Sitting of 3 November 2003

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

    Military Co-operation (European Forces)
    Angela Watkinson: What recent training the armed forces have received to prepare them for co-operation with European armed forces outside the NATO system. [135543]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Our armed forces conduct a wide range of training with our European partners. Such training assists in preparing forces for multinational operations, whether they are led by NATO, the European Union or the United Nations, or undertaken as part of an ad hoc coalition.
    Angela Watkinson: Has the Secretary of State consulted the Bosnian Government as to whether they would prefer NATO or the European Union to continue in charge of peacekeeping operations after next spring? The Bosnian Government may not have spoken publicly because of their financial dependence on the EU, but would it not be infinitely preferable for NATO to be the umbrella organisation in charge of peacekeeping, even if the United States is not involved?
    Mr. Hoon: May I make it clear to the House that no decision has yet been taken to end NATO's operation in Bosnia? There are discussions about the possibility of follow-on operations. As the hon. Lady implies, the EU could lead such follow-on operations, although, again, no decision has been taken. We will certainly consult the Bosnian Government before any such decisions are taken.
    Mr. Frank Roy: One area of European co-operation is the international security assistance force in Afghanistan. Last week, members of Select Committee on Defence, including me, were privileged to visit Kabul and, in particular, see the work being carried out by the civil and military co-operation teams. Those teams are rebuilding hospitals, roads and
    516
    schools, but they are unfortunately still vastly underfunded. Will the Secretary of State examine ways of funding that vital service in Afghanistan?
    Mr. Hoon: I thank my hon. Friend. I know that he and his colleagues had an interesting visit to Afghanistan, and I will certainly take full account of their views about it. We want to ensure that all such activities in Afghanistan are properly and adequately funded.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I am interested that the Secretary of State says that no decision has been taken about Bosnian peacekeeping, given that it was announced at the Copenhagen summit, which I believe the Prime Minister attended last December. that the EU would be taking over peacekeeping in Bosnia last spring.
    I want to ask the Secretary of State about exercises and training. How can he pretend that exercises will not continue to be cancelled when the average gap between operational tours for the infantry is not 24 months, as promised in the strategic defence review in 1998, but just nine months? Does he realise that the Royal Scots went off to Northern Ireland after only six months and that 2 Para, which is off to Basra, will be spending its third Christmas in a row on operations? The King's Own Scottish Borderers, which is coming back from Iraq, is going straight off to Northern Ireland with hardly any training and no post-operational leave whatsoever. Is it not clear that the armed forces are more overstretched than ever, that Labour does not care about them or their families and that the Ministry of Defence is dead in the water under a lame duck Secretary of State?
    Mr. Hoon: If I may take the hon. Gentleman back to the question, he may have seen that it relates to training and co-operation with European armed forces. If his concern about the armed forces were sincere, he would recognise that the more training we do with other European forces, the more effective, and therefore less stretched, our armed forces become. I have never heard him congratulate the Ministry of Defence or the armed forces on the excellence of their co-operation with other European nations.
    Mr. Kevan Jones: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy), I had the privilege of visiting Afghanistan last week. Will my right hon. Friend commend the work carried out by the European partners in Afghanistan, and in particular the work done by British armed forces in Afghanistan under the able command of Colonel Richard Kemp? Will he confirm that that is a good example of co-operation between the European allies, which is desperately needed in bringing peace and security to that country?
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is quite right. That is a practical illustration of the benefits of common training and co-operation with other European nations. He is right to commend that; I only regret that we never hear such words from the Conservative Front Bench.

    Ministry of Defence Police
    Mr. Robert Key: For what reason Ministry of Defence Police area policing teams are being disbanded. [135544]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): Following recommendations made during the quinquennial review process and as a result of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary's inspection in April 2002, two internal reports were produced. The Ministry of Defence Police Agency management board concluded that the existing area policing team structure should be withdrawn and that divisional support groups should be created.
    Mr. Key: The arrangements described by the Under-Secretary have been introduced by only one working group in consultation with the Ministry of Defence police. There was no consultation with the Home Office constabulary. The interface between the Ministry of Defence police and the Home Office county constabularies is crucial given the new stress on homeland security. There will again be job losses for the Ministry of Defence police just when we need it more. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why, apart from cutting the Army's budget, the Labour Government are doing that?
    Mr. Caplin: The formation of the divisional support groups will enable the force to implement the Home Office national intelligence model—I thought the hon. Gentleman would welcome that—which will mean a more focused defence intelligence-led approach to crime against the defence estate. It is absolutely nothing to do with cuts because no budgetary issues arise at the moment.
    Andrew Mackinlay: Does the Minister's brief explain to him what the difference is between the divisional support group and the existing arrangements, because it is not too clear to me or, more important, to officers in the Ministry of Defence police and their federation? Is there not a case for the Minister to have a word with the board, those very important people, to tell them to communicate with their officers and perhaps with Members of Parliament and Ministers to explain what the qualitative difference is? Discuss.
    Mr. Caplin: I can assure my hon. Friend, who takes the matter very seriously, that the chief constable and his board are in discussion with the Defence Police Federation, and I spoke recently at its conference in Manchester. I will certainly take note of his comments.
    Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I wonder whether he could explain why under the divisional support groups the Ministry of Defence police will no longer be capable of looking after and supervising married quarters establishments? At a time when the threat to married quarters and indeed the whole defence establishment is rising, surely it is time for some fresh thinking from the
    518
    Government about how our defence establishment should be properly protected, especially when homeland security is in such a parlous state?
    Mr. Caplin: I should have thought that the decision taken by the Ministry of Defence Police Agency management board was innovative and an example of fresh thinking. The security of service families' accommodation will be a matter for local commanders to resolve.
    Hugh Bayley: Given the important role that civilian police forces increasingly play in providing support for the policing of military bases, does it not make sense for the MOD police and their civilian counterparts to work more closely together and to use whichever force, civilian or military, is best placed to provide the particular policing service that is required?
    Mr. Caplin: My hon. Friend is right, of course, because, unlike the Conservative party, he understands the flexibility that is needed to manage the urgent requirements in the defence estate. I am disappointed at the way in which Opposition Front Benchers have debated this matter.

    UK Armed Forces (Independent Operations)
    Norman Baker: What his policy is on the extent to which UK armed forces should be able to operate independently of the United States. [135545]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Our policy is to continue to develop balanced, flexible forces able to undertake a wide range of military tasks, normally alongside the forces of other NATO and EU countries, in support of the United Kingdom's security objectives, but, as I have repeatedly said, it is highly unlikely that the UK would be engaged in large-scale combat operations without the United States.
    Norman Baker: I agree with that answer, but is not the reality that the relationship between the two countries is one of subservience rather than closeness? It is inconceivable, for example, that Britain could use its so-called independent nuclear deterrent without US approval and technical co-operation. Is not the reality that those who are concerned about the potential loss of sovereignty over foreign affairs and defence to the EU under the EU constitution should be far more worried about the loss of such sovereignty to the United States?
    Mr. Hoon: I simply do not accept that. Obviously, the views of the United Kingdom and of the United States closely coincide on a great number of important defence and security issues. Therefore, it is vital that we can operate alongside the United States, our key defence ally in NATO, and, indeed, bilaterally. The United Kingdom offers expertise, defence capability and advice, which is valued by the United States, as is currently being demonstrated in Iraq.
    Llew Smith: On the question of military co-operation with the United States, did the Secretary of State read the article in the Independent on Sunday, which showed that a British company, BNFL,

    519
    which is owned by taxpayers, is seeking contracts to develop America's next generation of nuclear weapons of mass destruction? If that is the case, does he agree that, in doing so, we would be in breach of article I and article VI of the non-proliferation treaty, to which we and the United States are signatories?
    Mr. Hoon: Obviously the nature of the work entered into by BNFL depends entirely on its judgment as to business opportunities, but I agree with my hon. Friend to this extent—it is important that the BNFL board ensures that all its business activities comply with the United Kingdom's nuclear non-proliferation obligations.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Ignoring the anti-American sentiment of the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), does the Secretary of State agree that the coherence that the NATO structure has brought to the command and control systems that have so benefited the defence of this country for many years is in danger of being undermined by a lack of coherence on the part of some of our European partners? Does he agree that the call from Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany and France for a separate defence structure is hugely unwelcome and likely to be very damaging to the coherence of NATO?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is correct, and that is why the Government have made clear our unwillingness to accept the Tervuren proposals, as they are known, and why we have emphasised repeatedly the importance of the primacy of NATO command and control in delivering precisely the benefits to European coherence that were set out by the hon. Gentleman.
    Ms Gisela Stuart: What assessment does the Secretary of State make of the contribution that the proposed armaments capability agency would make to building capacity in Europe, because the question is not whether we work independently of the United States or not, but what capacity Europe and the UK have to be able to do so?
    Mr. Hoon: I have repeatedly made clear the importance to the United Kingdom of ensuring that European allies can contribute effectively, specifically to NATO operations, but also to other European operations where NATO is not engaged. That means developing European military capabilities. The agency is designed to achieve that, to identify existing gaps in capability and to recommend ways in which those gaps might best be filled. That is why the United Kingdom has been such a strong supporter of the agency.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: Whether our armed forces can or cannot operate independently of the United States obviously will depend on our resources. How will the Secretary of State fund the necessary investment required to enable us to operate alongside, let alone independently of, the United States? He talks about the massive amount of investment needed for new technology. but we are now told that the two new carriers will be smaller than anticipated and that there will be a reduction in the numbers of the joint strike fighter aircraft. New Labour, like old Labour, is
    520
    basically about defence cuts. Even the Department's own accounts—for the second year running—only receive a qualified certificate from Sir John Bourn, the Comptroller and Auditor General. If they were the accounts of the Secretary of State's political association, it would have called in the receiver by now.
    Mr. Hoon: I have made clear to the House repeatedly—I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman seems to have overlooked it—that recent announcements about the amounts available for defence demonstrate that we have the largest planned increase in spending in more than 20 years. The huffing and puffing that he brings to the Dispatch Box might be taken a little more seriously if he and his Front-Bench colleagues were able categorically to state that they would match those spending plans. We have not heard them make any specific contribution to that effect. This is an opportunity for them to say that they will match those spending plans pound for pound.

    SaBRE Project
    Huw Irranca-Davies: If he will make a statement on the work of the SaBRE—supporting Britain's reservists and employers—project in Wales to secure the release of employees for service in the reserve forces. [135546]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): The supporting Britain's reservists and employers campaign has been vigorously pursued in Wales. Approximately 500 employers have been contacted and presentations have also been made to the Welsh Assembly, the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and the Chartered Management Institute. During this first year, the SaBRE campaign team has been able to answer employers' questions and concerns and has established a help line to offer advice to employers, who can also make contact via the internet, on www.sabre.mod.uk.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for his response and for the specific interest that he has shown in the work of SaBRE in Wales. I need not remind him that south Wales has been fertile ground for recruitment to the regular armed forces and the recruitment of reservists; as such, there is a particular draw upon the reserves and resources of families and employers. Will he join me in congratulating the excellent work of employers throughout south Wales? I look forward to welcoming my hon. Friend to Ogmore and Bridgend to see examples of that work.
    Mr. Caplin: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his relationship with employers in his constituency both large and small, particularly Sony and Ford, which have made a considerable contribution to our reservist force. I am indeed looking forward to going to Wales later this month.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: I congratulate the SaBRE project in Wales, but does the Minister accept that one of its advantages is that a fully formed unit—the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers—has been sent from Wales, because when soldiers are with a

    521
    formed unit, with their own officers and senior NCOs, not only are the soldiers happier, but the community is better able to support them? Another example of that is the formed platoon of the 3rd Battalion. Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment in my own constituency. Does the Minister accept that the lessons of such examples are that we do not have enough territorials, and that if the Government want to go on using more and more of them, they will have to expand the Territorial Army again?
    Mr. Caplin: Two things occur to me about the hon. Gentleman's question. He is right to say that the preferred option would always be to send a full brigade—but the reservists and the Territorial Army make a significant impact on the specialities that our armed forces require, and that will be the case for some time to come.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Reservists depend on a measure of Government expenditure, so will the hon. Gentleman invite his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to correct the record? The one spending programme that we have pledged to match is defence spending, and he should put that right before he says anything else to the House. Secondly, Army overstretch means that many employers are fed up with the frequency with which their Territorial Army employers are called up; some are even making membership of the TA or the reservists a bar to employment. The full-time reserve service therefore plays a vital role. Why, then, have the Government frozen recruitment of full-time reservists at just over 1,000, when the Regular Army trained strength is short of more than 3,800 people, and thousands more are unfit for deployment? Is that not another example of emergency in-year cuts as the Minister's Department is gripped by a financial crisis, with defence commitments outstripping resources, and Labour failing the armed forces?
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: He'll be a reserve next week.
    Mr. Caplin: As always, my hon. Friend has beaten me to it.
    I very much enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) today, and I hope that he will be able to make a similar contribution from the Dispatch Box in a month's time. But how can he say what he has just said? He has told the House that he wants to support fully the defence programme that this Labour Government have set out, but he said nothing about any of the other programmes, and he said nothing about that in his speech to the Tory party conference. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it out."] I have to watch these things, you know—[Interruption.] I watched the hon. Gentleman's speech with interest. On the other point that he raised, it is short-sighted if employers do not want to employ reservists. I find that idea astonishing, and I have spoken to a number of employers in the past week, and will be seeing a number of others in the coming weeks.

    European Security and Defence Policy
    Mr. Andrew Rosindell: When he last met the US Defence Secretary to discuss the European security and defence policy. [135548]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I last met the US Defence Secretary at the NATO ministerial meeting on 7 October, when we discussed a number of defence issues including European security and defence policy.
    Mr. Rosindell: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the vital role that the United States has played in the defence not only of the United Kingdom but of the whole of western Europe? Does he not agree that in the long term, the efforts, finance and energies that we put into the European defence and security policy can only detract from the support that we have received from the United States, particularly the NATO alliance?
    Mr. Hoon: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first proposition but not with his second. There is no reason why support for NATO and support for the European defence policy need be mutually inconsistent. Indeed, as the United States has recognised in its approval of the Berlin plus arrangements, the two are complementary: by improving European defence capabilities, we are also improving the ability of European nations to contribute to NATO—something that the United States would like to see.
    Mr. John Smith: My right hon. Friend is of course right x2014;the US Defence Secretary supports a European security and defence policy, as does every other NATO country. In fact, the only mainstream political party within those countries that sees the ESDP as a threat to NATO is the crazy lot on the Opposition Benches. Our defence is not safe in their hands, until they give up this obsession with bashing Europe.
    Mr. Hoon: I am reluctant to disagree with my hon. Friend, but I am sure that there must be an obscure political party somewhere in western Europe which, having lost two general elections and had a succession of leaders, takes the same view as the British Conservatives.
    Mr. Michael Jack: On the matters that the right hon. Gentleman discussed with the American Defence Secretary, can he enlighten the House as to the progress made on the release to the United Kingdom of the full technology underpinning the joint strike fighter, and did they discuss the outcome of the Rand Europe report, which illustrated the feasibility of building that aircraft in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Hoon: We certainly discussed the joint strike fighter and the importance of a full mutual exchange of information on its development. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that those discussions continue.
    Mr. David Drew: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, when he meets the US Defence Secretary, he will take up with him the continuing use of British bases, so that we are absolutely clear about the Americans' future plans for those bases? In particular, we must ensure that both countries work together, rather than their not being entirely of one voice, as seemed to happen during the last conflict.
    Mr. Hoon: The subject of US bases in western Europe was discussed at the NATO ministerials.

