to something that I have said so often that I expect your Lordships are fed up with hearing it—we should trust juries and magistrates to come to commonsense decisions on the particular facts and circumstances of a case.
Perhaps I may answer the criticism of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom. "Right-minded" was a decision of the Judicial Committee of this House. I remind him, since he sought to draw a distinction with what happens north of the Border, that party to that decision were Lord Keith of Avonholm and Lord Fraser of Tullybelton. I think that they were speaking for Scotland as sometimes my noble friend Lord Carlile and I speak for Wales. We were speaking for Wales in this particular case because it was a Welsh case and it was the sort of unusual circumstance in which this issue is raised.
Most cases of indecent assault never have a discussion about whether what has taken place is indecent—it is obvious. Touching a particular part of the anatomy is almost, by itself, indecent. In the case of Court, the debate was about a young man, a shop assistant, who had said to a young girl of 12 who had come into the shop "Do you like being smacked?" and had put her over his knee and smacked her. The issue was whether that was an assault or an indecent assault. When asked by the police why he did it, he said "It was a bottom fetish, I suppose". Consequently, he was convicted of an indecent assault because there were indications of what was in his mind; what was behind his act. It is very unusual for such an issue to arise, because it is obvious that what has happened is indecent or sexual.
We do not need to define things too closely; we need to leave it to the common sense of the judges of the facts. Subject to what the Minister has to say, there is no great reason for differing from the views of the Judicial Committee, which spent three days on this matter as opposed to the 40 minutes that we have spent so far.
Lord Hylton: I had not intended to take part in the debate. However, my noble friend Lord Northbourne explained that most of his amendments are intended to be in some sense exploratory. Therefore, he should not be accused of trying to over-define things.
Will the Minister give particular consideration to Amendment No. 403AA? That gives a negative definition,
"not in the best interests of the child".
The best interests of the child are well known and understood in almost all children's legislation.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It has been acknowledged that the definition of the word "sexual" is fundamental to many of the offences created by this part of the Bill. We have thought hard and long about that definition, and I agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom said. The

617
definition does not apply to offences involving children alone; it applies to all—or very many—of the offences in Part 1.
As is clear from the debate, in coming up with the definition we have basically been guided by the case law on the definition of the word "indecent" in the context of an indecent assault. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, that comes from the case of Court. We are privileged in this House to have three of the participants in that case. Subject to one point, which is the use of the word "reasonable" rather than "right-minded", we follow the definition in that case. I make it absolutely clear that we regard there as being no significant difference between the words "reasonable" and "right-minded". I hope that I am able to defend the position.
We agree with the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, when he said that we should not over-define or create extra hurdles because that would make matters difficult, have unintended consequences and exclude matters that any reasonable person would want to include. Equally, we agree with him when he says that he is sympathetic to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that entirely innocent touching should not become illegal. However, we believe that our approach achieves that. We follow the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, but we say that the right word for drafting is "reasonable", rather than any other.
I shall go through each amendment to show how our proposition works in practice. Amendment No. 400 would introduce a requirement for there to be an intention that the activity should result in the sexual arousal of either party. That would fall to the prosecution to prove. I am unsure from the way in which the amendment is drafted whether the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, intends that the requirement should be met if either party has the intention of causing sexual arousal. In any event the term "either party" assumes that only two people are involved in the activity, which will not always be the case. Many offences cover situations in which a defendant perpetrates an act for the sexual gratification of someone else. For example, he forces the victim to engage in sexual activity with his friend. That approach both imposes a new hurdle and misses quite a lot of activity that we all agree should be covered.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in Amendment No. 400A, introduces a requirement for there to be an intention that the activity should result in sexual gratification. Again, that would fall to the prosecution to prove. It is not clear which party is to be proved to have the intention and which is to be proved to have obtained or to have intended to obtain sexual gratification. That would have the effect that the activity could be considered sexual if any party involved in the activity intended that any other party involved in it should obtain sexual gratification, although the wording would need to be improved to make that clear. Again, that would exclude certain things that we would want to be included and impose another hurdle.
618
Amendment No. 403C tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, seeks to introduce a different definition of sexual touching, but this appears limited to an adult touching the sexual parts of a child's body or compelling a child to touch the sexual parts of his body, not to behaviour, including that towards other adults, which does not involve compulsion. Moreover, it would not cover some behaviour which I am sure most people would consider sexual; for example, an adult putting their tongue into a child's ear or mouth. Although I am sure that the noble Lord's intention is to produce a tighter definition of sexual than is in the Bill, it is again a good example of an amendment that does not include all of the behaviour that we would want to see covered. Maybe some of that could be dealt with by drafting, but again, for the reasons that I have indicated, I oppose that sort of amendment in principle.
Our definition requires the jury to use three criteria in its assessment of whether an activity was sexual—the nature of the act itself, the circumstances in which it took place and the purpose of the person in relation to the act. In some cases, the purpose of the defendant will be pivotal to the decision, as came out from the Court case, but in many other cases—for example, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas has indicated, where one person masturbates the other—a reasonable person would be in no doubt, simply because of the nature of the act, or because of the nature of the act and the circumstances in which it took place, that the act was sexual.
The result of the amendments would be to require the prosecution to prove the purpose of the defendant or another party involved in the sexual activity in every single case. That would add significantly and unnecessarily to the evidential burden. More importantly, the result of Amendments Nos. 400 and 400A would be that they could omit some really serious sexual behaviour or at least give rise to endless arguments about it. For example, if someone penetrates a woman's vagina with a bottle without her consent the reasonable person would consider that to be a sexual act, taking into account the nature of the activity and the circumstances. The result of the amendments would be that the prosecution would have to prove that the act was carried out for the purposes of sexual arousal or sexual gratification. I am quite sure that that is not what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne intends. It might be very difficult to prove that the defendant intended to get sexual arousal or sexual gratification from such an act. For example, he might have carried out the act only with the intention of injuring or humiliating the woman, in which case the offence would not be made out.
Both the amendments would also have the inherent danger that once the reasonable person knows that A has a sexual purpose, he might consider any activity to be sexual, even if, without knowing A's sexual purpose he might never have considered the activity to be sexual. In line with the current law, we only want to cover acts which the reasonable person, without reference to A's purpose, would consider potentially sexual and where the reasonable person concludes that

619
those acts were, indeed, sexual. The amendments would bring within the criminal law those rare situations where someone derives sexual gratification from an obscure fetish—for example, removing a person's—shoes that no reasonable person would consider to be even remotely sexual by nature. As no one else involved in the activity would have any idea about the person's sexual purpose and would not be harmed or affected by it in any way, there is no reason for the criminal law to interfere in those circumstances.
Amendment No. 402 that has been tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Astor would replace the term "may (at least) be sexual" in subsection (a) with "may be sexual", and Amendment No. 403A would replace "may (at least) be sexual" with "was sexual". I will deal with the words "at least", which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has raised and the amendments raise. The words "at least" have an important purpose in Clause 80 because of the way in which the definition has been drawn together. Clause 80(a) sets out the first limb of the definition of sexual activity. As well as covering acts that may or may not be sexual depending on the circumstances—for example digital penetration of a woman's vagina by a GP in his surgery could be absolutely fundamental to his diagnosis or treatment—they could also be wholly irrelevant. It would depend on the reason for the consultation. Clause 80(a) is designed to cover acts that may or may not be sexual, it is also intended to cover acts that are always sexual, for example sexual intercourse.
The effect of deleting the words "at least" and retaining the word "may" would be that it might be thought that Clause 80(a) only covered acts that may be sexual and not acts that are always sexual. On the other hand, replacing "may (at least)" with "was sexual" would suggest that Clause 80(a) applies only where an act was always sexual and not where it may have been sexual and is proved to have been sexual in fact, either because of the circumstances or the purpose of' any person in relation to the act. We have used those words because we think that they cover both "acts that may or may not be" and "those that always are". Examples such as the doctor going beyond what is medically necessary during a medical examination solely for his own sexual gratification is the sort of offending behaviour that we believe should rightly fall within the scope of our offences.
I turn to the various other amendments relating to the qualities that should be attributed to the "reasonable person" who is required to judge whether any alleged activity was "sexual". I shall deal first with the change from "a reasonable person" to a "right-minded person". "Right-minded" was the term used in the case to which noble Lords referred. I do not think there is any real difference between a right-minded person and a reasonable person, but the word "reasonable" is consistent with the rest of the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured that we are following the approach he would like to follow. We are simply doing so in what we consider are more appropriate drafting terms.
620
Amendments Nos. 400B, 400C and 401A would have the effect of retaining the concept of the "reasonable person" but would expand the definition so as to require the reasonable person also to be "objective and unprejudiced" and,
"of the same gender, sexuality, age and ethnic, social and cultural background",
as the defendant. I find that requiring a person to be objective as well as requiring him to assume the personal attributes of the defendant is a contradiction and very difficult to apply in practice. In addition, I think that requiring him to assume this range of personal attributes of the defendant is going too far in that it requires the "reasonable person" to take account of almost every attribute of the defendant.
We had a similar discussion about the attributes of the reasonable man in relation to the non-consensual offences at the beginning of the Bill. Whereas I can see that the defendant's attributes may be relevant in determining whether he acted reasonably to ascertain consent, I cannot see that the defendant's attributes are really relevant in determining whether an activity is sexual. As far as I am aware, the defendant's attributes have not been raised as an issue in applying the " right-minded person" test in the current law. As I said, I do not think there is any difference between "right-minded- and "reasonable".
Amendment No. 403A amends the definition in paragraph (b) so that no account would he taken of the purpose that any person may have had in relation to the activity and thus restricts the definition so that an activity will only be considered sexual either because of its nature or because of its circumstances. That would rule out activity that may be sexual because of its nature and is established as sexual because of the purpose of one of the parties involved; for example, where a teacher unnecessarily asks a child to undress so that he can check for signs of infection but his true purpose is to obtain sexual gratification. It may be evident from the circumstances that what is going on is sexual, but if there is evidence of purpose—for example, the teacher has kept a diary of his activities—I see no reason why that critical evidence should be ruled out in determining whether the activity is sexual.
Amendment No. 403B would insert a new subsection into Clause 80, setting out the circumstances in which touching a child should be considered to be sexual and specifically requiring that any such touching must have caused harm, or to have been likely to have caused harm, to the child. That amendment is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. It also requires that the assessment as to whether the touching was sexual or not should be made by an objective and reasonable person. I have already dealt with that point. As I said, I think that such provision would be much too limiting and would not allow the judge and jury to apply their good sense to the question.
I understand that Amendment No. 399A is a purely technical amendment to cross-reference what would be the new subsections (1) and (2). Amendment No. 403B would place an additional and unnecessary burden on the prosecution, because it is already quite

621
clear from the range of child sex offences that we have introduced that any sexual activity with a child is, of its very nature, considered to be harmful.
Amendment No. 403AA—another amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked me to have especial regard—would add another paragraph to the existing Clause 80. It would have the effect of excluding from the definition of "sexual" any touching of a child that is in "the best interests of that child". The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, says that there is no problem about that because that phrase is used commonly in the law and would be easy to define.
The amendment that relates only to sexual acts with children appears to me to sit rather oddly with the generic definition at Clause 80. I wonder whether the real intention was that it should form paragraph (c) of the noble Lord's proposed new subsection. Either way, I consider that the reference to "the best interests of the child" is too broad and could potentially enable someone to use this as an excuse to justify the sexual abuse and exploitation of children.
I sympathise with the concerns expressed on behalf of adults who care for children and who fear being falsely accused of child abuse as a result of innocent actions. These could be actions such as restraining a child for his own safety, cuddling a child in distress in order to provide comfort or reassurance or touching a child's body to administer first aid. However, we believe that the way in which the word "sexual" is drafted in the Bill already excludes such circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, says his main point has not been dealt with—that is, it is not a question of whether it gets to court but of how people will read this Bill. It is how the courts react to this sort of provision that will determine what the prevailing mood is. We have done our best to try to reassure him but it has got to be done in such a way that the definition is effective.
In addition, government Amendments Nos. 66 and 98 create an exemption that is more carefully drawn—that is the one about the professional helping a child in specified circumstances. Those amendments strike the right balance by protecting those who genuinely act in a child's best interests when their purpose is protecting a child from sexually transmitted infection, protecting the physical safety of a child or preventing a child from becoming pregnant. A person who touches a child in such circumstances will not be liable to prosecution so long as he does not act to cause or encourage any sexual activity to take place.
In the light of what I have said, I hope noble Lords will feel reassured by the drafting of Clause 80 and will not press their amendments.
Lord Lucas: I should be grateful to know whether use of the word "sexual" is new in this aspect of legislation or whether we have heretofore used the word "indecent". In other words, are we introducing the use of the word "sexual" in a way which, over time, will have to be defined by the courts before we really
622
know what we are talking about. Should we not look at keeping the concept of "indecent"? If you substitute the word "indecent" for the word "sexual" in this Bill, I think you will get something that is clearer to the layman.
Secondly, my mind goes back to the Pensions Bill 1995, which I helped through this House. We were able to justify in minute detail every provision in that Bill, often with the agreement of the then Opposition.
Look at what has happened to pensions and how much that Bill and what went before it were the reasons we are in a mess now. We had justified things in detail but we had not stepped back to look at the big picture. The big picture we are looking at is a solid trend to decrease the number of men in teaching and in other aspects of similar professions. That is the longterm accumulation of the suspicion that goes with it. One can always see, when you look at the minutiae, the justification for it.
Sometimes we need to step back and look at the big picture and recognise that we have had blinkers on. Looking at things in the round, it is clear we have been getting things wrong for quite a long time.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The definition of "sexual" is as I have indicated. The definition of "indecent" is taken from the Court case that has been followed by the courts subsequently. It is not a new concept we are dealing with.
Lord Northbourne: I expected to get a drubbing on the detail of these amendments. I set them down because it is the basis of business in this House that you have to set down amendments in order to get a debate on a specific aspect of the Bill. They were not intended to be the sort of amendments that would be made to the Bill. It would have been welcome if the noble and learned Lord had thought creatively about how the fundamental objectives would be achieved, rather than simply tearing to bits the drafting work done by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and me. We are amateurs.
It is all too easy for the lawyers to say, "This won't work" or "This will be like this in court" or "That will be like that in court". I am addressing a sociological problem of great magnitude in our country. If the Government are not prepared to address it, I shall have to shut up. However, if the noble and learned Lord would, at least, be prepared to see some of us who believe strongly that it is an important issue, I should be extremely grateful.
I shall say one or two words more. My fundamental argument is that it does not matter terribly—to me, anyway—at what level we set the crime or what we criminalise. However, it must be clear what we are criminalising. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, says, "Leave it to the courts. They are very sensible. They will work it all out". They will—in two, three, five or 10 years' time, we will have a body of common law that will give us a basis for writing some guidelines for men whose work is looking after children. There will not be any men looking after children then, so we will not need to worry.

623
It is frightfully important that we should have guidelines or, in some way, get a little nearer to defining something in the Bill that ordinary people at the coalface can understand. I shall say no more now, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
[Amendments Nos. 400 to 403C not moved.]
Clause 80 agreed to.
11.15 p.m.
Clause 81 [Part 1: general interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 404 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Before we start the next amendment, I ask the Government to make clear their intentions with regard to tonight. We all know that they started today hoping to finish the Committee stage of the Bill, but here we are, well after eleven o'clock, and we have nearly finished Part 1, with Parts 2 and 3 to come. Put another way, we have nearly got halfway through the number of pages in the Bill. We are well after our normal time of rising.
I need not remind the Committee that the Leader's Group on working practices, the Procedure Committee and the House itself agreed to an experiment that, as a package—those words were emphasised at the time by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House—would involve more sittings in Grand Committee in the Moses Room and, as the other half of the package, would mean that the House would normally rise at 10 p.m. on Mondays to Wednesdays and the equivalent on Thursdays. We had misgivings about those arrangements, but, since there were agreed, we have, nevertheless, done our best to enter into them in good faith. We have kept our side of the bargain. More Bills have gone to Grand Committee, not without some criticism of ourselves. That is what we have done.
There has also been a pattern of creep on Thursday lunchtimes—particularly bad last Thursday, when it was nearly two o'clock again—and in the evenings. On 24th March, we sat until 20 minutes past two in the morning on the Regional Assemblies Bill. We have already sat until after midnight on this Bill in Committee. We now hear rumours of late sittings on the Communications Bill. We have agreed to none of this as regards the usual channels. I am very concerned both about the position of this Bill and the overall agreement. As regards the Bill, I remind the Committee that it began in this House. It was not presented to the House for months after the Session started. There was then a very long delay before Committee stage began, and it has not been pursued very frequently in the past few weeks. We are now told that we shall sit far into the night. Those who have been responsible for the preparation and presentation of the Bill have to answer to the House for the fact that we now have to carry the burden of the Bill having been so delayed.
This is a long, complicated and sensitive Bill. Over the past seven weeks it has been considered for just under 24 hours of debate until today. In the days when
624
we regularly sat until 11 o'clock or midnight, that would have meant three days or more. Even under the present regime it is four days for a very big and complicated Bill. We are entitled to an explanation of why we need to sit so late with it.
I believe that the Government are testing the patience of the House. I am very concerned that it should not become a habit. It is supposed to be the norm now that we rise at 10 o'clock. We are frequently breaking that ruling when we should not.
Lord Roper: Before the Captain of the Gentlemen-at- Arms responds to that remark, I emphasise that I do not want to delay the Committee at this late hour when we still have 30 groups of amendments to consider which, on the assumption that we take, not the hour we spent on the last group of amendments, but only 10 minutes, would take us to about 4.20 in the morning. We are in a very serious situation.
As regards this Bill, a number of the days have been interrupted so that it has not been the first business. That has had a very serious and deleterious effect on its progress, not to mention the fact that there seems to have been a proliferation of Statements which have affected this Bill and others rather badly. Therefore, when the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms is considering our progress for the rest of the day and the Government's programme over the next few weeks, I hope that he will have these points in mind because I believe that the tolerance of the House is being very seriously tested.
Lord Grocott: I have listened very carefully to comments made by fellow members of the usual channels with whom we normally manage to reach agreement on large numbers of issues. As regards this Bill, the statistics are worth putting on the record which I shall do very briefly. The last thing I want to do at this time of the night is to have a long discussion about procedures.
The facts are as follows. It was thought that four days of Committee might be a reasonable time. It is always a "guesstimate" because no one can judge these matters accurately. Until the start of play today we had spent 23 hours 18 minutes in Committee on this Bill which in round figures is four days at six hours a day. So far today we have had a further four and a half hours. If we continue for another one and a half hours that will be five days in Committee. That is certainly not an unreasonable amount of time. Some would argue that it is quite a good amount of time to allocate to a Bill of this length with a large number of clauses.
Perhaps I may address the specific point about the programme as a whole. I am a passionate supporter of the changes which I believe were inevitable. I do my utmost to make sure they operate although it is very difficult at times. Perhaps I may offer one statistic for the record. The Bill on which the longest time was spent in Committee, per group of amendments, in the last Session was the NHS reform Bill. It took 21 minutes per group. That is the kind of calculation we have to make.—The shortest of the Committees in this Session in terms of minutes per group was that for the Licensing Bill, which

625
took 21 minutes per group. So the amount of time spent per group is dramatically longer in this Session than it was during the last Session. For this Bill, the average time spent per group has been 27 minutes, which is why I am anxious not to prolong my remarks any further. Any reasonable Member of this House, of whom there are many, would acknowledge that no programme could be delivered on the basis of around half an hour per group of amendments in Committee. No Government, of any persuasion, could operate on that basis.
Lest it be suggested that this Session is particularly onerous, I shall give one further statistic. So far this Session there have been 33 government Bills. In the early 1980s—1980–81—there were 57 Bills, in the Session 1981–82 there were 46 Bills. Most recently, before the change in Government, in the Session 1995–96, there were 43 Bills.
I want to put some simple propositions to the Committee. First, the Bill has had a reasonable amount of time in Committee. Secondly, the overriding statistic that needs to be borne in mind is that of the amount of time spent per group of amendments, which under the new sitting arrangements is much greater, on any basis of calculation, than in the previous Session. Thirdly, this is not a particularly onerous Session. I suggest, if the Committee is agreeable, that the best thing would be if I sat down and we got on to see how far we can progress with the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: I ask the noble Lord the Chief Whip whether that means that we go to the end, even if that is four, five or six o'clock tomorrow morning?
Lord Grocott: At the end of the day, I am in the hands of the usual channels. The most recent group of amendments took an hour. This is an art, not a science and I am just as anxious to finish as anyone in this building. I am sure that the staff who serve us so well are even more anxious than many of us here, but it depends on the progress that we make.
The Bill is a Lords starter, as has been rightly pointed out. We need to deliver it to the Commons. As we all know, there is a balance between the two Houses, with a changeover about half way through the Session when we get their Bills and they get ours. I repeat, and I make no apology for doing so, that four days in Committee was not a ridiculous, Scrooge-like assumption. In fact, if we were to keep going for another couple of hours we would have had five days in Committee. No one could plan a legislative programme on the basis of 27 minutes per group of amendments—I make no criticism of any individual Member of the Committee in saying that, I am simply reporting to the Committee the arithmetic. I am merely plying my humble trade of trying to fit a quart into a pint pot as far as the balance between the 10 o'clock finish and Grand Committee is concerned.
[Amendment No. 405 not moved.]
Baroness Thorntonmoved Amendment No. 406:
Page 37, line 31, at end insert—
626
"( ) For the avoidance of doubt, in relation to offences specified in sections 10 to 13, it is not necessary for A to be in any kind of physical proximity to B and the offences can be committed by or through any kind of real or virtual communications device."
The noble Baroness said: The amendment is an additional interpretation clause. It seeks merely to make plain that offences against children specified in Clauses 10 to 13 can be committed virtually—over the Internet. In other words, the person does not have to be in the same room as the child or in any way physically proximate. To those with an understanding of the Internet and how sex offenders use it, this may seem obvious, but for those who may have to interpret the Bill, it may be worth spelling out.
Clause 10 concerns causing a child to engage in sexual activity. Clause 11 concerns inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. Clause 12 is about actually engaging in sexual activity and Clause 13 is about causing a child to watch sexual acts. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I thank the noble Baroness for bringing yet another issue to the attention of the House. This is an absolutely marvellous amendment and it is workable. Facilities such as the Internet have marvellous applications but, sadly, there are those who misuse them. That is what the amendment is about. A person who causes a child to engage in sexual activity by giving instructions via some kind of Internet chat-room should be held to he committing an offence under Clause 10. A person who corresponds with a child by e-mail and gains a sexual thrill out of inciting them to engage in sexual activity should be capable of being convicted under Clause 11. We must also ensure that Clause 12 would catch those who use web cameras to broadcast footage of themselves engaging in sexual activity. I could say more on the amendment. In light of what has just been said, I merely say that it is important that the noble Baroness is supported.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The amendment commences with the words, "for the avoidance of doubt" and it is obvious from that that the noble Baroness recognises that the offences in Clauses 10, 11 and 13 in practice cover the areas that are causing her concern.
Clause 10 covers any situation in which an adult intentionally causes a child to engage in any form of sexual activity. Clause 11 makes it an offence for an adult to incite a child to engage in sexual activity and Clause 13 makes it an offence to cause a child to watch a third person engage in a sexual act. In none of those offences is there a requirement that the adult and child must be in the physical presence of each other. The offence in Clause 13 specifically covers live or recorded material and both real and virtual images.
Clause 12 is somewhat different because it requires that the adult intentionally engages in sexual activity in the presence of a child. The offence will cover only the situation in which the defendant and the child are physically together in the same place. It follows that where an adult engages in a sexual act during a web-cam

627
exchange, for example, such behaviour would not be caught by the offences in Clauses 12 and 13. For that reason, we must give the matter further thought. I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing it to my attention. The scope of the amendment means that I cannot accept it as it is, but it merits further consideration and I shall return to it, if I may, on Report.
Baroness Thornton: I thank the Minister and the noble Baroness for their support. We look forward to seeing a much better drafted amendment in due course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 406A:
Page 37, line 31, at end insert—
"( ) References to the male gender incorporate (where humanly possible) the female gender, and vice versa, and no inference is to be drawn from the language used in this Act that a person of a particular gender is unable or unlikely to do a particular act."
The noble Lord said: We are all used to the idea that within legislation the male gender embraces the female. However, in this regard we are dealing with many words and phrases that have a gender-specific meaning. In these days, that gender specificity may be difficult to determine because women may have penises and men may have vaginas as a result of surgical intervention. We are dealing with a complicated area. I want to restate this well known principle, because I feel that there is an implication in the way in which some of the offences, particularly the child offences, are written that the relevant offence is committed by men. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord knows that a substantial proportion of the female prison population is in prison because of child abuse. We should be careful of the wider effects of legislation and make it absolutely clear that there is nothing in the Bill that presupposes that a person of one sex or the other is more likely to commit a particular offence. Nor should we phrase the offences in any way that suggests that men, not women, commit those offences. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I agree entirely with the sentiment behind the amendment but do not believe that it is necessary to agree to it because Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978, which applies to this Bill, has the same effect as the amendment. I agree with what the noble Lord says but the amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful for that confirmation. It took one minute. Let us keep that up. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 [Persons becoming subject to notification requirements]:
Lord Astor of Hevermoved Amendment No. 407:
Page 37, line 36, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (1A),"
628
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 407, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 408 and 431. I support Amendment No. 430 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. It embodies the same underlying principle as ours.
The amendments tackle the contentious area of whether those aged under 18 who are found guilty of a sexual offence should be put on the sex offenders register; and if so, for how long. Should all children be automatically subject to the notification requirements of the register irrespective of age and the circumstances of their offence? On what basis have the Government decided that it would be appropriate for children, who are registered, to be required to do so for half the period of an adult offender?
In some cases, say where a 16-year old is charged with having sex with his 14-year old consenting girlfriend, it is highly questionable whether he should be put on the register. The register is intended to protect the public from those sexual offenders who present a threat and who must be kept track of. That does not apply to all children who commit a sexual offence, particularly where it was ostensibly consensual.
In many cases those children will not be a potential threat if left at large and without requirement to register. The sex offenders register carries the stigma of paedophilia. It would be highly traumatic for every child who committed a sexual offence to be obliged to register.
We are not saying that all children should be free from the requirement to register. There may be persistent sexual abusers in the 16 to 18 age group who will be a threat to the public and who should be required to register. Guidance is needed to ensure that prosecutions take place only where appropriate.
The same rationale lies behind Amendments Nos. 408 and 431 which make sure that the police and courts have discretion as to whether sexual offenders under 18 should register and, if so, for what length of time. On the latter issue, a boy of seventeen-and-a-half might be guilty of raping a number of women. Why should he automatically get only half the length of time on the register as someone aged eighteen-and-a-half who commits the same crime?
I would welcome some clarity from the Minister on the basis of the decision to require all child sex offenders to register. I believe on balance that it is not proportionate. The detrimental effect on a 15-year old sexual offender required to register might, in many cases, outweigh the protection to society which any notification requirement would be designed to provide. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 430. I acknowledge that Amendment No. 431 would have a similar effect to mine, except that it leaves the matter either to the court or to the police to define what the period of notification should be. In my amendment the court would make such decisions, although I did not think it necessary to say so in the actual amendment. I do not believe that it would be

629
right to ask the police to make such decisions. The courts have all the information about the defendant and are in a better position to decide.
My amendment includes the words, "on an individual basis" because I believe that when we are dealing with young offenders we must treat them as individuals. There are many factors that need to be taken into consideration when deciding on a penalty. Inclusion on the register of sexual offenders is primarily for the purposes of protecting the public, but it should also take into account the effect on the offender himself. If he is very young, that effect may be considerable and may even get in the way of his education or effective treatment by consolidating unhelpful attitudes. That is why a "one size fits all" approach is inappropriate when dealing with young people. I hope the Minister will look favourably on this group of amendments.
The Earl of Listowel: I rise to support Amendments Nos. 407, 408 and 431 which stand in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Astor. He has clearly put the case for them. I shall not distract the Committee at this late hour by repeating that. I draw the Committee's attention to one group of children who, increasingly, are caught at the young age of 10 or 11. Treatment is available for them—though we wish for much more of it—and they can make rapid progress in a year or two. Some will still be left with the stigma of being a sex offender. They may be required to report to a police station each year, give their name and address, and have their photograph and fingerprints taken—even when the professionals caring for those children are fully confident that they are no longer a risk.
Although such children are not caught by the amendments, they may require further thought at the next stage of the Bill to ensure that when they have been rehabilitated, the stigma can be lifted. We recognise the importance of the potentiality of registration to protect others but where offending children are clearly no longer a risk, there should be some means of removing the stigma of being placed on the sex offenders register.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The purpose of the amendments is to give discretion either to the police or the courts on whether it is appropriate for a young sex offender to go on the register—and if so, for how long. The proposed amendments are not necessary because the procedures that lead to a young offender being placed on the register and the length of time that he or she is required to register already takes into account age, maturity and the individual circumstances of the case.
Before any charge is brought, the matter is looked at by the youth offending team. It will consider all the circumstances and usually decides to prosecute in the most serious cases. If the team considers that prosecution is appropriate, it will refer the case to the Crown Prosecution Service—which in turn will consider whether it is in the public interest to proceed.
630
If there is a conviction, the court will take into account the child's age when considering the most appropriate disposal. Unless the offence is serious, such as rape, the notification requirement is triggered for offenders under 18 only where the offender is sentenced to a period of detention of at least 12 months. In many cases, the sentencing process determines whether or not a young person is required to register. A wide range of disposals short of a 12-month prison sentence is available.
The offences that trigger notification are set out in Schedule 2, from which it will be seen that the 12-month sentence threshold applies to offences that cover a range of behaviour, such as sexual assault and child sex offences committed by young people. Where a person under 18 is convicted of such an offence, their age will be taken into when they are sentenced.
The sentences passed will therefore affect whether or not an offender is subject to the notification requirement. Where the offence is by definition always serious—such as rape no sentence thresholds apply. In such cases, the offending behaviour by the child, whether 10 or 18, is considered sufficiently serious to justify making him subject to the notification requirement. That view takes into account that the CPS will have decided to proceed with a prosecution in the public interest and will have already considered the age of the offender.
In such cases, the requirement to notify will bring with it access to treatment programmes and management of the offending behaviour by the relevant agencies. The sentencing process also determines the length of time that a young offender will be required to register. When sentencing the offender, the court will take age into consideration unless the sentence is for an indefinite period. For example, where the offender has been sentenced to a period of detention for more than 30 months, the young person will remain on the register for half the period that would apply to an adult offender. A young person given a community sentence for an offence would be required to notify for only two and one half years.
It is worth remembering that notification is an administrative requirement, not a penalty. Its purpose is to ensure that the police know the whereabouts of persons convicted of more serious sexual offences. The system works. I have seen no evidence that a young a person has suffered any serious detriment arising from the requirement to register—as opposed to their conviction for an offence. For those reasons we consider that the notification requirements are a proportionate means of dealing with young offenders who have committed serious sexual offences and that the current procedures adequately take into account the circumstances. I hope that in those circumstances the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for their support. I take the noble