    Surface Fleet
    Mr. David Heath: If he will make a statement on the future of the surface fleet. [135549]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Royal Navy surface fleet of the future will continue to make an effective contribution towards the United Kingdom's defence mission. We continue to modernise our armed forces in response to the changing strategic environment. The Royal Navy is receiving significant investment to enhance capabilities.
    Mr. Heath: Part of that significant investment is the two carriers that form a key part not only of the fleet's future, but of the Government's expeditionary strategy, yet we are told that they are under threat. Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to make it absolutely clear that budgetary insufficiencies will not reduce the role, effectiveness or specifications of either, or both, of the new carriers?
    Mr. Ingram: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets the idea that the carriers are under threat. We have begun the third stage of the assessment phase, which is excellent news for the Royal Navy and for the USK shipbuilding industry. The programme remains on course, and the maturity of design and the capability that the carriers will deliver form part of the overall evaluation. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman awaits the next phase, reads what we have said about the current one and sees how matters develop. In terms of the naval programme, a little mature thinking on his part and that of his party would not go amiss.
    David Cairns: I welcome that answer from my right hon. Friend. The news that this very important contract is going ahead will go a long way towards allaying some of the fears of my constituents who work in shipbuilding on the Clyde. Does he agree that through this contract and the Type 45 orders, this Government have not only established the best possible defence for the country, but given British shipbuilding, which has suffered for many years, the best possible news?
    Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. In the next decade or so, the Royal Navy will take delivery of two new aircraft carriers and associated aircraft, several new assault ships, a new class of fleet submarines within the Astute class, highly deployable Type 45 destroyers, new survey ships and much
    524
    improved support shipping and strategic lift capability. That is good news for the Royal Navy and the other armed forces, and for our shipbuilding industry.
    Peter Bottomley: Does the Minister agree that the fact that we go on renewing and replacing our surface fleet should not be news? Can he give us an indication of the costs of the carrier programme, and can he say whether the Anglo-French carriers were built to take French planes as well as British planes when in operation?
    Mr. Ingram: I pointed out in my earlier answer that the design relative to the capability that is required in the programme evolves, and I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be only too well aware of that. As to the relationship with the French, if we can deliver a design in which France is also interested, we can join with them to ensure that their capabilities improve to the same extent—and strength—as ours.
    Rachel Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have delivered the largest warship-building programme for more than 30 years? Does he also agree that the Rosyth dockyard has delivered, to high standards on cost and on time, the refit and repair of our current surface fleet, and that maintaining such skills is a vital asset to this country? Will he do his utmost to ensure, particularly with respect to the future aircraft carrier, that there is no delay to the commencement of the work that is vital to Rosyth's future?
    Mr. Ingram: I agree with my hon. Friend about the role of Rosyth, which has provided tremendous service to this country's armed forces, particularly the Royal Navy, over many years. I am sure that that will continue in the years ahead. I understand the concerns about the need to remain on programme in respect of the development of the carriers. All the partners involved in the design, structure and build programme will be all too well aware of the way in which the process works. I cannot give the absolute guarantee that my hon. Friend requests, but I pay tribute to the Rosyth dockyard for all the work that it has done in the past.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Is it not a fact that the size of the new aircraft carriers is going to be reduced by between a third and a half; that the number of Type 45 destroyers is going to be reduced on the planned programme; that the number of Astute submarines will be reduced; and that in future the number of Royal Fleet Auxiliary replacement vessels that are supposed to support the carriers will also be reduced? Is it not a fact that the Secretary of State told the Royal United Services Institute in June that the number of units and platforms that the armed forces had was no longer significant? That sort of spin might he acceptable in political campaigning, but it is surely unacceptable in military campaigning where our servicemen's lives are on the line.
    Mr. Ingram: Nice rhetoric, but rather removed from the truth. What my right hon. Friend said in his speech earlier this year was absolutely accurate. It is all about capability and effect. That is where we seek to deliver,

    525
    and we define those concepts on the basis of the best military advice. Ministers do not deliver it in the way implied by the hon. Gentleman: we have to examine the size of the programme, look where the capability lies and then match the two. No Government operate any differently from that—and previous Conservative Governments, of course, operated in exactly the same way. We have to define capability in the light of the new emerging threats. We debated all that only a few days ago, and the sort of questions that the hon. Gentleman has just asked were all dealt with then.

    Iraq
    Mr. David Stewart: If he will make a statement on his assessment of the current security situation in Basra. [135550]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Before answering my hon. Friend's question, I would like to express my sadness at the incident involving a United States helicopter yesterday and to send my condolences to the families of those who lost their lives.
    I visited Basra on 20 and 21 October. The security situation in the city remains broadly stable. We want to see the Iraqis taking increasing responsibility for their own security. We are making good progress in developing an indigenous Iraqi police force and there are currently 10,500 regular Iraqi police working in our area of operations, patrolling their country alongside coalition forces. More are currently in training.
    Finally, may I take this opportunity to congratulate the members of the United Kingdom's armed forces and civil servants who received awards in the lists published last Friday?
    Mr. Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising the bravery and determination of the ordinary men and women of our armed forces in Basra, who are serving in difficult circumstances which I witnessed first hand a few weeks ago? Will he assess security at Basra airport, especially the threat posed by surface-to-air missiles? When will full commercial operations start at the airport?
    Mr. Hoon: I thank my hon. Friend for the time he spent with our armed forces in Basra; it is much appreciated when Members of Parliament make such visits, and I know that his visit was particularly appreciated.
    Military and civilian contractors continue to use Basra airport. Historically, it has never been used for large-scale passenger traffic and several practical issues, including security, would need to be addressed before it would be appropriate to open the airport for commercial use. Obviously, that is being considered.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: I join the Secretary of State in sending condolences to the families of the coalition troops killed in the recent attack on the Chinook helicopter. I also join him in congratulating the members of the British armed forces and the civilians honoured last week.
    526
    To his credit, the Secretary of State has never claimed that rebuilding Iraq—winning the peace—would be easy. I am reassured to hear what he says about the stability of the situation in Basra, but can he tell us how many British troops have been injured in Basra since 1 May? He accepts that Iraqi civilians have also been killed in the attacks, so can he give an assessment of how many have died? If Iraqi civilians continue to die, it will not assist our role in securing the peace.
    Mr. Hoon: I anticipate that I can give the hon. Gentleman a list of all those who have been seriously injured if that has resulted in hospitalisation or a return to the United Kingdom, but he will recognise that many relatively minor injuries are treated on the spot and are not recorded in a way that would allow the information to be provided to him. If I may, I will write to him with the details.
    Harry Cohen: The other day, when asked by a Senator how many troops were expected to be in Iraq this time next year, the US military representative—incredibly—did a tap dance instead of answering, so let me ask the Secretary of State: how many UK troops will be in Iraq this time next year, and may we have an answer and not a soft-shoe shuffle?
    Mr. Hoon: I am always grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he puts his questions and the opportunities that he affords me, but I shall certainly resist his last suggestion. To be realistic, it is difficult to speculate about precisely how many troops will be required this time next year. The security situation in parts of Iraq, especially around Baghdad, is very difficult at present. The situation elsewhere—in the south, and in the north where American forces are responsible—is encouraging and better than the pictures from in and around Baghdad might suggest. Force numbers depend on the level of security. We are working hard to improve security, to rebuild Iraq's economy and to return government of the country to the Iraqi people. We want to do that as quickly as possible, but it has to be consistent with security arrangements.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the Secretary of State agree with the analysis that it was a serious mistake to disband the Iraqi army, because it will have to be built from scratch to assist with security around Basra and elsewhere in Iraq?
    Mr. Hoon: No, I do not think that it was a serious mistake, because it would have been impossible to determine which elements of the Iraqi army were loyal to Iraq as opposed to loyal to Saddam Hussein. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the Iraqi army was modelled on the Stalinist arrangement, whereby people who were absolutely loyal to Saddam Hussein were implanted in the upper reaches of the army, as we found in the course of military operations in Iraq. It was not a mistake to disband the army, but the hon. Gentleman is right to the extent that it is important that we rebuild that capability as quickly as possible to provide real stability and security for Iraq. That is why the training of the Iraqi army is proceeding with such dispatch.
    Mr. Mark Todd: In June, six military policemen from this country were killed in Majar-al-Kabir while training Iraqi cadets. It would be a great relief to their families, including the family of Russell Aston from Newhall in my constituency, if we had clear answers about the operational circumstances that led those military policemen to be there and the communications that occurred between British forces in the lead-up to their murder. Would it not also be greatly to the relief of those currently serving in Iraq if we could learn lessons from anything that happened on that day that would improve our operational effectiveness?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has raised this issue with me before. I recognise the concern felt by the families of those who lost their lives. I met members of most of those families during the repatriation to the United Kingdom of their loved ones' bodies, and I entirely understand their concerns.
    I assure my hon. Friend and the House that determined efforts are being made to learn lessons from the incident to which he referred. Those lessons are being passed on to serving members of the armed forces in Iraq.

    Recruitment
    Bob Russell: What proposals he has to improve recruitment to those regiments that are not at full strength. [135551]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): Efforts to target those regiments that are below full strength are already being made. Specific recruiting measures include financial support, use of all possible media avenues including the internet, and the continuing development of relationships with colleges and further education establishments. I expect the Army recruitment target to be achieved this year.
    Bob Russell: I thank the Minister. Will he confirm that the Army is still under strength by about 3,000 soldiers, and that the situation would be even worse if 1,560 soldiers from Fiji had not been recruited? Does he agree that those parts of the United Kingdom with geographic regiments that are fully up to strength should be encouraged to recruit more? In particular, I urge him to reinstate 3rd Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment as a means of helping to make up the shortfall in the Army.
    Mr. Caplin: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I certainly welcome the recruitment of Fijians to the British Army; they have made a significant contribution for many years, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman wants to desecrate that. [Interruption.] It is expected that Army recruitment targets will be achieved this year, and that they will be achieved the following year too.
    Mr. James Gray: The Minister's remarks about desecrating the Fijians will go on the record as being particularly unfortunate. The Army is actually 4,000 men under strength. Will the Minister refute press reports that he intends to put that right by cutting manning strength in the forthcoming White
    528
    Paper? Will he say what he intends to do about the Territorial Army? The strategic defence review said that we need 44,000 personnel, whereas the current strength is 38,000. Anecdotally, the figure seems to be going down rather than up.
    Mr. Caplin: I apologise to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). I should have said "denigrate".
    We are still recruiting people to the Territorial Army, and they are part of its overall strength. They play an important part, as I know the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) knows from his visits to his own regiment, and they will continue to do so.

    Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft
    Mr. Bill Tynan: Whether he expects the future strategic tanker aircraft to be (a) crewed and (b) serviced by sponsored reserves. [135552]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Ministry of Defence is currently assessing bids from two consortiums for the future strategic tanker aircraft project. As part of our evaluation of that potential private finance initiative contract, we are considering whether a proportion of the air and ground crew personnel could be sponsored reserves.
    Mr. Tynan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that comprehensive response. He must be aware that there is some concern about the future of the strategic tanker aircraft as a PFI project. Is he confident that such an aircraft could be used for air-to-air refuelling? Does he believe that such an aircraft would be secure in operation? Does he agree that sponsored reservists should not be used in the front line in any future conflict?
    Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend has taken a particular interest in this matter, but I should point out that the Ministry of Defence has already awarded a number of PFI contracts that contribute to the overall operational effectiveness of our armed forces. For example, the enhancement of a strategic sealift capability through the provision of the roll-on/roll-off ferry service proved a significant success during operations in the Gulf. The concept of sponsored reserves sitting alongside a PFI project has been tried and tested, and to good effect.
    Let me assure my hon. Friend and the House that we examine each PFI /PPP proposal entirely on its merits, and we will adopt a PFI solution for the future strategic tanker aircraft only if we are fully satisfied that it meets our operational requirements at best value for money. The two bids are currently being examined. We have not yet reached a conclusion, but all the factors that my hon. Friend raises have to be taken into consideration.

    Iraq
    Mr. David Amess: If he will make a statement on the work of his Department's civil servants in Iraq. [135555]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Ministry of Defence civil servants have been supporting United Kingdom forces in Iraq since the beginning of Operation Telic. They fulfil a number of roles ranging from providing policy advice to military commanders to finance and contracts work. Scientific staff are also attached to the Iraq survey group. All civilians deployed are volunteers.
    In addition, seven MOD civil servants are currently seconded to the coalition provisional authority. As I said earlier, I am delighted that a number of MOD civil servants had their contribution recognised in the Operation Telic honours list.
    Mr. Amess: Have British civil servants in the Iraq survey group discovered anything of significant note that could possibly justify the alleged reasons for British troops being involved in the invasion of Iraq and for many of our troops remaining there?
    Mr. Hoon: British civil servants work alongside their American counterparts, and those of other nations, so I cannot single out their contribution. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman studies carefully the interim report made available by the Iraq survey group, he will see a number of significant elements that point to programmes of Saddam Hussein's regime developing weapons of mass destruction.
    Mr. George Osborne: The death of American troops over the weekend has increased the domestic pressure on President Bush to reduce the civilian and military commitment by the United States to post-war Iraq. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is very important that the United States and Britain resist that pressure? What we started in Iraq, with my support, we should now finish.
    Mr. Hoon: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I see no evidence that either Administration is lessening its commitment to ensure that Iraq is rebuilt, restored and becomes a rightful member of the international community with a democratic Government who are capable of providing a proper standard of security for their people.

    Typhoon
    Miss Anne McIntosh: When he expects the Typhoon to enter service. [135556]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): As announced in my right hon. Friend's written statement on 30 June, Typhoon achieved type acceptance on that day. Following type acceptance, individual aircraft were due to be accepted off-contract, the first of which was expected in October. That process has been interrupted by a problem with the landing gear, and as a precaution all Typhoon flying has temporarily been suspended while the problem is investigated and resolved. Progress is being made with the investigation and we hope to be able to resume flying and the entry-to-service process shortly.
    Miss McIntosh: Can the Minister confirm to the House that he will be able to sign off tranche 2 of the Typhoon programme by the December deadline, or is he going to tell us that the Typhoon will not enter into service at the prescribed time or to the prescribed budget? How does the right hon. Gentleman respond to newspaper reports that he is being asked to make a 20 per cent. cut in the budget?
    Mr. Ingram: I thought that it was the Conservatives who were announcing 20 per cent. cuts across their programme. I also thought that their potential new leader—they may have changed again; I do not know whether they have kept this one—was indicating that he wishes to make massive cuts in programmes.
    The United Kingdom is party to international arrangements under which we are set to order a total of 232 Typhoons. Of those, 55 aircraft are already on order, and we are working towards an order for the second tranche of 89. The third and final order is not due to be placed before 2007, and we shall keep our requirements under continual review. We are working towards meeting those deadlines.
    Miss McIntosh: Owing to the nature of that entirely inadequate response, I wish to give notice that I intend to apply for an Adjournment debate on the subject.

    European Security and Defence Policy
    Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet): If he will make a statement on the European security and defence policy. [135557]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): On Monday 27 October, I set out the Government's detailed position on the European security and defence policy, when the House debated NATO and European defence policy.
    For the European Union to play its full part in international affairs, it must have the capacity to support its common foreign and security policy objectives with an effective European security and defence policy, including the ability to undertake operations where NATO as a whole is not engaged. That involves European nations developing effective and deployable military capabilities both to undertake the full range of the Petersberg tasks and as a contribution to strengthening NATO.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Precisely—that is what the Secretary of State said in the debate last week. As it is now almost five years since the St. Malo declaration, which spawned the European security and defence policy, will the Secretary of State say which European country has increased its defence expenditure; or is it more likely that none has?
    Mr. Hoon: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the United Kingdom has, and that is the responsibility that I have. I am grateful to him for indicating that the Government have been consistent on this issue, and it is right that I should take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on his consistency: he has been consistently opposed to any

    531
    kind of European defence co-operation. Indeed, if I understand the position correctly, the price of success for the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) is that the hon. Gentleman will soon be looking for new responsibilities.

    Iraq
    Mr. David Crausby: What assessment he has made of the impact of operations in Iraq on the requirement for future equipment. [135558]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Ministry of Defence is currently engaged in a comprehensive exercise to capture and analyse lessons from the operations in Iraq. That will include a full assessment of our equipment and any lessons that can be extracted for our future programmes. Some early indicators were identified in our "First Reflections" report, published in July, and I expect a final report on that process to be published by the end of this year.
    Mr. Crausby: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Given that British forces used a full spectrum of war-fighting equipment in Iraq from SA80 rifles to Challenger 2 tanks, will he ensure that the lessons learned report examines the relationship between different types of equipment and forces? In particular, will he assure the House that, as we invest more time and money in network-enabled capability, lessons will be learned to ensure that our existing excellent equipment remains fully integrated into the network?
    Mr. Ingram: Those are two interesting questions. I can give my hon. Friend the first assurance that he seeks on the lessons learned about the balance of forces, because Operation Telic showed the importance of ensuring that we have the right capabilities in strength and depth that enable us to work alongside our allies—the United States, those in Europe, or whoever we may find ourselves working alongside. So, yes, those lessons will be learned.
    On investing extra money, as we move forward into the future, it is important that any investment that we make ensures that existing capable equipment can be connected to future platforms and that there is overall interoperability between platforms; otherwise, there would be weaknesses in the delivery systems. We are seeking to achieve that objective, and all investment strategies will be driven towards it.
    Angus Robertson: Does the Minister agree that the military's ability to act and deliver in Iraq would have been severely impaired if the defence fire service had been privatised and been unable or unwilling to deliver under fire? Why has an announcement of the defence fire service privatisation been put back, and when will it take place?
    Mr. Ingram: I shall ponder the question again: where would an independent Scotland have been in relation to any conflict and what role would it have played in seeking to secure stability and world peace?
    Angus Robertson: Now answer the question.
    Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman asks a question about the defence fire service. An examination is currently taking place and a level playing field is in place. The public sector comparator is already showing its worth in all this, and we work closely with the trade unions as we make comparisons with the maturing bids from the consortiums that have expressed interest in a private finance initiative or public-private partnership solution. I do not have a firm date at this stage, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that delays have occurred because we are seeking to ensure best value for money for the defence budget, and I would have hoped that he agreed with that.