631
Baroness's point about the courts and the police. We mentioned the police because they have to decide whether to caution.
I am also grateful to the Minister for his response. We will read Hansard carefully. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 408 not moved.]
Clause 82 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Sexual offences for purposes of Part 2]:
Lord Thomas of Gresfordmoved Amendment No. 408A:
Page 68, line 24, leave out "18" and insert "16"
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 408B, 408C, 408D 412A, 413A, 414A, 416A, 421A, 421B and 424A. The purpose of the amendments is to equalise the age of consent which, as your Lordships are aware, is 16. We feel that 18, which is set out at various points in Schedule 2, is the wrong age. For example, paragraph 5(b) states:
"the victim or (as the case may be) other party was under 18".
Paragraphs 6 and 7 contain similar provisions. I beg to move.
Lord Alli: I rise to support this group of amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The amendments have a simple important purpose: to remove anomalies in the current operation of the sex offenders' register. I want to make it clear from the beginning that the amendments would in no way weaken the operation of the register. I believe that they would strengthen it.
The age of consent was equalised at 16 for heterosexual and homosexual acts in 2000. Your Lordships may recall those debates. However, the law governing the sex offenders' register was not equalised at the same time, which has been the cause of a range of anomalies affecting people who are very distressed. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some comfort that changes are on their way.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I make the same assumptions as my noble friend Lord Alli: that the intention behind the amendments is to release those involved in purely consensual activity from the notification requirements of this part of the Bill. If it is the case that it is not to do with the equalisation of the age of consent but to deal with the registration point, I broadly support the amendments' aims. I am grateful that they have been tabled and that we have an opportunity to discuss this important issue.
The issue is slightly more complex than it first appears. Some of the convictions for indecency and buggery before the age of consent was lowered in 2000 will have involved non-consensual activity with 16 and 17 year-olds. There may be a small number of cases from before 1994 that involve anal rape of a 16 or 17 year-old. The amendments also propose reducing the age threshold that applies to the offence of indecent
632
assault on a man. That offence involves nonconsensual activity and is equivalent to the offence of indecent assault on a woman. For both those offences the current age threshold for registration is 18. That is not based not on the age of consent—it applies to both male and female victims over 16—but on the need to provide extra protection to the public from offenders who commit offences against young people.
Noble Lords will note that there are other offences; for example, exposure and sexual assault, that use the same age threshold. The reason is that we want registration to apply automatically where young people are the victims of such non-consensual sexual offences. The amendments cut across the recommendations of the Cosgrove report on sex offending in relation to Scotland. We have already proposed to table suitable amendments to give effect to those proposals. I cannot accept the amendments as they stand, but I am willing to consider the issue further and to try to find a solution that would remove from the register those involved in purely consensual activity between men aged 16 or over while at the same time ensuring that potentially dangerous offenders continue to register.
I should stress that it is important that we do not act in a way that causes a possible risk to the public. Any changes must be limited to those in which the activity that formed the original offence was consensual and involved only those over the present age of consent. How we do that may cause real problems and difficulties, not least because the issue of consent would not have been addressed in some cases prior to 2000. However, we shall continue to consider whether there is a satisfactory way to resolve those problems and return to your Lordships on the issue. I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful to the Minister for his consideration of the amendments. I look forward to the further work on the topic that he has undertaken to carry out, but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 408B to 408D not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 409:
Page 70, line 32, leave out "victim of the sex offence was" and insert "offence was an offence against a person"
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of the amendments in this group is to improve the accuracy, clarity and consistency of the wording in the Bill. They are minor changes, mainly technical or drafting; only Amendments Nos. 458 and 462 relate to a minor change in policy since the Bill was printed.
Amendments Nos. 440 to 442 would simplify and improve the accuracy of the wording used in Clause 96, which sets out the conditions that must apply before a notification order can be made. The amendments would remove the superfluous reference to offences listed in Schedule 2 and make clear that a finding or disposal made by an overseas court must be equivalent to one made by a court in the United Kingdom.

633
Amendments Nos. 456 and 461 relate to the sexual offences prevention orders and the risk of sexual harm orders and make clear what is already implicit in the text of the Bill: that any individual prohibitions added to an existing order when it is varied or renewed must be necessary for the protection of the public from serious sexual harm. Amendment No. 458 introduces a minor policy change, in that it alters the identity of the chief officer of police who can consent to the discharge of a sexual offences prevention order before the minimum five-year term of such an order has expired. Amendment No. 462 applies that revised formula to the early discharge of a risk of sexual harm order.
Under the amendments, where a chief officer of police applies for a discharge of an order within five years of it being made, it is that officer who must, along with the defendant, give his consent. Where the defendant himself makes the application, which is probably the more likely scenario, the chief officer for the area in which the defendant resides, who therefore has the primary responsibility for managing that defendant's risk, is the one who must consent to the discharge before it can be made.
All the other amendments either rectify minor errors in drafting or, we hope, improve the clarity of the wording of the clauses. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I should like to ask a quick question about Amendment No. 409, which I find strange. The wording of the Bill states:
"the intended victim of the sex offence was under 18".
That is perfectly clear. But the amendment states:
"leave out 'victim of the sex offence'.
In other words, the clause will now read:
"the intended offence was an offence against a person".
It is surely not an intended offence; it is either an offence or it is not.
Baroness Blatch: I want to raise exactly the same point. The noble and learned Lord started by saying that these were just technical amendments and we need not worry our pretty or not so pretty little heads about them. But,
"the intended victim of the sexual offence was under 18",
is absolutely clear cut. I cannot for the life of me think of a reason for the wording,
"the intended offence was an offence against a person".
Can the Minister explain the reason for that change?
Similar points could be made about other amendments. They seem to be pretty self-indulgent on someone's part.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My understanding is that Amendment No. 409, which is the amendment causing concern, deals with offences of committing an offence or trespassing with the intention of committing a sexual offence in relation to Schedule 2, covering offences that trigger the notification requirements. The amendment aims to bring the wording in Schedule
634
2 into line with that used for the same offences in Schedule 1, covering offences to which Section 75 applies. From that, Amendments Nos. 428, 432, 450 and 451 simply rectify minor errors in drafting. That is the reason for bringing forward the amendments.
I hope that I have been able to satisfy the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. If not, I shall be happy further to clarify the points by way of correspondence.
Lord Skelmersdale: To save time I think that that would be helpful. I still do not understand what is meant by an "intended offence" in this context.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that the noble Lord will write because his explanation made no sense at all.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Astor of Hevermoved Amendment No. 410:
Page 71, line 29, leave out from "rape" to end of line 34.
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 410 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 411 to 417. Amendments Nos. 410 to 413, along with Amendments Nos. 415 and 416, extend the notification requirements under the Bill to all offenders convicted of abduction with intent to rape or ravish, indecent assault or shameless indecency, or contraventions of Section 1, covering incest, or Section 2, covering intercourse with a stepchild, of the Criminal Law (Consolidation)(Scotland) Act 1995.
As currently drafted, the notification requirements under the Bill apply only where a person other than the offender involved in the offence is under 18 years old or, in the case of offenders convicted of abduction with intent to rape or ravish, or indecent assault where an offender has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 30 months, or admitted to hospital subject to a restriction order. These are serious offences and the amendments probe the need to have regard to factors other than the conviction itself before the notification requirements will apply.
Amendments Nos. 414 and 417 ensure that paragraphs 40(a) and (b) and 51(a) and (b) are read cumulatively rather than alternatively. As currently drafted, a person will be subject to the notification requirements under the Bill if convicted of sodomy or an offence under Section 13(5) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation)(Scotland) Act 1995 unless specified conditions are met. If the paragraphs are read alternatively, a person convicted of sodomy on a person aged under 16 or a contravention under Section 13(5) of the 1995 Act will not be subject to the notification requirements if the person aged under 16 was a willing participant.
However, if the conditions are read cumulatively, the only circumstances under which a conviction for sodomy and contravention of Section 13(5) would not trigger notification would be where the offender is aged under 20, or those involved in the offence are aged over 18 and are willing participants.
These amendments probe the extent of the exception to the notification requirements under paragraphs 40 and 51. I beg to move.
Midnight
Lord Bassam of Brighton: These amendments are both interesting and helpful, but they contain a number of minor errors. However, in many respects they go part of the way towards implementing policy changes being sought by the Scottish Executive in order to remove particular age and sentence exceptions that currently apply to the notification requirements of the sex offenders register. The rationale behind the current age and sentencing exceptions was that the provisions of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 were intended primarily to apply to the most serious offences and to those committed against children.
It was the express view of the Scottish Expert Panel on Sex Offending, chaired by Lady Cosgrove, that these exceptions should be reconsidered so that the notification provisions are effective in respect of offenders who commit a sexual offence against a victim of any age. That view was supported by Scottish Ministers and, accordingly, government amendments have been brought forward that will seek to implement the expert panel's wishes in this area; and indeed they will go some way to achieving the aim of many of the amendments in the group. I give notice that these will be introduced all together on Report, so that all of the Scottish amendments implementing Cosgrove can be considered together in one grouping. While some of these amendments appear to support the recommendations of Cosgrove, the Government would wish to take those that appear acceptable away and represent them in the context of all the other matters that will see the Cosgrove recommendations in this area implemented.
We are enormously grateful to noble Lords opposite for the work that they have done and for bringing forward the amendments. Our intention is to take them away and consider them, together with those amendments that have been drafted in response to Cosgrove, so that we can introduce a provision that works and satisfies the overall policy intent. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I take it as read that this is a reserved matter. Secondly, the Bill is still progressing through this place; it has not yet been before another place. Given that there has been an election in Scotland and there is a very different political configuration in the Scottish Parliament, can we have it confirmed not only that the outgoing Scottish Parliament has approved the amendments, but that the incoming one has done so too?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My advice is that this is a devolved matter, and that Scottish Ministers have approved this approach. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness's point.
Baroness Blatch: If it is a devolved matter, why are we doing it? It seems extraordinary, if it is devolved. My understanding was that the noble Lord said it was devolved; but before that he said that the Scottish
636
Parliament had approved amendments that we were now going to enact. He did not refer to the issue of a Scottish election taking place while the Bill is in its very early stages. Do both the outgoing and the incoming Scottish Parliament approve of the amendments?
Lord Skelmersdale: Before the noble Lord answers that point, how can he say that this is a devolved matter when Clause 127(5) on page 66 of the Bill states:
"For the purposes of the Scotland Act 1998 … this Act is to he taken to be a pre-commencement enactment"?
In other words, it takes it out of the Scotland Act.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: This is a matter which we are working through with the consent of the Scottish Parliament. There has been a Sewel Motion in Scotland. To pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, new Scottish Ministers have yet to be appointed, so they cannot, de facto. have approved this approach. However, it did receive the approval of Scottish Ministers before the most recent set of elections.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry to come hack once more on this point, but if there has been a Sewel Motion my understanding is that this must be a matter reserved to the UK Parliament, and that the UK Parliament will pass the primary legislation, with the approval, by means of a Sewel Motion, of the Scottish Parliament. It cannot be a devolved matter.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think, considering the hour, we do not really need to go into great detail. We are happy to come back to the issue, but I have given an explanation which I believe satisfies the points that have been asked. The noble Baroness is sometimes difficult to satisfy but I have explained the process, and I think I have explained it with some clarity.
Lord Astor of Hever: I am partly grateful to the Minister for his response. I was concerned when he said that the amendments had minor errors. We were asked to table them by the Law Society of Scotland and I would be surprised if they contained errors. I understand from the noble Lord that the Government will consider those amendments they believe acceptable and come back with their own. On that basis, I very much hope that the amendments are acceptable and, in the meantime, I shall go back to the Law Society of Scotland. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 411 to 417 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 418:
Page 73, line 4, at end insert—
"Indecent assault against a female."
The noble Lord said: Government Amendments Nos. 418 to 427 and 429 update the lists of Northern Ireland offences in Schedule 2. Schedule 2 provides all the offences in Northern Ireland for which offenders

637
will be required to register under Part 2 of the Bill. The amendments ensure that all appropriate offences are now included on that list. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendments Nos. 419 to 421:
Page 73, line 7, leave out sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
"(a) where the offender was under 18, he is or has been sentenced, in respect of the offence, to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months;
(b) in any other case—

(i) the victim was under 18, or

(ii) the offender, in respect of the offence or finding, is or has been—

(a) sentenced to a term of imprisonment,
(b) detained in a hospital, or
(c) made the subject of a community sentence of at least 18 months."
Page 73, line 10, at end insert—
"An offence under section 53 or 54 of that Act (abduction of woman by force for unlawful sexual intercourse)."
Page 73, line 11, at end insert "consent was not present or"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 421A and 421B not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 422:
Page 73, line 20, at end insert—
"An offence under section 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 (c. 69) (procuration).
An offence under section 3 of that Act (procuring defilement of woman by threats or fraud, etc.)."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendments Nos. 423 and 424:
Page 73, line 21, leave out "the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 (c. 69)" and insert "that Act"
Page 73, line 24, at end insert—
"An offence under section 7 of that Act (abduction of girl under 18)."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 424A not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 425:
Page 73, line 30, at end insert—
"An offence under section 2 of that Act (incest by females), if the victim or (as the case may be) other party was under 18."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendments Nos. 426 to 429:
Page 74, line 3, at end insert—
"An offence under Article 122 of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (S.I. 1986/595 (N.I. 4)) (offences against women suffering from severe mental handicap).
638
An offence under Article 123 of that Order (offences against patients)."
Page 74, line 8, at end insert—
"67A An offence under section 17 of this Act (meeting a child following sexual grooming etc.).
67B An offence under any of sections 18 to 22 of this Act (abuse of trust) if the offender, in respect of the offence or finding, is or has been—

(a) sentenced to a term of imprisonment,

(b) detained in a hospital, or

(c) made the subject of a community sentence of at least 12 months.

67C An offence under section 54 of this Act (paying for sex with a child) if the victim or (as the case may be) other party was under 17.
67D An offence under section 70 of this Act (exposure) if—

(a) where the offender was under 18, he is or has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months;

(b) in any other case—

(i) the victim was under 18, or
(ii) the offender, in respect of the offence or finding, is or has been—

a) sentenced to a term of imprisonment,

(b) detained in a hospital, or

(c) made the subject of a community sentence of at least 18 months.

67E An offence under section 71 of this Act (voyeurism) if—

(a) where the offender was under 18, he is or has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months;

(b) in any other case—

(i) the victim was under 18, or
(ii) the offender, in respect of the offence or finding, is or has been—

(a) sentenced to a term of imprisonment, or

(b) detained in a hospital.

67F An offence under section 72 or 73 of this Act (intercourse with an animal, sexual penetration of a corpse) if the offender, in respect of the offence or finding, is or has been—

(a) sentenced to a term of imprisonment, or

(b) detained in a hospital."

Page 74, line 21, after "counselling" insert "or"
Page 74, line 32, at end insert—
"In paragraphs 53 to 67F, "community sentence" has the same meaning as in the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/3160 (N.I. 24))."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 83 agreed to.
Clause 84 [The notification period]:
[Amendments Nos. 430 and 431 not moved.]
Clause 84 agreed to.
Clause 85 [Notification requirements: initial notification]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 432:
Page 41, line 10, leave out "a" and insert "the"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 85, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 86 and 87 agreed to.
Clause 88 [Notification requirements: travel outside the United Kingdom]:
Lord Astor of Hevermoved Amendment No. 433:
Page 43, line 5, after "State" insert "after consultation with Scottish Ministers"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 433, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 436 and 439.
The amendments would require the Secretary of State to consult Scottish Ministers prior to making regulations, specifying notification requirements for offenders who leave the UK and the police stations at which offenders may notify the police of relevant information. It would require those responsible for the offender while he or she is in detention to notify others of his or her release to transfer to another institution and prior to amending the list of offences contained in Schedules 2 or 3 to the Bill. The amendments would ensure that Scottish Ministers would have some input in relation to regulations that will apply in Scotland, and that account is taken of the devolution settlement.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: It seems to me from discussions that have taken place today and on previous occasions that the need for harmony between the relevant offences that will constitute requirement for notification is very important. One point that the noble and learned Lord the Minister made when I last spoke to an amendment was that the Scottish Parliament had, as recently as 23rd March this year, introduced a section that dealt with the trafficking offences that are now being considered in Clauses 61 to 63. I pause to point out that those offences fall within Schedule 3, as far as England, Wales and Northern Ireland are concerned, but form no part of the offences that would apply in Scotland's case. No doubt, that is a different area, but it shows the importance of the three jurisdictions marching together, especially in an issue such as this, which is of notification and involves there being clear understanding within the public of what offences are covered by the requirements for notification.
These amendments are an important part of the requirement that the jurisdictions march together in these matters. Therefore, I support them.
Baroness Blatch: I support my noble friend Lord Astor as well as the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom. I notice that a message has come down from the box. Can I assume that this is a reserved rather than a devolved matter? If that is the case, it is even more important, given that the issue is UK-wide and that harmony between the various jurisdictions is essential. We need to have that confirmed. It would be interesting to go back historically—that is something I shall have to do myself—to find out why this should be a reserved matter.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: This is an important matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is absolutely
640
right in thinking that a message arrived from the box and absolutely wrong in saying that it is a reserved matter. It is a devolved matter. She was absolutely wrong, too, when she said that Sewel Motions were used to send matters to the Scottish Parliament; they are used only to pass back devolved matters.
The Bill is deemed, by virtue of Clause 127(5), to be a pre-commencement enactment. That means that any reference to the Secretary of State is translated to mean "Scottish Ministers" by Section 53 of the Scotland Act 1998. Where the subject matter relates to a devolved area of law—which this is, as my noble friend Lord Bassam told the Committee a few moments ago—this Parliament legislates in an area with the agreement of the Scottish Parliament. That agreement is formally given by a Sewel Motion.
For Scotland, that means that the regulations and amending orders to which the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, refers, will be made not by the Secretary of State but by Scottish Ministers and laid by the Scottish Parliament. That being the position, an amendment that proposes consulting with the Scottish Ministers falls away, as it will be those very Ministers who will make the relevant regulations under the Bill. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I should intimate in the light of what he has just said, that he makes it unnecessary for me to move the last amendment on the list, because that fully answers the point that I was seeking to draw from him.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I look forward to an early bath for most of us this afternoon.
Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful for the support from my noble friend Lady Blatch and from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron. I agree with him about the importance of the harmony of the various offences and that the three jurisdictions should march together. I was grateful for the response from the Minister which answered the points which we were trying to make. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Astor of Hevermoved Amendment No. 434:
Page 43, line 6, after "Kingdom" insert "for more than 72 hours"
The noble Lord said: There is a loophole in our legal system whereby sexual offenders on the sex offenders register do not have to notify the police if they travel abroad for less than eight days. That is quite long enough for offenders to abuse children overseas. UNICEF has proposed that the length of time that sex offenders can travel abroad so that they have to notify the police when leaving the UK should be reduced to 72 hours. We do not believe that that would be too

641
severe or restrictive, but hopefully it will prevent those who travel abroad extensively for sex tourism from doing so as often, or in the best instances, at all. Travel abroad is expensive. Sex offenders would be deterred from paying for a flight to, say, Thailand if they had only a 72-hour window in which to complete their trip. Eight days is certainly too long a period. We must think about children abroad as well as those in our own country. I hope that the Government will think seriously about adopting the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Alli: I rise to support the amendment, but given the lateness of the hour I shall not give the reasons why.
Baroness Whitaker: I agree with the amendment. Will the Minister amplify the undertaking that
"we are consulting on shortening the period from eight days to three days."?—[Official Report, 1/4/03; col. 1234]
Baroness Walmsley: I rise briefly to support the amendment. I rather understood from proceedings in another place that the Government were supportive of the idea and were going to do something. I hope that we are going to hear that.
Lord Monson: The noble Lord, Lord Astor, says that travelling abroad from the United Kingdom is expensive. There are a number of people, possibly sex offenders among them, who live in County Fermanagh, South Down or Armagh who cross the border every day to work—possibly on foot. He ought to bear that in mind when speaking to the amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am grateful for the amendment because it is an opportunity to say that we are consulting on this. The consultation ended on 21st March. It looked at all of the aspects of the requirements, not just the number of days an offender can intend to travel abroad before being required to notify. The consultation was very useful and we are grateful to everybody who replied, including all the major charities working in the field—ECPAT, WorldVision and others. We are also grateful to the travel industry, the police and probation services and representatives from other government departments.
We have considered carefully the range of views expressed during the consultation, taking into account the need to balance the risks to children overseas against the additional burdens on the police and offenders that would arise from any change to the requirements. As a result of that consideration we intend to amend the regulations on foreign travel notifications as follows: to reduce the period sex offenders can intend to spend abroad before they need to notify the police from the current eight days to three days and to require offenders to notify the police seven days in advance of their intended travel (as opposed to the maximum of 48 hours in advance at present). Where an offender needs to travel at short notice, or
642
where his travel plans change after notification, he will be required to notify the police at least 24 hours before he travels.
This change is particularly important because it will give the police more time to notify other jurisdictions or to apply for a foreign travel order if required. I am sure that our intentions will be broadly welcomed and that with the other measures proposed in the Bill they will help us to stop sex offenders from this country preying on children overseas.
I cannot accept the amendments as proposed. We would like to make the changes I have outlined by amending the current regulations covering foreign travel notification rather than specifying the three-day period on the face of the Bill. We would hope to do that as soon as the Bill comes into force so that we can introduce the new requirements as soon as possible.
There are two reasons why we want regulations rather than to use the Bill. First, it will enable us to amend the requirements in future without the need for primary legislation. That would not be an underhand way of changing the period back to eight days—I have already made clear the Government's intention in that regard—but it would enable us to fine-tune the requirements in future if required. For example, there was some discussion during the consultation on whether the new requirements should apply to children. That may be something that we would wish to consider further with interested parties. Having the requirements in regulations would enable us to make such a change in future if that was appropriate.
The second reason why we would prefer to bring the changes into effect through the regulations is that it will enable us to co-ordinate their introduction with Scotland—co-ordination is vital, as the previous group of amendments revealed—where the requirements are covered by separate regulations. I would therefore ask noble Lords not to press the amendment. However, as I made absolutely clear, we support the purpose behind it and intend to give effect to it by other means.
Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful for the support that the amendment has received from all corners of the Committee. However, I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his very positive response, which we very much welcome. We look forward to the amendment that he said he would bring forward, we hope on Report. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 88 agreed to.
Lord Astor of Hevermoved Amendment No. 435:
After Clause 88, insert the following new clause—
"RISK ASSESSMENT OF RELEVANT OFFENDERS
(1) A relevant offender may be required by the police to attend a police station in his local police area as specified by the police and to answer questions for the purposes of a risk assessment of the relevant offender.
(2) A risk assessment for the purposes of subsection (1) shall include an assessment for the purposes of determining whether a chief officer of police will apply for an order under section 103(5) or 110(1)."

643
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 435 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 438. My noble friend Lady Noakes and I have tabled these amendments in response to representations from the Metropolitan Police. It is important when scrutinising this legislation not just to focus on the nature of the offence and the penalty; we must strive to draft the law in terms of facilitating convictions, allowing straightforward practical enforcement and enabling the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to do their jobs efficiently. My noble friend Lady Noakes mentioned that point on the first day of Committee when she talked about workability. My sympathy in tabling these amendments lies with the police, who have the task of monitoring those on the sex offenders register, overseeing and enforcing notification procedures and specifically assessing risk.
Amendment No. 435 proposes a new clause stating that any person subject to notification requirements should make himself or herself available to the police at a reasonable time to assess the risk posed. At present the police are expected to manage the risk by subjects on the sex offenders register together with partner agencies. Part of that risk assessment and management involves the police visiting and speaking to the individual. If he or she refuses to speak to the police, currently they have no power to proceed any further, thus making management difficult. The inclusion of this requirement as proposed in the new clause would allow the police to make an informed assessment. Breach of this clause will be treated as a breach of the notification requirement. I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We do not think that this is an appropriate amendment for the following reasons. First, we have already put in place through the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 a duty on chief officers of police and probation to make arrangements to assess and manage the risks posed by registered sex offenders. That is done through the multi-agency public protection arrangements. All registered sex offenders are subject to those arrangements, and the higher-risk offenders will be subject to consideration by a multi-agency panel, which will look in detail at the risks they pose. The arrangements also mean, for example, that those sex offenders who are leaving prison or beginning a community sentence are already required to attend appointments with a probation officer where a wide-ranging risk assessment is carried out covering all aspects of their offending behaviour and lifestyle.
Secondly, it is not always necessary for the offender to be present for a risk assessment to be completed. This is mainly done using actuarial tools. I would also be concerned if the risk assessment were undertaken by any police officer, as many are not trained to undertake or interpret the results of such an assessment.
Thirdly, we are already introducing as part of the Bill a new requirement for offenders to go to their police station annually to confirm their notified details. This should provide the police with an
644
opportunity to discuss any issues about the offender's behaviour if they have not already done so as part of a home visit.
Finally, the amendment proposes that the risk assessment the new clause provides for could he used to inform a decision about whether a chief officer of police will apply for a sexual offences prevention order or a risk of sexual harm order. In either case a risk assessment alone would he insufficient to apply for an order, let alone to obtain one.
In the case of a sexual offences prevention order, an application must be based primarily on evidence that the offender has behaved in a way which indicates that an order is necessary to prevent the public from serious sexual harm. In the case of a risk of sexual harm order, the offender must have communicated with or acted towards a child in a sexual way on at least two occasions.
A risk assessment may inform a court's consideration in this respect, but an application could not rest on that information alone. It would he of concern if the police knew so little about the offenders in their area that they needed to call them in for questioning before deciding to apply for an order. I am sure it is not the case, as the many successful applications for sex offender orders already show.
We discussed the proposed power with the police and probation service and neither believes it is needed, although I note that the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, said the proposal was motivated by the Metropolitan Police. There are already measures in place to help assess and manage the risks posed by sex offenders and 97 per cent of registered sex offenders already comply with the requirements placed upon them. This new power would be a step too far. It would provide no additional benefits for public protection and it risks making the requirements placed on offenders so onerous that some of them would no longer bother to comply. Though I recognise the legitimate purpose for which it is moved, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful to the Minister for his very full explanation of why the Government cannot accept these amendments on risk assessment. We will read Hansard very carefully and discuss it with the Metropolitan Police. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 89 [Method of notification and related matters]:
[Amendment No. 436 not moved.]
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 436A:
Page 43, line 43, at end insert "retinal prints, palm prints, voice print or a sample of cellular material for the purpose of DNA profiling, or a record of any other feature useful in identification"
The noble Lord said: Under Clause 89(4) the police are allowed to take fingerprints and/or photograph any part of an offender. That strikes me as a limited collection of data in this day and age. There are many other ways in which it may be useful to have a record