    Aircraft Carriers
    Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on the level of aircraft carrier provision. [135560]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The United Kingdom's aircraft carrier capability is currently provided by three CVS class vessels. As decided in the strategic defence review, and subsequently confirmed by the new chapter, our plan is that they will be replaced by two larger and more capable CVF class vessels with target in-service dates of 2012 and 2015. The carriers will be the biggest and most powerful warships ever constructed in the UK and the most capable carrier force outside the United States.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister of State, but I am afraid that that soothing bromide is no better for me than that which he offered a few moments ago to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). The Secretary of State for Defence told the House in January that the new aircraft carriers would
    "rank alongside the most formidable and complex weapons systems deployed by any country anywhere in the world."—[Official Report, 30 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 1026.]
    We were also led to believe that each would be of the order of 60,000 tonnes. How does the right hon. Gentleman therefore expect us to believe that the much smaller-scale versions that he now envisages will have anything like the same punch or versatility, because the naval architect responsible for the project says that they certainly will not do so?
    Mr. Ingram: I hesitate to comment to the hon. Gentleman that size seems to matter to him, and I hesitate to use the word "bromide" in relation to that. In my earlier explanation, I tried to point out that that is a maturing design and capability measurement—"maturing" means getting the best capability. What the Opposition have said is that they have taken a figure given in the strategic defence review, which was between 30,000 and 40,000 tonnes for the size of the ships, against the earlier announcement, and they are now saying that that will be the size of the ships. However, we

    533
    should wait and see what outcome the whole design process delivers. The truth is that the new ship will still be two and a half times the size of the current carrier—a formidable aircraft carrier capability, alongside that which will be delivered from its decks.

    Resource Accounting
    Mr. Dai Havard (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney): If he will make a statement on the impact on his Department and its agencies of adopting the resource accounting system. [135561]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): In the current financial year, 2003–04, the Ministry of Defence completed the change to full resource accounting and budgeting from the old budgeting system, after a transitional period from April 2001 to March 2003. Resource budgeting uses accruals-based principles to plan and control spending. The introduction of resource accounting and budgeting has been a major change programme in its own right. With its huge and diverse asset base worth some £86 billion, the Ministry of Defence has been particularly affected by the move to full resource accounting and budgeting. That has raised issues such as how quickly it might use resources released by reducing the asset base to fund other priorities. As I indicated to the House on 16 October at columns 280–81, factors such as that and
    534
    exchange rate fluctuations have led to a requirement to make some adjustments to ensure that the MOD continues to operate within its budget.
    Mr. Havard: I thank my right hon. Friend, a lawyer, for giving me the accountant's answer. I want to deal with the perhaps unintended consequences of introducing the policy in three particular areas. I would like to know whether revaluations of assets have led to or are likely to lead to reductions in acquisition spend; whether there has been an effect in relation to stock reductions, in terms of the ability to respond when there is a point of conflict; and whether the political consequences are properly understood by the bean counters of both the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury. It seems to me that if we are not careful we will end up understanding the price but not the real value of our industrial policy, our political intentions and the operational safety and capacity of our armed services. I would like some assurances on those matters.
    Mr. Hoon: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for taking such a serious interest in what is obviously a vital issue not only for the Ministry of Defence but right across government. I want to remonstrate with him for his suggestion that lawyers are somehow more interesting than accountants. Clearly, there would be a great debate about that. Although I know on which side of the argument I would fall, I recognise that there is a great deal to be said for accountants, particularly when they determine the MOD's considerable budget. Although my hon. Friend comments on the political implications of this, I am confident that we have taken them fully into account.

Decommissioning (American Ships)
3.30 pm
Mr. David Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the role of the Environment Agency in approving the decommissioning of American ships by Able UK, Hartlepool.
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): Hon. Members will be aware that Able UK, a company based on Teesside, won a contract for the dismantling of 13 redundant naval auxiliary vessels from the James river fleet. The contract was awarded by the US Maritime Administration—MARAD—the statutory body in the US responsible for the decommissioning of the James river fleet.
As the decommissioned vessels are classed as waste, their export from the US to the UK would be subject to controls on the trans-frontier movement of waste. In this case, as the waste is moving for recovery between two Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation countries, the movement is subject to the controls under an OECD decision, which is implemented in the European Union through the EC waste shipments regulation.
Under the rules, the notifier of the waste, in this case MARAD, is required to inform the UK competent authority, in this case the Environment Agency, of the intention to export the vessels from the US and import them to the UK. The agency may raise reasoned objections to such notifications—for example, if the process is not actually going to recover the waste, but instead simply dispose of it. The Environment Agency consented to the proposed shipment on 22 July.
The agency was satisfied that the facility had the technical and physical ability to deal with the ships in an environmentally sound manner. The company concerned has in recent years dismantled several oil rig platforms, including ones containing hazardous waste. The proposal was that the ships would be dismantled in dry dock conditions.
Hon. Members will be aware that, since the consent for the trans-frontier movement was issued, the operator of the site applied for a modification to the waste management licence regulating the site, to increase the annual quantity of waste, including ships, able to be treated there. The agency assessed this modification on the basis that the dismantling would take place under dry dock conditions. Included in that process was an assessment of the impact of the modification on the local special protection area as required under the habitats directive. However, it has since been announced by the local authority that the operator of the site does not have the required planning permission for a dry dock at the site, though I understand that the company disputes this.
The agency's legal advice is that the waste management licence modification is invalid and the site reverts to the existing waste management licence. It is the agency's view that a new waste management licence would be required to increase the allowed throughput of waste at the site. Given the situation with the waste management licence and the planning permission for the
536
site, the agency's legal advice is that this calls into question the approval for the trans-frontier shipment of the waste.
The Environment Agency met the company concerned on 30 October to inform it of the situation as regards the approvals for the site, and it has also informed the notifier for the waste shipment, the US Maritime Administration. The Environment Agency continues to work closely with both these contractors—MARAD and Able UK—urgently to identify a way forward. The Government and other relevant authorities—for example, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency—are being regularly updated on developments.
Hon. Members will wish to note that the EC waste shipment regulation—article 25 of 259/93—provides that, in cases where the shipment of waste to which the competent authorities have consented cannot be completed in accordance with the terms of the consignment note or contract, either the waste must return to country of export, or the waste can be dealt with in an alternative and environmentally sound manner. In the meantime, four of the vessels continue to be towed towards the UK while the agency and the contractors urgently seek a sensible solution.
I should emphasise that the vessels have been professionally verified as seaworthy and that they contain only relatively small quantities of hazardous substances, which are common to all ships of that age. They are not carrying any form of cargo—toxic or otherwise. The remaining nine ships in the contract will remain in the United States.
Mr. Lidington: I thank the Minister for his answer and start by agreeing that there will be near unanimity in the House that a way needs to be found to dispose of the vessels safely without damage to the environment. However, will he explain how the Government and their various agencies have got themselves into this almighty muddle? Does he acknowledge that there is a complete contradiction between the Environment Agency's decision last Friday to revoke the licences previously given and repeated assurances from the agency and Ministers during previous weeks that everything was in order and the regulations had been followed?
Does the Minister recall that on 1 October, the Environment Agency said that the recovery facility at Teesside had been subjected to stringent scrutiny and judged to have the capacity of carrying out the work and that, on 6 October, it stated:
"We are absolutely satisfied that we have complied with all the necessary legislation and … have made the right decision"?
Surely both the Environment Agency and relevant Government Departments should have checked the small print before they issued licences rather than getting round to doing so afterwards.
Does the Minister understand my sense of amazement at finding out that two of the licences now discovered to be outstanding are ones for which Able UK applied to his own Department? Do the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency talk to each other from time to time, especially about controversial applications such as this? Does the Minister recognise that such muddle and confusion at the heart of government utterly undermine public trust that his Department is able to protect our environment against pollution?

537
Does the Minister agree that we face a situation of real environmental hazard? What will happen to the four ships that are currently mid-Atlantic? Am I correct in my understanding that four vessels are at sea and two are due to arrive this week but are reported to be running short of fuel? Are today's media reports correct in saying that the Environment Agency is urging those ships to turn back to the United States, that the American authorities are instructing them to sail on to the United Kingdom and that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in this country says that they may have to be admitted to a UK port as the least bad option because they have come too far to turn back and will need to refuel here? What assessment have the Government made of the environmental risk caused by the approach of winter storms and tides? Does the Minister share my concern about the risk of the ships either breaking up mid-ocean or having to be moored off the coast of north-east England while different Government agencies wrangle with each other over what should be done next?
May I suggest to the Minister three actions that the Government could take? First, will he set up an urgent inquiry to establish what has gone wrong in this case and ensure that we get some joined-up government on environmental matters in future?
Secondly, will he secure agreement within the Government, if necessary by invoking powers in respect of maritime emergencies, to ensure that one Minister takes responsibility for tackling the immediate crisis of the ships that are now at sea?
Thirdly, in view of what has happened and the undermining of confidence in the Environment Agency, which is inevitable after recent events, will the Minister say politely but firmly to the United States Government that we will gladly share with them our skilled workers and technology, but that the rest of the fleet of so-called ghost ships should be decommissioned in the US?
Mr. Morley: Let me deal with the points in the order in which the hon. Gentleman raised them. The Environment Agency has 30 days to raise issues of substance or concern in respect of an application for a transhipment licence. In its evaluation, it also had to examine whether it was appropriate to issue a licence in the circumstances. It concluded that it was. It also concluded that the company had the necessary consents in place or that consents could be arranged in the time available.
DEFRA's role is limited to granting a licence for dredging under the Food and Environmental Protection Act 1985. Such consents have been given. Let me set out the root of disagreement between the company and the planning authority. It applied for planning permission for the dry dock, and got the licence from DEFRA for the work and consent from English Nature with regard to the possible impact on a special protection area. The argument is whether the company proceeded with the planning permission within the statutory time limit for doing the work. I understand that those issues are being discussed today with the planning committee.
When it became clear that all the consents were not necessarily in place and the disputes came to light, the Environment Agency contacted the American
538
authorities on 3 October, before the ships sailed. Its advice to MARAD was that the ships should not leave the United States, but the ships sailed on 6 October. The Environment Agency did act on the emerging doubts and advised that the ships should not leave until all those matters were resolved.
I understand that the first two ships are north-west of the Azores and have been refuelled at sea. The other two are about a quarter of the way across the Atlantic. I am not aware of any information that the US has instructed the ships to continue. That is news to me. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has evidence of that, but I do not. However, if it was thought necessary to refuel the ships and, perhaps, to provide the crews and tugs with more provisions, that could be done within UK territorial waters. Measures are in place to deal with an emergency or concerns about the weather or the condition of the ships, and we have reciprocal arrangements with other European countries on that.
I agree that the problem throws up complex issues in relation to the nature of such licences. We will require a full evaluation of the situation to set out why the problems have arisen and what lessons we can learn. That will be done as part of the normal process with the Environment Agency. The procedures are clear on who has the lead responsibility: the agency is the competent authority in this case. There is no argument about that and it has carried out its duties properly.
In relation to the US role, MARAD sought tenders for the scrapping of the ships. Some of the fleet is going to US yards, but there is a capacity problem, not least because MARAD would only approve yards that met the environmental standards required, and we support it in that. Able UK was involved in the tendering process, which was part of the international trade to deal with recycling and re-use. In that respect, MARAD is entitled to take up that facility as part of international agreements.
Mr. Jim Cousins: Is the Minister aware that people in Northumberland and Durham and along the Tyne, the Wear and the Tees are very concerned about this situation because the chosen route for the ships is north round Britain and down the coast of north-east England? Will he make a clear statement that for those ships to continue on their course would be a clear breach of international law and obligations? I seek an assurance from him that, come what may, there will be no question of the ships arriving off the coast of north-east England, being incapable of being admitted to their destination and being parked there, posing a risk to the public in Northumberland and Durham.
Mr. Morley: The ships' route is the most direct; it takes them through the English channel. That has been arranged, and the ships will not go round the west side of the UK. Perhaps I misunderstood what my hon. Friend was saying.
Mr. Cousins: The Minister is misinformed.
Mr. Morley: Well, the ships are taking the most direct route. The advice given by the Environment Agency to the US authorities is that the ships should return to the

539
US or that another environmentally sound solution should be found. That might, for the sake of argument, be a yard in another country that meets the standards, if one exists and there is one available. At this stage, we do not know whether that is the case. We have to take into account safety and the weather, but those considerations do not overrule the very clear advice that the ships should return.
Mr. John Greenway: People in north-east England will wonder why in this day and age, and given the environmental accidents at sea that we have seen in Europe in recent years, it is necessary to bring ships from the US to Britain to be decommissioned in this way. The Minister said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) that the agency told the US on 3 October that the ships should not sail, and the first two sailed on 6 October. Why, then, did the Department for Transport approve sailings on 4 October for the first two ships and 10 October for the second?
Mr. Morley: The only concern for the Department for Transport is whether the ships are seaworthy; it would not be involved in the consent process. The ships were inspected by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to ensure that they were seaworthy before they left, and that is a responsible thing to do.
I touched on the reason for the ships coming from the US and on what they are carrying. There has long been an international trade in the re-use of ships, and we are sending fishing boats to Denmark because of a capacity problem in our yards. What is important is that we are signatories to the OECD agreement that if ships are going for dismantling, they should go to yards that have the proper facilities for waste handling, among other things, and uphold health and safety standards.
On pollution incidents, I say to the House that these are scrapped ships, and they are no better or worse than any other scrapped ship. They are not, in themselves, full of toxic materials, although they do of course contain toxic materials, as all ships do.
Norman Baker: I welcome the agency's decision to take action to protect the environment, albeit belatedly. On 29 October an answer from the Minister indicated that the agency was happy with the arrangements, but clearly that is not the case. The main question is how it can be that rusting hulks were allowed to set sail from the US when there was no extant planning permission. Why was that not checked in the first place?
Does the Minister accept that, as a general policy, developed countries should deal with their own waste, both for reasons of producer responsibility and in the interests of minimising the transportation of hazardous waste, particularly when it is in the form of clapped-out 50-year-old ships?
I understand that the Department for Transport is today meeting with Able UK. Will the Minister assure me that the message from the Department, particularly in light of the agency's advice, to which the Minister referred in his initial answer, is that these rusting hulks will not be allowed to enter UK waters or travel through the busiest shipping channel in the world, the English channel, and that if they need to refuel, they should do so at sea, as apparently they already have?
540
Does the Minister agree that the Government should state clearly that, except in an emergency where there is risk to life and limb and the situation is obviously different, the ships should be turned round and sent back to the US for disposal, or does he think that it is appropriate to perpetuate the image of rubbish-dump Britain?
Mr. Morley: I do not know whether it is Liberal Democrat policy to send out the gunboats on this issue, but we must keep things in perspective. I do not think the hon. Gentleman was listening when I said that the ships have been inspected and classed as seaworthy. If they had not been, they would never have been allowed to sail. They would certainly not be allowed to enter UK waters if they were considered unseaworthy. Let us be clear about that. I also want to make it clear that the decision on the ships' return is based not on an immediate environmental risk but on the fact that the consents are not in order. If the ships go back and the consents are met, the contract can be fulfilled, but, at present, the consents are not in order and, until they are, the Environment Agency's legal advice is that the ships should return. On the hon. Gentleman's last point, ships can be refuelled and reprovisioned in coastal waters and estuaries without coming into port.
Mr. Peter Mandelson: As the constituency Member of Parliament most directly concerned, I am satisfied that my hon. Friend's Department and the Environment Agency have dealt with the matter responsibly and conscientiously throughout—it has not been easy. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the original reason for choosing Able UK's facility in my constituency for the work is its high standards of environmental and employee safety protection? Is it not the case that the world would be an environmentally cleaner and less hazardous place if such ships had a safe disposal in which they were expertly and professionally dealt with, as Greenpeace itself has observed.
It is obviously important for all the necessary permissions and licences to be granted before the work starts, but will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no reason in principle why that work should not be carried out in future by Able UK? Finally, will he give my constituents a clear reassurance that in the meantime, while all these permissions and requirements are being put in place, the safekeeping of the ships, should they be unable to return to the United States quickly, will not pose any threat to our home coastline or their own safety and interests?
Mr. Morley: Yes, I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend that, whatever the arguments about the licence and consents, not one group or person has cast any doubt on the quality and ability of Able UK to deal with such work or, indeed, the skills or expertise of his constituents involved in that work. We need high-quality facilities of this type. This country has rightly pressed the EU to speed up the phase-out of single-hull tankers, which appears to be going ahead, and is likely to lead to 2,000 redundant tankers in the not too distant future. They will have to be dealt with by yards with the proper facilities, and we believe that we have that expertise in the UK. As for my right hon. Friend's final point, I can certainly say