645
of someone who is subject to notification. For the sake of illustration, I have stuck some in the amendments. However, this seems far too limited to me. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: I put my name to this amendment because I think it brings the Bill into the 21st century. We have had a lot of technological advances since the unique nature of fingerprints was discovered. If the purpose of this is to identify somebody unequivocally on the register, we should use whatever technological advances we have at our disposal.
Baroness Blatch: There must an all-embracing term, such as "latest available technology" that would do this. Otherwise, if identification is garnered by some other means, it would fall outside of the Bill because it is not included.
12.30 a.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The amendment is not necessary. Clause 89 provides the police with a power to fingerprint and photograph the offender when he makes various notifications. Palm-prints are already covered by the definition of fingerprints and are taken by the police as a matter of routine. The phrase "photograph any part of him" used here is wide enough to allow the use of iris scans. We have already signalled our intention to consider how that technology might be used in relation to sex offenders in the future. It will also allow for photographs to be taken of any distinguishing marks that the offender may have, such as tattoos.
Although it is not part of the notification requirements, the police already have the power to take non-intimate DNA samples from all those charged with, informed that they will be reported for or convicted of a recordable offence. Recordable offences include all those punishable by imprisonment, including all the sexual offences for which a person may be made subject to the notification requirements. The police may also take samples from those in police detention suspected of a recordable offence, if there are grounds to believe that a sample will confirm or disprove the suspect's involvement. DNA can, of course, be taken with consent, in any case. The Criminal Evidence (Amendment) Act 1997 also enables non-intimate samples to be taken from sex offenders convicted before 10th April, 1995, or imprisoned or detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. Under proposed new powers to be introduced in the Criminal Justice Bill, the police have the power to take a DNA sample from any person arrested for a recordable offence—that is, pre-charge.
That provides sufficient power for the police, and there is no need for the additional provisions in the amendment that would enable DNA samples to be taken from all offenders, subject to the notification requirements. It would be unjustified to do so in the case of offenders who are not serving their sentence for a sex offence and have not been arrested for or are not under suspicion of having committed a sex offence.
646
I turn to the issue of retinal prints and voice prints. It is not clear to me what the purpose of a retinal print is or how it would be used to establish the identity of an offender. As I mentioned, the current provisions covering photographs include iris scans, which are likely to be the main way of establishing identity in the future. I understand that voice prints are more an investigative tool than a general means of establishing identity. It would be inappropriate to include them as part of the notification requirement. We have already put in place sufficient means to confirm the identity of registered sex offenders, and the current provisions are flexible enough to encompass new biometric technologies, such as iris scanning, where they are appropriate.
Finally, there is the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that we should put in something that would allow the police to identify a person by any means that new technology allowed. That is going too far. The provisions that we have give sufficient protection, and we must justify each move forward. We should remember that, primarily, the matter is identification.
Baroness Blatch: There is no question about the purpose; it is set out in law. The purpose is to identify a person. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, if a person can be identified in a more technologically advanced way, that way should be included. I would have thought that there was a collective generic term that would allow for the flexibility of new technology to he used for the purposes of identification only.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The appropriate course is to make sure that we can identify someone properly and reliably. That is what we have done in the Bill.
Lord Lucas: I shall give further thought to what the noble and learned Lord said. I am surprised that the Government wish to restrict themselves in that way, but so be it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 89 agreed to.
Clause 90 [Section 89: interpretation]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 437:
Page 44, line 22, at the end, insert—
"(d) making, in respect of a person, an order under section 2, 2A or 20 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (sex offender orders and interim orders made in England and Wales or Scotland) or Article 6 or 6A of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/2839 (N.I. 20)) (sex offender orders and interim orders made in Northern Ireland)."
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 437 will extend the ways in which a court may deal with a person for the purposes of deciding where they are required to notify. The amendment applies to offenders who are subject to the notification requirements but do not have a home address and have not previously notified a home address. That may be because they are homeless or because they spend most of their time abroad. In such cases, the offender is

647
required to make the notification at a police station in the area in which they were last dealt with by a court in a certain way.
The amendment will extend those ways to include a sex offender order or interim sex offender order. It is a transitional provision to cover those who are subject to the notification requirements by virtue of a sex offender order made before the commencement of this part of the Bill. Although the amendment extends the provisions of Clause 90, it is not the result of a policy change. It is clear from subsections (7) and (8) of Clause 83 that the offenders concerned were always intended to fall within the provision. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 90, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 91 agreed to.
Clause 92 [Parental directions: variations, renewals and discharges]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 437A:
Page 45, line 29, at end insert—
"( ) the chief officer of police for the area in which the young offender resides:"
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendments in this grouping is to ensure consistency across various clauses in Part 2 of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 437A, 439A, 446A and 458ZH ensure consistency across parental directions, notification orders, sexual offences prevention orders and risk of sexual harm orders by allowing the same class of police officer to apply for a direction or order and for an order to be varied, renewed and discharged.
Amendment No. 454A brings sexual offences prevention orders into line with notification orders in terms of defining who is a qualifying offender when the offence is committed outside the United Kingdom.
The main effect of these amendments is to add the words
"whether or not he has been punished for it"
in the context of a conviction for a relevant offence. Under the present wording the police can only apply for a SOPO, which is a sexual offences prevention order, if a person who has committed a sexual offence overseas has been punished for that offence. Under the amendment such an application may be made in respect of a person with a conviction, an equivalent finding to those under the UK mental health legislation or a caution for a relevant offence. That will enable a SOPO to be made against an offender who has been convicted of a relevant offence overseas, but who absconded before serving his sentence or for an order to be made against an offender who has been convicted for a relevant offence but who received an absolute discharge.
The other amendments in this grouping are all minor drafting changes mainly needed to give effect to the amendments described above. I beg to move.
Lord Astor of Hever: We support these government amendments which tidy up sloppy drafting and remove ambiguity. We particularly welcome
648
Amendment No. 454A, which allows those convicted in another country other than the United Kingdom of relevant offences to be liable to a sexual offences prevention order. A relevant offence is defined in Amendment No. 454D as an act which constitutes an offence under the law in force in the country concerned and would have constituted an offence listed in Schedule 2 or 3 if it had been done in any part of the UK. This is vital to make sure that those sexual offenders who come to this country from abroad will still fall within the category of those who can have such orders enforced on them to protect the public from any potential threat that they might pose.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 92, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 93 [Offences relating to notification]:
[Amendment No. 438 not moved.]
Clauses 93 and 94 agreed to.
Clause 95 [Information about release or transfer]:
[Amendment No. 439 not moved.]
Clause 95 agreed to.
Clause 96 [Notification orders: applications and grounds]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment Nos. 439A, 440, 441, 441A and 442:
Page 47, line 39, leave out "he" and insert "the defendant resides in his police area or the chief officer".
Page 48, line 4, leave out from "finding" to "that" in line 5 and insert "equivalent to a finding"
Page 48, line 7, leave out from beginning to "that" and insert "equivalent to a finding"
Page 48, line 10, leave out ''for" and insert "in respect of".
Page 48, line 22, leave out "corresponding" and insert "equivalent"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 96, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 97 agreed to.
Clause 98 [Sections 96 and 97: relevant offences]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 443:
Page 49, line 21, leave out "taken as having been" and insert "to be taken as"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 98, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 99 to 101 agreed to.
Clause 102 [Sections 96 to 99: Scotland]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 444:
Page 50, line 38, leave out "Person" and insert "Post"
The noble Lord said: This is the shortest amendment I have ever moved. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: I would like to know why the Government, two years before the time when we are supposed to have electronic government and about two years after we passed a Bill enabling such things to be done by electronic communications, are giving us a

649
Bill that does not include such communications. Are the Government serious? I do not think they are, given my various troubles with them in the past. The Government protest their seriousness on many occasions, but how can such Bills come before us in which notices are served by post but no provision is made for them to be served electronically? Are the Government not up to speed with their own legislation and intentions, or do they just not really care?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not going to get into a great debate about the e-serving of such notices at this late stage. My understanding is that we can do these things, but of course the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is very wise in these matters.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 102, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 103 [Sexual offences prevention orders: applications and grounds]:
Lord Astor of Hevermoved Amendment No. 445:
Page 51, line 14, leave out "or 3"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 446, 453 and 454. These are probing amendments designed to find out how many people would qualify for a sexual offences prevention order. We are concerned that the remit of Schedule 3 is broad and untargeted. There seems to be no rationale for the assumption that violent offenders should qualify for SOPOs when they have no previous history of sexual offences or any sexual element attaching to the offences of which they have been convicted.
We recognise that there are those whose behaviour escalates and who may present a danger of sexual violence to the public, despite not having been convicted of violent offences. However, the schedule is so widely drawn that an application can be made in respect of those convicted of offences such as arson or those against aircraft security, or assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The danger with such broad-brush provisions is that resources become so thinly spread that those who present the real danger slip through the net while the effects are overly punitive on those who present no real risk.
We also have concerns about how the application will be made in practice. How will a risk of sexual harm be evidenced? Will there be reporting restrictions on those applications to prevent a repeat of the public disorder that followed the printing by the News of the World of personal details? Will there be a presumption that a conviction for a violent offence is evidence of a proclivity to commit a sexual offence? Those questions are important. We need to get the details right before the new prevention orders come into force. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: This probing amendment would remove the possibility of the courts making a SOPO against an offender convicted of an offence in Schedule 3 who also presents a risk of causing serious sexual harm. The offences in Schedule
650
3 are ones against which a court may make a SOPO either when it deals with the defendant following a conviction for one of the offences or following an application from a chief officer of police. In both cases, the court will need to be convinced that an order is necessary to protect the public from serious sexual harm by the defendant. A conviction for the offence will not of itself be sufficient justification for making the order.
The offences listed in Schedule 3 are mainly violent offences, including murder and the offences listed in Schedule 11 to the Criminal Justice Bill, which relates to the provisions in that Bill dealing with dangerous offenders. However, also included are offences related to child prostitution, pornography and trafficking. We included those offences as offences against which a prevention order may be made because there are offenders who present a risk of causing serious sexual harm but do not have a conviction for a sexual offence. There could be a number of reasons for that; for example, an offender could rape and murder his victim. In such a case, it is possible that only the more serious offence of murder is charged. Alternatively, the offender could commit an offence—for example, kidnapping a child with the intention of sexually assaulting them—but be charged only for kidnapping. Or there might be a trafficker who sexually abuses the woman he is trafficking.
We believe that it is important that the public are protected from such people, and Schedule 3 enables the courts to make a sexual offences prevention order against them where it is appropriate to do so. Such an order will not only place prohibitions on the offenders' behaviour to stop them sexually offending in the future; it will also make them subject to the notification requirements for the duration of the order, thereby enabling the police to know where they are and to manage them in the community.
I acknowledge that there may be concerns about applying a measure that is designed to manage sex offenders to other offenders, who have not been convicted of a sex offence. However, if one considers that, for example, Roy Whiting, who murdered Sarah Payne, would not have been registered as a sex offender by virtue of that offence, nor made the subject of a sex offender order, it should be clear, I believe, that the provision is justified.
It will of course remain necessary for a court to be persuaded that it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that a person with a conviction for a violent offence or one of the other offences in Schedule 3 has demonstrated a risk of serious sexual harm. Our experience is, in any event, that the police do not apply for orders unless they are necessary—they are demanding both in terms of application and monitoring of prohibitions. I do not therefore believe that there will be many sexual offences prevention orders made against offenders with a conviction for violence or for the other offences in Schedule 3 but, where such orders are made, I believe that they will add greatly to the protection of the public.

651
I was asked about the evidence that would be required. That depends on the facts in each case. Each case will depend on the evidence. The amendments, which I accept are probing, would take away the possibility that I have described. On this basis, the Government resist the amendment.
Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his very full response, which clarifies the matter. This was a probing amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 446 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 446A:
Page 51, line 26, leave out "he" and insert "resides in his police area or who the chief officer".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 103, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Other offences for purposes of Part 2]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 447 and 448:
Page 77, line 25, leave out "racially-" and insert "racially or religiously"
Page 77, line 26, leave out "racially-" and insert "racially or religiously"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Astor of Hevermoved Amendment No. 449:
Page 77, line 39, at end insert—

"Murder.

Culpable homicide.

Assault.

Assault and robbery.

Plagium.

Wrongful imprisonment.

Threats of personal violence.

Breach of the peace involving personal violence.

Wilful fireraising.

Culpable and reckless fireraising.

Mobbing and rioting.

An offence under section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968 (c. 27) (possession of firearm with intent to endanger life).
An offence under section 16A of that Act (possession of firearm with intent to cause fear of violence).
An offence under section 17(l) of that Act (use of firearm to resist arrest).
An offence under section 17(2) of that Act (possession of firearm at time of committing or being arrested for offence specified in Schedule 1 to that Act).
An offence under section 18 of that Act (carrying a firearm with criminal intent).
An offence under section 1 of the Taking Hostages Act 1982 (c. 28) (hostage-taking).
An offence under section 1 of the Aviation Security Act 1982 (c. 36) (hijacking).
An offence under section 2 of that Act (destroying, damaging or endangering safety of aircraft).
An offence under section 3 of that Act (other acts endangering or likely to endanger safety of aircraft).
652
An offence under section 4 of that Act (offences in relation to certain dangerous articles).
An offence under section 1 of the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985 (c. 38) (prohibition of female circumcision).
An offence under section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33) (torture).
An offence under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (causing death by dangerous driving).
An offence under section 3A of that Act (causing death by careless driving when under influence of drink or drugs).
An offence under section 1 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 (c. 31) (endangering safety at aerodromes).
An offence under section 9 of that Act (hijacking of ships).
An offence under section 10 of that Act (seizing or exercising control of fixed platforms).
An offence under section 11 of that Act (destroying fixed platforms or endangering their safety).
An offence under section 12 of that Act (other acts endangering or likely to endanger safe navigation).
An offence under section 13 of that Act (offences involving threats).
An offence under section 51 or 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (c. 17) (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and related offences), other than one involving murder.
An offence under section 1 of the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001 (ASP 13) (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and related offences as specified in Schedule 1 to that Act),
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to clarify the relevant offences if they are committed in Scotland, which will enable the specified courts to make "sexual offences prevention orders". The amendment seeks to ensure consistency of approach in the drafting of the Bill for Scotland as well as England, Wales and Northern Ireland; to provide certainty as to the offences covered by the schedule, thereby complying with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and to point out that, as currently drafted, there may be discrepancies between the offences covered by Schedule 3 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and those in Scotland.
The offences in Schedule 3 are relevant to the powers conferred on the court to make sexual offences prevention orders. Under Clause 103, the court may make such an order where any of the provisions in Clause 103(2) to (4) apply and the court is satisfied that certain other conditions are present. Clause 103(2) to (4) refer to a range of offences that are listed in Schedules 2 and 3. Schedule 2 sets out a list of identified offences for Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. Schedule 3 departs from that model. It lists by name the relevant offences for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In the case of Scotland it simply refers to:
"An offence inferring personal violence, other than an offence listed in Schedule 2".
It is unclear why it has been thought appropriate to list the offences which will trigger such orders if committed in England, Wales and Northern Ireland but not in Scotland.
It could be argued that reference to the phrase,
"an offence inferring personal violence",

653
may not offer the necessary clarity and certainty to ensure that these provisions are compliant with Article 5 of the ECHR. That article provides that the deprivation of liberty is permissible only when it is done,
"in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law".
That has been taken to mean that the procedure should be foreseeable and predictable so that a person will know in advance whether conduct is likely to be caught by the provision in question. There is an argument that current drafting does not offer that clarity.
To ensure certainty as to the type of offence which might be caught by these provisions, it may be better to list the offences specifically rather than referring to offences "inferring personal violence".
The Scottish courts have construed,
"an offence inferring personal violence",
by reference to the circumstances of the offence and not the name given to the offence. In the case of Hemphill v Donnelly (1992) SCCR 770, it was held that to threaten violence is not in itself an offence inferring personal violence. Accordingly, offences such as that under Section 16 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861—threats to kill, paragraph 6—which would be relevant in England and Wales may not be covered under an offence inferring personal violence in Scotland. That could mean that there would be a discrepancy between the offences covered by Schedule 3 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and those in Scotland.
The amendment would rectify that and ensure a greater clarity in relation to which offences are relevant in Scotland. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: I support the thrust of the amendment, but for a different reason to that put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Astor. I understand from Clause 127(3) that Sections 103 and 104 do not apply to Scotland. However, it is plain from Clause 104(4) that a "qualifying offender" is a person who,
"has been punished under the law in force in a country outside the United Kingdom for an act which … constituted an offence under that law, and … would have constituted an offence listed in Schedule 2 or 3 if it had been done in any part of the United Kingdom".
For other reasons it is appropriate that the offences, which are to be thought to be equivalent to those for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, if committed in Scotland should be set out in full. It may well be that the individual has no knowledge whatever of Scottish criminal law.
However, some of the offences set out in the schedule may go beyond what is intended in the remaining parts of Schedule 3. For instance, "wilful fireraising" and "culpable and reckless fireraising" may involve offences against property only and not against the person. Likewise, I suggest:
"Breach of the peace involving personal violence",
654
might be better phrased by using the terms of the Scottish criminal procedure, "inferring personal violence". As the noble Lord correctly said, in a Scottish case that involved a 1975 Act but which has continued under subsequent legislation, the phrase "inferring personal violence" was defined as meaning actual violence.
In general, I support the nature of the amendment—that the Bill should contain a clear list of offences that would be the subject of the schedule. It would be appropriate—having regard to Schedule 3(63)—that any schedule for Scotland should incorporate a reference to the Protection of Children Act (Scotland) Act 2003 passed by the Scottish Parliament.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Amendment No. 449 seeks to modify Schedule 3 by setting out a defined list of offences committed in Scotland that allow a court in England or Wales to grant a sex offender protection order in the terms of Clause 103(1). The noble Lord, Lord Astor, pointed out that the list of Schedule 3 offences in relation to England and Wales contains many violent offences, which is mirrored by the ability of the English or Welsh courts to impose a sex offender protection order on any person who committed an offence of a violent nature in Scotland and subsequently relocated to England or Wales. Those offences are in addition to the list in Schedule 2.
The current position offers significant protection to the public. Most offences involving personal violence in Scotland are common law offences. For that reason, we believe that it is preferable not to put on the face of the Bill what purports to be a definitive list of Scottish offences. The criteria are equivalent to those used under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 to determine whether a person can be made subject to an extended sentence. The criteria in the amendments to the 1995 Act made by Part 1 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 define whether someone can potentially be subject to an order for lifelong restriction.
Clause 117 allows the Secretary the State to amend the description of offences in Schedule 3 if necessary. We do not think that the point raised in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights applies because restrictions imposed under a sex offender protection order do not restrict liberty within the meaning of Article 5. We believe that the balance is about right. I hope that deals with the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron. I will read his remarks carefully, to see whether I need to write to him.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: Before the Minister sits down, it occurred to me that it would be important—since this will not affect persons coming before Scottish courts—that English or Northern Ireland courts should be fully apprised of offences in Scotland that would constitute the offences with which Clause 103 deals. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will take account of my remarks in relation to paragraphs 63 and 124 of Schedule 3, relative to Northern Ireland. Trafficking offences that in England, Wales and Northern Ireland

655
infer personal offences would not, as I understand it, infer personal violence in Scotland. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the Government to re-examine that point in conjunction with the Scottish Executive.
1 a.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I will certainly consider that request.
Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. This is an important amendment. There is a great deal to digest. Like the Minister, I shall read the debate carefully in Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment Nos. 450 and 451:
Page 80, line 40, leave out "above"
Page 81, line 5, after "counselling" insert "or"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 104 [Section 103: supplemental]:
[Amendment No. 452 not moved.]
Lord Allimoved Amendment No. 452A:
Page 51, line 41, after "Kingdom" insert "and outside the United Kingdom"
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment. Its purpose is to protect children outside the UK at serious risk of harm from sex offenders within the UK. The child sex industry is booming in many countries such as Cambodia, Sri Lanka, the Dominican Republic and Thailand. Children enter the industry for different reasons. Many children who are trafficked are destined for sex work; economic necessity can force other children to enter the sex industry.
The supply side of the industry is horrific. The latest estimate concluded that 1 million children enter the sex industry every year. I saw that at first hand when I visited a UNICEF project in Thailand recently that was seeking to reintegrate predominantly young women, who had been exploited by the sex industry, into society. Surely we must accept some responsibility, not just for our own actions. If the side effect of toughening UK law is to export the problem, we should take measures to combat that now. The amendment does so. I hope the Minister will ensure that it is included in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Whitaker: We have just passed an amendment enabling us to control the risks from people who have been convicted of sex offences in other countries. Surely it would be hypocritical not to control our sex offenders who may go somewhere where enforcement is more lax and abuse another
656
country's children. It would hardly be good ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My noble friend Lord Alli rightly wishes to address the issue of sex tourism where offenders travel abroad with the intention of committing sexual offences, particularly against children.
We take the issue of sex tourism very seriously. A number of measures are already in place to deal with the issue and we are proposing further measures as part of the Bill. They include Part 2 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997, re-enacted as Clause 75 in the Bill, which enables courts in the United Kingdom to deal with UK citizens who commit sex offences against children abroad. Since June 2001 all registered sex offenders have been required to tell the police if they intend to travel abroad for eight days or more. As Members of the Committee are aware, because I said so earlier, we intend to reduce that period to three days.
The proposed new notification order at Clauses 96 to 102 will require those who have committed sex offences overseas to register if they come to the United Kingdom. I fully support the intentions behind the amendments, but their purpose and effect are similar to those behind the proposed foreign travel order, which we will introduce, subject to your Lordships' agreement, under government Amendments Nos. 458ZA to 458ZG. Foreign travel orders will in certain circumstances enable those convicted of sexual offences against children to be prohibited from travelling to named countries. They have been developed specifically to deal with the issue of sex tourism, and their purpose is to prevent serious sexual harm to children overseas by UK offenders. The orders would operate in a similar way to sexual offences protection orders—indeed, they could be applied for at the same time as a sexual offences protection order—placing prohibitions on the offender in the United Kingdom.
We believe that foreign travel orders will meet the concerns that have given rise to the amendments and that they will provide a workable and proportionate response to the problem of offenders who go overseas to abuse children. The effect of foreign travel orders will be similar to that under the amendments. Indeed, in developing the orders we considered amending sexual offences prevention orders in exactly the way proposed by the amendments.
However, we decided that there were a number of difficulties with such an approach. First, amending the sexual offences prevention orders in that way would extend any prohibitions included in an order to cover the public overseas unless it was made explicit that the prohibition applied only in the UK. Such prohibitions would be impossible to police. For example, if a sexual offences prevention order contained a prohibition that the offender was not to hang around schools or to be alone in a property with children of a certain age, how could that be policed if the offender was in Thailand?

657
Our other concern was that any prohibition on travel must be proportionate to the risks posed by the offender. Sexual offences prevention orders last for a minimum of five years. They can be made against a wide range of offenders and carry with them a requirement to register. By contrast, foreign travel orders are more focused on the problem of offenders who go overseas to abuse children and therefore more targeted and proportionate. They last for a maximum of six months but can be renewed. The offender, when not already on the register, needs to notify the police only of his foreign travel plans. The order can be made only where the person already has a conviction—either in this country or overseas—for a sexual offence against a child under 16.
I hope that what I have said will reassure my noble friend that the Government take the issue of sex tourism very seriously and that we are determined to do whatever is necessary to tackle the problem. We believe that it can be most effectively addressed by the proposed foreign travel order in connection with the other measures that have already or are being introduced. In the light of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will feel that our approach deals with the very relevant points he made.
Lord Alli: I thank my noble and learned friend for that detailed reply. I commend him and his team for the work that they have done on sex tourism. The foreign travel orders will indeed satisfy me, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments No. 452B to 452D:
Page 52, line 2, at end insert—
"( ) "Qualifying offender" means a person within subsection (4) or (4A)."
Page 52, line 3, leave out ""Qualifying offender" means a person who" and insert "A person is within this subsection if"
Page 52, line 4, at end insert "he"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 453 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 453A and 453B:
Page 52, line 8, at end insert "or"
Page 52, line 10, leave out from "offence" to end of line 15.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 454 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 454A to 454F:
Page 52, line 15, at end insert—
"(4A) A person is within this subsection if, under the law in force in a country outside the United Kingdom and whether before or after the commencement of this Part—

(a) he has been convicted of a relevant offence (whether or not he has been punished for it),

(b) a court exercising jurisdiction under that law has made in respect of a relevant offence a finding equivalent to a finding that he is not guilty by reason of insanity,

658

(c) such a court has made in respect of a relevant offence a finding equivalent to a finding that he is under a disability and did the act charged against him in respect of the offence, or

(d) he has been cautioned in respect of a relevant offence."

Page 52, line 17, leave out ",cautioned or punished" and insert "or cautioned"
Page 52, line 18, at end insert "or (4A)"
Page 52, line 18, at end insert—
"(5A) In subsection (4A), "relevant offence" means an act which—

(a) constituted an offence under the law in force in the country concerned, and

(b) would have constituted an offence listed in Schedule 2 or 3 if it had been done in any part of the United Kingdom."

Page 52, line 21, leave out "(4)" and insert "(5A)"
Page 52, line 23, leave out "(4)(e)(ii)" and insert "(5A)(b)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 455:
Page 52, line 23, leave out "taken as having been" and insert "to be taken as"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 104, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 105 agreed to.
Clause 106 [Sexual offences prevention orders: variations, renewals and discharges]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 456 to 458:
Page 53, line 36, at end insert "(and any renewed or varied order may contain only such prohibitions as are necessary for this purpose)"
Page 53, line 38, leave out "date" and insert "day"
Page 53, line 40, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

"(a) where the application is made by a chief officer of police, that chief officer, or

(b) in any other case, the chief officer of police for the area in which the defendant resides."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 106, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 107 to 109 agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 458ZA:
After Clause 109, insert the following new clause—
"FOREIGN TRAVEL ORDERS: APPLICATIONS AND GROUNDS
(1) A chief officer of police may by complaint to the magistrates' court apply for an order under this section ("a foreign travel order") in respect of a person ("the defendant") who resides in his police area or who the chief officer believes is in or is intending to come to his police area if it appears to the chief officer that—

(a) the defendant is a qualifying offender, and

(b) the defendant has since the appropriate date acted in such a way as to give reasonable cause to believe that it is necessary for such an order to be made.

(2) An application under subsection (1) may be made to any magistrates' court whose commission area includes any part of the applicant's police area.

659
(3) On the application, the court may make a foreign travel order if it is satisfied that—

(a) the defendant is a qualifying offender, and

(b) the defendant's behaviour since the appropriate date makes it necessary to make such an order, for the purpose of protecting children generally or any child from serious sexual harm from the defendant outside the United Kingdom."

The noble and learned Lord said: I have referred already to foreign travel orders. Perhaps I may describe their effect and how they are to be applied for. A chief officer of police will be able to apply for a foreign travel order at any magistrates' court in his area in respect of a qualifying offender who resides in, or who the police believe is visiting or is intending to come to, his police area. The courts would then have the power to make a foreign travel order provided that two conditions are met.
The first condition is that the person has a conviction, finding or caution either in the UK or overseas for a sexual offence against a child under the age of 16, or 17 in Northern Ireland. The detail of these offences is set out in subsection (2) of Amendment No. 458ZC. Whether the offence took place in the UK or overseas, the conviction, finding or caution can have occurred at any time, whether before or after commencement of the Sexual Offences Bill.
The order has been limited to offenders who have a history of sexual offending against children because we believe that they present the greatest risk of future offending overseas. This is because the existence of brothels where child prostitutes are available or the absence of effective policing of child sexual abuse make some countries attractive destinations for paedophiles. It is this specific problem that the foreign travel orders are targeted against.
The second condition that must be met is that the offender has behaved in such a way that the court is satisfied that a foreign travel order is necessary to protect children or a particular child in any country outside the United Kingdom from serious sexual harm from the offender. By serious sexual harm we mean serious physical or psychological harm caused by the offender committing a relevant sexual offence against them.
This behaviour must have taken place since the date of the defendant's first conviction for a relevant sexual offence. We envisage that the evidence might be, for example, an offender having used the Internet to make contact with organisations arranging "sex tourism" type holidays or sending sexually explicit e-mails to a child abroad and arranging a visit. It may also be evidence of the offender networking with other sex offenders to plan trips abroad or a confession made by the offender as part of a sex offender treatment programme or evidence given by fellow prisoners. It is envisaged that such evidence will be presented as part of a detailed risk assessment prepared by the police. Such assessment might take into account previous offending behaviour, previous allegations of sex offending in the country the offender intends to visit, the circumstances of the proposed travel and likely contact with other offenders and potential victims in the destination country.
660
In order to decide whether a foreign travel order is necessary in any particular case, the court will want to consider what alternative measures are potentially available to prevent the defendant causing serious sexual harm to children abroad and it will be for the police to provide the court with this information. Such alternative measures could include notifying relevant authorities abroad of the offender's intended travel plans so that monitoring, reporting or surveillance arrangements could be put in place in the destination country.
Such methods may not be available in relation to the country or countries "at risk" from the offender, or the police may have tried such methods with a particular country in the recent past and found that the information was not acted on by the local authorities. If that is the case, the court may be satisfied that in this case a foreign travel order is the only effective means available to prevent serious sexual harm against children in that country.
The prohibitions on travel imposed by an order must be only those necessary to protect children in general or any particular child from serious sexual harm from the offender. The order must specify the country or countries to which the offender is prohibited from travelling; or, where the risk warrants it, it may specify that all travel outside the United Kingdom is prohibited. An order may also prohibit travel to anywhere in the world other than to a named country. Such a provision might be needed where, for example, an offender needed to travel to a particular country to attend a funeral or for any other family reasons.
The way in which the prohibitions would work may be as follows. Where the evidence shows that an offender is presenting a risk to children only in one particular country, the travel restriction will be limited to that country. However, where the offender presents a risk more generally to children in a region where child sex is readily available, a wider travel ban will be necessary. In those cases the order may name each of the countries in the region or, where the court considers that the offender would otherwise access one of the target countries through a neighbouring country, the order could name all the countries in that region. There may also be cases where the offender presents such a high risk of offending against children that he is likely to offend wherever he goes and a complete ban on overseas travel is necessary.
The order is to last for the length of time that the court considers necessary in relation to the risk posed by the offender. There is, however, a maximum term of six months, renewable on further application from the police. We believe that in most cases the period of six months will be enough to prevent the offender from making a particular trip overseas without putting an unfair restriction on the person's longer term right to travel.
Persons subject to a foreign travel order are likely to be subject to the notification requirements by virtue of their conviction of a sexual offence against a child. However, for those offenders who are not—perhaps

661
because their conviction pre-dates the 1997 Act—while the foreign travel order is in force the offender will be subject to the foreign travel notification requirements, which will require him to notify the police if he intends to travel abroad for three days or more.
Provision has also been included for the foreign travel order to be varied, renewed or discharged, and the defendant will have a right of appeal to the Crown Court against the making of an order. These provisions replicate those used for the sexual offences prevention order.
Finally, a failure to comply with any prohibition contained within a foreign travel order will be a criminal offence, punishable with up to five years' imprisonment.
I know that the issue of United Kingdom citizens who go abroad with the intention of sexually abusing children is one that has been raised by a number of noble Lords, on the introduction of this Bill, at Second Reading and again today. The Bill provides us with an opportunity to ensure that we are doing everything that we can to deal with this issue, and I believe that the foreign travel order proposed in these amendments will prove a vital and useful tool in helping the police to combat the problem. I beg to move.
1.15 a.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: We on these Benches very much welcome these amendments introducing foreign travel orders into the Bill. We have had a considerable amount of lobbying from organisations such as UNICEF. A recent UN report concluded that nearly 1 million children enter the sex industry each year. Paedophiles often choose to take holidays in places where police corruption and a lack of legislative safeguards allow them to abuse young children easily without much fear of prosecution.
This new set of orders to regulate the travel of sex offenders is a significant step forward. It shows that the Government appreciate the need to widen the Bill to have regard to the welfare of children in other countries rather than only in the UK.
The proposed foreign travel orders show a welcome degree of flexibility and have clearly been formulated on the principle of treating each offender on an individual basis when considering whether travel should be restricted.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may ask a couple of questions. I am puzzled by what the noble and learned Lord said in terms of the offences to which this part of the Bill is restricted. There are a large number of child sex offences in Schedule 2 which are not covered by Amendment No. 458ZC(2)(a). This may be where the Government want to start, but would it not be wise to have a power in the Bill to add to that list of paragraphs by order? It seems to me that a large chunk of offending behaviour is being missed out.
662
Secondly, I am not at all up to speed with what is meant by subsection (2)(c)in Amendment No. 458ZC where it says that,
"the corresponding civil offence is an offence within any of the paragraphs 13 to 15 of that Schedule".
How can a civil offence be an offence within a criminal statute? I do not understand why that formulation is used. I would be grateful for enlightenment on both matters.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: On the first point, we think we have the balance broadly right. We do not think we require a further power. All sexual offences in Schedule 2 where the victim is under 16 are covered, and we think that is sufficient. On the second point, will the noble Lord forgive me for saying that I shall write to him about it? It is an issue that I should write about rather than give an answer at this stage in the proceedings.
Lord Lucas: I should like to pick the noble and learned Lord up on what he said to begin with. Paragraph 10 of Schedule 2 refers to:
"An offence under section 28 of that Act (causing or encouraging the prostitution of, intercourse with or indecent assault on girl under sixteen)".
That would appear to be a child sex offence but it is not included in subsection (2)(a) of the amendment and similar paragraphs. I do not understand why the section—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Perhaps I can write to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 458ZB to 458ZG:
After Clause 109, insert the following new clause—
"Section (Foreign travel orders: applications and grounds): interpretation
(1) Subsections (2) to (5) apply for the purposes of section (Foreign travel orders: applications and grounds).
(2) "Protecting children generally or any child from serious sexual harm from the defendant outside the United Kingdom" means protecting persons under 16 generally or any particular person under 16 from serious physical or psychological harm caused by the defendant doing, outside the United Kingdom, anything which would constitute an offence listed in Schedule 2 if done in England and Wales or Northern Ireland.
(3) Acts and behaviour include those occurring before the commencement of this Part.
(4) "Qualifying offender" has the meaning given by section (Section (Foreign travel orders: applications and grounds): qualifying offenders).
(5) "Appropriate date", in relation to a qualifying offender, means the date or (as the case may be) the first date on which he was convicted, found or cautioned as mentioned in subsection (1) or (3) of section (Section (Foreign travel orders: applications and grounds): qualifying offenders).
(6) In this section and section (Section (Foreign travel orders: applications and grounds): qualifying offenders) as they apply to Northern Ireland, references to persons, or to a person, under 16 are to be read as references to persons, or to a person, under 17."
After Clause 109, insert the following new clause—

663
"SECTION (FOREIGN TRAVEL ORDERS: APPLICATIONS AND GROUNDS): QUALIFYING OFFENDERS
(1) A person is a qualifying offender for the purposes of section (Foreign travel orders: applications and grounds) if, whether before or after the commencement of this Part, he—

(a) has been convicted of an offence within subsection (2),

(b) has been found not guilty of such an offence by reason of insanity,

(c) has been found to be under a disability and to have done the act charged against him in respect of such an offence, or

(d) in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, has been cautioned in respect of such an offence.

(2) The offences are—

(a) an offence within any of paragraphs 13 to 15, 41 to 43, 63, 64 and 66 of Schedule 2;

(b) an offence within paragraph 28 of that Schedule, if the intended offence was an offence against a person under 16;

(c) an offence within paragraph 68 of that Schedule, if—

(i) the corresponding civil offence is an offence within any of paragraphs 13 to 15 of that Schedule;

(ii) the corresponding civil offence is an offence within paragraph 28 of that Schedule, and the intended offence was an offence against a person under 16; or

(iii) the corresponding civil offence is an offence within any of paragraphs 1 to 12, 16 to 27 and 29 to 32 of that Schedule, and the victim of the offence was under 16 at the time of the offence.

(d) an offence within any other paragraph of that Schedule, if the victim of the offence was under 16 at the time of the offence.

(3) A person is also a qualifying offender for the purposes of section (Foreign travel orders: applications and grounds) if, under the law in force in a country outside the United Kingdom and whether before or after the commencement of this Part—

(a) he has been convicted of a relevant offence (whether or not he has been punished for it),

(b) a court exercising jurisdiction under that law has made in respect of a relevant offence a finding equivalent to a finding that he is not guilty by reason of insanity,

(c) such a court has made in respect of a relevant offence a finding equivalent to a finding that he is under a disability and did the act charged against him in respect of the offence, or

(d) he has been cautioned in respect of a relevant offence.

(4) In subsection (3), "relevant offence" means an act which—

(a) constituted an offence under the law in force in the country concerned, and

(b) would have constituted an offence within subsection (2) if it had been done in England and Wales or Northern Ireland.

(5) An act punishable under the law in force in a country outside the United Kingdom constitutes an offence under that law for the purposes of subsection (4), however it is described in that law.
(6) Subject to subsection (7), on an application under section (Foreign travel orders: applications and grounds) the condition in subsection (4)(b) above (where relevant) is to be taken as met unless, not later than rules of court may provide, the defendant serves on the applicant a notice—
664

(a) stating that, on the facts as alleged with respect to the act concerned, the condition is not in his opinion met,

(b) showing his grounds for that opinion, and

(c) requiring the applicant to prove that the condition is met.

(7) The court, if it thinks fit, may permit the defendant to require the applicant to prove that the condition is met without service of a notice under subsection (6)."
After Clause 109, insert the following new clause—
"FOREIGN TRAVEL ORDERS: EFFECT
(1) A foreign travel order has effect for a fixed period of not more than 6 months, specified in the order.
(2) The order prohibits the defendant from doing whichever of the following is specified in the order—

(a) travelling to any country outside the United Kingdom named or described in the order,

(b) travelling to any country outside the United Kingdom other than a country named or described in the order, or

(c) travelling to any country outside the United Kingdom.

(3) The only prohibitions that may be included in the order are those necessary for the purpose of protecting children generally or any child from serious sexual harm from the defendant outside the United Kingdom.
(4) If at any time while an order (as renewed from time to time) has effect a defendant is not a relevant offender, the order causes him to be subject to the requirements imposed by regulations made under section 88(1) (and for these purposes the defendant is to be treated as if he were a relevant offender).
(5) Where a court makes a foreign travel order in relation to a person already subject to such an order (whether made by that court or another), the earlier order ceases to have effect.
(6) Section (Section (Foreign travel orders: applications and grounds): interpretation) (2) applies for the purposes of this section and section (Foreign travel orders: variations, renewals and discharges)."
After Clause 109, insert the following new clause—
"FOREIGN TRAVEL ORDERS: VARIATIONS, RENEWALS AND DISCHARGES
(1) A person within subsection (2) may by complaint to the appropriate court apply for an order varying, renewing or discharging a foreign travel order.
(2) The persons are—

(a) the defendant;

(b) the chief officer of police on whose application the foreign travel order was made;

(c) the chief officer of police for the area in which the defendant resides;

(d) a chief officer of police who believes that the defendant is in, or is intending to come to, his police area.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), on the application the court, after hearing the person making the application and (if they wish to be heard) the other persons mentioned in subsection (2), may make any order, varying, renewing or discharging the foreign travel order, that the court considers appropriate.
(4) An order may be renewed, or varied so as to impose additional prohibitions on the defendant, only if it is necessary to do so for the purpose of protecting children generally or any child from serious sexual harm from the defendant outside the United Kingdom (and any renewed or varied order may contain only such prohibitions as are necessary for this purpose).
(5) In this section "the appropriate court" means—

(a) the court which made the foreign travel order;

(b) a magistrates' court for the area in which the defendant resides; or

(c) where the application is made by a chief officer of police, any magistrates' court whose commission area includes any part of his police area."

After Clause 109, insert the following new clause—

665
"FOREIGN TRAVEL ORDERS: APPEALS
(1) A defendant may appeal to the Crown Court—

(a) against the making of a foreign travel order;

(b) against the making of an order under section (Foreign travel orders: variations, renewals and discharges), or the refusal to make such an order.

(2) On any such appeal, the Crown Court may make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to its determination of the appeal, and may also make such incidental or consequential orders as appear to it to be just.
(3) Any order made by the Crown Court on an appeal under subsection (1)(a) (other than an order directing that an application be re-heard by a magistrates' court) is for the purposes of section (Foreign travel orders: variations, renewals and discharges) (5) to be treated as if it were an order of the court from which the appeal was brought (and not an order of the Crown Court)."
After Clause 109, insert the following new clause—
"OFFENCE: BREACH OF FOREIGN TRAVEL ORDER
(1) A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, he does anything which he is prohibited from doing by a foreign travel order.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.

(3) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, it is not open to the court by or before which he is convicted to make, in respect of the offence, an order for conditional discharge."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 110 [Risk of sexual harm orders: applications, grounds and effect]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 458ZH:
Page 56, line 12, leave out "he" and insert "resides in his police area or who the chief officer"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 458A:
Page 56, line 15, after "(3)" insert "with the intention of obtaining sexual gratification (whether immediately or at some future time)"
The noble Lord said: We have discussed this formulation several times, so I regard this as a probing amendment. I am concerned that Clause 110(3)(b) or (c) seems to cover an activity carried out fairly frequently by newsagents. There is a great deal available in newsagents which might be said to relate to sexual activity, especially if one were to pass a child a magazine from the top shelf. Even the magazines ostensibly aimed at children proper often have a great deal in them of a sexual nature. Indeed, there have been some well publicised children's books which are quite heavily sexual in nature. A newsagent will frequently be giving children things of this nature. I would like to understand where, if that is the coverage of the offence, the defence arises. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: My concern relates to something that we have already discussed—the
666
position of people giving sex education, sex advice, or even condoms to young people. The acts described in Clause 110(3) include,
"giving a child anything that relates to sexual activity or contains a reference to such activity".
That could be a textbook or an informative film. Paragraph (d) refers to,
"communicating with a child, where any part of the communication is sexual".
Putting the caveat in the amendment that the intention must be obtaining sexual gratification whether immediately or at some future time makes the intention of the person doing this extremely clear and would, I hope, protect people giving legitimate and valuable advice and help to young people. I hope the Minister will be able to accept the amendment or at least clarify that such people are not in danger of being caught by this part of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: I believe that the noble and learned Lord will be able to satisfy the latter point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
I wish to speak on the theme that I have kept to throughout the Bill, that by amendment we keep putting in the way a higher barrier that must be jumped before someone can be caught. It seems absolutely inconceivable that a chief officer of police would go to court with a case against a person who has on two occasions been guilty of, or has given concern about, the acts set out in subsection (3)(a), (b), (c) or (d), if they were indulging in the sorts of activities that have been mentioned by the noble Baroness. I cannot believe that a court would even entertain the case of a chief constable who said that a teacher had been teaching sex education and was therefore a danger to a child.
My concern is always in these matters that we should not put barriers in the way of catching someone who actually is inciting children to watch a person engaging in sexual activity, or is giving a child anything that relates to sexual activity or contains reference to such activity, or is simply talking dirty to a child and who has no authority for doing such a thing.
I would put my trust in chief police officers going to court, as there are two locks on the matter. The chief of police has to have a concern and must produce evidence. He must make a case, and then the courts will hear the case and test the evidence and either agree or disagree that the order should be made.
I do not agree with the amendments, as they make it more difficult to catch the very people whom we are discussing. Protection of children against such activities is paramount.
Baroness Walmsley: Before the Minister replies, I ask the Committee to cast its mind back to an earlier stage in the Bill when we were discussing agencies other than teachers—voluntary agencies—with legitimate workers who work in a much less formal environment than that of a school. They are legitimate all the same; they are fully trained and they are effective because they go out into the environments in which young people "hang

667
out", as they put it, such as nightclubs. They provide condoms, for example, which helps with the sexual health of young people. I remain concerned that those people might fall foul of an over-zealous chief police officer, and would be grateful for some words of comfort for such agencies.
Baroness Blatch: I am going to stand by what I said. It is really inconceivable that a chief police officer could go with such a case, but even so there would have to be a great deal of collusion between a chief of police and all those testing the evidence and listening to the case for there to be such concern against someone. Frankly, if someone—a third party, for example—is up to no good, I believe that the chief of police should he free to make a judgment about that and to take his case to the courts to be heard.
Baroness Noakes: We discussed Amendment No. 459 in connection with the amendments relating to sexual education generally, so we are not debating that matter at this point. However, I was unconvinced at the time by the response of the noble and learned Lord the Minister, which was broadly along the lines of what my noble friend Lady Blatch said, that a case would simply not be pursued if it involved genuine sex education.
There will he genuine concern out there that people may feel that they fall technically within the provisions of the clause, and feel at risk from an over-zealous police officer seeking to obtain an order. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
1.30 a.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I hope that I can satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but I think broadly that what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is saying is correct, although the matter goes slightly further. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, tabled the amendment to ensure that orders are not granted where the person against whom the order is sought had a perfectly legitimate reason for engaging in sexually explicit conduct or communication with a child. That is a worry that we have specifically identified in other parts of the Bill, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Walmsley have mentioned.
It is not just a question, as the noble Baroness, LadyBlatch, said, of trusting the police, because the orders can he made against someone with no prior conviction for a sexual offence, but only if two key tests are met. The first, and perhaps the one that gives rise to the understandable problem, is that the court must he satisfied that on at least two occasions the defendant has carried out an act as specified at subsection (3) involving sexually explicit conduct or communication. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is right—the requirement could in theory catch the sex education teacher or biology teacher at a school showing children diagrams or models of reproduction. However, I wish to make clear that that requirement being satisfied does not legally allow the court to make the order, because a second requirement is explicitly required by the Bill. The second test provides the safeguard that ensures that such people will not be
668
caught. That is that the court must be satisfied that such an order is necessary to protect a child or children from harm from the defendant. So it is not just a question of trusting the chief police officer, although I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that it is extraordinarily unlikely that that police officer is going to apply for an order, not just because it is a mistaken judgment, but because he will not obtain an order as there is the second requirement as well.
When a court decides that an adult does not pose a risk to a child or children, even where they might have engaged in sexually explicit conduct or communication, a risk of sexual harm order cannot be made. Moreover, the purpose of the provisions is to provide better protection for children from sexually explicit conduct or communication which poses them a risk of harm. We are far less concerned with the motivation of the defendant than with the effect of his behaviour on the child concerned. If someone acts in one of the ways specified because they are being paid by a third party to familiarise the children with sexual matters so that they may think sexual abuse is normal, we want that behaviour still to be caught, although the defendant's motives are financial. They would not be caught as a result of the amendment. The effect on the children is the same, regardless of the motive.
Even where the defendant in such a case may not ultimately pose a risk of himself causing the child physical harm, such behaviour may well be causing the child psychological harm. When somebody distortedly believes that young people should know about sexuality in all its forms and shows them a variety of material displaying, for example, sado-masochistic activity, we would want children to be protected from a repetition of that behaviour regardless of whether the defendant can be proven to derive sexual gratification from it. So one would end up with the wrong conclusion. I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that the legitimate examples that she and I have given are not intended to, nor could they be, caught.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to the newsagent selling pornography to children. Could it fall within,
"communicating with a child, where any part of the communication is sexual",
or,
"giving a child anything that relates to sexual activity or contains a reference to such activity."?
It possibly could in relation to paragraph (c), but very rarely, I would have thought. There might he circumstances in which providing pornography to a child for the purpose of familiarising him with sexual activity with a view to making him vulnerable to sexual abuse could form the basis of such an order—but only if the court took the view that there was a risk of harm in accordance with the Bill. I do not think remotely

669
that it would catch the newsagent. I hope that I have put at rest the minds of both noble Lords who have raised concerns on the matter.
Lord Lucas: I understand what the noble and learned Lord is saying, but I am not yet convinced. I think that my problems arise from Clause 111(2) where,
"'Protecting children generally or any child from harm from the defendant"',
is defined by the defendant doing the acts in Clause 110(3). In other words, the harm from which protection is sought is the harm of being given material relating to sexual activity or communications relating to sexual activity. My noble friend Lady Blatch and I will doubtless be sitting on these Benches when we again discuss Clause 28. The Minister will doubtless remember some of the material that was displayed in the House when we last considered it. Many parents might feel that some of the material distributed by official bodies could cause psychological harm if inflicted on young people. Those of a religious persuasion might feel that many of the currently available teenage magazines are likely to do such harm.
The harm to which a child is likely to be exposed is not defined anywhere else in the Bill. It is simply defined as psychological harm. I am not at all clear that that test is set high enough to avoid either the type of troubles which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, described or the more run-of-the-mill activities, in our rather permissive world, in which people are dealing with children who are brought up in a much stricter way and might have considerable difficulty in dealing with some of the materials that are commonly available.
Baroness Blatch: Does my noble friend agree that it is possible for seriously pornographic material, whether videotapes or written material, to be distributed not only for sexual gratification but because of wilfulness or for money? Once the provision is restricted to having to prove obtaining sexual gratification, the scope of the courts will be limited.
Lord Lucas: Yes, I do. I was not trying to amend the wording of the amendment. I agree that we have discussed this before. I think that I have rather given in to the persuasive powers of the noble and learned Lord and accepted that this is probably the wrong way of tackling the issue. What worries me is that we are potentially criminalising a fairly wide range of activities which, if not usual activities, are accepted by some parts of society. I do not see where we will find protection for those whom we may wish to protect except, as my noble friend says, in the good sense of the chief officer of police. The provision seems to have been drawn very wide. We do not seem to be allowing ourselves the opportunity to catch those whom we wish to catch rather than a lot of innocent people. I shall read carefully in Hansard what the noble and
670
learned Lord has said and return to the matter at Report if necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 459 not moved.]
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 460:
Page 56, line 31, at end insert—
"( ) communicating with a child in such a way as to induce the child to believe that the person is himself a child or is significantly younger than the person's actual age."
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 460 which adds another act that could trigger an application for a risk of sexual harm order under subsection (3) of Clause 110. At present all of the acts under subsection (3) are sexual in nature. My Amendment No. 460 adds,
"communicating with a child in such a way as to induce the child to believe that the person is himself a child or is significantly younger than the person's actual age".
My concern in moving the amendment is to ensure that we have maximum protection for children. We support the concept of risk of sexual harm orders. In the White Paper Protecting the Public the Government said that these new orders would,
"complement the new offence of grooming but will cover a much wider spectrum of behaviour".
The new orders will apply in some respects to a narrower range of activities than the sexual grooming offence under Clause 17. The grooming of children by paedophiles is often very subtle and does not always include sexual content, as I pointed out in our debate on Clause 17. Groomers work hard to gain the trust of potential victims and some do this by pretending to be only a little older than the potential victim. That is what the Metropolitan Police told us.
The new risk of sexual harm orders apply only where there has been sexual communication with a child. That will account for only a proportion of those who are stalking the Internet chat rooms.
What of the ones who pretend to be of like age with the child and whose communications have not been sexually explicit? They are not caught by the risk of sexual harm orders and that is why I said the new orders would apply to a narrower range of activities than Clause 17.
The Public Bill Office had to be persuaded to take this amendment because it said that the amendment would catch baby talk. I do not think that is a problem because for an order to be made some reasonable cause for the order has to be proved. In many ways this is analogous to Clause 17, which relies in part on acts which, more often than not, are innocent. If there is a better way of expressing the dangers that arise for children from people who stalk them without using explicitly sexual language, particularly on the Internet, then I would welcome looking at any such drafting. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My understanding is that this amendment is subsumed in paragraph (d) already. If we restrict the provision to include communicating

671
with a child in such a way as to induce the child to believe the person himself is a child or is significantly younger than their actual age, people who are not pretending to be any age other than the age they actually are will not be caught. If it is simply left at communicating with a child where any part of the communication is sexual—whether that person is pretending to be younger or not—then they could be subject to an order. Once that becomes the criterion by which someone is judged, then it will allow to go free somebody who is not pretending to be significantly younger than the person they are talking to.
Baroness Noakes: I was not seeking to remove paragraph (d). I was adding an additional possibility for catching people who ought to be prevented from stalking children on the Internet.
Baroness Blatch: I think it is still subsumed in (d). I think it would be an aggravating factor, but it seems to me that it is subsumed in (d).
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I think I take the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, if I have understood the amendment of the noble Baroness correctly. She is saying that even if a person says nothing remotely sexual but seeks to deceive the person with whom he or she is communicating that he or she is significantly younger than he or she is, that of itself should be a trigger fact. It could he an innocent conversation with no remote reference to sex, but it would be a trigger fact.
We oppose the amendment and think it is going too far, although we understand why the noble Baroness proposed it. As the noble Baroness pointed out, all of the acts in Clause 1 10(3) are explicitly sexual and could give cause for concern that the adult might pose harm to the child or children once the act is committed. The same could not be said for deception about age. There are circumstances in which one could envisage an adult lying about their age; for example, someone researching a book for children may go into a chat room pretending to be a child so as to discuss TV programmes and see what children like to watch. An adult with a mental impairment who has the mental age of a child may falsify his age online to be accepted by those he feels he wants to communicate with. Although the amendment would leave in place the requirement for the court to be satisfied that an order was necessary to protect children from harm by the defendant, deceit about age does not provide a sufficiently robust justification to qualify as behaviour triggering the RSHO.
Moreover, the amendment would not provide sufficient certainty about the behaviour that would render a person liable for an RSHO. If an 18 year-old communicated with a 15 year-old in an Internet chat room and induced the child to believe that he was 16, would that meet the requirement of pretending to be significantly younger than his actual age? If he were 19 and pretending to be 16, would that qualify?
Concern has been expressed that the RSHO is going too far in that it makes behaviour that is not itself criminal the subject of a civil preventive order. There
672
are other precedents for that, including the anti-social behaviour order, and we think that we have got the trigger behaviour for the RSHO about right. Making deception about age a trigger for the RSHO would be a step too far and would create the risk of undermining the orders, which have an important role to play in protecting children.
I fully appreciate the reasons why the amendment was moved, but, broadly speaking, the line has been drawn in the right place, and, therefore, I resist the amendment.
1.45 a.m.
Baroness Blatch: Before my noble friend replies, I must ask her a question. As my noble friend suggested, the amendment would insert a new paragraph (e). Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) all have a sexual connotation in one way or another. Paragraph (a) refers to sexual activity, (b) refers to sexual images, (c) relates to sexual activity and (d) refers to sexual communication. However, the new paragraph (e) refers to,
"communicating … in such a way as to induce the child to believe"
that the person is younger than he actually is. Is that the offence? Ought there not to be some form of words, such as "with a view to discussing sex" or "with a view to inciting sex"?
Baroness Noakes: I thank my noble friend for that additional comment, and I thank the Minister for his response.
I shall explain to my noble friend why I tabled the amendment. Sexual predators in chat rooms do not always use sexual language or other communication. The aim of groomers in Internet chat rooms is to gain the trust of the child and to arrange a meeting. That is what they do. The advice we had from the Metropolitan Police was that one could not always detect from the nature of the communications prior to a meeting that there was any sexual content.
The communication in the chat rooms where the grooming takes place could appear to be innocent, but it is all about the groomer gaining the child's trust so that the child will then go ahead and arrange a meeting. The Minister understood where I was coming from. He said that the amendment goes too far but, to get a risk of sexual harm order, one must show that it is necessary for the purpose of protecting children, so it is not the only thing that must be shown.
I shall consider what the Minister said. I am keen that the risk of sexual harm orders should be capable of being used in circumstances in which, we know, harm can be done to children. We know that children can be exposed to harm in Internet chat rooms. That was my rationale for tabling the amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 110, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 111 agreed to.
Clause 112 [Risk of sexual harm orders: variations, renewals and discharges]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 461:
Page 57, line 42, at end insert "(and any renewed or varied order may contain only such prohibitions as are necessary for this purpose)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 462:
Page 58, line 1, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
"(5) The court must not discharge an order before the end of 5 years beginning with the day on which the order was made, without the consent of the defendant and—

(a) where the application is made by a chief officer of police, that chief officer, or

(b) in any other case, the chief officer of police for the area in which the defendant resides."

The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment in an earlier group.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 112, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 113 to 116 agreed to.
Clause 117 [Power to amend Schedules 2 and 3]:
[Amendment No. 463 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 463A:
Page 60, line 6, leave out "103(4) to (6), 104 and 107" and insert "104 and (Section (Foreign travel orders: applications and grounds): qualifying offenders)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 463B:
Page 60, line 7, leave out ", cautions and punishments" and insert "and cautions"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 464:
Page 60, line 14, leave out "punishment" and insert "disposal"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 117, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 118 [Young offenders: application]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 465:
Page 60, line 42, leave out from "or" to end of line 43 and insert "Article 45 of the Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/1504 (N.I. 9)),"
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 465, 466 and 467 are technical and make the necessary modifications to allow for the proper operation of Part 2 of the Bill in Northern Ireland. Amendments Nos. 492 to 494 and 496 amend Clause 127 which is concerned with the extent of the Bill. They have two consequences. First, they make the changes
674
needed to reflect the extension of the defence under Clause 53 to Northern Ireland. Secondly, they provide that the offence of causing a child under the age of 13 to engage in sexual activity under Clause 8 of the Bill is no longer to extend to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 118, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 465A:
After Clause 118, insert the following new clause—
"OFFENCES WITH THRESHOLDS
(1) This section applies to an offence which in Schedule 2 is listed subject to a condition relating to the way in which the defendant is dealt with in respect of the offence or (where a relevant finding has been made in respect of him) in respect of the finding.
(2) For the purposes of this Part (including in particular section 84(6))—

(a) a person is to be regarded as convicted of such an offence, or

(b) (as the case may be) a relevant finding in relation to such an offence is to be regarded as made,

at the time when the condition is met.
(3) In the following subsections, references to a foreign offence are references to an act which—

(a) constituted an offence under the law in force in a country outside the United Kingdom ("the relevant foreign law"), and

(b) would have constituted an offence to which this section applies (but not an offence, listed in Schedule 2, to which this section does not apply) if it had been done in any part of the United Kingdom.

(4) In relation to a foreign offence, references to the corresponding UK offence are references to the offence (or any offence) to which subsection (3)(b) applies in the case of that foreign offence.
(5) For the purposes of this Part, a person is to be regarded as convicted under the relevant foreign law of a foreign offence at the time when he is, in respect of the offence, dealt with under that law in a way equivalent to that mentioned in Schedule 2 as it applies to the corresponding UK offence.
(6) Where in the case of any person a court exercising jurisdiction under the relevant foreign law makes in respect of a foreign offence a finding equivalent to a relevant finding, the court's finding is, for the purposes of this Part, to be regarded as made at the time when the person is, in respect of the finding, dealt with under that law in a way equivalent to that mentioned in Schedule 2 as it applies to the corresponding UK offence.
(7) Where (by virtue of an order under section 117 or otherwise) an offence is listed in Schedule 3 subject to a condition such as is mentioned in subsection (1), this section applies to that offence as if references to Schedule 2 were references to Schedule 3.
(8) In this section, "relevant finding", in relation to an offence, means—

(a) a finding that a person is not guilty of the offence by reason of insanity, or

(b) a finding that a person is under a disability and did the act charged against him in respect of the offence."