541
that there is no reason in principle why that contract should not go ahead, as long as it fulfils all the terms of the various licence conditions. We also want to ensure the safety of our coastline and other shipping, so the environment and risks to it will be paramount in guiding our decisions on the issue.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: It is not the reputation of Able UK that is on the line, but that of the Environment Agency. How is it conceivable that the ships were under way and that Friends of the Earth was threatening judicial review before the Environment Agency's announcement of its discovery that planning permission has not even been granted? That seems an extraordinary state of affairs. Can the Minister explain how that came to pass? Will he also tell the House what powers he has to enforce the return of those ships under EU law?
Mr. Morley: On the latter point, a range of treaties and legislation deals with the return of waste in such circumstances. The hon. Gentleman will know that it is open to different parties to contest decisions in the courts if they feel that those decisions are incorrect. That facility applies to anybody dealing with such matters, and it is not unique to this situation.
On the Environment Agency, I repeat that in the time it had to comment on the consent, its principal duty was to decide whether the application for a licence to be issued was valid. At that time, crucial issues such as planning permission—of course, there are other matters in that regard—were thought to have been resolved, but it now turns out that they were not.
Mr. Michael Weir: The Minister said in his statement that planning permission had not been granted for the dry dock. In his reply to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), however, he also said that the ships would not be turned back. Will he accept that the closer the ships get to UK waters, the more difficult it will become to resolve the matter quickly? The Government's position should be that the ships will be stopped or turned back until the question of the dry dock has been satisfactorily resolved. The matter could take some time to resolve—we all know that it can take some time to sort out planning permission problems.
Mr. Morley: That is exactly the Government's position, and the Environment Agency is the competent authority in this case. The Environment Agency's clear legal advice is that the ships should return to the United States. We may need to take into account circumstances such as weather or emergencies, but those circumstances have not yet arisen, and the advice stands. MARAD, the responsible agency in the United States, should take serious note of that.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Will the Minister accept that he has not really answered one of the key points—that there has not been proper liaison between different Departments—in the urgent question, which was well put by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington)? Does he agree that we should not be taking a nimby view? We should be doing
542
all that we can to help British companies secure lucrative overseas contracts, but public confidence is vital. Because of the incompetence of his and other officials a lot of damage has been done to Able UK, which is a good UK company. Why was a proper environmental impact assessment not implemented at the earliest possible opportunity?
Mr. Morley: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman's point about the environmental impact assessment refers to. The necessary environmental impact assessment for the dry dock has been carried out, but it was done as part of the original planning application and has not been implemented. That is the root of the current complex dispute.
I do not accept the argument that there has not been proper co-ordination between Departments. The Environment Agency is the competent authority and DEFRA's direct role is limited, although we are aware of what has been going on. We have also liaised with the Department for Transport, particularly in relation to the condition of the vessels before they set out. If the hon. Gentleman wants to go into it, we have also discussed the issues with the EU, various embassies and MARAD. We are well aware of what has been going on in relation to the actual applications. The problem is that there seems to be a question mark over the consents that the company had obtained and thought were in place. The Environment Agency believes, not unreasonably, that while there is a question mark, the terms and conditions of the licence have not been met, which is why it believes that the ships should return to the United States until those matters are sorted out. As I said, if the terms and conditions are met in full, there is no reason in principle why the contract cannot go ahead.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: First, may I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), inasmuch as this is a matter of such importance that it should be the responsibility of one Government Minister, rather than being split between the Minister for the Environment and the Department for Transport? In the meantime, however, will he speak to his colleagues in the Department for Transport and impress upon them the important point that the current confusion surrounding the transportation of the vessels must not be used as an excuse to change the route that is currently proposed to bring them through the Pentland firth, which, as the Minister will know, is one of the most notoriously difficult tidal races around our coastline?
Mr. Morley: On the last point, the ships are not coming through the Pentland firth, and I am not aware of any proposal to alter the route. On departmental responsibilities, I come back to the point that the competent authority is the Environment Agency. It is not a split responsibility between the Department for Transport and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, although, of course, there are issues in which we have an interest, but there is a very clear competent authority and it is the Environment Agency.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Point of Order
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I gave you notice. The Post Office dispute is now, I hope, being resolved. Many Labour Members were shocked at the tactics employed by the Post Office management. It seems clear that low-paid workers with genuine grievances were bullied and harassed. Furthermore, they were followed and spied on as they demonstrated against that treatment. The Post Office management has acted more like the Stasi than responsible management in charge of a public service such as the Post Office. Indeed, Mr. Adam Crozier, who I believe is paid half a million a year plus perks, has presided over what have been appalling tactics—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must interrupt the hon. Lady. She is making a case against the management of the Post Office. The matter is in the hands of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, and it is best that no comment be made by any hon. Member at the moment. It is not a point of order. It is not a matter for me. The matter is being negotiated at the moment and it would be best to keep out of it.

Orders of the Day

  Sexual Offences Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Resolved,
  That the amendments to the Sexual Offences Bill [Lords], as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, New Clauses, amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 56, Schedule 1, Clauses 57 to 72, Schedule 2, Clauses 73 to 80, Schedule 3, Clauses 81 to 93, Schedule 4, Clauses 94 to 104, Schedule 5, Clauses 105 to 138, Schedule 6, Clause 139, Schedule 7, Clauses 140 to 142, New Schedules.—[Paul Goggins.]

  Sexual Offences Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 2

      PENALTIES FOR KEEPING A BROTHEL
      'In paragraph 33 of Schedule 2 to the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (c.69) (mode of prosecution, punishment etc. for offences under section 33 of that Act)—

      (a) for the entries in the second and third columns substitute—

      (i) On indictment

      Seven years

      (ii) Summarily

      Six months, or the statutory maximum or both";

      (b) omit the entry in the fourth column.'.— [Paul Goggins.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.2 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): 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 No. 142, in clause 48, page 28, line 14, leave out
      'against a person under 16 is liable'.
      Amendment No. 143, in clause 48, page 28, line 16, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
      Government amendment No. 47.
      Amendment No. 186, in clause 57, page 30, line 38, at end insert—
      '(c) a person who has been subject to trafficking into the UK for sexual exploitation shall be granted the opportunity of remaining in safe accommodation in the UK for a period of up to 6 months.'.
      Government amendment No. 48.
      Amendment No. 49, in clause 59, page 31, line 22, leave out from 'he' to 'done' in line 24 and insert
      'believes that another person is likely to do something to or in respect of B, after B's departure but in any part of the world, which if'.
      Amendment No. 138, in schedule 2, page 80, line 17, leave out '48' and insert '49'.
      Amendment No. 139, in schedule 2, page 80, line 27, at end insert—
      '(e) an offence under section 48 where the victim of the offence was under 18 at the time of the offence.'.
      Amendment No. 140, in schedule 3, page 84, line 39, leave out '16' and insert '18'.
      Amendment No. 141, in clause 86, page 45, line 17, after 'Kingdom', insert 'for any period'.

      545
      Amendment No. 135, in clause 115, page 63, line 2, after 16', insert 'or 18'.
      Amendment No. 136, in clause 115, page 63, line 3, after 16', insert 'or 18'.
      Amendment No. 137, in clause 116, page 63, line 26, after '15', insert '29,'.
      Government amendments Nos. 74, 134 and 114.
      Paul Goggins: This first group covers the areas of sexual exploitation and trafficking New clause 2 raises the maximum penalty available for the offence of keeping a brothel at paragraph 33 of schedule 2 to the Sexual Offences Act 1956 from three months imprisonment, or six months for a second or subsequent offence, to seven years imprisonment. That brings it into line with our exploitation of prostitution offences in clauses 53 and 54, adding to the ability of the police to tackle the serious sexual exploitation of adults involved in prostitution.
      Mr. Chris Bryant: I wholly agree with what my hon. Friend is saying, but in the provision there is an assumption that we all know what a brothel is, and I am sure that he is aware that that is somewhat uncertain in law. Indeed, under section 6 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 a brothel would include anywhere to which people resorted for the purpose of lewd homosexual practices. I wonder whether my hon. Friend intends at any point to reform the law so that it is a bit clearer on precisely what a brothel is.
      Paul Goggins: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already announced a review of prostitution and one of the issues that that review may consider is a definition, but my hon. has raised the matter with me privately as well as on the Floor of the House. He has some concerns that the proprietors of commercial gay saunas, for example, may be caught by the new clause. I make it absolutely clear that we intend at Lords consideration of Commons amendments to restrict the use of the seven-year penalty to those cases that involve prostitution. I hope that that offers my hon. Friend some assurance.
      In formulating our offences in this area, we were keen to ensure that the law is focused on genuinely exploitative behaviour. It was for that reason that the sexual offences review recommended the repeal of the offence of -man living on the earnings of prostitution" in section 30 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, and why we created the offences in clauses 53 and 54. In Committee, the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration underlined that these offences were designed to tackle the problems of on-street pimps who exploit prostitutes in their control.
      The offences are also designed to tackle those who cause, incite or control the prostitution of others in any circumstances, whether that is on-street prostitution or off-street in brothels or in any other place. However, it has come to our attention that the police were not confident that the prosecution would always be able to make out the element of "control" in our new offences where the owner of a brothel, or multiple brothels, might be exploiting several prostitutes at their
      546
      premises—and making a considerable amount of money out of it—hut putting himself at a distance from the actual running of the premises.
      We have said throughout consideration of the Bill that the issue of brothels is outside the scope of this Bill and should be looked at in the wider context of the review of prostitution that I have mentioned. Having discussed the matter with the police, we feel that the best way to tackle this possible difficulty is to raise the penalty for the offence of keeping a brothel in section 33 of the 1956 Act to give the police another offence with a substantial penalty effectively to target those who exploit the prostitution of others in this way.
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: The Under-Secretary will agree that there is a clear distinction between living off earnings and controlling activities. It might have been possible to make section 30 gender-neutral with a reference to "any person" who lives off the earnings of a prostitute, irrespective of whether that was a man or a woman. Was there any particular reason why the Government did not adopt that course?
      Paul Goggins: We did not adopt that course because quite innocent third parties could be caught technically by the offence of living off the earnings of prostitution—for example, somebody earning an income from prostitution and using the money to help send a daughter to college or to help a member of the family in some other way. That is one of the reasons why we felt it important to move on. We will look at the area in greater detail in considering the legislation on prostitution.
      Subsection (b) of new clause 2 and the other Government amendments in this group—Nos. 74, 134 and 114—are merely consequential and minor drafting amendments as a result of new clause 2, and simply ensure that references elsewhere in this Bill and other legislation relating to section 33 of the 1956 Act are up to date.
      The purpose of Government amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 49 to the trafficking offences in clauses 57 to 59 is to ensure that the offences can be used effectively to prosecute all those who arrange or facilitate the process of trafficking, believing that someone else is going to commit a sexual offence against the victim. As drafted, the offences require a higher threshold of criminality, namely, that the defendant must intend to facilitate the third person's commission of an offence against the victim. We have been persuaded that it would be very difficult in many cases to prove this intention, with the result that many of those who take part in this horrendous trade, fully aware of what will happen to the victim at the end of the process, could be beyond the reach of the criminal law.
      As the House is aware, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 introduced new offences of trafficking for the purposes of controlling someone in prostitution. These made it an offence for a person to arrange or facilitate the arrival, travel within the UK once arrived, or departure from the UK of another person, when either he intended to exercise control over that person's prostitution or he believed that another person was likely to do so. That is a lower threshold than the offences currently in the Bill and, on reflection, we have concluded that the lower threshold is the correct one.

      547
      We are striving to ensure that different levels of involvement in prostitution and exploitation are reflected in a range of different offences with appropriate penalties and I urge the House to accept the Government amendments.
      Amendment No. 186, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, would add a statutory requirement that all victims of trafficking as defined by the Bill be given the opportunity of remaining in safe accommodation in the United Kingdom for up to six months. I sympathise with the sentiments behind the amendment, but we believe that the application of a blanket period of leave for those who claim to have been the victims of trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation would not be appropriate.
      Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: The intention of the amendment is to give an opportunity for a period of up to six months; there is nothing "blanket" about it. The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration said in Committee that each case should be considered individually, and our amendment makes provision for that.
      Paul Goggins: I agree that each case must be considered on its individual merits, and I can offer the hon. Lady the assurance that no action will be taken by the immigration service while a case is being assessed. However, it is important that we do not have any blanket provisions, and we must always watch for potential abuse of a system which, although designed to help vulnerable people, could be exploited by others.
      Sandra Gidley: I am disappointed that the Minister is being so dismissive, because there are other countries that, despite having an immigration problem, seem to be able to distinguish between illegal immigration and trafficking. The two are different, and we are in danger of lumping trafficking in with all the other forms of immigration. None of us would be happy to go down that road.
      Paul Goggins: I assure the hon. Lady that I am far from being dismissive, and perhaps if she listens to my further comments she will be more reassured.
      We need a strong focus on victims of trafficking and we are committed to ensuring that they are treated properly. We discussed this matter at length in Committee, and as we said then, a six-month pilot project offering support and, where necessary, accommodation to women who have been trafficked into the United Kingdom for sexual exploitation was launched in London on 10 March. It has now been extended to the end of the year to allow more time for evaluation. The project is managed on behalf of the Home Office by Eaves Housing for Women, a voluntary organisation with long experience of assisting women deemed to be vulnerable as a result of homelessness, drug or alcohol dependency, mental health issues or domestic violence, and which is well able to deal with these very vulnerable women.
      Women will be permitted to remain here on temporary admission while they are on the project, but they will be expected to return to their own countries in due course. In this context, I should point out that a
      548
      voluntary assisted returns programme has been developed by the immigration and nationality directorate, and the project will be managed jointly by the immigration service and a specialist non-governmental organisation.
      Mr. Hilton Dawson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, notwithstanding the appalling circumstances suffered by adults who are trafficked into this country for sexual exploitation, the position is particularly difficult with regard to children? Does he agree that although work is being done, a great deal more needs to be done throughout the country to assist those children and ensure that protective legislation such as the Children Act 1989 takes precedence over immigration and asylum legislation?
      Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend is a great champion of children and children's rights, and I am sure that we shall hear more from him as the debate proceeds. I can confirm that there is a great deal of work already taking place in social services departments, the police and many other agencies, which all treat such issues very seriously and want to give children the kind of protection and support that my hon. Friend has mentioned.
      The pilot scheme to which I referred is supported by the advisory group on the victims of trafficking, which includes representation from the Home Office, the immigration service, the police, social services and nongovernmental organisations. The project is being evaluated by the Home Office research development statistics unit, and a report is expected in the spring of next year.
      Dr. Evan Harris: Does the Minister believe that the fight against trafficking for sexual exploitation is being won, and if—despite the efforts being made—he does not, does he recognise that one problem is the unwillingness of victims to come forward, for fear of reprisals in this country and in their country of origin? Does he therefore feel that it might be more sensible to give them the reassurance of a guaranteed safe house? It would be easier to do that than to rely on their knowing whether or not a pilot scheme is being extended, worthy though such schemes may be.
      Paul Goggins: Initially, we have to see how well the project works, and as I said it is being evaluated to establish the strengths of this approach. It would be a very bold politician who said that we are winning the battle against trafficking, but this Government have made it absolutely clear that we are determined to fight that battle. Of course, part of that is the need to provide support, counselling and various services for the women who get caught up in this dreadful trade, but we will evaluate the project and develop the resulting practice in due course. I hope that I have reassured Members on both sides of the House that we are taking appropriate action and that the amendment is therefore not necessary.
      I come briefly to amendments Nos. 140, 142 and 143, which are in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and others. Existing criminal law relating to prostitution focuses only on the activities of prostitutes themselves, or on those who

      549
      exploit them, such as their pimps. Although it is currently unlawful to engage in sexual activity with a child aged under 16, we are for the first time making it an offence specifically to buy the sexual services of a child. As drafted, the offence carries three bands of penalties, depending on the age of the child-victim and the type of sexual service paid for. For penetrative sexual activity involving a child under 13, an offender could face life imprisonment and would have to comply with the notification requirements of part 2. For non-penetrative sex with a child under 13, or any type of sex with a child aged 13 to 16, the offence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years. Again, that reflects the seriousness of the crime. A conviction or caution received for such an offence would require an adult offender to comply with the notification requirements of part 2.
      For any type of sexual services bought from a child aged 16 or 17, an offender faces a maximum of seven years in prison and is not required to comply with the notification requirements. In effect, amendments Nos. 142 and 143 would increase that penalty to a maximum of 14 years, and amendment No. 140 would put such offenders on the sex offenders register. I continue to agree that the sexual exploitation of children up to the age of 18 through prostitution should be a concern of the criminal law; however, I cannot support these amendments. I do not believe it proportionate to have the same maximum penalty for the offence once the child is aged 16 or 17—which, in the end, is above the age of consent—and nor should such offenders become subject to the notification requirements. Likewise, we cannot justify putting people on the sex offenders register if they have paid for sexual activity with 16 or 17-year-olds. I have no doubt that such activity is exploitative and should be a criminal offence, but I am not convinced that offenders of this kind pose such a risk that they should automatically be subject to the notification requirements. Of course, it is possible for the courts to make a sexual offences prevention order on such offenders if they believe that the order is necessary to protect the public from serious sexual harm. Such an order would oblige the offender to comply with the notification requirements.
      Amendments Nos. 135 to 137—also in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre and others—would extend the definition of "qualifying offender", for the purposes of foreign travel orders, to include offenders with a previous conviction for the offence of paying for the sexual services of a child aged 16 or 17. The amendments would also enable the court to make a foreign travel order, where it is satisfied that it is necessary to prevent the offender from committing a sexual offence against someone aged 16 or 17 overseas.
      Those issues were discussed in Committee and I can assure the House that I have given them very serious consideration. I categorically agree that sex tourism is wrong. I cannot imagine that anyone in the House would not view as despicable the sexual exploitation of vulnerable young men, women and children in some of the poorest parts of our world. I can assure the House
      550
      that the Government are committed to working with non-governmental organisations, other Governments and international organisations to combat this evil.
      Mr. John Bercow: I entirely understand the rationale for the Minister's differentiation between those who are under 16 and those who are over it, although inevitably it will be a matter of some controversy. However, would the Minister at least acknowledge, if it is the case, that resources have entered his thinking? There is no embarrassment or shame about that, but was it not a relevant factor in determining the conclusion that the Minister appears to have reached?
      Paul Goggins: I can say categorically that resources have not remotely entered my consideration of the matter. The key factor is the age difference: a 16 or 17-year-old is above the age of consent and, although a degree of criminality about the activity remains, a degree of proportionality is required. Having 16 as the age of consent is an issue to which I am sure we will return later in our deliberations today.
      The foreign travel order has been crafted specifically as a response to one particularly abhorrent part of sex tourism—UK paedophiles travelling abroad to sexually exploit young children under 16. We all know that young children are particularly vulnerable to sex tourism because paedophiles do not face the same threat of detection, prosecution and sentencing that they would in the UK, and the opportunities to abuse children are far greater in some countries than here. I believe that the issue of paedophile sex tourism is so serious and so despicable that it warrants a particularly rigorous response.
      I am concerned that the amendments, however well intentioned, will not work. To take out a foreign travel order, it needs to be established that the offender intends to commit the equivalent of a schedule 3 offence abroad. Obviously, for children aged under 16, any sexual activity is covered, because any sexual activity with a child is a serious sexual offence. However, 16 and 17-year-olds can consent to most sexual activity.
      Sandra Gidley: In some countries the age of consent is completely different, so should we not err on the side of caution and use 18 rather than 16 as a benchmark? Eighteen is the age of consent in some countries around the world, so would not greater consistency help to reinforce the message that something might be right in this country, but wrong in another? Is there not a danger of condoning it?
      Paul Goggins: At one level the age of consent is an arbitrary figure. The hon. Lady is right to point out that it is different in different countries, but it is interesting that some people press me to use 18 as the age of consent in some respects, but in others they press me to make dispensation in certain circumstances for a lower age of consent. Having 16 as the age of consent in this country is well established, well understood and well supported by the people of this country, and it is important to stick to it and ensure that our laws reflect it.
      To return to my speech, it will be difficult to ascertain, for the purposes of the foreign travel order, whether an offender intends to travel abroad to commit a sexual

      551
      offence or to engage in consensual sexual activity with a person over the age of consent. I agree that we need to tackle sex tourism where the victims are aged 16 or over and there is a great deal of practical work on which my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development are giving a lead in this area, and we are reflecting on what else we can do in support. However, the foreign travel order has been crafted specifically to protect those under 16 and it simply will not work if we try to extend it to cover those aged under 18. Similar arguments apply to amendments Nos. 138 and 139.
      Amendment No. 141, also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre, seeks to change the foreign travel notification requirements so that a registered sex offender would be required to notify the police of any intended period of foreign travel. The House will be aware that the foreign travel of registered sex offenders has attracted much debate during the passage of this Bill through Parliament. Indeed, as a result of considerable debate in the Lords and a consultation with interested parties, Lord Falconer announced the Government's intention to reduce from eight to three days the period for which a registered sex offender can travel abroad without notifying the police. We maintain that it is not necessary to reduce that period further.
      We have consulted with key organisations on the issue of the foreign travel notification requirements, including the major charities working on the issue and the law enforcement agencies. The consultation looked at whether sex offenders should be required to notify all foreign travel, but it concluded that that would add little in terms of increased public protection from sex tourists. I should make it clear that the overriding purpose of notification requirements is to monitor the whereabouts of registered offenders, not to prevent travel abroad. The burden that such a requirement would place on offenders would be disproportionate to the minimal benefit that it would bring to public protection. Therefore, I believe that when the secondary legislation is made on this issue, we should set the period at three days.
      I hope that what I have said in response to this group of amendments has gone some way to convince hon. Members that in these respects the Bill should remain as drafted.
      Mr. Grieve: I listened with great interest to what the Minister had to say about new clause 2, and it certainly appears to be an improvement on the previous position, when the Government relied on clause 54. They have now responded to the representations of the police. However, without being unsympathetic to what the Minister is trying to achieve, I raised briefly in an intervention an issue that the House should consider.
      Previously, under section 30 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, it was an offence to live off the earnings of a prostitute. The offence did not require any control to be exercised over the prostitution. The person concerned simply had to know that the person off whose earnings he was living was a prostitute and that he was benefiting
      552
      from prostitution. It therefore had the effect of catching people who might be far removed from the control of a brothel or individual prostitutes, but who knew what was going on and tolerated the situation to their advantage. I accept that the clause could potentially catch a prostitute's child who, for example, was receiving private education as a result of his mother's activities, but I suspect that such prosecutions rarely happened in reality.
      The Minister started by relying on clause 54, which requires the intentional control of a prostitute's activities for gain. Control clearly implies a close connection between the person concerned and the activities of the prostitute, and the clause is principally aimed at pimping. The Minister will know that the police raised anxieties about that because they felt that in many cases it might be desirable that a prosecution could be brought against someone who was not in control of prostitution but was nevertheless intimately involved in the exploitation of the woman—or, indeed, man—concerned and was living off the earnings. That was the reason for the Government's reliance on section 33 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 on managing or keeping a brothel, the penalty for which will be raised to a much more serious level.
      I am certainly not going to stand in the way of what the Government are trying to do here. It goes some way towards meeting the concerns of the police, but it is worth noting that the Government have not gone as far as the police clearly would have wished. It will hereafter be impossible to prosecute somebody who may be living off the earnings of a prostitute—possibly, or even probably, someone well known to the police for using those earnings to engage in other criminal activities and who will now be beyond the reach of the law. I assume—this is the point on which I seek reassurance—that the Government have carefully considered that matter and are satisfied that they are willing to tolerate such a situation.
      4.30 pm
      Rather than repealing section 30 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, in view of what the police have said, the alternative approach would be to try to reform or to change it so as to enable it still to catch an adult knowingly living off the proceeds of prostitution but not, as the Minister desires, a child or other dependant. I do not agree with the Minister that there was no halfway house for Parliament if we wanted to respond to police concern. I should be grateful to hear whether he is satisfied—above all, whether the police have said they are satisfied—with what the Government propose. The Government's alternative is to rethink the repeal of section 30, considering whether some new offence could be brought in that would hit those who knowingly live off the earnings of a prostitute, an activity that the vast majority of people in this country consider improper.
      Mrs. Brooke: I shall discuss amendment No. 186 and leave the others tabled by the Liberal Democrats to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley). We tabled that amendment after much thought. In particular, we paid attention to the debate in

      553
      Committee, and I shall quote what the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration said, with which I totally agree:
      "We have consistently rejected the idea of a statutory reflection period for victims, partly because that would be inflexible and not necessarily based on the details of the case, which can vary."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 September 2003; c. 283.]
      It is difficult to disagree with that, which is why the amendment carefully refers to "opportunity" and "up to 6 months".
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) said in Committee, it is crucial not to confuse the separate issues of trafficking and illegal immigration. It would be harsh if a set of people who are already badly treated were to have that treatment compounded by not being treated with enough sympathy. There is a great deal of evidence that a period for reflection of up to six months would encourage more witnesses to give evidence against exploiters. They are the people we want to punish—not the victims, but those who run the dreadful trade in exploitation of women.
      I have some difficulty with the fact that the Government will not give a little more on that point, although I am pleased by some of what has been said and by the pilot project. Even so, it is only a pilot, and a lot more is needed. Many organisations will be disappointed by the Government's response today. For example, the international order of Soroptimists has placed a call for a period of reflection of up to six months at the top of the agenda for its conference in Ireland later this year. It is a major issue, and a lot of people feel some empathy on it. I call on the Government to share in that feeling: at the end of the day, we want to give something back to those women who have suffered so greatly by giving some assurance that if they want a period of reflection in safe accommodation, this country—a relatively affluent one—can provide it. After all, it is people in this country who provide the demand for the services of the women who have been so harshly traded. In spite of what the Minister has said, I hope that he will consider further the principles behind the amendment.
      Mr. Dawson: I am responsible for nine amendments in the group and I am grateful for the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I speak to them in the knowledge that this is a fine Bill that contains excellent principles. It is momentous and will last for many years. I suspect that the House will not revisit the matter for a considerable period, so it is doubly—indeed, trebly—vital that we get the Bill absolutely right, and take every opportunity to ensure that it works well.
      My right hon. and hon. Friends are to be congratulated on their work on clause 48, which will introduce, for the first time, swingeing penalties against people who abuse children through prostitution. I commend the provisions concerning those who pay for the sexual services of a child. In particular, I commend the Bill's definition of a child: the United Nations definition of someone under the age of 18, which is set out in the Children Act 1989. That is preferable to the
      554
      confusing definitions used in various elements of criminal and youth justice legislation.
      The Government have provided a strong statement that paying for the sexual services of a child is child abuse, and severe penalties are laid down for adults who indulge themselves in that disgraceful practice. For crimes involving children aged under 13, there is the possibility of a sentence of life imprisonment, and people abusing children under 16 may end up with a sentence of 14 years. Someone who abuses children aged 16 and 17 may end up with a sentence of up to seven years. Those are severe punishments.
      The distinction, which the Government have already explained and which was, I think, supported by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who is no longer in his place, was based on the age of consent. I cannot see the sense or purpose of that distinction. As a wholehearted supporter of an equalised age of consent at 16, I cannot see its application in the case of some of the most vulnerable children—those who are abused through prostitution. I do not believe for an instant that a child who gets involved in that dreadful world, who is abused in such foul ways, has given any form of consent whatever to that involvement.
      The reality of prostitution for children aged over 16 is probably that the abuse started much earlier. They probably became involved in prostitution before the age of 16, and are involved because they are being abused, controlled, manipulated and deceived. They are being forced into a life that can only be to their grotesque and gross detriment. The House is right to recognise that children need to be protected from people who would exploit them by paying for sexual services, but I do not understand why we need to make a distinction between children under 16 and children over 16.
      I do not for a minute suggest that there should be a blanket response to people who are convicted of those awful offences or that everyone who abuses a child over the age of 16 should immediately get a 14-year sentence, but I firmly believe that, if we do not amend the Bill now, there will be occasions on which judges want to impose sentences that go beyond seven years on people who have abused children aged 16 or 17 to reflect the seriousness of the crime. I do not understand why we are not prepared to make that decision today.
      The other amendments that I have tabled follow from my comments on clause 48 because I also seek to amend the clauses on foreign travel orders and the notifications required of sex offenders before they travel abroad. If we define children as people under the age of 18 in this country, we should extend that definition to children living across the world. If we want to protect children up to the age of 18 from sexual abuse and exploitation through prostitution in this country, we should extend that protection to children under the age of 18 in countries abroad. We should protect children who, in many cases, are made even more vulnerable to exploitation by sex tourists—paedophiles—from this country because of poverty, dislocation and the dreadful circumstances of many developing countries.
      Again, I do not understand why we cannot extend foreign travel orders—bans on people traveling abroad—to people in this country who have been

      555
      convicted of sexual offences against children over the age of 16. Extremely young children are employed in the sex industry abroad and their life is one of abuse and gross exploitation, so I do not understand why we should not try to do everything that we can to ensure that those children are properly protected up to the age of 18.
      With regard to amendment No. 141, which relates to clause 86, we had a substantial discussion of such issues in Committee. Again, the Government are to be commended for reducing from eight days to three days the period for which convicted sex offenders can travel abroad without notifying the police. As has been made plain not just throughout our debates in Committee, but from our contacts with police officers during discussions on the Bill, we are dealing with devious but often highly intelligent and manipulative people who will work extremely hard to get round any legislation designed to prevent their wicked activities and appalling behaviour.
      4.45 pm
      It makes no sense whatever to me to say that convicted sex offenders can leave this country for up to three days without notifying the police of where they are going. We all know how far people can travel in three days. Last week, there was an item on the BBC website about the prevalence of child prostitution on the German-Czech border. It reported that tens of thousands of Germans cross the border to abuse children and that children as young as eight have been seen negotiating about sex practices and prices. According to one commentator, the Czech Republic is becoming a discount market for sex with children. The author of a report, commissioned by UNICEF, I think, said that bus stops, petrol stations and rest areas near the German-Czech border have been converted into bazaars in which child prostitutes are bought and sold.
      The legislation does not just have a loophole—if it allows people who are convicted of sexual offences against children to travel abroad for up to three days without having to report to police, it is a gaping hole. Such people could make many journeys to the German-Czech border within three days. They could have an entire weekend of paedophilia and sex tourism in that time. They could travel there on a budget airline to abuse children for three days. The loophole should be closed.
      This is a fine Bill, and we have a good opportunity this afternoon to improve it. I for one think that we should discount the age of consent when we talk about the appalling abuse of children through prostitution. I could not care less about the burden on convicted sex offenders of having to tell the police if they are going to leave this country. We should take this opportunity to strengthen what is a good Bill, and make it an excellent Bill for the protection of children.
      Sandra Gidley: I will break my comments into two sections. First, I give a cautious welcome to new clause 2. I raised concerns in Committee, which, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) rightly realised, were a result of a Metropolitan police briefing. The point of that was that the police have no difficulty whatever prosecuting the small criminals, but have difficulty prosecuting those in big business who
      556
      effectively manage to erect a human firewall between themselves and the hard end—for want of a betterphrase—of the organisation.
      At that time, the Government rejected my amendment—which, I admit, was probably not approached in the right way—but made no real comment on the concerns that I raised. In a letter that the Minister wrote to us to explain the changes—he has just alluded to the same point—he said that the new clause was intended to try to address the concerns of the police. I struggle to understand, however, why simply using the penalty for keeping or managing a brothel will cope effectively with the key problem, which is not necessarily the management of the brothel but the barriers that can be put in the way of detection. Simply increasing the penalties may make it more likely that the police put some effort into the work, but the basic problem remains the same. I seek assurances from the Minister that the provision will be monitored to see whether it is effective. If, as he says, the laws on prostitution are to be examined and perhaps renewed, this would be a useful issue on which to start.
      The second part of my comments relates to trafficking. I endorse the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke), and Liberal Democrats have supported the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who has just spoken with his customary zeal on the subject. No one can doubt his commitment to vulnerable young people.
      I share some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns. The notification period has been reduced from eight days to three, and that is a welcome move in the right direction. However, I questioned the Home Secretary when he made a statement on the subject, and the Minister might be interested in the Home Secretary's reply. He said that he wondered whether such offenders
      "should be allowed out of the country at all, but we will have to look at that.—[Official Report, 19 November 2002; Vol. 394, c. 515.]
      The Home Secretary is not here to speak for himself, but his remarks are on the record. We are getting a little hung up about the practicalities of what is easily doable with regard to monitoring, but not thinking of the human effects of what we are allowing, which the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre powerfully described.
      I am afraid that I am not much of a liberal on this issue. I firmly believe that someone who abuses children forfeits all rights to the freedom that might enable him to abuse children in the future. That involves the imposition of a simple child protection order and, throughout the Bill, there has been great consensus among all parties on trying to increase protection.
      Ms Meg Munn: Does the hon. Lady agree that part of the process of notification and understanding sex offenders' actions involves questioning what they are doing if they travel to certain destinations or often go abroad? That might lead to an investigation that might bring to light concerns that might not otherwise be recognised.
      Sandra Gidley: The hon. Lady has a point, but my fear is that such investigations might mean that we have in effect allowed abuse to take place. The fact that