The noble and learned Lord said: I can assure Members of the Committee that the purpose of this amendment is much more straightforward than it looks. Schedule 2 to the Bill lists the offences which trigger the notification requirements of Part 2 of the Bill. For the most serious offences such as rape a conviction or relevant finding under the mental health legislation

675
automatically triggers the requirements. However, some of the offences will trigger registration only if the particular facts of the case are sufficiently serious to merit a specified penalty such as imprisonment. This amendment seeks to clarify that. Where an offence that triggers registration has such a threshold relating to sentence or other disposal, the offender is to be regarded as having been convicted for the offence only when that threshold has been met. The amendment applies only to Part 2 of the Bill. Establishing the date of conviction or finding is important because it triggers the date when the notification requirement of this part of the Bill will start to apply to the offender. For example, under Clause 85 an offender is required to make an initial notification at a police station within three days of the date of his conviction or finding for a relevant offence. In the case of offences with disposal thresholds the notification requirements will apply only where the thresholds are met. That will not be known until the offender is dealt with by the court. That could be some time after being convicted for the offence.
The proposed amendment clarifies that a person should only be treated as having been convicted for a relevant offence if any applicable sentence threshold is met. Similarly, a person is only to be treated as being made subject to a relevant finding under the mental health legislation once any applicable disposal threshold is met; for example, a hospital order is imposed. The notification requirements would therefore apply from the date of a disposal rather than from conviction.
Subsections (3) to (6) of the proposed new clause cover foreign convictions and findings. The effect of those subsections is the same as that on convictions or findings in the United Kingdom, in that the date of conviction or finding will be the date when the relevant disposal thresholds for the offence are met. The offences in Schedule 3 do not currently have sentence thresholds. However, subsection (7) of the new clause extends the provisions of the clause to cover Schedule 3, should thresholds he applied to those offences at some time in the future. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify when offenders become subject to the notification requirements of this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: Why is it necessary to specify at the beginning of subsection (2) that the provision includes Section 84(6)? Either it is for the purposes of this part or it is not.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Because that provision is particularly relevant. That is a perfectly normal way of drafting.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 119 to 121 agreed to.
Clause 122 [Part 2: Northern Ireland]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 466:
Page 64, line 43, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (6),"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 466A:
Page 65, line 4, after "(5)" insert ", (Foreign travel orders: appeals)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 467:
Page 65, line 17, leave out subsection (11).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 122, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 123 and 124 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 468:
Page 81, line 17, at end insert—
"Offences against the Person Act 1861 (c. 100)
In the Offences against the Person Act 1861—

(a) in section 61, omit the words "either", "or with any animal" and "or an animal";

(b) in section 62, omit the words "or an animal".

Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 (c. 69)
In the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, omit—

(a) in section 2, subsections (2) to (4), and

(b) section 11.

Vagrancy Act 1898 ( c. 39)
In section 1 of the Vagrancy Act 1898, omit subsections (1)(a), (2) and (3).
Criminal Law Amendment Act 1912 (c. 20)
In section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1912, omit subsections (4) and (5)."
The noble and learned Lord said: The government amendments in this group relate to several necessary consequential amendments to be included in Schedule 4 as a result of changes to the law on sexual offences in Northern Ireland brought about by this Bill and by the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003. The amendments attempt to make the law in Northern Ireland more gender neutral.
I am happy to consider the changes sought in Amendment No. 469, along with those in Amendments Nos. 472 and 474. I will return to those issues on Report. I look around the Chamber and I do not see the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, may be about to say that she will pick up the baton on his behalf. I shall treat her as if she is the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for the moment. Does the noble Baroness care to withdraw the amendments?
Amendment No. 470 seeks to remove from the offence of indecent behaviour in the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 any element of sexual activity, as this offence is already gender neutral and used for a wide variety of unacceptable behaviour in public, including homosexual activity in public

677
places. I am not prepared to accept this proposal. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley.
Baroness Noakes: The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, does not have the staying power of the noble Lords still in the Chamber, and he asked me to speak briefly to the amendments to which my name is added. I am not sure that I quite understood what the Minister said, but he will return to it on Report.
The point that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, was going to make was that the Bill is an opportunity to go beyond the tinkering in the government amendments. We should take this opportunity to remove some of the archaic elements of Northern Ireland law and introduce proper gender neutrality, especially as Northern Ireland does not have a legislature of its own at present, nor will it have in the foreseeable future. This Parliament must take responsibility for ensuring that it has a modern legal system as regards sexual offences. I look forward to reading what the noble and learned Lord said and to seeing what he will do on Report.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
2 a.m.
[Amendments Nos. 469 and 470 not moved]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 471:
Page 82, line 3, at end insert—
"Children and Young Persons Act ( Northern Ireland) 1968 (c. 34 ( N.I. ))
In section 21 of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968, omit—

(a) in subsection (1), "or the prostitution of.", and

(b) in subsection (2), "or the prostitution of," and "or who has become a prostitute,"."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 472 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 473:
Page 82, line 25, at end insert—
"Homosexual Offences ( Northern Ireland) Order 1982 ( S.I. 1982/1536 (N.I. 19))
In the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, omit—

(a) Articles 7(2), 8 and 10(2)(a), and

(b) paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Schedule."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 474 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 475 to 477:
Page 83, line 9, at end insert "except so far as extending to Northern Ireland"
Page 84, line 47, at end insert—
678
"Criminal Justice (Children) ( Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/1504 ( N.I. 9))
In paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998—

(a) omit sub-paragraph (e);

(b) in sub-paragraph (j) for "Articles 7 and 8" substitute "Article 7".

Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/2839 (N.I. 20))
In the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, omit Articles 6, 6A, 6B and 7."
Page 85, line 17, at end insert "except so far as extending to Scotland"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 125 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Repeals and revocation]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 478:
Page 86, line 7, at end insert—

"Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (c. 100)

In section 61, the words "either", "or with any animal" and "or an animal".

In section 62, the words "or an animal".

Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 (c. 69)

Section 2(2) to (4).

Section 11.

Vagrancy Act 1898 (c. 39)

Section 1(1)(a), (2) and (3).

Criminal Law Amendment Act 1912 (c. 20)

Section 7(4) and (5)."

The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment and those grouped with it are a series of repeals. In the main, the repeal in the government amendments in this group are consequential on the application of some of the new offences in the Bill to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: The Minister will be aware that grouped with the amendment are amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and myself. They cover a slightly different set of repeals. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will say whether he intends to return to those on Report.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: This is all part of the same point that the noble Baroness raised earlier; she was saying, "Do not just tinker. Look at the picture more broadly". We accept that certain inequities exist in Northern Ireland, but a fundamental reform of the law on sex offences in Northern Ireland does not form part of the Bill. That will happen after review of the law in that jurisdiction has taken place, and that will be underpinned by an appropriate public consultation in Northern Ireland. That review has already begun and a consultation paper will be published in future.
In the mean time, the Government are anxious to do what they can prior to the review to remove some of the inequalities that currently exist. We are therefore repealing the offence of gross indecency between males under the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885. That was proposed in an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. Further, the

679
Government are willing to explore what can be achieved prior to the review to remove some of the inequalities that currently exist. I have given an undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that I will consider the other changes that he is seeking and return to the issue on Report. In the light of that I ask the noble Baroness not to move the amendments, which she has not yet moved.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 479 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 480:
Page 86, line 25, at end insert—

"Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 (c. 34 (N.I.))

In section 21, in subsection (1) the words "or the prostitution of," and in subsection (2) the words "or the prostitution of," and "or who has become a prostitute,"."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 481 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 482:
Page 86, line 37, at end insert—

"Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (S.I. 1982/1536 (N.I. 19))

Article 7(2).

Article 8.

Article 10(2)(a). In the Schedule, paragraphs 3 and 4."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 483 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 484 to 488:
Page 86, line 39, column 2, at beginning insert—
"Section 4(2) and (3)."
Page 86, line 41, column 2, at end insert "except so far as extending to Northern Ireland"
Page 87, line 11, at end insert—
"Criminal Justice (Children) In Schedule 1, paragraph 1(e)." (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/1504 (N.I. 9))
Page 87, line 12, column 1, leave out "The"
Page 87, line 23, column 2, at end insert "except so far as extending to Scotland"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 126 agreed to.
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 489:
After Clause 126, insert the following new clause—
"REVIEW OF OPERATION OF ACT
(1) The Secretary of State shall publish each year a review of the operation of this Act.
(2) The review shall cover the following matters—

(a) conviction rates in respect of the offences contained in the Act, including trends in conviction rates;

680

(b) practical difficulties encountered in interpreting the offences contained in the Act and their related defences;

(c) sentencing experience in respect of the offences contained in the Act in comparison with the maximum sentences by the Act;

(d) any cases where prosecutions have proceeded in circumstances which were not envisaged when the Act was passed.

(3) A copy of the review shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament."
The noble Baroness said: In view of the late hour, I shall give the short version of my instructions for the amendment. I shall save my speech for the Report stage. The amendment introduces an annual reporting requirement covering the matters laid out in subsection (2) of the new clause that I seek to add. I shall not go through those details. They pick up on many of the issues we have discussed during the passage of the Bill. They are matters of concern in the existing law and of the way in which the law is emerging in the Bill. The principles behind the amendment are soundly based. I hope that the Government will be prepared to look kindly on it. However, for the sake of brevity today I am prepared to leave my remarks at that. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My noble friend Lady Noakes will know as well as I do that governments bitterly resist this kind of amendment. However, in this case—and she may like to consider this before Report—one of the reasons for the Bill is that under the current law conviction rates for various sexual offences are abysmal. We have been talking about that for days and days, if not weeks and weeks. That is a very good reason why Parliament should know whether the Act—as it will become—is or is not working.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: This is a major piece of legislation. We are very keen to monitor its implementation in order to ensure that it achieves better protection for the general public, and particularly for children and the vulnerable. Apart from that monitoring, it is also important to monitor whether it has been implemented in a nondiscriminatory manner. That will require a proper evaluation of its impact and not just the monitoring of statistics. We will ensure that that takes place.
The amendment proposes a statutory obligation. We believe that the Act must be fully operational before its success can be tested in any meaningful way. The scale and focus of any research would then need to be determined by statistics that have been produced, any feedback that may have been received during the bedding-in period and the resources available at that point in time.
I draw attention to the sentencing guidelines council which is being set up under the Criminal Justice Bill. We hope that the council will be in place by the time the Bill is in force and providing relevant new sentencing guidelines. The council must keep those sentencing guidelines under review. We have every intention of ensuring that this new legislation works in practice. We will be anxious to address any shortcomings that might possibly be identified.

681
However, how we carry out any future research monitoring will be a matter of procedure, on which at this stage I do not think it is appropriate for us to draw.
I question whether it is necessary for this Bill to be singled out for special mention in the way that the noble Baroness proposes. But, as is clear from what I have said, I entirely agree that monitoring the legislation's implementation, how it is working, whether it is working and the form in which it is working, is very important. That was the shortened version of the reply.
Baroness Noakes: I shall confine my remarks to saying that I was heartened by the noble and learned Lord's response. I did not expect him to accept the amendment lock, stock and barrel at this stage. I look forward to discussing it again with him on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 127 [Extent, saving etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 490 and 491 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 492 to 494:
Page 66, line 10, leave out paragraph (a).
Page 66, line 11, leave out "8,"
Page 66, line 11, leave out "54" and insert "53"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 495 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 496:
Page 66, line 13, leave out paragraphs (d) to (f) and insert "and ( ) this Part."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 497 not moved.]
Clause 127, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 128 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past two o'clock.

Official Report of the GrandCommittee on the
  Railways and Transport Safety Bill [H.L.]
  ( First Day)

  The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) in the Chair.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard. The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in the Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
  I should explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. The Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes. Perhaps I may also remind your Lordships that there is no need to touch the microphones. When any noble Lord wants to speak, the engineer sitting in the corner will switch the microphones on and off.
  There is a Division in the House, so we shall adjourn for 10 minutes.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 3.31 to 3.41 p.m.]
  Title postponed.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 [Meaning of "railway accident" and "railway incident "]:
  Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 2, line 14, at end insert—
  "( ) Regulations under subsection (2) shall not be made until a draft has been laid before both Houses of Parliament and approved by resolution of each House."
  The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 and 44.
  Amendment No. 1 is largely a probing amendment because I realised that Clause 1 is affected by the regulations in Clause 13. I want to ask, first, about
  GC2
  consultation. What is happening and what stage has the process reached? I want also to ask: when will the regulations be made and when will drafts he available?
  It is important that the regulations are made under the affirmative resolution procedure because in the department's paper to the Select Committee on Delegated Powers it states:
  "With the development of new rail innovations, such as Cardiff's proposed 'ULTRA' rail based transport system".
  I have no idea what that system is; whether it is a railway or not a railway. However, it indicates that the definitions will become increasingly difficult.
  The department goes on to state that,
  "it may be appropriate to widen the meaning of 'railway' to include such modes within the investigative remit of RAIB".
  This is therefore an important subject and it would be helpful it the Minister could give us some illumination.
  With regard to the other two amendments in the group, Amendment No, 14 concerns the regulations that the Secretary of State may make about the conduct of investigations by the rail accident investigation branch. These include important provisions regarding the function of the chief inspector, or the branch itself, and would also allow the chief inspector to appoint other people to take part in an investigation. Perhaps the Minister could clarify who such a person could be and when the power will be exercised. Given the importance of these regulations, we feel that they should be approved by both Houses.
  Amendment No. 44 concerns the Secretary of State's right to make regulations with regard to the alcohol limit of non-professionals. No doubt this will arise in debates as we move through the Bill, but it seemed to me to be an important change. I am therefore interested to hear why the Government chose to draft the clause as it stands. I beg to move.
  Lord Bradshaw: I support the request for clarification. We support the requirement that the regulations be subject to affirmative resolution. They have not been drafted and we have had no opportunity to scrutinise them. Furthermore, as we shall say time and again, we are adamant that the rail accident investigation branch is as independent as possible. Its deliberations should not be subject to what the Health and Safety Commission or the British Transport Police may believe, unless there is a clear breach of criminal law, or statute law relating to health and safety. We want officials to have as restricted an opportunity as possible to interfere within the work of the RAIB.
  We will return to that matter many times and will be asking that the new branch has clear and independent powers which are known to Members of the House and the public and that they are not left open to the intervention of other parties, interfering in the work of the branch.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Berkeley: I support the principle behind these amendments in connection with what the RAIB will

  GC3
  do and how it will do it. I appreciate that it is early days, but I take into consideration the experience of the Air Accident Investigation Branch, the way in which it appears to operate and how it has dealt with the few serious accidents that have occurred. If the Government are not able to publish the regulations while the Bill is before your Lordships' House, will it be possible to develop a series of protocols setting out the principles under which the RAIB would work? Who will have precedence in examining accidents? Will the Health and Safety Executive and the British Transport Police be involved in any way? Can the branch give early indications that, for example, it believes that criminal investigation may be necessary or not? Will the Minister publish such principles before the next stage of the Bill, or can we meet him to discuss what they might be?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I begin by expressing reverence—some may say extreme reverence—for the wishes of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The committee's report on the Bill made two recommendations. The first was that the regulations introducing the HSE rail levy in Clause 104 should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure on the first occasion on which they are used. The second was that changes to the upper and lower limits on the number of people on the British Transport Police Authority should be subject to the negative resolution procedure. We shall implement those recommendations in government amendments to be made on Report.
  But of course it works both ways. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has not recommended that the three regulations which are the subjects of Amendments Nos. 1, 14 and 44 should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and there are good reasons for that. The regulations for the railway accident investigation branch will set out the working arrangements for the branch in the same way that the working arrangements for the air and marine accident investigation branches are set out in regulations. They explain what type of accidents the AAIB and the MAIB are to investigate and both sets of regulations are made under the negative resolution procedure, as is provided for under this Bill.
  For that reason, and because the Cullen recommendations fundamentally are that we should follow the air and marine accident investigation branches in setting up the rail accident investigation branch, we believe that we should follow the same procedure for parliamentary scrutiny.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked about consultation and when we can expect to see the draft and final regulations. The chief inspector of rail accidents designate and the department are already working closely with the industry, the HSE and the police to ensure that the definitions in the regulations will be correct. The draft European safety directive, which will come forward towards the end of the year, will also set down its own definition of accidents and we will have to take account of all of those in setting
  GC4
  out our regulations. We propose to begin consultation after Royal Assent. We also propose that the regulations will be first published in draft and will be available next April, or soon afterwards. In all of those respects, we are following precedent and the wishes of our committee.
  The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked for an assurance that the RAIB will be fully independent and I can assure him that that will be the fundamental principle behind the regulations.
  Amendment No. 44 is different from Amendments Nos. 1 and 14 because it is unnecessary. Clause 79(4) is already subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Clause 87(4) explains that regulations under Part 4 of the Bill shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
  On that basis, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
  Viscount Astor: I thank the Minister for that helpful response. I note he said that the Government will bring forward amendments as recommended by the Select Committee. It is always helpful when the Government take on board its recommendations, as they usually do. But I am sure the Minister will agree that on both sides there can be exceptions to the case; and that when looking at the recommendations one considers what should be included or excluded.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That works only one way. We agree to what the Select Committee recommends, but the Opposition do not always do so.
  Viscount Astor: That is the way opposition works. I am grateful for the Minister's explanation of why Amendment No. 44 is not necessary. His comments on the draft regulations and the timetable were helpful. I note that he did not try to explain the proposed,
  "ULTRA rail based transportation system",
  in Cardiff, but no doubt he knows all about it. I shall not test his knowledge on that and I am grateful for his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Establishment]:
  Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 2:
  Page 2, line 25, at end insert—
  "( ) The Rail Accident Investigation Branch shall be constituted with regard to regional representation, including consultation with the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, and the Northern Ireland Assembly."
  The noble Viscount said: The amendment follows a debate in Committee in another place about consultation with the regions and with regional parliaments. There is concern about what will be the constitution of the rail accident and investigation branch in terms of consultation with the three devolved powers. The issues of transport cross some of the boundaries and we are dealing with safety and risk to human life which is important.

  GC5
  I imagine that the Minister will answer that there will be full consultation, but one might require further safeguards to ensure that that is the case. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Although I go along with the spirit of the amendment, if the Minister is mindful of agreeing to it, I hope that he will subsequently amendment it so that the Bill does not refer to Scotland as a region. The acceptable phrase would be,
  "national and regional representation".
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Two separate issues are involved. The first is the composition of the branch and the second is consultation with the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly government and the Northern Ireland Assembly, when it is restored. On the second, I can give an assurance that there has been and will be close consultation with those bodies and that they have all supported the creation of a rail accident investigation branch. If a rail accident occurs in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, the chief inspector will keep the regional governments informed on progress. There is no problem about consultation.
  However membership of the branch deserves attention. This is not a branch of interests; it is one of professionals. It comprises a highly skilled professional team of professional rail accident investigators. They must have the highest level of expertise in accident investigation, rather than be appointed on the basis of the region from which they come. I do not believe that analogies with, for example, boards under Ofcom in the Communications Bill is relevant. I hope that the amendment about the composition of the board will not be pressed now or later.
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful for the Minister's reply and I shall study it carefully. I understand the noble Earl's point about Scotland not being described as a region. I do not know how the Welsh view themselves; are they a nation or a region—
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is a principality.
  Viscount Astor: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, corrects me and says that it is a principality. Is a principality a nation or a region? I suspect that it is a nation.
  I am grateful for the Minister's reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 [General aims]:
  Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 3:
  Page 2, line 27, after "Branch" insert ", working in conjunction with the Railway Safety and Standards Board,"
  The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 3, I shall speak also to my Amendment No. 5. The clause outlines the general aims of the rail accident investigation ranch. My amendment would ensure that the branch would have to have regard to the rail
  GC6
  safety and standards board, with a clear commitment to that on the face of the Bill rather than merely implied.
  Amendment No. 5 seeks to explore the relationship between the RAIB and the rail safety and standards board. The board may be in place before the RAIB, but we are trying to explore the thinking on the relationship between the two bodies. Will the railway safety and standards board be similar to the RAIB? It would be helpful to know more about the interrelationship between the two. Furthermore, to whom will the railway safety and standards board report? Will it be the Office of the Rail Regulator?
  As I said at Second Reading, many of the bodies that are being created and many of those which already exist are being brought together in the Bill. We support the aims behind that, but believe it important that the bodies work together and that we, the general public and all those involved in the industry, understand how the relationships between the new bodies and the reporting structures will work. We want to ensure, first, that they do not overlap and, secondly, that there are no gaps. I beg to move.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Bradshaw: I cannot support this amendment. I have already said that I want the rail accident investigation branch to be independent. We should be careful about qualifying whatever it does by specifying "by reference to", such as the railway safety and standards board, the Office of the Rail Regulator, the Health and Safety Commission or anyone else.
  The railway safety and standards board, which has been reconstituted and is about to embark on its new career, has a specific job to do related to railway operations and engineers. It is a job for the railway industry to decide on its own standards and, presumably, to justify those standards by dint of lives saved/pounds spent. Obviously, such consideration appears to have been forgotten.
  At the same time, I believe that the rail accident investigation branch needs to separate itself completely and judge the matter according to its own lights. I would be most reluctant to support either the question of consultation with the rail accident investigation branch and I would be equally concerned about reference to the Office of the Rail Regulator. I believe that the new regulatory board should be an economic regulator, as is the case with people in other industries such as electricity, gas and so forth.
  In the railways, we have burdened ourselves with an enormously complicated safety structure which people not only do not understand but is costing huge sums of money. Huge meetings take place because all parties want to be represented. I believe that if we are to overcome railway costs, we must demystify and simplify the structure and therefore I will not support the amendment.
  I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, which are in the same group. I am sorry that I overlooked them. We believe that there is an absolute priority for an investigation to take place to find out

  GC7
  what happened. I shall not go over old cases but we all know of many which have still not been the subject of reports after a disgracefully long time. I make it clear that the rail accident investigation branch should have the duty to inform either the police or the Health and Safety Executive as appropriate if it has prima facie reason to believe that an offence has been committed.
  But if it believes that it is what we might call an ordinary accident and that no one has committed a criminal offence, in my view neither the Health and Safety Inspectorate nor the police should be involved. The British Transport Police should be confined, if I may use that word, to securing the perimeter of any accident site against trespassers and to rescuing any persons who may have been killed or injured in the accident. It is not a job for policemen who are not trained in railway safety to root around the wreckage looking for God knows what, which is what it amounts to.
  There are still 68 police officers of the British Transport Police fully engaged in investigating past accidents. What we need—as happens with the Air Accident Investigation Branch—is for a very swift conclusion to be reached as regards what happened so that swift action can be taken. Within days of the Korean aircraft crash in Essex proper action was taken with that class of aircraft, on a world-wide basis, to ensure that the relevant fault was corrected.
  That was done without trying to attribute blame to anyone and in the interests of safety. We need to get away from the culture of hunting desperately for someone to blame and back to a system where the primary purpose of an investigation is to ensure that such accidents do not happen again and that proper action is taken to prevent them.
  It is a matter of gathering evidence. We shall discuss later whether the courts will be able to penetrate the RAIB or to subpoena witnesses. I have conducted a large number of these inquiries. People who are summoned to give evidence are assured that anything they say will not be taken down under oath and given in evidence. If there is to be frankness, evidence must be given quickly against the background of a cast iron assurance that it is given totally in confidence. I believe that that underlines CIRAS, the confidential reporting system which has recently been established.
  Lord Berkeley: I apologise to the Committee. I omitted to declare an interest at the start of the Committee proceedings as chairman of the Rail Freight Group.
  I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, with regard to Amendments Nos. 3 and 5. The railway safety and standards board was set up as an independent industry owned and controlled body. The board is comprised of industry people, apart from the chairman of the SRA, and no one else. Its job is to set standards and to ensure that the industry meets those standards. The board is supervised by the Health and Safety Executive. It talks to other bodies, as one
  GC8
  should in industry, but it would be unwise to complicate matters, as I believe Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 do.
  I turn to Amendment No. 10. I have little to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said on that. Clearly, the RAIB should inform the Health and Safety Executive and the police if it has reason to believe that an offence has been committed. It should also inform them and others if it does not believe that an offence has been committed. That is equally important. We ought to discuss that matter.
  I also support Amendment No. 11. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, there is a slight problem here. I can see why the Health and Safety Executive and the British Transport Police might want to get hold of confidential evidence collected by the RAIB in the course of its investigations. I refer in that regard to the procedure followed by the Air Accident Investigation Branch. Many people who work for the railways have a distinct fear of doing anything. I am told that 140 senior staff within Network Rail—or Railtrack as the company was called when the relevant incidents occurred—or its contractors live in significant fear of being charged with manslaughter following the accidents to which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, referred. Living and working in a state of fear is not conducive to getting on with the job and doing it properly. I cannot believe that after all these years those 140 people will be taken to court.
  I believe that the RAIB will have to spend an enormous amount of time gaining the confidence of staff involved in the industry and getting them to report properly. Certainly to start with, it would be better if subsection (7) of Clause 7 were not included in the Bill, as Amendment No. 11 proposes. Then people would have absolute confidence that whatever happened, what they had said to the RAIB to try to ascertain the causes of an accident would remain confidential. It is still open to the Health and Safety Executive and the British Transport Police to conduct their own completely separate inquiries after having been informed of an accident.
  The Lord Bishop of Hereford: I echo strongly what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Berkeley. There has been a very regrettable trend in recent years away from clinical investigation of what happened and what went wrong so that it can be put right towards the blame culture. I do not support Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 but I do support Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. It is terribly important that the initiative remains with the RAIB. It is absolutely essential that that is where the power, the initiative and the authority remain, and in particular that the British Transport Police be prevented from taking the part that they have taken in recent accident investigations. Although I am sure that that was well intentioned, it was in the end immensely unhelpful in terms of getting at the root cause of the problem and

  GC9
  making it possible to put in place essential remedies. I hope that the Committee will accept that line of argument.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: First of all, I deal with Amendments Nos. 3 and 5. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, rightly made the point about the need for the complete independence of the rail accident investigation branch. It has to be entirely independent of the industry and its own regulators. The railway safety and standards board is an industry body that provides safety leadership for the industry and sets safety standards, a very worthwhile and important task. But it is a company which is responsible—I respond now to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor—to its members. It reports to its members. The members are the rail industry. It would not be appropriate for the rail accident investigation branch as independent accident investigator to work in conjunction with the railway safety and standards board, the industry's own safety body, when undertaking investigations.
  Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are rather different. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, but not with the amendments as they have a rather different impact. Amendment No. 10 would inhibit witnesses before the rail accident investigation branch speaking freely and frankly because they would be afraid that what they said would be used against them or other people in a prosecution.
  The whole thrust of the Cullen recommendations on the rail accident investigation branch is that it should come to a conclusion quickly in order to ensure that any failures which might cause comparable accidents in the future are knocked on the head immediately. Examples have been given—and can be given, I am afraid—of very long delays between an accident occurring and a report being produced.
  If witnesses are not willing to come forward because they might compromise themselves or others, that would add to delay and would compromise the independence and the objectivity of the rail accident investigation branch.
  If RAIB inspectors were placed under a statutory duty to tell the police or the Health and Safety Executive if they suspected a criminal offence had been committed, they would be under great pressure to explain why they thought that an offence had been committed and one would then be back in the same cycle in which we have been as regards rail accident investigations. That will be extremely difficult to do if that belief has come about only as a result of their taking a witness statement. If the public and rail industry perceive that there is any risk of disclosure of witness statements, the fundamental purpose of achieving safety will be undermined.
  If the police or Health and Safety Executive want to see a copy of a witness statement, they will have to seek a court order for such disclosure. The court would then decide whether disclosure would be in the public interest.
  GC10
  Amendment No. 11 would deny the possibility of the chief inspector applying to the High Court or the Crown Court for a declaration that the making of a report will not amount to contempt of court in relation to civil or criminal proceedings. We cannot accept the amendment. One of the main criticisms of the current regime into the investigation of railway accidents is that the publication of a report, and therefore its implementation, could be delayed by criminal proceedings. The Health and Safety Executive has said that it is not able to publish a final report on the Hatfield derailment, even now, until the position on prosecutions becomes clearer.
  Those issuing reports must also give consideration to whether their publishing the report will amount to contempt of other legal proceedings if they publish.
  The RAIB will publish its report whether or not civil or criminal proceedings are in progress, as stated in Clause 7(6). Following an accident, the RAIB will publish a report as quickly as possible, normally within 12 months—I hope that it will be a lot less than that in some cases—about the accident and its causes. If there are urgent safety lessons which emerge immediately, the RAIB will publish interim reports so that those lessons can be shared with the industry as quickly as possible. That is what the Air Accident Investigation Branch and the Marine Accident Investigation Branch do at the moment.
  If the chief inspector is concerned that by publishing a report she could be in contempt of court, she can use the powers available in subsection (7) which the amendment seeks to delete. That does not mean that she has to apply to the court, but she can do so for the court's definitive view. If the court were of the view that the publication were to amount to contempt, the report could be amended accordingly but still contain the safety lessons. For all those reasons, I do not think that the amendments are desirable.
  Amendment No. 11 does not concern the Health and Safety Executive or the British Transport Police obtaining RAIB witness statements. It would prevent the RAIB from going to court for a declaration that it is not a case of contempt of court.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Bradshaw: I put down the amendment to probe what the Minister would say. However, it appears that my amendments are not satisfactory. Nevertheless, the Bill needs strengthening to underline the confidentiality of statements given to the RAIB. That is what I seek.
  My learned friends the lawyers seem to think that the law is above everything, as it were, and that they will be able to obtain disclosure of every piece of information they require. I am not absolutely satisfied that statements given in confidence to the RAIB can be safeguarded against subsequent interference by the