      557
      someone travels often to the Czech border or to one of the Asian countries may well sound alarm bells. However, a successful prosecution can follow an investigation only if that person has been allowed to offend again. That is why I have a difficulty with the new clause.
      Three days would still allow quite a long time, and I understand that Interpol says that it can operate in two days. That would be a step in the right direction and I would welcome the Minister's comments on why 48 hours was not chosen. We live in an age of computers and technology and we are able to alert other police authorities as to what is going on. However, the policing infrastructure in some of the countries where abuse takes place is either corrupt or does not have the resources to deal with the problem. Such offenders are very cunning and know which countries to target so that they have the greatest chance of success.
      Some time ago, I visited Cambodia where the age of consent presents a real problem. The Cambodian Government have raised the age of consent to 18, but 17 and 18-year-olds in that country look very young and might appeal to the sort of person who has a particular liking for sex with young children. However, the way in which we deal with that problem at the moment seems to be under a lesser offence because the age of the consent in this country is 16. I want reassurances that if people tried to visit regularly a country in which the age of consent was 18 to exploit the aspects of its society that I described, the problem could be dealt with.
      Paul Goggins: I shall keep my remarks fairly brief because I outlined my views extensively earlier in the debate. I tell the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that although the police did not support the repeal of the offence of living off immoral earnings, we drafted the new clause to increase the penalty for keeping a brothel at their urgings. The Bill is an attempt to modernise the system and deal with modern circumstances and we want to avoid innocent parties being caught up by it. We need to achieve the right balance between addressing on- street pimping and capturing the more distant and vaguer figures—the Mr. Bigs, if you like—who often make a lot of money from their activities. I tell the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) that the police are confident that the Bill will enable them to track such people down and ensure that they are penalised, and I agree that the distant and shady characters are often those whom we really need to prosecute. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. His views and those of other hon. Members will be the sort of views that will be reflected on during the review of prostitution that I mentioned earlier.
      Mr. Bryant: There is no definition of what constitutes a brothel in law, so we rely on judgments for definitions. In the case of Gorman v. Standen in 1964, Lord Parker said that a brothel was
      "a house resorted to or used by more than one woman for the purposes of fornication".
      558
      Surely the question of whether one or several women are involved must form part of the debate that we will have during the review.
      Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend points us in the direction of the debate that will no doubt ensue. I do not think that defining a brothel is among the many things that I must do this evening, so I shall pass on that, if he will forgive me.
      As I tried to say earlier, I entirely understand the motivation of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) in tabling amendment No. 186. I share her motivation and I was not trying to be negative about it in any of my remarks. I simply put the argument that given that we are trying appropriately to support the victims of trafficking as I outlined, it is not necessary to introduce time constraints. What matters is for individual decisions to suit a person's specific circumstances. We must evaluate the pilot to assess its success and decide how the work can be extended further. I underline the fact that helping and supporting the victims of trafficking is a high priority for the Government and I am sure that we share that commitment with the hon. Lady.
      I am sure that the whole House, as it often does, will join me in paying tribute to the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) champions the rights and needs of children. However, we must have a degree of proportionality when considering his amendments, the offences that we are discussing and sentencing and foreign travel orders, so I urge him to reflect further. I am sorry that I have not been successful at persuading him of the need for a sense of balance. He acknowledges that the change from eight days to three days is sensible and positive. The time period of three days is balanced and although it will not be burdensome for either the police or individuals, it will give us the tighter protection that we clearly need. If there is evidence that children might be the potential subjects of attack from specific paedophiles or sex offenders, a foreign travel order is available to prevent such people from travelling abroad, so we have a further measure to prevent them from going abroad if there is evidence that they could pose a real threat.
      My hon. Friend raised the interesting idea of to what extent anyone—16, 17 or, indeed, older—consents to sexual activity that is part of prostitution. Again, that will be considered in the review as part of the extent to which people have been subject to abuse, caught up in drugs or manipulated by others. It is questionable to what extent anyone freely consents to sexual activity within that wider context. There is a debate to be had on that, but it is probably for another day.
      5 pm
      The hon. Member for Romsey quoted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his usual robust form. When he makes such remarks, he speaks from the heart and guts, as we all do on such offences. We would probably all be harsher than the measures set out in the Bill, but it is our duty in Committee and on the Floor of the House to react not just with our heart and guts but with our heads, to create a sensible framework of law that will provide protection while being enforceable and workable. I urge hon. Members to support the

      559
      Government amendments and not to press other amendments to a vote.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 3

      SERVICE COURTS
      (1) In this Act—

      (a) a reference to a court order or a conviction or finding includes a reference to an order of or a conviction or finding by a service court,

      (b) a reference to an offence includes a reference to an offence triable by a service court,

      (c) "proceedings" includes proceedings before a service court, and

      (d) a reference to proceedings for an offence under this Act includes a reference to proceedings for the offence under section 70 of the Army Act 1955 (3&38;4Eliz.2 c.18) or the Air Force Act 1955 (3&4Eliz.2 c.19) or section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (c.53) for which the offence under this Act is the corresponding civil offence.

      (2) In sections 92 and 104(1), "court" includes a service court.
      (3) Where the court making a sexual offences prevention order is a service court—

      (a) sections 104(1)(a) and (4) to (6), 105, 109, 111 and 112 do not apply,

      (b) in section 108, "the appropriate court" means the Crown Court in England and Wales, and

      (c) in section 110(3)(a), the references to the Crown Court and Court of Appeal are references to the Crown Court and Court of Appeal in England and Wales.

      (4) In this section "service court" means a court-martial or Standing Civilian Court.'—[Ms Harman.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 82, 37, 53, 52, 63 to 66, 68, 69, 111, 67, 87, 88, 124,125, 89, 90, 126, 91 to 95, 127 to 131, 96, 97, 70 to 72, 98,132, 99, 73, 100 to 104, 54 to 56, 133, 105, 57 to 60, 76,77, 112, 78 to 80, 113, 115, 81, 106 to 108, 62, 109 and 110.
      The Solicitor-General: The amendments are minor, drafting and technical.
      New clause 3 deals with the powers of service courts— that is, courts martial. It will ensure that references in part 2 to court orders, convictions, findings, offences and proceedings apply to those matters in the context of service courts as well as civilian courts. It makes it clear, for example, that if a person is convicted of a serious sexual offence before a court martial, that person will be subject to the notification requirements. It will also enable service courts to impose sexual offences prevention orders at the time of sentencing in the same way as civilian courts.
      Courts martial have jurisdiction to try all offences committed outside the UK, including the most serious, when committed by service personnel, their dependants or other civilians who are subject to service law overseas,
      560
      such as Ministry of Defence officials posted abroad who are accompanying Her Majesty's forces. If an offender is sentenced to imprisonment by a court martial, he will be sent to a UK civilian prison to serve his sentence in the normal way. If a service court, by which I mean a court martial or a standing civilian court, is satisfied that the test set out in clause 104(1)(b) is met—namely, that a sexual offences prevention order is necessary for the purposes of protecting the public in the UK from serious sexual harm—we consider it appropriate for that court to be able to impose such an order in the same way as a civilian court. The new clause gives a service court the power to impose a sexual offences prevention order only on conviction or sentence, not following an application by the police, as the latter power is not necessary or appropriate in relation to service courts.
      On amendment No. 69, schedule 3 contains the sentencing thresholds at which the notification requirements under part 2 are triggered. For some offences, the thresholds include the imposition of a community sentence of at least 12 months. Service courts do not generally have the power to impose community sentences, but they can impose a punishment called service detention. That is considered a lesser punishment than imprisonment, although it deprives the service offender of his liberty, pay and other privileges. However, its purpose is rehabilitative, with the offender undergoing a period of corrective training and then usually resuming his or her career in the armed forces. It can be used in similar circumstances to those in which community sentences are applied in civilian courts.
      Taking account of different provisions for sentence calculation, it is estimated that a sentence of 112 days' service detention is equivalent to a 12-month community sentence. The amendment adds 112 days' service detention to the thresholds as an alternative to 12 months' community sentence. That will ensure that offenders who would be subject to notification requirements if sentenced in a civilian court will not escape that because of the different sentencing powers of service courts.
      Amendments Nos. 54, 55, 56, 58 and 68 are to clarify drafting or to ensure that appropriate service legislation is referred to. Amendments Nos. 57 and 59 deal with schedule 5A of the Army and Air Force Act 1955 and equivalent naval provisions, which empower standing civilian courts overseas, when punishing civilians who are subject to service law, to award absolute or conditional discharges and community supervision orders. Paragraph 5(1) of that schedule deems such sentences not to amount to convictions. Amendment No. 57 is a drafting amendment to reflect the provisions in paragraph 5(1). Amendment No. 59 applies part 2 to community supervision orders so that an order imposed by a service court will trigger the notification requirements in appropriate cases.
      Amendment No 52 to clause 67 limits the offence of exposing the genitals to the situation where a person intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.
      Mrs. Brooke: I welcome the amendment. The naturists on Studland beach will be able to enjoy their time so much more. Obviously, they do not intend to cause offence but they have great concerns when they

      561
      are aware that there are walkers on the beach who do not know that they are there. I am sure that naturists all over the country will welcome the amendment.
      The Solicitor-General: I shall be glad if anybody welcomes any Government amendment this evening, but I have to say to naturists, on Studland beach or anywhere else, that they will be subject to the law. If they intend, by exposing their genitalia, to cause alarm or distress, a file will be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service, who will consider the sufficiency of the evidence and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. Nevertheless, I welcome the hon. Lady's remarks.
      As the hon. Lady knows from her involvement in the proceedings, a number of amendments were made in Committee, including the removal of recklessness, which reassured naturists that they would not be caught by the offence. However, it was clear from the debate in Committee and from the correspondence that we have received that naturists were still worried about this offence. We undertook to look at the clause again, and the amendment is our response. Hopefully, genuine naturist activity, whatever that might mean, does not include the intention to cause alarm o r distress, so I hope that now that we have dropped knowledge from the offence and left only intention, naturists will be reassured.
      Mr. Grieve: I can be very brief. All the Government amendments are acceptable. There is only one that I need positively to welcome because it does more than tidy up the provisions, and that is the amendment on which the Solicitor-General has just touched. That reassures naturists by removing knowledge from the offence, leaving intention. The right hon. and learned Lady will remember the debates in Committee. Clearly this is not a blanket dispensation to naturists to practise naturism wherever they choose. They will have to continue to exercise restraint and show due consideration for other people.
      The point that is successfully met by the amendment, which I welcome, is the need to get rid of a situation in which a naturist goes to a remote beach where they legitimately do not expect, and certainly do not intend, anyone to be in any way insulted or distressed, but nevertheless are constantly aware that somebody might turn up unexpectedly. The amendment strikes the right balance, and I hope that it will allow naturists to practise naturism discreetly, freeing them from fear that they might be unfairly prosecuted while ensuring that there is still a robust framework to ensure that the situation is not abused.
      The Solicitor-General: I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's points.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 4

      ANONYMITY OF SUSPECTS AND DEFENDANTS IN CERTAIN CASES (No.2)
      (1) Where an allegation has been made that a person has

      562

      committed an offence listed in Schedule 3 to the Sex Offenders Act 1997, no matters relating to that person shall be included in any broadcast or publication that would result in his identification prior to such person being charged.

      (2) If any matter is published or broadcast in contravention of subsection (1) the following persons, namely—

      (a) the author or broadcaster, if the publication or broadcast took place with their consent;

      (b) in the case of a publication in a newspaper or periodical, any proprietor, editor and publisher of such newspaper or periodical;

      (c) in the case of any other publication, the person who publishes it; and

      (d) in the case of matter included in any broadcast, any body corporate which is engaged in providing the service in which the broadcast is involved and any editor or controller of such broadcast

      shall be guilty of the offence.

      (3) Any offence hereunder shall be punishable

      (a) on summary conviction by—

      (i) a sentence of 6 months imprisonment,

      (ii) a fine of Level 5 on the Standard scale,

      (iii) or both;

      (b) on conviction on indictment by—

      (i) a sentence of 2 years imprisonment,

      (ii) a fine,

      (iii) or both.—[Mr. Grieve.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Grieve: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      This issue took up a considerable amount of time in Committee, and we need to consider it further before the Bill returns to another place. As the House will be aware, the Bill came from the Lords with an amendment, made against the Government's wishes, that would have ensured anonymity for those alleged to have committed rape and other offences right up to conviction and throughout the trial process. That was debated in Committee, where the Government argued forcefully that such a blanket prohibition on reporting might interfere with the interests of justice after charge and during the trial process, and that victims might not come forward if, while the police were attempting to identify other potential victims, they did not know that somebody had been charged with an offence. I fully accept the Government's second argument that anonymity went against the general principle that the trial process should take place in public, with the public being made aware of the identity of the person on trial.
      New clause 4 does not seek to reopen that wider issue. However, a narrower issue received consideration in Committee—the publicity attached to those being investigated for sex offences prior to their being charged. Examples, some of them very recent, were given of individuals who had been subjected to great media scrutiny, adverse publicity, investigation and inquiry into their background, which was reproduced in the press, but who at the end of the day were not charged with anything at all. There has been a great deal of public disquiet about this issue, and one way of dealing with it would be to impose a prohibition on publicity, broadcasting or publication that identified the person under investigation once an allegation had been made to the police.

      563
      As the Under-Secretary of State is aware, the purpose of new clause 4 is to facilitate that debate and impose such a prohibition. I apologise to the House because, as currently drafted, new clause 4 does not meet that objective. I felt that new clause 1, which the Liberal Democrats tabled, was flawed, and did my best to correct it by drafting new clause 4. However, the reference to schedule 3 to the Sex Offenders Act 1997 is erroneous—it should be to schedule 3 to the Bill. However, I do not think that the Minister was misled, and I believe that he fully understands the thrust and purpose of the new clause.
      New clause 4 would prohibit broadcasting or publication identifying a suspect or defendant and would make such activity a criminal offence for the author or broadcaster if it
      "took place with their consent".
      The provision would also impose penalties on newspapers, their publishers and owners for such publication or broadcasting. Punishment would be a fine or six months' imprisonment or, on conviction on indictment, two years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine.
      Mr. David Marshall: Many hon. Members may agree with what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do, but how could the new clause be enforced in respect of overseas publications and the internet? In high-profile cases, the word on who is involved gets around rapidly. If the new clause cannot be enforced, why discuss it?
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a limit on the territoriality of the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales. It is therefore always possible to publish abroad material that cannot be published here. If someone published such material on the internet and it came into this country, however, they could be arrested and prosecuted if they subsequently happened to visit this country. I shall return to the issue of the internet in a moment, because it is important.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend will know that publishing can be defined quite widely and could extend to the vendors of newspapers. Will he confirm that the new clause is not intended to catch small shops that sell newspapers?
      Mr. Grieve: I understand my right hon. and learned Friend's point. Proposed subsection (2)(b) makes it clear that the intention is not to catch the vendor, since it refers
      "in the case of a publication in a newspaper or periodical"
      to
      "any proprietor, editor and publisher of such newspaper or periodical".
      Let me make the point clear—this is a difficult area of legislation, but that is not to say that we should not consider it. I am conscious that the new clause may contain a number of flaws, some of which I shall return to in a moment. I can already see some other areas that
      564
      may need to be examined, but that is not to say that we do not need to consider this area. A serious situation is developing, and it will get worse.
      Mr. Michael Weir: I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but there may be a fundamental difficulty with subsection (1), which states that
      "Where an allegation has been made that a person has committed an offence",
      they cannot be identified prior to their being charged. It strikes me that in a case in which the authorities were looking for someone who could be in any part of the UK, Scotland, England or wherever—a complete ban on identification could lead to difficulties in catching them before they committed further crimes.
      Mr. Grieve: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I was about to deal with precisely that matter. I accept that there are two areas in which one might consider it perfectly proper for a public allegation to be made. First, it would be proper where, for whatever reason, a serious allegation of a sexual offence was made against an individual, but for reasons that no one could understand, the authorities appeared to refuse to act upon it. I fully appreciate that there would be sound public policy reasons why a newspaper might want to publicise the allegation if it considered that the police were failing to take action. I accept that that matter would touch on the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
      Secondly—the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) was right to raise this point—there might be a circumstance in which publicity was necessary to arrest somebody for a serious offence. Again, he makes a good point.
      Mr. Hogg: There is also a third situation: a person against whom an allegation has been made might want publicity, if only to establish an alibi that he might otherwise have some difficulty in establishing. He might want to identify people who saw him in a particular place. The new clause contains no defence of the consent of the person against whom the allegation has been made.
      Mr. Grieve: I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that additional example. That precise area was considered in Committee. The view that I expressed there—I continue to hold it—is that if a saving clause were introduced to allow a person to waive that right, I would not object to it.
      The debate highlights the fact that we are considering a complex area. The issue before the House this afternoon is what message we should send back to the other place, which widely amended the legislation in the first place, about our attitude to the issue both in its totality and in particular in relation to anonymity before charge.
      I refer the House to comments in a newspaper today by the outgoing Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir David Calvert-Smith, on matters of great importance. When the issue was raised with him of the coverage of recent rape allegations made against premiership