  GC11
  courts. That may be a very difficult point for the Minister to answer but it is the basis of what I am saying.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is a legitimate point, but its thrust is in direct opposition to the wording of the amendment. Let us talk about it between now and Report stage.
  Viscount Astor: I was interested to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford did not like Amendments Nos. 3 and 5. The focus of their argument was that the RAIB should be independent—which, of course, I agree with—and that it should not be fettered. Those are perfectly valid arguments. However, they seem to ignore that although under Clause 4(b) the RAIB should aim
  "to prevent railway accidents and railway incidents",
  under paragraph (a) it should aim
  "to improve the safety of railways".
  The right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, appeared to ignore that point totally. The RAIB has a safety role. It is important that it should work with the relevant industry body.
  My amendment may not be drafted the right way round because we have now heard that the industry body, the railway safety and standards board—I am not sure whether that body has been set but I see that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, nods in agreement—will be independent and a company limited by guarantee. It will also in effect be owned and controlled by the industry, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said. Does that mean that it will be subject to public scrutiny? Presumably, as a private company it need not be subject to public scrutiny. It can keep its reports and information entirely private. The public will not know about that. These organisations that the Government are setting up should he not only accountable but also should be seen to be accountable and be openly accountable.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I make it clear that the Government are not setting up the railway safety and standards board; the industry is doing that.
  Viscount Astor: Yes, but on the suggestion of the Government. The Government have put forward the suggestion to the industry and the industry has taken it up.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There was a predecessor organisation. Any responsible industry will have an organisation of that kind. It does not need government urging to do it.
  Viscount Astor: I suggest that the Government have not urged the industry to do it. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The Government have encouraged that process.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry to intervene again but Lord Cullen said that there should be a body of this kind. The Government support Lord Cullen's recommendations.
  Viscount Astor: The noble Lord makes my point. Lord Cullen recommended the measure. The
  GC12
  Government supported it. Therefore, it has been urged on the industry and the industry accepted it. But the point I am making concerns accountability and openness. The body will not be open to public scrutiny. It will be responsible for improving safety and standards. I wish to make sure that the different bodies work together. As I said, the rail accident investigation branch has a responsibility not just to prevent accidents but also to improve the safety of railways. The public have a right to see that that is being done and that it is being done in an open way. We need to give back confidence to the travelling public where it has been lost as a result of the dreadful accidents that have occurred. I believe in openness and I should have thought that the Government would believe in open government. However, I am not sure.
  My amendment may not be drafted the right way round but I shall certainly rethink it and come back to it. I hope that when I do the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, will support the principle that the railway safety and standards board should have some accountability so that we can all see what it does and see that it is doing the job that it is supposed to do. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 4:
  Page 2, line 30, leave out "and railway incidents"
  The noble Viscount said: This is purely a probing amendment. The aim of the rail accident investigation branch is to prevent railway accidents and railway incidents. I seek a definition of a "railway incident". What is a minor incident? What is a major incident? How does one define an "incident"? Does the industry define an incident in a particular way? Can it be someone behaving badly on a train or does it have to be something happening to the train? I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, with his experience will be able to put forward the industry point of view. The Government should tell us a little more what they define as an incident. It could mean a lot or it could mean a little. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I accept that we do not have a definition in the Bill but we have made a start in Clause 2(4) which states:
  "Regulations under subsection (2) making provision about what is to be treated as an incident may, in particular, include an event or omission which does not cause damage or loss but which might cause damage or loss in different circumstances".
  What we are after here are things that might cause accidents in the future. One might call an incident a worrying or dangerous event which has not caused an accident but which could in the future. For that reason we specifically stated in Clause 4 that,
  "the Rail Accident Investigation Branch shall, wherever relevant, aim … to prevent railway accidents and railway incidents".
  One cannot set all this out on the face of the Bill but there will be regulations under Clause 2(4). It is important that the rail accident investigation branch

  GC13
  should investigate incidents in order to prevent accidents. That is what Lord Cullen said and we agree with him.
  Lord Berkeley: Perhaps I can help my noble friend by giving a couple of examples. I refer to the all too frequent occurrence of people in certain areas lobbing bricks at locomotives. When they miss, it is presumably an incident. When they hit, it is an accident, or it could be. They even hang bricks on ropes at the level of a driver's head in the hope that the train is going too fast to stop. I could give many other examples which I am convinced need to be defined. However, I should be unhappy if the word "incident" were removed.
  Viscount Astor: The Minister has been helpful. One hopes that the Government will consult the industry about how the word "incident" will be defined.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Of course.
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful for the noble Lord's confirmation. The industry will have to know what constitutes an incident and what does not as it will largely be up to the industry to report incidents when they occur. It is important that there is clarity and everyone knows what is and is not an incident. I am grateful for the Minister's response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In calling Amendment No. 5, I should point out that there is a mistake in the amendment. The new subsection to be inserted should read:
  "(2)The Rail Accident Investigation Branch shall be consulted on the establishment of any statutory body for the purposes of setting standards for the safety of railways".
  [Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6 [Annual report]:
  Lord Berkeleymoved Amendment No. 6:
  Page 3, line 3, at end insert—
  "(3) Any report published under this section shall be laid before Parliament."
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 6 is fairly self-explanatory. I expect that my noble friend will say that it is not necessary anyway. However, I have been advised that it is a good amendment to table. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Of course I am sympathetic to annual reports. We have already provided for an annual report. We have already gone further than is provided for the Marine Accident Investigation Branch or the Air Accident Investigation Branch. There is no requirement on either of those to produce annual reports but in practice they do. They ensure that they are publicly available. I understand that they are placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. There is no reason why the rail accident
  GC14
  investigation branch should act any differently. In fact, the publication of a report is likely to be mandatory under the forthcoming European legislation. It will report on the activities of the RAIB and will include details of safety recommendations made in that year. On the assurance that it will make its annual report public and it will place it in the Libraries of both Houses, and that it will have to do so later this year, I do not think that the amendment needs to be pressed now or later.
  Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to my noble friend for yet another reminder of the difference that European regulations will make. As he said, the measure will be put in place anyway. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7 [Investigations]:
  Lord Bradshawmoved Amendment No. 7:
  Page 3, line 7, leave out "shall" and insert "may"
  The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to prevent the rail accident investigation branch having to investigate a serious accident of which the cause is absolutely plain and self-explanatory. There is a requirement on the Strategic Rail Authority with regard to franchises to check up on very minor things at stations. It is burdensome in that it is unnecessary, bureaucratic and employs many clerks checking that something is done. However, sometimes such things are ignored. The word "may" would allow a certain amount of discretion.
  A foolhardy driver of a road vehicle may jump a red light at a level crossing which is working normally. I can think of a case in Northern Ireland w here this happened. There is no need to launch a full-scale investigation into such a self-evident incident. There is a rather prescriptive approach to such matters which I seek to alleviate so that some discretion is allowed both for the person whom the Government will appoint as the head of the RAIB and for the Government themselves in deciding whether to call for an investigation. Obviously, I do not seek to avoid an investigation when a serious accident has occurred for which there is no easy explanation. But where an incident is self-evident, I believe that some discretion ought to be allowed. I beg to move.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: One might sympathise with the noble Lord. The example that he gave is perfectly reasonable, but it reminds me of another accident not long ago, in which a driver fell asleep and left the road, driving down on to a track. It was a most appalling accident. The cause was perfectly plain. But the question was not the cause but what to do about it. Although I accept that there will be occasions when there is nothing to add, in my experience, even negative

  GC15
  intelligence is useful intelligence. At any rate, I am not sure that I would want to go so far as to substitute "shall" with "may". That might be going too far.
  Lord Berkeley: The example that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, quoted has been subject to enormously long investigations by the Health and Safety Executive and, probably the British Transport Police, when it is quite clear that the problem was road-related. To some extent, that example supports the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. The cause is clear. How can railway operators stop cars landing on the track unless they close railways down? I shall return to that in later amendments. It is a roads problem; therefore, I suggest that it has nothing to do with the rail accident investigation branch. The problem would probably be resolved if we knew the definitions of "serious", "non-serious", and other terms. Until we do, I support the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for flexibility. Perhaps the Minister will have some information about what is a serious railway accident.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I cannot give a definitive answer yet. A European rail safety directive is due to come into force towards the end of the year. The current draft of it, which is the Council of Ministers' working definition, is subject to change. At present, it reads:
  "'serious accident' means any train collision or derailment of trains resulting in at least one killed person or five or more seriously injured persons or extensive damage to rolling stock, the infrastructure or the environment, and any other similar accident, with an obvious impact on railway safety regulation or the management of safety; 'extensive damage' means damage that can immediately he assessed by the investigating body to cost at least 2 million Euro in total".
  Committee Members can see why we do not include definitions of that sort in the Bill. The definition could change. But that is what we will have to do in a directive that will, not come into force, but be finalised, towards the end of this year or early next year.
  We are making advance provision in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, used the phrase "full-scale investigation". The Great Heck example that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, gave us is simple in railway terms but not in road terms. If the case is as simple as is thought, the investigation and the publication of the report will be very quick, and nothing will have been lost.
  Lord Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for his reply. He has not really gone fully to assuage my concern that we will end up spending much time investigating either self-evident accidents or relatively minor ones. I would like the Minister to consider whether the provision can be tightened in some way to allow the chief inspecting officer some way out of undertaking what will be, unfortunately, a bureaucratic exercise if the need for it is not evident. Perhaps we can discuss the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 8:
  Page 3, line 12, at end insert—
  "(1A) The Rail Accident Investigation Branch may investigate any railway situation which it judges to have the potential for fatality or injury."
  The noble Viscount said: Clause 7(1)(c) states that the rail accident investigation branch,
  "shall investigate a non-serious railway accident or railway incident if required to do so by or in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State".
  My amendment would give the RAIB more powers. It states that if it wishes to investigate any railway situation, it may do so. I cannot think either of any situations that the RAIB could not investigate or that the Secretary of State should make regulations requiring it to investigate a situation that it would not wish to investigate. I am confused as to why Clause 7(1)(c) is necessary. I admit, too, that my amendment should have proposed the insertion of one provision and the deletion of the other. People could regard it as a belt-and-braces exercise. Will the Minister give that explanation in his response? This is a probing amendment to discover the width of the RAIB's remit. I beg to move.
  Lord Bradshaw: I certainly cannot support the amendment. Almost anything that happens on the railway has the potential to result in fatality or injury. It is in the nature of transporting people at speed around the country that any incident may lead to a fatality or injury. It is not a result that one welcomes; one hopes that it will not arise. None the less, there is remarkably broad scope, which I, for one, am trying to constrain.
  Lord Berkeley: Is their similar provision to allow the Air Accident Investigation Branch and the Marine Accident Investigation Branch in their own remit to investigate anything that has the potential for fatality or injury?
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, as regards the potential of the railway industry to cause fatalities. One could make the perfectly logical argument that standing on a station platform involves a risk of fatality—it certainly does if someone goes too close to the edge of the platform and slips at the wrong moment. Little can be done about that. To that extent, I do not sympathise with the amendment as worded.
  Had the amendment referred to the potential to cause an accident, rather than the potential for fatality or injury, it would be an entirely different kettle of fish. I could see the point of empowering the branch to look at situations that might give rise to an accident, as opposed to those that have the potential to cause fatality. There is a clear distinction. In my experience, it is usually productive to think about accident prevention.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I certainly agree with that last point. The Bill is rationally drafted here. We

  GC17
  have already agreed that the rail accident investigation branch must investigate a serious railway accident. Clause 7(1)(b) states that it,
  "may investigate a non-serious railway accident or a railway incident"
  and paragraph (c) provides that it,
  "shall investigate a non-serious railway accident or a railway incident if required to do so by or in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State".
  In reading out the current state of the European definition of a serious railway accident, it has become clear why, in Clause 2(4) we have provided for regulations rather than a definition in the Bill on what is to be treated as an incident. That is why, in Clause 7(1)(c), we provide that the investigation shall be carried out in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.
  In reading out the current state of the European definition of a serious railway accident, it has become clear why, in Clause 2(4) we have provided for regulations rather than a definition in the Bill on what is to be treated as an accident. That is why, in Clause 7(1)(c), we provide that the investigation shall be carried out in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.
  I see no value in adding a new subsection referring to something different—a "situation" rather than an accident or an incident. The chief inspector should have the flexibility to order an investigation into any other less serious accidents and incidents that she thinks may hold safety lessons for the rail industry. They could include near misses, crowding on a platform or anything with the potential for fatality and injury. I do not think that Amendment No. 8 adds anything to the careful way in which the Bill is drafted.
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I agree with my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith that perhaps my amendment should have been drafted as he suggested. I shall consider the matter and whether I need to return to it at the next stage.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may add that what we are providing is comparable to provision for marine and air accidents.
  Viscount Astor: That is very helpful, as I was about to say that I would be looking to see whether that provision was different and whether it would be necessary to return to the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 9:
  Page 3, line 13, leave out subsection (2).
  The noble Viscount said: The amendment would delete Clause 7(2), which relates to tramways. Subsection (2) states that,
  "a tramway shall not be treated as a railway (despite section 1(1))".
  I want to know why not. What provisions do tramways come under?
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Division bell has rung. The Grand Committee is adjourned for 10 minutes.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 4.42 to 4.51 p.m.]
  Viscount Astor: If Committee Members will forgive me, I shall start again. I hope that I say something
  GC18
  vaguely similar to what I did on moving the amendment. The purpose of Amendment No. 9 is to find the meaning of Clause 7(2), which states:
  "For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) a tramway shall not be treated as a railway (despite section 1(1))".
  Clause 1(1) states that,
  "'railway' means a railway or tramway within the meaning given by section 67 of the Transport and Works Act 1992".
  Are tramways included? They seem to be excluded. If so, why? Who is responsible for regulating tramways? What Act does it come under? If tramways are excluded, surely it should be done in a way that gives the Government the power to change the definition, as with the previous amendment that we discussed? The Government should be able to change the definition of railway incidents and accidents in Clause 2 so that they apply to tramways.
  The drafting is extraordinarily muddled. It certainly confused me, but so do many government Bills, so it is not entirely surprising. It has confused others also. Will the Minister explain the provision? It is not clear whether the rail accident investigation branch can or cannot investigate a tramway accident or incident. Will the railway safety and standards board have any remit? It is important because more and more towns and cities in this country are either introducing tramways or considering doing so. The Government's intentions must be clarified. At present, they are obscure, to say the least. I beg to move.
  Lord Fyfe of Fairfield: I am very interested in this amendment. The definition of a tramway is somewhat obscure. The best definition that I can find is under Section 67 of the Transport and Works Act 1992. It states that,
  "'tramway' means a system of transport used wholly or mainly for the carriage of passengers in employing parallel rails—which

  (a) provide support and guidance for vehicles carried on flanged wheels, and

  (b) are laid wholly or mainly along a street or in any other place to which the public has access (including a place to which the public has access only on making a payment)".

  That definition does not cover adequately former railways that have turned into tramways, such as much of the Manchester tramway or the Croydon Tramlink. It would be helpful to have a proper definition of "tramway", which could then be included in the Bill, clarifying its jurisdiction. My noble friend Lord Hogg intended to table an amendment to Clause I attempting to do that. He will wish to move such an amendment on Report, as he cannot attend the Committee today. I will be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say about the problem.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: Will the Minister bat slightly wider than the business of investigating railway accidents by saying who is responsible for investigating accidents on tramways, if they are not to be included in the Bill? If he could do so, I am sure that it would relieve the need for further questions at later stages. It is all very well to say that such accidents would be subject to a normal police investigation or one by the body responsible for creating the tram service in question, but there is a similarity between

  GC19
  tramway and railway services. One could argue that the potential for accidents on a tramway service is considerably greater than it is on railways. Railways have their own integrity and discrete lines to which the public do not generally have access, whereas tram lines are more open. It would help us all if the Minister could explain the responsibility for accidents on tramways, even if the matter is outwith this Bill.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: The principal difference between a railway and a tramway is how the driver acts. On a railway, drivers rely largely on signals determined by others, and on a tramway must drive on line of sight, as does the driver of a car or lorry.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: On reading a report of proceedings on this Bill in another place, I was struck by the debate on whether we should consider having a transport authority to look at transport safety in general. This is the second debate on an amendment in which it has become very clear that the lines—no pun intended—between railway safety and other aspects of safety are not clear. Great Heck has shown how an aspect that is relatively simple in railway terms is much more complicated in road terms. Equally, that applies to the difference between roads and trams. Will the Minister reflect on the issue of transport safety rather than just rail safety?
  Lord Berkeley: I have another definition of "tramway", which is referred to in the Bill. Section 42 of the Transport and Works Act refers not only to other railways and tramways but to,
  "trolley vehicle systems and to any system using a mode of guided transport prescribed by regulations".
  Although I agree with other speakers that there is a problem with the definition of tramways, it might be interesting to widen the ambit to include guided busways. They are a guided transport system. I am not sure whether they have signals. I do not think they do. I am not sure whether the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, is right, as many branch lines do not have signals. The driver collects a wooden token and must keep to the speed limit.
  A number of aspects of the Bill could usefully be discussed in the context of including "and guided busways". Such systems are planned for Cambridge and Luton, and one already operates in Ipswich. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, wants to build one in Oxford. Basically, guided busways are the same as trams. You can regulate and investigate them as much or as little as you like. They are not very different from railways. But the Bill will demonstrate the difference between how we tend to treat roads and our treatment of railways. I shall not pre-empt my comments on later amendments. Tramways are somewhere in between. A definition would be very useful.
  I would be happy for the RAIB to investigate guided busways under the supervision of the Health and Safety Executive, which would require it to erect fences
  GC20
  along the line, to produce accident reports, to report everything that it does, and generally to make life difficult.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We have had at least three definitions of tramways. There is one in the Bill, at Clause 1(1), which is a definition by reference to Section 67 of the Transport and Works Act 1992. I shall not go further than that. I do not blame the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for being confused about it. I was, because it was not immediately evident to me that Clause 7(2) means that, for the purposes of Clause 7(1)(a),
  "a tramway shall not be treated as a railway (despite section 1(1))".
  It refers to Clause 7(1)(a), but it does not need to say so because it is in the same clause as that paragraph. The provision is correct, but very difficult to understand.
  There is a distinction between tramways that run on the public roads, where there are no lessons to be learnt for road safety and where the police will investigate, and tramways that run off the public road—they are more like a railway—where there could be railway implications and where the RAIB should be responsible. The distinction between the two could be very difficult. A tramway could run between a public road and a railway, for example. I believe that some do. That is not something that one would seek to define in any legislation.
  All that we can provide, which is what we are providing in the Bill, is that there should be flexibility for the chief inspector of the rail accident investigation branch. If there are no rail implications, she does not have to carry out an investigation. However, if there are rail applications under Clause 7(1)(a), (b) or (c), she can do so. If the noble Viscount is unhappy about that—I confess that I am a little unhappy about it, because I do not see all the links—I suggest that he and I and anyone else who wants to can talk about it before Report.
  5 p.m.
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful for the Minister's response. He has illuminated the matter a little, but not that much. If I understood what he said, tramways will not come under the provision unless there is some rail implication. However, that takes one back to Clause 1(1), in which,
  "'railway' means a railway or tramway within the meaning given by the … Transport and Works Act",
  as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. I have not got that Act in front of me, and therefore I do not know what it covers. The subject needs to be cleared up, and I am grateful for the Minister's offer that we should talk about it before Report, because we should be clear on it.
  There was something that I did not understand from the Minister's answer. Under the current rules, should there be a tramway incident—for example, if a tram crashes not into a car but another tram—who is currently responsible? Does the Minister know? Is it

  GC21
  the police who investigate it? Does it come under the Health and Safety Executive? Do any rail-specific bodies have some remit? It seems to me that a tramway is much closer to a railway than to a bus, whether guided or powered by other means. They are much closer to railways, whether or not the driver has the power to press the stop and go buttons when the passengers have got on.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can answer that question immediately. The rail accident investigation branch does not exist, but Her Majesty's Rail Inspectorate exists and is responsible.
  Viscount Astor: That is helpful. As I understand it then, Her Majesty's Rail Inspectorate is responsible for tramway incidents or accidents, as it were. Therefore, we will want to ensure that its successor body, the rail accident investigation branch, has similar responsibility. I think that we will have to look at the definition of tramway, because a tramway can be a permanent rail system, but I have seen systems that can involve rails temporarily put down on the top of roads so that temporary trams can operate.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sure that we can look at that, but I hope that the noble Viscount will not tempt me into suggesting that any such definition can be included in the Bill.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: The Bill states:
  "For the purposes of subsection 1(a) a tramway shall not be treated as a railway".
  However, subsection 1(a) states that the rail accident investigation branch,
  "shall investigate any serious … accident".
  Subsection 1(b) and (c) refers to non-serious accidents. Am I correct to understand that, under the Bill, the rail accident investigation branch shall investigate non-serious accidents?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The RAIB can investigate serious accidents as well. That is within the discretion of the chief inspector.
  Viscount Astor: I take the Minister's point that the Bill should not necessarily define what is and is not a tramway, but it may be something that the Government need to look at by regulations. Indeed, they may be able to give the power to the rail accident investigation branch to decide what is a tramway and what is not. The fundamental principle is something that runs on rails, I would have thought. However, I am grateful for the opportunity to have this brief debate. It seems that there is some confusion, but we are all on the same side and it needs to be cleared up. beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8 [Investigator's powers]:
  Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 12:
  Page 3, line 39, after "dwelling-house" insert "within 500 yards of railway property"
  The noble Viscount said: The amendment follows an exchange in Committee in another place, when one of my honourable friends moved a similar amendment and the Minister there replied that it,
  "would apply to land that was within 500 yd of railway property. We are talking about going across land, which may be necessary to move heavy lifting equipment and so on to get access to the railway. Her amendment would preclude that. This is not about the invasion of houses, but the crossing of property, which may include houses".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D, 4/2/03; col. 57.]
  That seemed to imply that in order to move the so-called heavy lifting equipment, one would have to go through a house as opposed to round it, which seems a wide power.
  We are all concerned with safety and with all those involved getting access to any site as fast as they can. Obviously, that is crucial. However, it seems worth asking the Government about subsection 1(b), which reads,
  "enter land (which may include a dwelling-house)".
  We ought to have some assurance that the power will not be ill-used and should be narrowly focused. I am not sure of the specific legal meaning of dwelling house, but I imagine that it is a house in which someone lives.
  Will the Minister explain a little more as to why the provision is in the Bill? Of course we understand that someone might have to go through someone's house to get to a particular embankment or part of a railway system, but we were somewhat concerned at the idea that, in the words of the Minister in another place, it may be necessary to move heavy lifting equipment. That was his response to the amendment, so I would be interested in the answer of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I beg to move.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I want to support the amendment. Particularly in countryside areas, one could envisage a railway frankly being a very long way from even the nearest road. That happens, and an accident could occur somewhere remote. Access could be a problem. We talk about moving heavy lifting equipment, but the accident could happen to be in the fens or somewhere like that. The idea of moving such equipment across that rather soft and structureless soil is preposterous, to say nothing of the fact that there would probably be intervening dykes and other problems. We need to be a little careful.
  We also have to remember that we are talking about the accident investigation board. The number of cases when it will actually need the heavy lifting gear will be fairly small. The people who will really need heavy lifting gear if an awkward accident does structural damage, or rolling stock has broken down or been smashed up, are the railway operators. For them, there is no question but that in most circumstances the best, easiest and quickest way of access will be down a

  GC23
  railway line that is otherwise shut. Some explanation as to exactly what the provision means would be helpful.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The example that I would give is Selby. In order to get to the accident site there, one had to go across land. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, says, that land could be a very long way from a road. Let me make it clear that when the Bill states,
  "land (which may include a dwelling-house)",
  it does not mean that someone has to go through a dwelling house but through land that has a dwelling house on it. It means a garden or private road that is part of the same—only local government people will know the word—curtilage.
  There is no question of going through the house. However, one might have to go quite a long way, with or without heavy lifting equipment, and possibly through a piece of land with a dwelling house on it. One might have to go through someone's garden or, more likely, their private access road. There is also a possibility that some part of the train could fly off a considerable distance from the actual site of the accident, and could land in the garden of a house more than 500 yards away.
  We have plenty of restrictions. The Bill talks of land,
  "which adjoins or abuts railway property".
  There is no free-for-all for investigators to roam all over the countryside invading people's privacy. The provision is only what is necessary for the purposes of an investigation. Let us leave it flexible.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I entirely take what the Minister said, but I am not sure that I yet understand why an accident investigator might be the person who has to move in heavy lifting gear. Almost invariably, it will be the operator who has to do that, even with a bit of rolling stock that has managed to fly 500 yards.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The operators might wish to use specialist lifting gear for the immediate purpose, say, of getting people out or moving things to one side. However, the rail accident investigation branch may subsequently want to use specialist lifting gear, which might not be heavy lifting gear, to investigate the cause—to isolate the bogies, or something of that sort. I am no expert on the subject, but I would rather not tie the investigators down in the way that the amendment would.
  Lord Berkeley: Looking at the matter from the other end of the telescope, it appears to me that the Government are constraining themselves by saying that the inspector can only,
  "enter land … which adjoins or abuts railway property".
  An investigator could require to go through several different properties before he got to the land. Is it necessary to constrain him that much? I am referring to Clause 8(1)(b).
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We have to look at Clause 8(1)(d) as well, which reads,
  "enter land which does not fall within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) if … it is used wholly … for … anything done on or with railway property, or … the inspector reasonably believes that it may contain evidence relating to an accident or incident".
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful for and content with the Minister's explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 13:
  Page 4, line 11, at end insert ", pursuant to the issuing of a warrant or pursuant to a decision by a magistrates' court and only where accompanied by a member of the British Transport Police"
  The noble Viscount said: The amendment seeks to clear up what I believe could be some confusion in the Bill about the powers of inspectors. As I understand it, the provisions are not similar to those involved in aviation and marine law, but perhaps I am wrong and the Minister will correct me. I think it would be better to list the powers given to inspectors and investigators, as in the two existing boards, which are more specific.
  We believe that it would also be appropriate for the investigators to enter a property or cross land,
  "only where accompanied by a member of the British Transport Police".
  That would help the Government to keep within the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, especially when entering property. That is a probing point and I want to ask the Minister about it.
  It seems important that where the powers exist in terms of investigations and entry there is a clear understanding of what they are, and what can and cannot be done under them. I am interested in the Minister's explanation. I beg to move.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Bradshaw: I do not support the amendment. I have very wide experience of the investigation of railway accidents, and have never known a riparian owner object to an inspector or person investigating the accident actually seeking access to the railway, although usually or very often such people come along the railway, as has been said. I particularly do not wish the inspector to have to be accompanied by a member of the British Transport Police, because that simply makes another call on police time, which is very scarce. I do not think that it does anything more than perhaps give the impression of a criminal investigation, but probably no criminal act has occurred.
  My argument goes with the grain of what I have said all along. I want the inspectorate to be independent and seen to be independent. We all know that, if the press are there and the police appear, people put two and two together and make 99. Whatever is done in those circumstances, we see screaming headlines in the local paper saying, "Police investigate railway

  GC25
  accident", when there was probably a broken rail or something of the sort, and nothing whatever to do with the police.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The answer is that we are following what happens for the Marine Accident Investigation Branch, the Air Accident Investigation Branch and, indeed, Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate. They do not have to have warrants or to he accompanied by the police. That seems to work all right. Lord Cullen said that we should follow that example, and that is what we are doing.
  Viscount Astor: I thank the Minister for that reply. I quite agree with him in terms of Lord Cullen and the powers. I will look more carefully at the powers given to investigators in the aviation and marine branches, because I am not entirely convinced that they are similar at the moment.
  I understand where the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is coming from, but he should realise that we are giving substantial powers to investigators. After all, Clause 8(2)(e) requires,
  "a person to answer a question".
  Investigators can use their powers on anyone that they want to, so far as I can see. We are giving them enormous authority. I believe in their independence, but also that we must not compromise people's rights in the process. That is my concern.
  I shall study what has been said. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9 [Regulations]:
  [Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10 agreed to.
  Clause 11 [Accident regulations]:
  Lord Berkeleymoved Amendment No. 15:
  Page 7, line 15, at end insert—
  "(5) Regulations made under this section, to the extent that they provide for the investigation of railway accidents and railway incidents involving the obstruction of a railway by road vehicles, may provide for the Rail Accident Investigation Branch to give a direction requiring—

  (a) works to be carried out on any road at or in the vicinity of the place where an obstruction occurred for the purpose of preventing further accidents or incidents at that place; and

  (b) the highway authority responsible for that road or, where there is no such authority the owner or occupier of the land of which that road forms a part, to carry out or meet the cost of carrying out those works."

  The noble Lord said: I am not sure whether the clause is the right place to propose such an amendment, but it seems as good as any and the amendment fits quite well in it. The amendment relates to a document that the Department for Transport issued in February called Managing the accidental obstruction of the railway by road vehicles. It contains a good code of practice about who does what, making
  GC26
  sure that an incident does not happen again, and undertaking risk analysis on whether precautionary measures should be put in.
  The document's conclusion on page 13 states that the lead agency is the Highways Agency, with all the costs shared 50:50. However, costs of railway possessions, which can be extremely high, are paid by the railways, and costs of road closures, which probably comprise something like a couple of non-lit signs, are paid for by the Highways Agency. That seems very unfair on the railways. By definition, the accidents are caused by vehicles going off the road. Why should railways have to pay when vehicles land on them?
  My theory is that he who causes an accident should pay for it. The matter is particularly serious when we think of heritage railways, which are usually mostly run by volunteers. The thought of them having to pay half the costs of what the Highways Agency might decide was right would put some of them into liquidation. It seems very unfair.
  My amendment is designed to enable the inspector to give a direction as to what needs to be done and who should pay for it. Perhaps "direction" is too strong; perhaps the amendment should mention "advice". Perhaps it should not suggest the accident investigation branch, but it probably should because the branch will have investigated the accident. It is right that the costs should generally be paid by the Highways Agency or highway authority, or that the RAIB should advise or direct on who should pay the cost of preventing an accident happening again, which is what we are talking about. I beg to move.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: Perhaps I should declare an interest as chair of the Local Government Association's transport executive. Rather unusually, I find myself slightly at odds with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. There is something rather unseemly and sordid about squabbling over costs after an accident has happened. Nevertheless, if it has been determined that a problem has been caused by a particular factor, and that remedial action is necessary, clearly the notion of who pays for what will rear its ugly head.
  The Local Government Association has done a lot of work with the Highways Agency and Network Rail to come to an accord on how such work should be paid for in those circumstances. I would much prefer that approach, where the agencies work together on a case-by-case basis, rather than have provisions in the Bill such as the amendment that would automatically put the whole cost, which can be considerable, on to a particular highway authority. If it were the Highways Agency, I might have a little less sympathy, as it has a much larger budget. However, the cost could be significant for a small highway authority.
  I beg the noble Lord's pardon, but the issue is not as simple as a car simply landing on the railway and that not being its fault. It is a question of development over many years in the particular topography, given that we have a transport system that has evolved rather than

  GC27
  one that we would design if we were building from scratch. I would have trouble supporting the amendment.
  Lord Berkeley: The costs are not inconsiderable for the railway—about £30 million a year according to the document. I hear what the noble Baroness says but, if a road vehicle is to be prevented from falling on a railway, surely it is the road vehicle that has to be constrained. The highways people who provide the surface on which it runs should constrain it.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is of course quite right; she would be, given her position. Local authorities and the Highways Agency have done a deal with Network Rail and London Underground and agreed that it is appropriate for the costs to be split 50:50. Clearly there are cases in which the balance would be different if the costs were calculated on particular circumstances, but it is much better, as she said, not to have an unseemly squabble over money and simply to agree on a formula that appears acceptable. I hasten to say that the formula was not imposed by the Government.
  The Bill already provides the power for the RAIB report to make recommendations about rail accidents involving road vehicles. To the extent that the RAIB feels that it has something to contribute so far as concerns road safety, it can already make such recommendations. However, it should not be for the RAIB to decide who should bear the costs of any recommendation. That should be decided according to the agreement to which we referred. The chief inspector will make her own professional judgment, based on her management experience and knowledge, to decide what is appropriate.
  I may be misreading the amendment, but it should not be assumed that any accident on a railway that involves a road vehicle is entirely the responsibility of the road authority. After all, there are different sorts of level crossing, where railways have responsibilities as well on public roads.
  Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. It differs from what Network Rail told me that it had been instructed by the Government to go 50:50–but I shall not take the matter further. I shall read what he said with interest. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 11 agreed to.
  Clauses 12 to 15 agreed to.
  Schedule 1 agreed to.
  Clause 16 [Transfer of functions]:
  Lord Bradshawmoved Amendment No. 16:
  Page 8, line 8, at end insert ", saving duties concerning safety where the office should confine itself to the economic effects of safety regimes imposed on the railway"
  The noble Lord said: The amendment suggests that the Government make the Office of the Rail Regulator responsible for the economics of the railway and not
  GC28
  for its safety. I realise that the amendment may not be the most appropriate that could have been tabled. If the Minister agrees, I am more than willing to discuss an appropriate amendment with him.
  In my campaign to have rather fewer cooks spoiling the broth, with the advent of the RAIB, I would like the Rail Regulator to confine himself to those aspects of safety that affect the costs of the railway, and for him to have no part in determining what safety measures should be adopted on the railway, what is most appropriate, and so on. That would curtail his activities so far as safety is concerned.
  I propose that the regulator should fully take into account the safety requirements of the railway—fixing access charges, determining access agreements, and approving safety cases. He would obviously require that people had done those, but he would not have spent time and effort investigating safety. He has many other duties, such as the interim review of the access charges, which is now being undertaken. All that I am aiming to do is to simplify what, by any description, is a very over-complicated system. I am sure that it is right that the huge costs are one of the reasons why railway traffic and travel in this country is so expensive and emerging costs are so high. I am simply seeking to bring some simplicity to the system.
  5.30 p.m.
  Viscount Astor: Amendment No. 17, grouped with Amendment No. 16, is a probing amendment. I seek more information from the Minister about the Office of the Rail Regulator. After all, this Bill will cover England, Wales and Scotland. I am concerned that its focus will be—
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): I am afraid that we need to suspend the Sitting for 10 minutes for a Division in the House.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.30 to 5.40 p.m.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I think that we might recommence.
  Viscount Astor: The Division came just as I started speaking. I shall start again because I do not remember where I was when I stopped. The purpose of this amendment is to probe the Government a little more about the office of rail regulation. Amendment No. 17 sets out various functions.
  It is important that we note the monopoly of Network Rail, a body set up by the Government. As we know, it is a strange beast which is financed off balance sheet. However, it is the body that, as it were, will own and operate the track until the Government put forward their proposals to break it up or whatever.
  However, the second part of my amendment is more concerned with the financial framework and the renewing and using of private finance and, indeed, public subsidy. People are concerned that the office of rail regulation would be the economic regulator. as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. We must ensure that its role is clearly defined and that

  GC29
  there is no misunderstanding. Even looking at the schedules which relate to the office of rail regulation, I am not sure that it is clear and that there does not need to be some improvement. I am not necessarily saying that my amendments are exactly the right way forward, but they are along the lines that we are considering. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Part 2 of the Bill—Clauses 15, 16 and 17—is very simple. The effect of these clauses is to change a single rail regulator to the office of rail regulation in accordance with practice being adopted in a number of regulatory cases. There is no intention whatever to change the function or duties of rail regulation. Those are set out fully in the Railways Act 1993, as amended by the Transport Act 2000. The functions are broad, flexible and enable the office to be adaptable. For example, because they were flexible, the office was able to accommodate the change in infrastructure manager from Railtrack plc to Network Rail.
  Under Section 4(3)(a) of the Railways Act 1993, the rail regulator has an existing duty,
  "to take into account the need to protect all persons from dangers arising from the operation of railways, taking into account, in particular, any advice given to him in that behalf by the Health and Safety Executive".
  Amendment No. 16 would narrow that duty.
  Surely, as the office of rail regulation is the licensing body, it has that responsibility. It is not the safety authority; the Health and Safety Executive is. But it has a responsibility of taking these matters into account when considering licensing decisions. It cannot be entirely economic.
  The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is going back to the Transport Act 2000, then going back to the Railways Act 1993. He is suggesting a rather fundamental change which is inappropriate within the very limited terms of Part 2 of the Bill. If the regulator's duty were narrowed in the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, he would not be able to take into account the health and safety record of an operator when making a decision on whether to grant a licence or a licence exemption. He would not be able to consult the Health and Safety Executive to establish whether it had accepted the applicant's safety case or granted a safety case exemption. That surely is an undesirable restriction on the proper responsibilities of the office of rail regulation.
  On Amendment No. 17, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is attempting to rewrite in this Bill something which he is not proposing to repeal in the Transport Act 2000. In other words, there would be two conflicting definitions of the functions of the office of rail regulation. Under the Railways Act 1993, the regulator does not set the contractual framework within which Network Rail works to retain, renew and expand the network. It is Network Rail's licence that requires it to maintain and renew the network. Paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 17 would confuse this as it interferes with the existing licensing regime.
  GC30
  Paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 17 would require the office of rail regulation to manage Network Rail's expenditure. That cannot be right. Day-to-day management should rest with Network Rail within the regulatory framework established under the Railways Act 1993. Paragraph (c) of Amendment No. 17 is unnecessary; it just reflects the existing function of the office. I cannot be supportive of either of these amendments.
  5.45 p.m.
  Viscount Astor: Amendment No. 17 does not propose to manage. The word "manage" does not appear. Paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 17 states that the office of rail regulation will,
  "ensure that the Network Rail's income … is spent appropriately".
  This amendment is about looking at how Network Rail will be managed and its responsibilities. In effect, Network Rail has been created by the Government and, as I understand it, is answerable to the Strategic Rail Authority. Will the Minister explain the relationship of the office of rail regulation to Network Rail, if there is to be one? For those of us who are not involved in the industry, it is difficult to understand the demarcation lines between, and the changes to, the existing and the future bodies. My constant aim is to obtain a clear understanding of how not only the current bodies have been working since the changes—for example, the creation of Network Rail—but how they will work in the future with the new bodies. It would be enormously helpful if the Minister could answer my question.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Strictly speaking, that is not a matter for this all. Part 2 makes a change from a rail regulator to the office of rail regulation. Neither the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, nor I, is expert in the rail industry, unlike some other Members of the Committee. The noble Viscount is asking a specific question which does not need to be answered for the passage of this Bill, but to which he is entitled to have an answer. I shall write to him and send copies to Members of the Committee.
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think that there must be a connection between the office of rail regulation and Network Rail which is relevant when looking at the Bill as a whole.
  Lord Bradshaw: While I appreciate the impatience of the Minister to get this Bill onto the statute book—I would want the same thing if I were in his position because it contains clauses concerning the accident investigation branches and the British Transport Police, which are very important—I think he might concede that there are few opportunities for the House to debate any matter relating to transport. The chances in the near future seem fairly remote—I believe my noble friend. Lady Scott is waiting for a road safety Bill and has been waiting for a long time. Parliamentary time, apparently, never seems to be sufficient to allow these issues to come forward.

  GC31
  Perhaps the Minister will grant me that this is an opportunity to raise the issue of some of the duties of the Rail Regulator. While I accept that these were part of the Railways Act 1993 and were referred to in the Transport Act 2000, in this Bill we have an opportunity to change this enormously complicated structure. If a railway operator has a safety case from the HSE, that is a matter that the regulator may note, but he does not have to do anything about it. Unfortunately, the Rail Regulator's office does do things about it. It is this complicated overlapping of duties to which I am trying to put an end and to simplify the tremendous cost and machinations which go on within the railway industry.
  Therefore, I trust that the Minister might allow me to return to this matter. I shall study carefully both pieces of legislation of which, of course, I am well aware, and perhaps make some suggestions.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, I hope that he will allow me to object to some of his language—in the nicest possible way. I do not accept that I am impatient. I hope that I answer all the points made in Committee. I hope that my desire to see the Bill completed does not put me in the position of trying to curtail proper parliamentary scrutiny. At the same time, I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that it is not up to me what amendments he puts down on Report.
  My point is simple. Part 2 of the Bill makes a change in the constitution of the Office of the Rail Regulator rather than in its functions. Within the extraordinarily lax procedures of this Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is free to use that as a peg on which to hang any amendments that he likes. Virtually nothing can be stopped within the Long Title of the Bill—and that is not an invitation.
  Lord Berkeley: I should like to put on record that I oppose both these amendments for the same reasons as my noble friend Lord McIntosh. I believe that the role of an independent regulator is absolutely fundamental. I shall fight any demise or reduction of the role to the hitter end. He has a big role to play on competition issues, on access rights and on regulating charges for using the infrastructure. The regulator also deserves some credit for setting up the railway safety and standards board. It could have been done by regulation by the Government, but it was not. It was done by the regulator who headed up, as we said in a previous amendment, an independent body.
  That is a tremendous advantage. I hope that the regulator will not necessarily spend too much time on safety issues. Just changing the structure is all we need. Leave the rest and I think matters will resolve themselves and improve.
  Lord Bradshaw: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
  Clause 16 agreed to.
  Schedules 2 and 3 agreed to.
  Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
  Schedule 4 [British Transport Police Authority]:
  Lord Bradshawmoved Amendment No. 18:
  Page 62, line 35, leave out "four" and insert "two"
  The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 18, I declare my interests. I am vice-chairman of Thames Valley Police Authority and have been for some time and I am a member of the Association of Police Authorities. On looking at the proposed composition of the British Transport Police authority, it is lacking in two or three areas. First, Transport for London pays a very large sum of money towards the upkeep of the British Transport Police force. Indeed, a large number of police are deployed in the capital and during the past 18 months their presence has been very evident.
  I think that the Bill should reserve some places for Transport for London. As a big contributor, it should be accorded that position. I have taken two of the four people away from the number who are described as having,
  "knowledge of and experience in relation to the interests of persons travelling by railway".
  I assume that the people nominated by Transport for London will have the interests of people who use the railways in and around London and the mainline termini at heart. Therefore, I have substituted that there should be,
  "two persons with direct experience of providing railway services in London appointed following consultation with Transport for London".
  As a member of one of the 43 police authorities for the past 10 or 11 years, I have seen five chairmen. They are elected by the members of the police authority. In appointing a chairman, we are not seeking some nominee of government or a county council or someone else. We are looking for a person who can bring together a fairly disparate group of people to work as a co-ordinated whole as an authority for the police. Preferably, we do not want a person who represents the magistracy or political parties or an independent member, but someone who can actually weld those people into a team. In turn, the team will be subdivided into sub-committees which will examine, for example, personnel policy, property policy, finance and general purposes and police complaints.
  Therefore, one is looking for someone who exhibits leadership qualities. We have changed the chairmen of police authorities, as county councils and other bodies change their chairmen. The person selected is often a person who has shown the ability to secure a coordinated response to issues. That is what is wanted.
  I look forward to what the Minister says in reply to the amendments. I am particularly concerned that we do not have a chairman and a deputy chairman appointed by the Secretary of State. I am afraid that what we may get are just placemen and not people who have a genuine interest. I beg to move.
  Viscount Astor: My Amendment No. 21 is grouped with this. Having studied the amendment proposed by

  GC33
  the noble Lord, Lord. Bradshaw, I shall not speak to my amendment because I do not think that it is very good any more. I think that Amendment No. 19 is better. It states that,
  "at least two persons with direct experience of providing railway services in London appointed following consultation with Transport for London".
  London is in a bizarre situation with the Government's policy. We have a Mayor who has a transport policy that is sometimes in step with everyone else but most of the time seems to be out of step with everyone else. Certainly, I find myself confused as to whether the Mayor is currently in agreement or not in agreement with the proposals of the Government on the hand-over of London Transport and its effects. We shall want to know when the Government finally come to a decision on whether to go ahead, for example, on Crossrail, and what considerations they are taking into account.
  So it seems that there is a gap here. It is important that within the British Transport Police authority there will be some overlapping responsibilities in respect of London Underground and British Rail. Therefore, it would be helpful if London knew that it would always be represented. I am sure that the Minister will say that the Secretary of State will ensure that London will be adequately represented, but that is not stated in the Bill. I think that perhaps it should be and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I support Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 but oppose Amendment No. 20. I have an open mind in regard to Amendment No. 21, but as the noble Viscount has lost faith in it I shall not speak to it.
  In view of the fact that Transport for London pays between 30 per cent and 40 per cent of the entire British Transport Police funding, it is entitled to have its representation on the police authority written into the Bill. It is for that reason that I support. Amendments Nos. 18 and 19. A huge amount of the work of the British Transport Police is carried out on the London Underground, at main line stations in London and with the railway operating companies in the London area. It is a reasonable request which I hope my noble friend will take seriously.
  As to the appointment of the chairman and deputy chairman, I have re-read what my noble friend Lord McIntosh said at Second Reading on 1st May. He made two points. First, that this is to be a new authority and that to appoint a chairman in advance of establishing it makes good sense because the other members of the authority would want to know who the chairman is to be before taking up an appointment. Secondly, he said that the chairman should have some say in the appointment of the other members. That is also sensible. It is for those reasons that I oppose Amendment No. 20 and support Amendments Nos. 18 and 19.
  Earl Russell: I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of
  GC34
  Worcester, for their support for Amendments Nos. 18 and 19. I shall speak briefly in support of Amendments Nos. 19 and 20.
  The case for separate status for Transport for London rests in part on the fact that it represents, especially the Underground part of it, a very different kind of transport body from those normally dealt with. The problems of the literally crumbling infrastructure under London are ones which have no parallel in the main railway system. I remember, for example, that when the Jubilee Line was being built the ceiling of the maternity wing of University College Hospital fell in. No one had undertaken an adequate geological survey. The chances of an interaction between the various pieces of the crumbling infrastructure are considerable. Some of the problems of cabling and crowding are not found elsewhere.
  Transport for London is also to be responsible for running a system which it has not chosen—and which it would not have chosen—and is in slight danger of the reverse of the Baldwin position of having responsibility without power, the prerogative of the charwoman through the ages.
  As to the appointment of the chairman, there is a Latin proverb, much beloved by our 17th-century predecessors in this place, which might be freely translated as, "When your party wall is on fire, watch out". I therefore declare a non-pecuniary interest as a trustee of the National Portrait Gallery. Shortly before the last election—too near to the election for a Bill to pass but far enough off for us to hear very clearly the rumbling of the approaching Whitehall steamroller—a Bill was introduced to bring in an almost identically worded provision for the chairmen and the trustees of all the major London museums and galleries. We all agreed, almost exactly, with the description of the responsibility of trustees and the appointment of chairmen, to which my noble friend Lord Bradshaw has referred. We all thought that it was an entirely unnecessary centralising. proposal. When we reached the Committee stage of that Bill, a formidable force—led by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, as a trustee of the Imperial War Museum—produced a withering fire which I would have not cared to face.
  It is curious to find exactly identical wording in two Bills as different as this one and a cultural miscellaneous provisions Bill. Where you find identical wording in two widely separated documents it is good academic training to check for a common source. In 1988 the noble Lord, Lord Carter, discovered that there is a series of model articles for the drafting of Bills. In different Bills we kept seeing the phrase that people were not capable of being trustees or members of funding councils if they were disabled or otherwise incapable of performing their duties. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, most elegantly brought forward a series of amendments to delete the words "disabled or otherwise", leaving him to do all the necessary things he needed to do. Finally the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, "How many more times have we got to do this?" and managed to persuade the Government to alter the model articles.

  GC35
  If this phrase is in the model articles for the drafting of Bills, it will appear many more times and there will be a considerable temptation for an alliance to be forged between all the various critics of the proposal. It is not necessary. Secretaries of State must get it into their heads that they do not have to control everything that they fund; that they cannot control everything that they fund; and that they are mistaken in regarding public money as a kind of barium meal which has to be observed passing through the digestive processes of all those who ingest it.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I cannot follow that little masterpiece. I support the case for London. Although there is nothing in the Bill which excludes it, my point would be answered if the Minister could give an assurance that it will be included.
  As to the appointment of the chairman, I have always felt that a body should appoint its own chairman. The Minister would be wise to think so too because if he does not, it will mean that he has failed in his selection of people to serve on the authority in the first place.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall deal first with Amendments Nos. 18 and 19, and then with Amendment No. 20. I am glad that I do not have to deal with Amendment No. 21.
  The combined effect of Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 would be to increase the number of industry representatives at the expense of passenger representatives on the British Transport Police authority. It is true that, at the moment, four out of nine members of the British Transport Police Committee are industry representatives. In addition, the chair of the British Transport Police Committee is appointed by the Strategic Rail Authority. That means that the industry is in the majority in the British Transport Police Committee. We are trying to get away from that situation because we believe that it is fundamentally important that the British Transport Police should be recognised as a public police service which protects the whole rail community from crime—passengers, staff and of course the rail companies. It has to balance the interests of all those it serves, not only those of the industry.
  That is why we have provided for at least four persons who have knowledge and experience of the interests of rail passengers; at least four persons in the industry who have knowledge and experience of providing railway services; a person who has knowledge and experience of railway employees—that is on the trade union side; a person nominated by the Strategic Rail Authority, who is the only person not appointed by the Secretary of State; and three people who have knowledge of the interests of persons in Scotland, Wales and England. Of course, some members of the authority could qualify on more than one ground by satisfying more than one of the criteria, but that is the kind of balance for which we are looking, one which is more customer-oriented than industry-oriented.
  GC36
  The effect of the amendments would mean returning to a industry-oriented British Transport Police. We do not believe it is desirable that those funding the British Transport Police—that is, the rail industry—should have control over it. We are not saying that they have distorted the British Transport Police in their favour, starved it of funds or anything like that, but if you take the analogy of local police authorities, they are not dominated by their funders.
  Lord Bradshaw: Indeed they are. Local police forces always have a majority of councillor members—and the majority of those councillor members have to support the annual budget. The Minister is not right; the funders are in a majority.
  A measure of expertise in the industry is necessary. There is a wide spectrum, not only of train operators but of engineering companies and all the other disciplines, from which to choose. It will be extremely difficult to get a body representative of the industry which can satisfy all the criteria the Government wish to impose.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry to hear that from the Liberal Democrat Party.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: We must adjourn for 10 minutes for a Division in the House.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 6.10 to 6.20 p.m.]
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was about to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, about councillors being the funders on police authorities. Yes, of course they are the funders, but they represent the council tax payers—in other words, the punters. I am trying to persuade the Liberal Democrats, who should be in favour of democracy, that the British Transport Police authority should have a greater representation of punters and a lesser representation of professionals. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that our balance is better than the one that he suggests.
  As to the reference to London in Amendment No. 19, I can give the assurance required. It is inconceivable that there will not be someone with specialised experience and knowledge of transport in London on the British Transport Police authority.
  As to Amendment No. 20, which refers to the chairman and deputy chairman, we can make analogies with all kinds of organisations. I would not have made an analogy with the National Portrait Gallery. Analogies with police authorities are more appropriate. Normally, police authorities are appointed by different bodies, not only by the Secretary of State. The entire British Transport Police authority will be appointed by the Secretary of State. An analogy can be made with appointees appointing their own chairman and deputy chairman, but it is nothing like as good as analogies with the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which are both national police authorities appointed by the Secretary of State, who also appoints their chairmen and vice chairmen.

  GC37
  The point that I made at Second Reading about the chairman being known in advance is still valid, but I would find it slightly more difficult after the first appointment to argue against subsequently having the chairman appointed by members of the committee. I am not saying that I would fail to make that argument—I can see a separate argument—but that point has not been made in the amendment.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: When this matter was debated when we were in opposition, the then government did nothing about it. Is my noble friend aware of that?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know whether that is a plea for the Government to be consistent or for the Opposition to be consistent. I choose to take it as a plea for the Conservative Party to be consistent.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, I do not know whether, during the short time available for the Division, the Minister went into the tea-room, but he appears to want to have his cake and eat it. When it suits him, he creates analogies with local police authorities; at other times, he does not.
  Both my noble friend Lord Bradshaw and I have served on police authorities where, as we have heard, local authority members form a majority on the basis that they represent the primary funder, and they appoint their own chairman from within their ranks. There are two reasons for that. The first is a general point of principle, which my noble friend Lord Russell explained very well. There is also a pragmatic reason. It is very important in bodies such as this, which bring together disparate groups of people, that the chair has the respect and support of all the people participating in its activities.
  I have had experience of local authorities that have attempted to impose chairs on police authorities for political reasons. It usually ends in tears. Ultimately, the most effective chairs are those that have the support and consensus of the committee. I very much regret that the Minister saw fit to make a petty party-political point out of the issue. I do not indulge in such actions, because we want to ensure the best for the new authority based on the lessons that we have learnt from other police authorities, which are not so very different.
  Earl Russell: The Minister's remarks could lead to some misgivings in the world of museums and galleries. He attempted to argue that, because the trustees are ministerial appointees, the chairman separately should also be a ministerial appointee. That is certainly not our present practice. The suggestion will be viewed with considerable alarm by some of my colleagues.
  The arguments made by my noble friend Lady Scott are perfectly sound. The right chairman is the person who enjoys the confidence of, and easy relations with, the other trustees; the person who is capable of making them act as a single force; the person who is capable of mediating differences: the person who is good at
  GC38
  arbitrating. Those qualities are known to the trustees in a way that cannot be known to the Secretary of State.
  I have not heard a clear justification for transferring this power to the Secretary of State. I should like to hear one before leaving the issue.
  Viscount Astor: Perhaps I may help the Minister by intervening to say that the answers he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, in regard to Amendment No. 19 certainly satisfy us. The assurance that London will be represented covers any concerns that we have.
  As to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, about consistency, it is difficult to enter into that argument. Since we were in power there have been substantial changes both in London and to the railways—in terms of the Mayor of London and so on. As circumstances change, so do one's views.
  Lord Berkeley: As regards Amendments Nos. 18 and 19, my noble friend rightly said that the service providers should not have a majority representation. That is reasonable. He went a little way towards accepting that one of the four people referred to in paragraph 2(1)(b) should have knowledge of transport in London. I argue very strongly that there needs to be at least one person with knowledge of freight. Freight service operations are very different from those for passenger services. Many run on branch lines, where there is an acute problem of vandalism.
  It is a lot to expect from four people. I hope that my noble friend will accept that there needs to be a wide range of experience among those four people, including experience of freight and London.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I welcome the Minister's assurance on London. His comparison of NCIS and the National Crime Squad with the British Transport Police authority is tenuous, to say the least. Those two national bodies are specific and specialist. They have a clear and distinct remit to provide services for all other police authorities across the country. The British Transport Police authority will be a police authority in its own right, with its own field of operations. It will be very much a police authority like any other. I would like the Government to be more flexible on the issue of its chairman.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If there is a problem about analogies, I shall first put at rest the mind of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. There is no reason for anything that I say to be heard with any misgiving by the museums and galleries world or by anyone outside transport. When I mentioned the National Portrait Gallery in my response to him, I was saying that I did not believe that there was an analogy there. I did not say that what happens in the National Portrait Gallery, the British Museum, the V&A or anywhere else is wrong. I simply said that there was more than one model as to whether the members of a body should appoint their own chairman and deputy chairman or whether they should be appointed by the Secretary of State.