      565
      footballers, and allegations made against the television presenter John Leslie, he said:
      "I think there is a huge problem. As a prosecutor, I would be very happy to see the media exercise greater restraint, however interesting it may be"
      to their readers. He went on:
      "Even if they are not technically breaking the law, they are either making it more difficult or actually impossible to bring offenders to justice. The clamour to reduce trial by jury will grow the more publicity gets out of hand, because it will be said you cannot trust a jury to try these cases so they must be tried by a judge alone who will not be overly impressed by pre-trial publicity."
      The issue is not just about the protection of the individual in terms of the adverse publicity that he receives through the process. My anxiety, which the House must consider, is that we may get to a stage where a person against whom there may be very strong evidence that certainly merits going to trial and may lead to his conviction, ends up having the trial process discontinued because the level of adverse publicity that he received when he was investigated by the police was so bad that no fair trial was possible What is clear from the remarks of Sir David Calvert-Smith is that he is intensely anxious about the current trends and the way in which pre-charge publicity is developing.
      Of course, one of the issues is the use of the internet, where one sees, if I may put it this way, a circular process by which the media start by not saying very much but are egged on by the fact that the information soon starts to appear on the internet. The barriers break down and the adverse publicity and identification of individuals start to follow.
      I am mindful of the fact that the Government have indicated—and I dare say the Minister will indicate again this afternoon—that they are seeking to arrive at a measure of agreement with the media to try to curb the excesses that have undoubtedly taken place. I entirely welcome that, and I say that to the Minister now. It is possible that it may provide a way forward but, clearly, it will not entirely provide a way forward, because it will still be possible for individuals to put all sorts of information on the internet. Although I am mindful of the fact that that may be done from abroad, the reality is that persons who take such interest in these matters are likely to be nationals and that, if they engage in such activity abroad, they are likely to come back here. If there were penalties for such behaviour, some of the mischief that we are seeking to deal with could be curbed, although I accept that it may not be possible to eradicate it entirely.
      Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend will be aware that many of the western nations that are among the main sources of the internet and internet data are watching the Bill with considerable interest. If we got the right approach in the Bill, along the lines that my hon. Friend is referring to, there would be some reaction among the other nations, and therefore a thinning of the sources of such placing of material on the internet.
      Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If this country shows the lead, it may be helpful in encouraging others to follow.
      Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman is making some excellent points, which it is in the public interest to raise, and I readily accept that. Of course, the points that he makes about adverse publicity pre-charge apply to all offences, not just to sexual offences. Would not his arguments be better applied in some different quarter and not specifically to the Bill? He knows that I have real concerns about stigmatising complainants in sexual offences cases alone as we are likely not to get convictions. Is not that the unfortunate consequence of what he is advocating, when what he should be doing is looking at the problem in the round?
      Mr. Grieve: The hon. and learned Lady makes an extremely good point. It would probably be a good thing if the Under-Secretary indicated that the Government were minded to propose legislation across all offences. There is a clear argument that those accused of serious offences other than sex offences ought perhaps to enjoy the same protection; I emphasise that this is not about protecting the defendant, but about protecting the administration of justice. If this process continues, there will come a time when the principles under which justice has been administered in this country will become difficult to maintain because of the amount of prejudicial material circulated pre-trial. That causes me real anxiety. The hon. and learned Lady is right and her suggestion would be a way of approaching the matter.
      However, this is a sexual offences bill, and it provides us with an opportunity—one that I fear we will not get again for a considerable period—to consider this particular issue. I am also bound to say, and the hon. and learned Lady may agree, that in reality this type of problem seems to arise particularly in relation to allegations of sexual misconduct—not solely, but the examples that we have seen in the last decade centre upon it. That is partly because allegations of sexual misconduct and impropriety justifiably excite a great deal of public opprobrium, as well as a degree of public prurience and interest. We cannot argue that we should abandon the scrutiny of sex offences just because we ought to be considering the matter in its totality.
      I am a believer in incremental legislation. If the House sends a signal over this matter, the Government may well start to heed that signal in the wider context. It will be unfortunate if that does not happen. My fear is that we will simply carry on as we have done, but with a deteriorating situation—partly because of the sheer number of opportunities that exit to disseminate widely information that may turn out be prejudicial to a subsequent trial.
      Mr. David Heath: I agree that the provision should apply more widely. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the evidence from the editor of one of the tabloids to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, in which she made it plain that it was common practice to pay police officers for information about the point of arrest. Does he agree that, irrespective of the virtues of the current proposal, it should be an absolute disciplinary offence to advise the press about the point of arrest and that, where money changes hands, it should be a corrupt act and punishable as such?
      Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is right. There is no doubt that the police ought to be investigating

      567
      allegations and it is part of their code of conduct that they should do so confidentially unless they have to go to the public for a specific reason—for instance, when there is a suspect who they really must get hold of. Otherwise, it is part of their duty not to publicise the case before charge. Yet we know that that is happening routinely. Parliamentary answers show that police officers have been disciplined on numerous occasions for having carried out this act, and I fear that that is only the tip of the iceberg.
      That this process should exist is deeply corrupting to the police, because there is clear evidence to suggest that it is done in return for cash. The media are participating and it is for their benefit that it takes place. The public interest does not appear to be considered one jot. This is why I am so anxious that self-regulation—for which we might wish in an ideal world—will prove to he completely impossible to achieve. If it is impossible to achieve, we must look further.
      Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman dealt with one aspect of my point, in that as we are discussing the Sexual Offences Bill and nothing else, we cannot look more widely now, but he did not deal with the other aspect of it, and I now invite him to do so. If one confines anonymity for defendants to sexual offences, as he proposes, there is a real danger of stigmatising complainants in cases involving sexual offences as likely to be liars, and not to be believed.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Grieve: The hon. and learned Lady raised that point powerfully in Committee, when she said, as I recollect, that she was concerned about the prospect of anonymity being granted to a defendant throughout the trial process because the underlying implication appeared to be that because the allegation was of a sexual nature, it was more likely to be disbelieved.
      That point had more force in relation to the trial process, but I do not consider that it has force in relation to the investigatory process. As I have said, I am sympathetic to the idea of legislating, if necessary, to cover all criminal offences, which would get rid of the problem that the hon. and learned Lady has identified. In the meantime, however, the level of publicity that we have seen in the press means that there is no doubt that that particular problem has crystallised around sexual offences.
      Applying pragmatic principles, therefore, it seems to me that we should address that matter in this Bill. Of course, I have no way of knowing what will happen when the Bill goes back to those in another place, but they originally amended the Bill to extend anonymity throughout the trial process, and if we do not address the issue before charge, they may choose to do so again.
      Considering carefully what has taken place, and applying the general principle that this House should consider carefully what the other place does and come back with its own opinion, it seems to me that the greatest force in what was done there applied to the pretrial period. The Minister has said several times that he accepts that there is a problem with the pre-charge period, and I think that this House can do something about that.
      568
      I accepted at the outset that, for technical reasons, it will not be possible to do that by using the very words of my new clause—but there is a principle here. I think that it is possible to take on board the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) about his anxieties concerning any change, and to perfect the new clause so as to ensure that it still allows for publicity when required, and that the change will not be detrimental to the defendant if he legitimately requires publicity—for instance, to provide himself with an alib—yet at the same time to send out the message that a practice that is becoming all too common in this country is simply unacceptable.
      Mrs. Brooke: It should come as no surprise that we support the principle in the new clause, because we led on a similar new clause in Committee, when the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and his colleagues were pursuing a slightly different line. We do not therefore have much sympathy for any errors that may have been inadvertently transcribed from our new clause to this one.
      More seriously, this is an important matter and we wholeheartedly support the principles behind the new clause. We had a good discussion in Committee and examined the main issues that we are addressing now. We clearly made the point that of course it would be possible to amend the general principles so that in certain circumstances reporting restrictions could be lifted. We appreciate that there may be urgent reasons for catching a suspect who is a potential danger to the public. Equally, as has been mentioned, sometimes a person might want to waive the right to anonymity because it was in their interests to do so. Those two aspects could be taken on board through a properly drafted amendment.
      We also need to address the question of why we are considering just sexual offences, rather than all cases; in fact, we need anonymity pre-charge for all cases. However, the Bill provides an opportunity to start the process, and there is an argument for doing so as long as we include all sexual offences. I agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) when we discussed the issue of rape alone. In the case of certain sexual offences, there have been dramatic instances of whole careers being destroyed. If we wait for the right time—when there is room in the Government's timetable—for the issue to be considered fully and legislated on, many people will suffer. We have an opportunity to help today. The point has been strongly made that under the current provisions the guilty party might not be convicted because a fair trial will be impossible. So there are various good reasons why we should start the process now.
      As I pointed out in Committee, I am following a line that the Home Affairs Committee took not just with the Bill, but during its investigation of abuse in children's homes. In both respects, it strongly recommended anonymity up to the point of charge. In the light of some powerful debates on the Floor of the House and in Westminster Hall, it seems that the trawling of cases of potential abuse in children's homes may have caught the

      569
      innocent, whose lives have been damaged as a consequence of their names being published. That is something that we cannot undo.
      Vera Baird: I am very alarmed by what the hon. Lady says. If she is moving towards preventing the police, when they have a couple of complaints from children, from trying to locate other potential complainants, I would be extremely concerned. There have been many rightly brought convictions in which the press have played a powerful role in promoting, in the interests of justice, the allegations made in the interests of looking for others. The hon. Lady is in danger of calling into question too readily an entire tranche of police prosecution, and mixing that up with the issue before us.
      Mrs. Brooke: I thank the hon. and learned Lady for that intervention; I thought it right to refer to that issue. Of course, if an application were made for reporting restrictions to be lifted, the case would be put before someone who makes a judgment; the matter would not be dealt with in an uncontrolled way. In such circumstances, there would be an evidence-based reason for making public the particular names.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. Brooke: If I may, I shall move on.
      We are particularly concerned about information coming from the police and its subsequent publication by the media. We welcome the fact that the Minister is having discussions on the latter issue, but we have no confidence whatsoever that any voluntary agreement that is reached will necessarily be upheld in high-profile cases. Of course, there have been many recent such cases, that of Matthew Kelly being one that we might consider briefly. His arrest, after a pantomime performance, was well publicised. Indeed, an enormous amount of publicity was generated, including headlines such as, "Matthew Kelly held over child sex." He was accused of sexually attacking boys and all sorts of things, but at the end of the day tile police took no further action. That shows the power of the media: they sell papers on the basis of such stories, so will a voluntary agreement ever be enough?
      The discussions going on with the police are doubly welcome because there are processes available on the basis of which the police can take strong action. If police officers are found guilty of providing information to the press during the pre-charge process, the Liberal Democrats feel that the strongest action should be taken against them. Of all the points that I have raised, I should like to emphasise that it is right to consider the principle of anonymity at the pre-charge stage.
      Mr. Hogg: I shall be brief. I approach the matter with considerable caution for four reasons. First, I am reluctant to make a distinction between sexual and non-sexual offences. I recognise, of course, that the House has previously made that distinction, but I am very cautious indeed about it. In my view, the distinction is not well made.
      570
      Secondly, as argued earlier, it is frequently the case that the police know who they want to interview and the only way in which they are likely to get that individual is by providing a description in the press that is sufficient to identify him. Of course, the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) stands in the way of that.
      Thirdly, a further and related problem applies particularly to sexual offences alleged to have been committed some time previously. Quite often other complainants come forward to allege that the person against whom the allegations were made committed the same offence against them perhaps 10 or 15 years previously. If the course of action identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield carries the House, that particular problem will become substantial and I should not have thought that the House would want it to be a consequence of the legislation.
      Fourthly—and I touched on a further point in an earlier intervention—from time to time, perhaps not very frequently, a person against whom an allegation has been made will want to gain publicity in order to assert that he or she is not the person in respect of whom certain rumours are current. I do not read football publicity very much, but I have a feeling that a footballer did just that about three weeks ago. He sought out publicity to say that he was not the footballer in respect of whom allegations had been made.
      I also want to make the point that I am rather cautious about anonymity post-charge and during a trial—a point that has been ventilated in the debate. I know of a recent case in the east midlands where a witness came forward during a murder trial to assert that he had seen somebody else at a particular place at the critical moment. That evidence was, in the end, discredited, but it is not wholly unusual for witnesses to come forward as a result of evidence given in a publicised case where the defendant has been identified.
      Simon Hughes rose—
      Mr. Hogg: I want to conclude this part of my speech and then I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      All that makes me rather cautious about the approach proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. Of course it is right to debate the matter and an important issue is at stake, but I am sceptical about my hon. Friend's particular approach.
      Simon Hughes: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that one of the answers to the valid criticisms that he makes is that there is a significant time lapse between trial and charge, and that other people can come forward, bring evidence or make complaints. It is not as though that opportunity is lost. In many cases where there has been a pattern of offences, there may be more than one trial governing offences over a long period. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman says is a concern, but need not be a complete objection.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Hogg: I am not trying to say that the arguments that I advance constitute, collectively or individually, a complete objection, because we should debate this issue.

      571
      It is a proper issue to address, but I am cautious about it. I have a strong feeling that there are more objections to this approach than right hon. and hon. Members have fully identified at this stage. I suspect that we will not put the matter to a vote tonight and we will have further opportunities to debate it, so I wish to do no more at this stage than express tentative doubts.
      Simon Hughes: I understand those doubts, but how would the right hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the mischief caused by so much publicity about possible charges which, in many cases, prevents a fair trial?
      Mr. Hogg: I agree that that is a problem. Indeed, as the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) said, that is not only a problem in cases of sexual offences, but extends to all criminal cases. I would continue attempts to reach a voluntary agreement. Failing that, I would give serious consideration to enlarging the categories of case in which the Attorney-General may apply for an injunction.
      I do not pretend that I have come to a concluded view. I do not know—the outgoing Director of Public Prosecutions did not tell us—how many cases have been voided as a result of pre-trial publicity. I suspect that the number is relatively small, partly because of the long gap between charges being laid and trial, which the hon. Gentleman himself mentioned. I have tried abuse of trial arguments in cases that have received pre-trial publicity. I have managed to have the venue of trials changed. But I cannot recall having a case voided as a result. It happens less often than we fear, but I accept that it may happen.
      The injunction process may be the right approach to address the issue, but that may be more suitable for debate on another day. I am cautious about the approach recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, but I am sure that he is right to identify it as an issue to be addressed.
      Vera Baird: This issue was discussed extensively in Committee and few new matters have been raised, so I shall direct my attention to the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that the category of sexual offences is as good a place as any to start. In fact, it is a bad place to start. As a lawyer, he will know that one cannot separate sexual offences from their history.
      How we attempt to solve this problem is not only of academic interest, because it is not so long ago that we had anonymity for defendants in sexual offence cases only. It lasted for only a short time and was introduced in the teeth of the Heilbron recommendations. It was widely seen as a slight on complainants in sexual offence cases, because it seemed to suggest that they could be so little relied on that the defendant was expected to be acquitted and was therefore given extra protection that no other offence merited. At that time in our history, it was not even an offence for a man to rape his wife, and women rape complainants were considered so unreliable that they had to be corroborated or else there could be no conviction. That history has resonance for women today and we must not revisit it by adopting the hon. Gentleman's proposals.
      The issue is not only one of history. The current conviction rate in rape trials is some 5.7 per cent., which is hopeless, especially given that it is generally thought
      572
      that only 10 per cent. of those who are raped complain formally. The conviction rate for the bulk of offending is very low. The police, the Crown Prosecution Service and even judges, to some extent, have done a good deal to try to rectify that. They have tried to give complainants confidence that they will be supported, that every piece of evidence that can be looked for will be looked for, and that there is a real chance of obtaining a conviction when complainants go to court with a true allegation. To what extent will all that effort be undermined if we announce from this Chamber that Parliament thinks that rape complainants are unlikely to get convictions and that defendants should therefore be given a very special protection?
      Mr. Andrew Turner: I appreciate that the hon. and learned Lady speaks from experience, but will she address a point that I have not yet heard anyone deal with? There are those whose professional lives depend on their not being faced with such allegations. A head teacher in my constituency appears to have committed suicide after being suspended when an allegation was made by one child. I cannot tell whether that head teacher was guilty—-no one will ever know—but there are arguments beyond that which the hon. and learned Lady is making.
      Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman, even if he cites an example that I assume has to do with a sexual offence, simply makes once again the point in favour of the need for an adequate balance of protection for anyone against whom a nasty allegation is made. For example, surely he does not think that Mrs. West did not suffer from bad publicity, or that if, by some strange quirk of fate, she had never been prosecuted, she would not have suffered much assassination of her character when she was freed. The danger that he raises goes across the board and is not confined to sexual offences.
      Miss Julie Kirkbride: There is something slightly different about sexual offences. In the case of Mr. and Mrs. West, there were dead bodies and disappeared girls who had to be accounted for. There was extra evidence suggesting that a criminal offence had taken place. In the case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) referred, an allegation was made by a child, perhaps for vexatious reasons. Yet the man involved has died. He may have been guilty; we do not know. There is something different about sex, and the motives involved may be different.
      Vera Baird: The hon. Lady made the same point in Committee; I thought it interesting but inconclusive then, and I do now. Is she saying that, because there tends to be physical evidence in some kinds of case and not in others, those cases in which there is not usually any physical evidence should have the protection of anonymity for defendants? She would find that a hard test to apply: the element of evidence differs widely in case after case. Frequently, evidence is available to be looked for and found by the police in child sex allegations and rape allegations. Sometimes, because the police share the tendency to think it unlikely that a conviction will follow, they do not look for that evidence with the vehemence with which they would look for

      573
      evidence in other cases. The new clause would add to that tendency by saying that even we in Parliament do not think it worth their putting a great deal of effort into pursuing such evidence because the conviction rate is so low that we think that people must 13,:, protected against its ever being known that they have been charged.
      The Minister and his colleagues have sought a voluntary agreement to try to stop leaks and to make it a serious disciplinary offence for police officers in particular to be involved with leaks. That is the right—indeed, the only—way to proceed.
      Paul Goggins: We have had an excellent debate, as we did in Committee. I had spotted the technical point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), and I am glad that it did not prevent our being able to debate such an important matter. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) said, it involves the public interest, and it is right that the House should debate that.
      This issue takes us to the heart of the balance between living in an open and free society and the need to protect individuals. Some, of course, would argue that anonymity should be provided throughout the whole judicial process. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield pointed out, that idea was built into an amendment that we rejected in Committee. There is considerable evidence to show that benefits come from openness after a charge has been made, and I am pleased that debate on the issue seems now to focus on the pre-charge period of the process. That is a step forward, because it means that we share some common ground. In most cases, individuals should be able to expect anonymity up to the point of charge. There are exceptions to that rule, such as serious cases in which the police may need to warn the public that a particularly dangerous person is on the loose so that people may be on the lookout. We all know that people who are wrongly accused—people who are merely under investigation—can lose a great deal in terms of their standing and reputation, in their jobs and in their own personal feelings and self-confidence. Given that there is some common ground between us, the central question is whether we take the legislative route or continue to pursue self-regulation.
      We, as legislators, and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, as the mover of new clause 4, must deal with another question: why anonymity should relate only to sexual offences. Clearly, other serious offences would not be covered, including murder, serious fraud or even the case of a sex offender who was accused of grievous bodily harm as well as rape. Anonymity cannot relate automatically to sexual offending; that would be a very dangerous move.
      My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear on Second Reading that we were determined to continue towards self-regulation rather than taking the legislative route. We adhered to that position in Committee, and we adhere to it today. Ministers and officials have been in discussion with the police and the media about their respective systems of self-regulation in this area. Guidelines from the Association of Chief Police Officers already make it clear that information
      574
      that is in the hands of the police is confidential. It is not to be used for personal benefit or given to third parties. It is absolutely implicit in the guidelines that fairness and impartiality are essential in all dealings with the public.
      Mr. Hogg: Might it not be helpful to remind ACPO that an officer who sells a bit of information is committing a criminal offence?
      Paul Goggins: Indeed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to point out that that is a criminal offence. Disclosure of information on a suspect is clearly a serious matter, and it is almost certainly a breach of the ACPO code. It already leads to disciplinary action, and I can confirm that 61 cases were substantiated last year. ACPO is considering how to strengthen the guidelines.
      Mr. Heath: The Minister touches on a point that I have already raised in an intervention. I have seen footage of police raids carried out with an accompanying camera and heard the chief constable applauding that fact and seeing it as an advertisement for his force that the footage shows people being carried away in handcuffs. That cannot be right, and ACPO needs to address the issue much more seriously.
      Paul Goggins: There are instances in which that sort of thing happens because it is in the public interest. Clearly, no money changes hands in those cases, and that is the point. As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, that would be a criminal offence, which would not be the case with the circumstances outlined by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).
      Discussions are also ongoing with senior media representatives. They are taking place in a positive atmosphere, although, like our debate tonight, they reflect the complexity arising from the fact that the media are not confined to our islands but are truly international—we live in the age of the internet. It is clearly a complex area, but the Government still believe that the self-regulation route is preferable and that it can help us to achieve our objectives.
      6 pm
      Sandra Gidley: The Minister says that self-regulation is preferable, but he has almost conceded that it is practically unworkable because of the internet and so forth. If in the long term the all-too-familiar examples continue to appear on the front pages of the media, will he review that route? On occasion, people's lives are ruined by the publicity that is generated. There will be a time when a story is so big that one of the tabloid newspapers—or even a broadsheet newspaper—will not be able to resist paying for an exclusive.
      Paul Goggins: I have not conceded that that route is not possible. Indeed, I am involved in some of the discussions on it with the firm intention that they can be concluded positively. That is the spirit in which I am working, notwithstanding the fact that we live in the age of the internet and face many challenges.
      Simon Hughes: I realise that my point comes on top of other pressure from the Opposition Benches, but as the

      575
      Minister cannot yet tell us that he has delivered an agreement with the chief police officers and the media, will he tell us whether he expects to deliver much tighter, agreed guidelines before the legislation reaches the statute book? Will those be published, and will breaches be punished under criminal law if the media or the police breach the rules?
      Paul Goggins: It is important to make the point that I shall not be the one who delivers. It will be the police and the media who deliver, and they understand the issue. They know that we are debating it in the House today, and they know that the pressure is building. Both are looking at their internal guidelines to see whether they can be strengthened in a way that helps us to achieve a solution that is short of the legislative route.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the Minister address an issue that he has not addressed so far? If the new clause becomes law, it will cover publicity of the reasons for suspensions, such as the suspension of head teachers. What is the Minister's equivalent process in his case for rejecting the new clause?
      Paul Goggins: I shall reflect on the hon. Gentleman's point. Indeed, I was reflecting on his earlier point about the circumstances of the constituent to whom he referred, and the place of professional people who are suspended when such information comes into the public domain. We obviously need to safeguard against those connections. Again, I believe that such a safeguard can be achieved within the voluntary route.
      I conclude by saying that, in a very good speech, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield conceded that the voluntary route may deliver the sort of solution that we all seek. He said that it might prove to be a possible way forward. He then speculated about the message that we are sending from this House to the other place. I hope that he will share that message, which is to ask those in the other place not to pre—empt the possibility that the voluntary route may work by trying to force the statutory route upon us. He concedes that the voluntary route may be possible. Let us see if it can be made to work.
      We should send a united message to the other place: we want to see whether that route can work, rather than jump to the legislative solution too soon. In that spirit, I hope that, even at this stage, the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the new clause and send that united message to the other place.
      Mr. Grieve: The Minister tempts me, and I put on record, as I have on many occasions, that my pleasure in the passage of the Bill has been the degree of consensus that we have been able to achieve and the rational debate that has taken place as a result. In that sense, it has been a remarkable piece of legislation to see through Committee, so I am sorry that I shall have to disappoint the Minister on this occasion.
      As always happens with legislation, the problem is that we are running out of time. The Minister wants the legislation on the statute book by the end of the Session, which I support, but we have to send a message about the remaining areas of concern to us. This is the second reading of a new clause and, in the absence of concrete
      576
      proposals from the Minister on self-regulation, the House ought to be very concerned about what I see as a deteriorating situation. I am mindful of what has been said and of the point that we make a distinction for sex offences if we go down this road. Having said that, it is noteworthy that this is the very point that the past Director of Public Prosecutions said should be of great concern. He has highlighted the fact that the current contempt of court provisions are not sufficient to meet that concern. In those circumstances, it is right that the House should pronounce on the principles in the new clause.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 276.

      Division No. 348]

      [6:06 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Allan, Richard

      Goodman, Paul

      Amess, David

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Grayling, Chris

      Baker, Norman

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Barker, Gregory

      Greenway, John

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Barrett, John

      Gummer, rh John

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hague, rh William

      Bercow, John

      Hammond, Philip

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford w & Abingdon

      Blunt, Crispin

      Boswell, Tim

      Harvey, Nick

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Brady, Graham

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Heald, Oliver

      Brazier, Julian

      Heath, David

      Breed, Colin

      Hendry, Charles

      Brook, Mrs Annette L

      Hermon, Lady

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Burns, Simon

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Burstow, Paul

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Butterfill, John

      Jack, rh Michael

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Cameron, David

      Keetch, Paul

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Cash, William

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Clappison, James

      Lansley, Andrew

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Collins, Tim

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Conway, Derek

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Lidington, David

      Cotter, Brain

      Loughton, Tim

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Curry, rh David

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Maclean, rh David

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Doughty, Sue

      Maples, John

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brain

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Duncan, Smith, rh Iain

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Evans, Nigel

      Fallon, Michael

      Moore, Michael

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Norman, Archie

      Flight, Howard

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Flook, Adrian

      O' Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Forth, rh Eric

      Ottaway, Richard

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Page, Richard

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Paice, James

      577

      Paterson, Owen

      Steen, Anthony

      Pickles, Eric

      Stunell, Andrew

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Syms, Robert

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Randall, John

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Redwood, rh John

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Rendel, David

      Thurso, John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Tredinnick, David

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Walter, Robert

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Waterson, Nigel

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Watkinson, Angela

      Ruffley, David

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Weir, Michael

      Sanders, Adrian

      Whittingdale, John

      Wiggin, Bill

      Selous, Andrew

      Willetts, David

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Willis, Phil

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Wilshire, David

      Soames, Nicholas

      Wishart, Pete

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Young, rh Sir George

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Spring, Richard

      Mr. George Osborne and

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Mr. Mark Francois

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clark, Mrs Helen (peterborough)

      Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Allen, Graham

      Clelland, David

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Cohen, Harry

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Coleman, Iain

      Bailey, Adrian

      Colman, Tony

      Baird, Vera

      Connarty, Michael

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Cousins, Jim

      Bell, Stuart

      Crausby, David

      Bennett, Andrew

      Cruddas, Jon

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Berry, Roger

      Cummings, John

      Betts, Clive

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Blackman, Liz

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Blunkett, rh David

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Borrow, David

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Davis Geraint (Croydon C)

      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

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Burnham, Andy

      Donohoe, Brain H.

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Cairns, David

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Eagle, Maria (L'ool Garston)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Edwards, Huw

      Casale, Roger

      Efford, Clive

      Caton, Martin

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Challen, Colin

      Fisher, Mark

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Clapham, Michael

      Flint, Caroline

      578

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Follett, Barbara

      McDonnell, John

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      MacDougall, John

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      McIsaac, Shona

      McKechin, Ann

      Foulkes, rh George

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      MacShane, Denis

      Gerrard, Neil

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      McWalter, Tony

      Godsiff, Roger

      McWilliam, John

      Goggins, Paul

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hain, rh Peter

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Martlew, Eric

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Miliband, David

      Healey, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hendrick, Mark

      Mole, Chris

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Moran, Margaret

      Heppell, John

      Morley, Elliot

      Hesford, Stephen

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Mountford, Kali

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Hodge, Margaret

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Organ, Diana

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Owen, Albert

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Picking, Anne

      Illsley, Eric

      Pickthall, Colin

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Plaskitt, James

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Purchase, Ken

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Purnell, James

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kemp, Fraser

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Khabra, Piara S.

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

      Kidney, David

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Lammy, David

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Ruane, Chris

      Lepper, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      Leslie, Christopher

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Salter, Martin

      Linton, Martin

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Love, Andrew

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Sawford, Phil

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McCabe, Stephen

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      579

      Singh, Marsha

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Ward, Claire

      Soley, Clive

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Speller, rh John

      Watts, David

      Squire, Rachel

      White, Brian

      Stevenson, George

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Wills, Michael

      Winnick, David

      Straw, rh Jack

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Stringer, Graham

      Woodward, Shaun

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Woolas, Phil

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Worthington, Tony

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Timms, Stephen

      Tipping, Paddy

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Mr. Nick Ainger and

      Trickett, Jon

      Paul Clark

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 5

      DISQUALIFICATION
      '(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 28 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c.43) an individual—

      (a) who is convicted of any offence under sections 6 to 17 inclusive of this Act, and

      (b) who receives a qualifying sentence

      is, subject to subsections (2) to (4) below, disqualified from working with children.
      (2) Where an individual believes that he should not be disqualified from working with children then he shall, at the time of advancing a plea of mitigation, apply to the court for a declaration that he is not disqualified.
      (3) Where a court hears an application from an individual under subsection (2) above—

      (a) it shall hear representation from both the individual and the prosecution, and

      (b) it shall only declare a person is not disqualified to work with children if, having regard to all the circumstances, he is satisfied that the individual is unlikely to commit any further offence against a child.

      (4) Where a court does declare that a person is not disqualified from working with children—

      (a) it shall say in open court the reasons for making this declaration; and

      (b) the provisions of subsection (1) will not apply to the individual named in the declaration.

      (5) For the purposes of this section "a qualifying sentence" shall mean—

      (a) a term of imprisonment of at least twelve months;

      (b) a community rehabilitation order of twenty-four or more months duration;

      (c) a community punishment order of one hundred and twenty or more hours duration;

      580

      (d) a community rehabilitation and punishment order, where the rehabilitation order component is of at least eighteen months' duration, and the punishment order component: is of at least sixty hours duration.

      (6) A person who is disqualified from working with children under this Act shall be disqualified from working with children for the purposes of section 28 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c.43).'.—[Sir Paul Beresford.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Sir Paul Beresford: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: Government amendment No. 8.
      Amendment No. 146, in clause 28, leave out subsection (b).
      Sir Paul Beresford: I am afraid that this is the second occasion in a row on which a flawed amendment has been tabled.
      As the Minister is aware, I first raised this matter in Committee—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Could hon. Members who are not staying for this debate please leave the Chamber, as their conversations are causing disturbance?
      Sir Paul Beresford: The reference in the new clause to
      "sections 6 to 17 inclusive",
      which is clearly not appropriate, should read "clauses 5 to 14 inclusive".
      The reason why I raise this issue again is that, as the law stands, paedophiles convicted of sexual activities against children must be banned from working with children as part of that conviction. The simple problem is that, in the courts, the Crown Prosecution Service, or the court, on at least one occasion—I have not checked whether there are others—has simply forgotten. I want to press the Government to consider making that ban automatic.
      The issue was brought to my attention by the recent case of Luke Sadowski, an individual who attempted, through the internet—initially in relation to the United States, then back in this country—to purchase a young child for sex. Fortunately, as he arrived for what he thought was the collection of his purchase, he met policemen. He arrived with an imitation firearm, and was taken to court after the usual procedures. During those procedures, his accommodation was inspected, and it was alarmingly clear from the equipment that was there, and from the attitude picked up from the information available there, that this young man was an appallingly dangerous individual to children. To make matters even worse, he was a trainee teacher. The case went to court, he pleaded guilty, but the court forgot to impose the ban. That is the difficulty.
      When I raised the issue in Committee, the Minister said that he would reflect on it. The purpose of placing this slightly disturbed new clause on today's agenda is therefore to give the Minister an opportunity to tell us

      581
      his thoughts on how to overcome this problem, so that future Luke Sadowskis will be automatically banned from working with children.
      Two amendments are to be considered with the new clause, one from the Government and one tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who will pick up from my comments.
      Mr. Grieve: I welcome my hon. Friend's new clause, and I hope that the Government will be able to respond positively in the spirit in which it was moved.
      It is clear that a serious problem exists in this area, and I shall not repeat the point that has been raised by my hon. Friend. We know of one case in which the court was unable to do what it should have done. On top of that, it was not even able to correct its mistake subsequently. That must raise the question of whether an automatic provision should be introduced, if that is what is desirable. In those circumstances, of course, that automatic provision could be rebuttable by the person raising it in court. In that sense, the new clause is extremely simple—it was complex to draft, but its intent is simple. As this is not a hypothetical matter, and an example of this problem has arisen, I hope that the Government are able to respond positively to his proposal
      I was slightly surprised that amendment No. 146, which was tabled by me and my hon. Friends, was grouped with other amendments under the heading "Protection of under 16 year olds", because, in fact, that it not what it is about, as the Minister is probably aware. It is about whether sexual activity between cousins aged between 16 and 18 should be allowed to take place if they are living under the same roof. This point was raised in Committee, and it bears repetition. The Government, understandably, have wished to provide a substantial measure of protection for those who are in the care of others. As I understand it—the Minister will correct me if I have any of this wrong—the intention behind clauses 26 to 28 is to ensure that when somebody is in a family group, the protection to prevent sexual activity between the carer and the person cared for should extend up to the age of 18. That is a principle with which I have absolutely no disagreement whatever.
      In addition, the Government wish to impose certain blanket prohibitions in relation to those who may not be caring for others but are in a close familial relationship—the obvious one, even if it is not within the prohibited degrees of sexual intercourse within family relationships, is that of a stepfather and a stepson. I have no disagreement with that either. Included in the definitions of family relationships in clause 28, however, under subsection (3), is the following:
      "The relation of A to B is within this subsection if A and B live or have lived in the same household, or A is or has been regularly involved in caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of B, and … A and B are cousins".
      I interpret that as meaning that even if there is no caring relationship between the two individuals, if A and B are cousins and