  GC39
  I gave as an analogy NCIS and the National Crime Squad. First, they are national bodies as opposed to local police authorities; and, secondly, all the members are appointed by the Secretary of State. So the alleged democratic deficit in the difference between this body and other police authorities is less apparent to me than may be the case if the body were composed of representatives chosen by different bodies outside.
  When all the members are appointed by the Secretary of State, it seems that the arguments that I used at Second Reading, to which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, was good enough to refer—about the chairman being known in advance, not being able to be known by the members of the authority and the ability to have a say in the selection of members of the authority—seem valid. But there is no reason for anyone outside the transport sphere or anywhere else to fear a knock-on effect of the arguments that I use.
  Lord Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for his reply and other noble Lords for their interventions. I am not satisfied with the answer. Unless the Minister is prepared to reduce to two the number of people in paragraph 2(1)(a), we are left with one representative from London, which pays 40 per cent of the cost—not a large amount from Government, plus 20 or 25 per cent as is the case with county authorities—and one to represent freight, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. That leaves only two people to represent the interests of people providing railway services.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No. that is not the case. The Bill provides for an authority with a membership of 11 to 17. It provides for 13 specified origins, if you like, but they need not be provided by 13 people. In other words, the industry people, the trade union person or the passenger people could also represent national interests. There is no reason why there should not be an overlap. There is plenty of flexibility. I certainly do not rule out the possibility of someone with knowledge and experience of rail freight.
  Lord Bradshaw: That goes some way, but I would still like to see provision in the Bill to preserve the right of Transport for London to nominate two people. I would accept one person from the freight industry, but that would leave many railway interests without professional representation on the authority. Given the specialist areas of the railway industry, I believe that that is needed. We must bear in mind that there are very adequate provisions for the representation of users on the Rail Passengers Committee. That is not the only way in which people can make representations. I shall study what the Minister has said, but I feel strongly about the matter and shall probably return to it on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.]
  Schedule 4 agreed to.
  Clause 19 [Exercise of functions]:
  [Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
  Clause 19 agreed to.
  Clause 20 [Establishment of Police Force]:
  [Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.]
  Clause 20 agreed to.
  Clause 21 [Chief Constable]:
  [Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.]
  Clause 21 agreed to.
  Clauses 22 to 24 agreed to.
  Clause 25 [Special constables]:
  Lord Bradshawmoved Amendment No. 26:
  Page 11, line 39, at end insert—
  "( ) The Chief Constable may pay or make allowances to special constables as may be allowed to other special constables."
  The noble Lord said: The amendment is fairly simple. It depends on other moves being made which, as far as I know, have not yet been made. I know that it is in the mind of the Government to allow police authorities to make payments or to provide allowances for special constables. I have no idea of the allowances that the Government have in mind, nor do I know that the Government will definitely provide for them, but I do not want the rare occasion of the British Transport Police figuring in our debates to pass without making provision for it to be treated in exactly the same way as other police forces in other police authorities. I beg to move.
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 27 which is grouped with Amendment No. 26. It deals with community support officers. I referred to this matter during the passage of the Police Reform Act 2002 and during Second Reading of the Bill on 1st May.
  The way in which the Police Reform Act is phrased currently makes it impossible for the BTP to accredit CSOs in the same way as Home Office forces. It is now generally accepted that in relation to the Home Office forces the introduction of CSOs has been a great success. A number of their functions, which they already carry out with success, apply to the railway environment. They help to deal, for example, with graffiti and vandalism; they provide a visible authority presence at stations at times of increased alert; if necessary they share information and provide extra presence where a majority of luggage thefts occur; they provide prompt removal of nuisance offenders; and they cut down on opportunistic crime.
  In the past the BTP has made representations to the Department of Transport on this matter. It has been told at an official level that this will be applied in the current legislation. As I understand it, at present it is not possible. I hope that my noble friend will accept that an amendment along the lines that I propose in Amendment No. 27 should be made to the Bill.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: It is purely an accident that the names of Liberal Democrat Peers have not been added to the amendment. We strongly

  GC41
  associate ourselves with its sentiments. It has become very clear that the initiative of providing community support officers has been useful. It has helped to deter low level crime because there is a much more visible uniform presence. We support the amendment.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I find myself in the position of the sinner who repenteth. I remember opposing the introduction of community support officers. In other sectors they have carried out extremely good work. Although I am not sufficiently expert on the way in which the railways work or on the way in which the British Transport Police works to see too many obvious roles for them, I can certainly see that in major stations, at particular times of the day when the normal police are severely stretched, their presence could be extremely helpful. I have added my name to the amendment. If the British Transport Police is to be a genuine police authority it should have access to all the facilities that other normal police authorities have. At present, the law disbars that access. This is an opportunity to put that right and I hope that it is taken.
  Lord Berkeley: I support Amendments Nos. 26 and 27. It is important to recognise that, with apparently 40 per cent of the BTP force engaged in the London area, that does not leave many to operate outside London. It may be reflected in the payments, but I am told that, at any one time, just two of the force are available nation-wide for rail freight. I could expand on that, but I suspect that that will not bother the Minister too much.
  The need for special constables, community support officers and so on to the maximum extent and for them to be paid allowances is desperately important. What many passengers on trains fear, particularly when the trains are less crowded, is not having access to police if something goes wrong. One of passengers' biggest fears when travelling on public transport is the lack of a police presence. The more there are the better. This appears to be a useful way of achieving that.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: On Amendment No. 26, Clause 36 allows the authority to make regulations under government, administration and conditions of service as special constables serving with the transport police, including the payment of allowances. As far as it is possible to meet the specific circumstances of the British Transport Police, those regulations must be consistent with the equivalent Home Office regulations, including those governing the conditions of service of Home Office special constables—in other words, that they can be paid. I am not aware of any specific circumstances of the British Transport Police that would make that inoperable; in other words, my understanding is that the amendment is unnecessary.
  Amendment No. 27 is more difficult. Section 38 of the Police Reform Act 2002 allows the chief police officer to designate skilled and trained employees of the police authority to exercise certain powers and to undertake certain duties under the direction and control of the chief constable. That was a matter of great political controversy, and, on several occasions,
  GC42
  the Opposition bitterly opposed the provision in the Division Lobbies. It does not apply to the British Transport Police, and, as the Bill is drafted, it will not apply to the British Transport Police authority.
  It would not be easy to extend community support officers to the British Transport Police, but I recognise from what has been said that there could be advantages. We shall have to consider the relevant provisions of the Police Reform Act 2002 to see whether it can be amended to allow the British Transport Police to deploy at some future stage community support officers. Without making any guarantees, I undertake that we shall consider the matter and, if it appears possible and appropriate, return with appropriate amendments.
  Viscount Astor: The Minister is right that my noble friend opposed the matter originally, but the Government occasionally are proved right. I am always prepared to give them credit where it is due. The provision seems to work, so I believe it is important that it should be extended to the British Transport Police. I welcome the Minister's assurance that he will look into the matter.
  Lord Bradshaw: I am happy with the assurances given by the Minister. The British Transport Police authority has the power to pay allowances to special constables. As he will consider the provisions in the Bill, I shall withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 25 agreed to.
  Clause 26 agreed to.
  Clause 27 [Civilian employees]:
  [Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
  Clause 27 agreed to.
  Clauses 28 and 29 agreed to.
  6.45 p.m.
  Clause 30 [Jurisdiction]:
  Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 28:
  Page 13, line 16, after "constable" insert "in the following sites and in their vicinity"
  The noble Viscount said: This is an extremely important amendment. It has all-party backing, and at Second Reading the Minister dealt with the issue and gave perhaps the most disappointing answer he has given during the course of the whole Bill. I shall seek to explain why.
  The amendments in this group are fairly similar. My amendment is no better than that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. The principle in the amendment relates to the powers that the British Transport Police has and its ability to carry out policing. Quite rightly the Minister said that the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act gave the British Transport Police jurisdiction outside railways in urgent situations on non-railway matters. He also pointed out that Parliament saw fit to put in a sunset clause.

  GC43
  The argument against an amendment to the Bill was that under the sunset clause there will be a committee of Privy Counsellors that will have its say on the antiterrorism Act and will decide whether to continue it or not. The Minister went on to say,
  "if by any chance the committee of Privy Counsellors do so decide, we shall take action in the six-month period which is allowed to ensure that it does continue. Therefore, there will be continuity. I do not believe any amendment is necessary".—[Official Report, 1/5/03: col. 829.]
  I believe that that portrays a certain lack of knowledge of the argument. It is helpful to those who think that the sunset clause should be continued, because it shows that there is government understanding that the powers were brought in because of a specific situation. In effect, we have seen what happened. The powers have not been necessary to deal with a terrorism threat—although I am sure that they may be necessary for that—but they have been in the day-to-day operation of the transport police and their authority. That is the most important point. It has made their day-to-day operations work well.
  Whatever the effects of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, we do not want to pre-empt any report from the Privy Counsellors any more than the Minister does. He accused us of pre-empting the report, but then said that if they decided to do something different, the Government would take action—he can pre-empt, but we cannot. I do not believe that any of us is trying to do that. We are saying that whatever they report on the Act, or whether they decide to continue with the Act, the power has been useful in allowing the transport police to carry out their work and it has been a success. For those reasons we believe that it should continue.
  I do not understand what the Government have against the amendment. Without this power, the ability of the British Transport Police to respond to a non-railway matter outside its jurisdiction would be hindered. I gave examples and I do not need to go into them again. There are interchanges with other forces such as those at airports. Transport is being extended and we do not want the British Transport Police, in dealing with a crime, to come to a grinding halt.
  I was interested to read in a briefing supplied by the British Transport Police that in comparison to the Ministry of Defence police and the UK atomic energy police, in relation to jurisdiction it is in a less favourable position. Those forces have the term "in the vicinity" written into their governing legislation and it is specified in terms of distance. I also understand that the Ministry of Defence police were afforded the same extension of powers under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, but do not face the potential of their new statutory jurisdiction being weakened as a result of legislation. It seems to me that if it works satisfactorily for the Ministry of Defence police and the atomic energy police, it is important that we should try to continue it.
  I have an interest to declare. The time when I was enormously helped by the British Transport Police was in relation to station car parks. Those of us who park
  GC44
  our cars at stations on our way to your Lordships' House know that in the past they have been extremely dangerous places to leave a car. The car can be in more danger in a car park than if it is left in a street. The situation has improved to a degree, but if the Minister opposes the amendment, would the British Transport Police be excluded from helping to prevent crime taking place in station car parks, whether official station car parks or car parks just outside? I shall be interested to hear the Minister's answer.
  I hope that the reason given by the Minister at Second Reading has nothing to do with other police forces in the country being concerned about jurisdiction as well. I hope that he will confirm that that is not the case. This is an important issue. I am at a loss to understand why the Minister opposed the principle of the matter at Second Reading. It seems to make sense and certainly does nothing to pre-empt whatever may happen in the future when the sunset clause of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act is dealt with by the committee of Privy Counsellors before it comes back to Parliament. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not want to curtail the debate in any sense, but I agree entirely with what has been said about the desirability of the British Transport Police operating in the vicinity of railway property. I shall not put forward any arguments about that. That is common ground. We can talk about the propriety of sunset clauses and so on, but I hope that I have saved the Committee time by making that clear.
  Viscount Astor: Does that mean that the Minister accepts any of the amendments in principle or not? I am slightly confused.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am saying that the powers of the British Transport Police to operate in the vicinity of railway premises, in the same way as pertains for the Ministry of Defence police or the atomic energy police in relation to jurisdiction, will continue.
  Lord Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for that reply. I was going to give some examples. The other night there was a football match in Reading and Thames Valley police officers on horses were on station premises and British Transport Police officers, not on horses, were in the streets. That is the kind of thing that happens rather than what is described in the law, although I admit that the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act provides cover for that at the moment.
  I wanted to ally Amendment No. 30 with Amendment No. 28. It inserts the words:
  "in response to a request for assistance from an officer of another force",
  because frequently officers in charge at police stations ask for British Transport Police and vice versa for assistance, which is readily given under the mutual assistance arrangements. I trust that that may be tidied up in the legislation.
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I shall be brief in view of what my noble friend said in his helpful

  GC 45
  intervention. It is important that the words "in the vicinity" are put into the clause relating to the jurisdiction of the British Transport Police. Curiously enough those words were in the original British Transport Commission Act 1949 in relation to the British Transport Police. Section 53 of that Act is repealed by this Bill so something needs to be put back in so that the position returns to what everyone believed it to be.
  The answer to the question posed by the noble Viscount about what happens in the car parks is that they are covered by British Transport Police perfectly legally. But if the words "in the vicinity" were not in place and the force spotted someone on its closed circuit television making off with the noble Viscount's car, it would technically be unable to pursue such a person down the street to arrest him. I welcome unreservedly what my noble friend has said. It seems that we have achieved exactly what we were seeking in relation to this amendment.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is proper that I respond now to the last piece of potential disagreement. That is really a matter of propriety. Parliament in its wisdom, when it passed the antiterrorism Act, said that there would be a sunset clause. The motivation for that was fear of fierce antiterrorism legislation eroding civil liberties, and Parliament said that it should be looked at again by a committee of Privy Counsellors. As a matter of propriety I believe that we should leave Parliament's wishes untouched; in other words, the committee of Privy Counsellors should look at the matter. As a Privy Counsellor I have no amour propre in this matter. It would not worry me at all if the committee of Privy Counsellors were to be sidelined. I do not believe that it is right for Parliament itself, having wished for the protection for civil liberties of having a committee of Privy Counsellors, to overturn it now in advance of that consideration by the committee of Privy Counsellors.
  I can give, as Members of the Committee wish me to, an assurance. To me it is inconceivable that the committee of Privy Counsellors should say that the sunset clause should apply to this provision and that the power of the British Transport Police to operate in the vicinity should not continue. The Government believe, and will say so in advance, that we should take advantage of the opportunity within six months to reactivate the provision. Therefore, not only will it continue but it will continue without a break.
  Viscount Astor: Will the Minister explain what he means by reactivating the provision? What are the mechanics of that?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is a six-month period provided when Parliament without primary legislation can decide to continue with any provisions of the anti-terrorism Act. That is what we would do.
  Earl Russell: I am not clear on the Minister's attitude to Amendment No. 30, which is about the power to respond to a request from another force.
  GC46
  That is very necessary, as anyone who lives anywhere near the boundary between Middlesex and the City realises very clearly. Almost everyone on foot in the neighbourhood of a railway is either going on to it or off it. If there is no such power there may he confusion.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, but the power is provided for under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act. Therefore it could be continued.
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful for the response of the Minister in principle but I believe I differ from him as to the practice. The sunset clause relating to the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act was specific as to the serious powers given by the Act in terms of dealing with terrorism, crime and security. At the time it was particularly relevant to terrorism. I accept that, but those powers luckily have not been useful in terms of terrorism, but in terms of ordinary policing. Therefore it is important that they are not lost. I asked the Minister a question about the six-month period. I think I understood what he said, but I would like to think it through more carefully.
  7 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may help by setting out the provisions. Under the sunset clauses, the Secretary of State appoints a committee of Privy Counsellors. The committee must review and report to the Secretary of State within two years of the Act being passed; that is, by December 2003. The review is already under way. The Secretary of State lays a copy of the report before Parliament as soon as possible. The report can operate so that all or parts of the Act should cease to have effect six months after the report is laid before Parliament. But if both Houses of Parliament pass a Motion within that same six-month period, the provisions in question remain on the statute book. Under those circumstances, which I consider highly unlikely, the Government intend, within that six-month period, to propose to both Houses of Parliament a Motion that the provisions should remain on the statute book.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister is refreshing my memory, as I had a hand in the passage of that Bill. I happen to know the chairman of the group that reviewed the passage of the Bill. When I last saw him, he did not thank me for the task. The purpose of the sunset clause was particularly directed at antiterrorism effects. The Minister is absolutely correct; the provision affects the whole Bill.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: Indeed, but the sunset clause affects the whole Bill, so this has to be gone through. The review will almost certainly say that almost all, if not all, of the Bill should remain. I do not think that there will be a difficulty.
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. I think that I understand what he is saying and that his explanation satisfies all our

  GC47
  concerns. However, I will have to read Hansard carefully to check that it deals with our concerns and those raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I think that it does, but I am not absolutely convinced. Perhaps Members of the Committee who have questions might be allowed to correspond with the noble Lord and his department before the next stage. In the mean time, I thank the Minister for his support and understanding of the genuine concerns of Members on all sides. I am grateful for his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 29 to 31 not moved.]
  Clause 30 agreed to.
  Clauses 31 to 70 agreed to.
  Lord Berkeleymoved Amendment No. 32:
  After Clause 70, insert the following new clause—
  "FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS
  No charges or levies shall be made on organisations in the railway industry for the services of the Authority, which shall be funded from money provided under section 116."
  The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 58, which is included in the same group. Both amendments relate to funding of the activities of the British Transport Police and the Health and Safety Executive. I understand the Government's transport policy to be that, so far as possible, road, rail, and occasionally other modes of transport should compete on a level playing field.
  Amendment No. 32 relates to the British Transport Police. The Committee has already heard that around 40 per cent of its staff are engaged in London Underground, while very few cover rail freight. Quite a few investigate accidents, but we need not go into that. I suggest that much of their work is in dealing with incidents of societal concern very similar to the work of police forces around the country. There are many different police forces. BTP is a national one, with enormous specialist knowledge, which is good. But I understand that, at present, train operators and licence holders pay. Some complain strongly on the basis that their competitors in the road and rail sectors, be it passengers or freight, do not pay.
  I believe that that is a particular concern for heritage railway operators. There is a very strong argument that they should be exempt from the Act even if they do not have an agreement. There is an argument for their exemption from paying for the police. I suspect that the British Transport Police would never get to a heritage railway because there are not enough of them around.
  As regards equality with road, there is a strong argument for the BTP being funded nationally and not through a levy on trade operators or Network Rail. After all, road service activities are not funded through a levy on the trucking industry or even on the private car, which much of its work addresses these days. My submission on Amendment No. 32 is that BTP should be funded nationally out of general taxation.
  GC48
  As to Amendment No. 58, the argument is the same for the Health and Safety Executive. The Bill would empower the Government to introduce regulations to impose a levy—it does not state on whom or whether it would be licence holders or everyone involved in the industry—to reimburse the Health and Safety Executive for its charges. At present, the HSE's approach is considered to be fairly unsatisfactory by most of the industry. It charges on a hourly basis. If an assistant who is learning what to do is brought along it charges for two people at the same rate. There are the usual arguments about invoices getting lost and being indecipherable. No one is saying that the present system is good.
  There are significant problems in imposing a levy—the first of which is who should pay it and how much should be charged? As regards competition with road, why should railway operators pay for the Health and Safety Executive's work when similar work for roads is paid for out of general taxation? Infrastructure must be separated from operations but the lead agency for rail safety is the Health and Safety Executive and road safety is generally in the hands of the police. The Health and Safety Executive, local authorities and so on carry out only a small amount work on the roads, with the very limited exception of the transport of dangerous goods where the HSE takes a lead. There is no cost recovery from the operators for any of these services, apart from the very small charge that the Environment Agency imposes for cleaning up after the spillage of dangerous goods. We can probably ignore that.
  The same applies to the approval of vehicles. A small amount is payable when HGVs are tested and there is a small charge on manufacturers for type approval. The problem for the railway industry is that the HSE spends so much time and effort on approvals that the costs become enormous. There should be an incentive for the HSE to reduce its costs. I have spoken to some officials and I believe that it intends to do so.
  Nevertheless, the best comparison is that road services are paid for out of general taxation. The same should apply to the Health and Safety Executive. There should not be a levy on the industry; the services should be paid for out of general taxation. One hopes that that would give the HSE an incentive to do what I think it intends to do—that is, to take a step backwards and upwards to a higher plane of overall supervision of the industry, leaving the railway safety and standards board to carry out all the detailed work. That board will be funded by the industry. Again, there is a question as to whether the heritage railways would have to pay an HSE levy. The argument is the same as before—I am sure that they would not be able to afford it. That, if nothing else, is an argument against the provision.
  Due to the rather disparate BTP and HSE roles, I hope that my noble friend will see fit to agree that it would be appropriate, in the interests of fair

  GC49
  competition with road, that the same type of charging should be made, and that that should be paid for out of general taxation. I beg to move.
  Lord Bradshaw: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said in both cases. The British Transport Police performs a service for the railway. Very largely, it does so for the passengers of the railway, not for the railway companies. It is Joe Public who is being served, just as civilian police authorities serve the same public. We must bear in mind that most money for the railway comes in one way or another from the taxpayer or the fare box, so a great deal comes from the taxpayer. When people bid for franchises, they no doubt factor in the costs that arise from employing the British Transport Police. Therefore the taxpayer pays for it either with a lower premium or a higher subsidy than there would be otherwise.
  The case for funding the British Transport Police out of general taxation is quite strong and really needs serious consideration. The present collection costs are somewhat arbitrary. Some operators complain that they pay far too much, while others probably pay too little. There is a fairly strong case for regarding at least a large part of the money as exigible under general taxation. I am not sure that it would mean that a lot of money would actually change sides, because the subsidies to the railway would be lower, and therefore the taxpayer would benefit on one hand although he may have disbenefits on the other.
  So far as the Health and Safety Executive is concerned, I am very worried about any public body being allowed to levy the people whom it serves. Every public body has a duty to make a budget and stick to it. It should not post facto be able to levy its emerging costs from anyone. People should know exactly what they are being called on to pay before they pay it.
  I have personal experience of that because I am—the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, alluded to it—chairman of GTE for Oxfordshire. It is not a pecuniary interest; I am really just the victim. However, we got into an enormous quarrel with the Health and Safety Executive, because it gave us what it called some advice, but that advice was not worth having. I could have written better advice myself. It sent bills for about £430, which kept coming through my door like confetti and got nastier and nastier. Eventually, I was summoned to appear before a meeting. The meeting, and the lunch that the HSE provided, must have cost all of £430. The adjudicator, whom I knew very well, found in my favour, so we did not pay the bill.
  That is the sort of nonsense that goes on, and it does not benefit anyone. Whatever the Minister replies to the debate, we would like an assurance that the Health and Safety Executive will be required to produce a budget, and that it will stop the practice of charging for trainees, who are carted round, do not add anything and cost people a lot of money. The employment of such people is not voluntary; they must be used. Giving them a blank cheque is not on.
  7.15 p.m.
  Viscount Astor: I shall deal first with the Health and Safety Executive. Can the Minister say what other industries are in a similar position to the railways? What will be the basis of future charging? How will it be determined? The Health and Safety Executive deals with many industries. On what other bases does it charge or the Government intend it to charge? Before making up our minds we need to put matters into context.
  I am sympathetic to the amendments with regard to the British Transport Police, which is there to support the public in the same way as any other police force. Ultimately, national police forces are funded by central government, so we all pay and we all benefit. In effect, passengers pay through the charges.
  Before one can take a considered view, it would be helpful to know whether the Government expect costs to rise when the new British Transport Police authority is established and whether there will be any change in the basis of charging the industry. If we can set the issue in context, the Committee may be able to form a clearer view.
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My noble friend Lord Berkeley has raised two quite separate debates. I agree with him absolutely that some means should be found of exempting the heritage railways from the charging provisions. My understanding is that British Transport Police officers do not patrol the lines and look after tourists. Indeed, I gather that the nearest a British Transport Police officer gets to a heritage railway is an occasional visit to the Wensleydale line, which is not fully open yet anyway. I hope that a means will be found to exempt the heritage railways from a charging regime.
  On the wider question of who pays for the BTP generally, I have a great deal of sympathy for the argument that the money should come out of general taxation. I am reminded that council tax payers find a precept on their council tax bills stating that a proportion of the money collected will go to their local force, whether it is the Metropolitan force, the Thames Valley force or whichever. In that way there is a link between the citizen and the police, and people are conscious that they are making a direct contribution to policing costs.
  The principle that the railways pay for the transport police, which has applied since 1845, cannot be thrown away lightly. However, in extending the role of the transport police, both through the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and the widening of the jurisdiction we have heard about today, we are asking the transport police to take on a number of duties away from railway premises in the furtherance of wider law and order issues. It strikes me that if the transport police are asked by a civil force to assist with a riot situation, as they were in Bradford some while ago—which was clearly away from railway premises—it would be a little hard on the railway companies in Yorkshire if they had to pay for the cost of that policing operation.

  GC51
  The reality, of course, is that the money goes into a large pot and no one knows how the sums are divided up. An acceptable way forward might be for there to be an element of general taxation funding the wider policing activities of the transport police together with a continuation of the railways contribution. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say about this.
  Lord Bradshaw: The precept amount to a local police authority is about 20 per cent of the cost. The remainder is met through government grant.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, cannot be allowed to get away with the fact that no one knows what happens when the police operate mutual aid. They jolly well do know who pays which costs when police forces work together. The bills eventually go out and they catch up with the local authorities. I am also sure that the Home Office knows, because it pays a large part of police costs.
  I raised the question of heritage railways at Second Reading. The case for exempting them from the charges of the British Transport Police should not need arguing. They are not an "operation" in the commercial sense. They are a specific tourist attraction, if anything, run by enthusiasts. Anything that adds to their financial burden makes their life more difficult.
  The issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about the British Transport Police is significant. Whatever the historical arguments, the British Transport Police is part of the general police service. It may be specialised, but it is part of general policing. If that is so, and if this is the opportunity to consider whether its funding arrangements are appropriate, we should do so.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I understand that heritage railways are experiencing considerable rises in insurance premiums because they are classed as a hazardous operation. That makes them even less able to pay.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There are general points on funding and some specific points to which I must reply. The first relates to the funding of the British Transport Police. The BTP has been funded by the rail industry since its creation in the 19th century. There is no equivalent on policing the roads. The roads are policed by the general police force, which is rightly—and no one has questioned it—funded by general taxation.
  However, we must look at the amounts of money involved. I do not know the budgets for police forces around the country, but the British Transport Police budget for 2003–04 is £136 million, which is less than 2 per cent of the rail industry's turnover. That excludes the turnover of London Transport. Therefore, it is considerably less than 2 per cent. As regards who pays, London Underground and Network Rail pay 25 per cent each and the remaining 50 per cent is met by the passenger train operating companies.
  GC52
  The freight operators will pay about £1 million in 2003–04, which is less than 1 per cent of the total budget of the British Transport Police and far less than 0.1 per cent of the freight companies' turnover.
  As to the funding of the Health and Safety Executive, that is a more recent funding provision. It is a decision the Government took deliberately in 1999 because they took the view that it was right for those whose activities cause safety risks to bear part of the cost of regulation. It is in line with the "polluter pays" principle, which I hope is generally accepted as proper in environmental matters. It should be here, too. On that basis, I see no reason for a change in the principle of the funding of the HSE.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: On the basis of "polluter pays", in both arguments the polluters are the general public. That is certainly so in the case of the British Transport Police. I am not trying to be facetious, but I do not see that the argument that this is the application of "polluter pays" works. It is not the fault of the rail company if it is subject to vandalism, trespass and so forth. I do not understand the analogy.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was talking about the Health and Safety Executive and its health and safety responsibilities. That has nothing to do with vandalism, as far as I can see. This is a safety risk inherent in rail operation. On the principle I have enunciated, which is comparable though not identical to the "polluter pays" principle, it is right that those whose activities cause safety risks should contribute to the cost of their regulation. That is the general principle behind, first, the British Transport Police and, secondly, the Health and Safety Executive.
  I turn to the specific points raised. The first was on heritage railways. We do not require them and tramways to enter into a public service agreement to fund the British Transport Police where they operate away from the national rail network. I cannot promise that that will always be the position, but we currently have no intention of changing it. We have no intention of requiring heritage or tramway operators who do not operate on the national rail network to take part in the funding of the British Transport Police.
  The next specific point is about the nature of the levy, particularly for the Health and Safety Executive. The HSE has a most extraordinary charging system on an hourly basis; in other words, it charges for approving a safety case on an hourly basis. I do not know whether it includes training, but the whole point is that we are getting rid of that system. We are having a much simpler levy system, which I cannot specify in detail. It will not be specified in detail on the face of the Bill, but it will be specified in regulation after proper consultation. I can say that it will be simpler, more rational and more economical both to the HSE and ultimately the rail industry.

  GC53
  I can give the kind of figures we are talking about. The income from charging in 2001–02 was £5.25 million. That is not a large amount of money. It is the intention that the proportion of the total costs of the HSE which can be ascribed to railways and which will he charged to the railway industry will be the same in future as it is now; that is, 55 per cent. There is no intention of raising extra money from the railway industry for the work of the HSE.
  The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked about the HSE budget and gave the analogy of the police authority budget. Yes, the HSE produces and will continue to produce a budget, but with a levy system it will he simpler for the rail industry to see what it is getting for its money.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked what other industries had a levy charged in the same way by the HSE. I know that there are some, but I do not have them to hand. I will have to write to him about that and I apologise for not having the information before me.
  We are making minor and entirely positive changes to the regime. We are carrying on the regime for British Transport Police. We are simplifying and improving the regime for the HSE and we do not believe that these amendments are desirable.
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will write to me. Perhaps in the letter he could explain the basis of charging for Network Rail as opposed to the train operating companies. How is it broken down and on what basis is it made?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can certainly do that. There are analogies with other industries at which I shall just hint now. The HSE makes charges for regulatory work in potentially high hazard areas of industry such as the nuclear and off-shore oil industries or any on-shore major hazard industries. It is generally accepted that that is a proper way to behave. Safety risks are created by rail operation and they should be paid for.
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord Bradshaw: I rise to express disappointment with what the noble Lord has said. I shall look closely at the Health and Safety Executive because it is an area which in my opinion, having visited the place, has considerable scope for economy. I shall look at its budget closely and see whether suitable economy is being exercised. No doubt we will raise the matter at another time if there is not. It is a huge burden on the industry and one of the reasons why costs are so high.
  Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. I shall read with interest his response to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and to know the other industries which do or do not charge. I am always interested in why the Health and Safety Executive call the railways "high hazard industry". On the roads—we shall discuss the HSE role in a future amendment—there have been at least eight fatalities in the past year on motorways and workmen have been killed. That is very serious. If the railways are a high hazard industry, I suggest that the roads probably were. As I said, I do not see much sign of the polluter paying for the work that the HSE or equivalent agencies undertake on the roads.
  I shall study with great interest my noble friend's reply and his letter to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 71 and 72 agreed to.
  Schedule 5 agreed to.
  Clauses 73 to 76 agreed to.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Thursday 5th June at 3.45 p.m.
  The Committee adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before eight o'clock.

  United Nations Relief and Works Agency
  United Nations Relief and Works Agency
  Occupied Territories: Shootings of Britons
  Occupied Territories: Shootings of Britons
  Iraq: Prisoners of War
  Iraq: Prisoners of War
  Iraq: Looting
  Iraq: Looting
  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Home Office Departmental Report 2003
  Home Office Departmental Report 2003
  "Adopter": Definition
  "Adopter": Definition
  Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) (No. 2) Order 2002
  Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) (No. 2) Order 2002
  Patent Office: Electronic Communications
  Patent Office: Electronic Communications
  Thiomersal
  Thiomersal
  Electricity Meters
  Electricity Meters
  Members' and Peers' Correspondence
  Members' and Peers' Correspondence
  Access Radio
  Access Radio
  Incapacity Benefit
  Incapacity Benefit
  Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee
  Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee
  General Practitioners: Child Protection
  General Practitioners: Child Protection
  Primary Care Trusts: Commissioning Consortiums
  Primary Care Trusts: Commissioning Consortiums
  Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration
  Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration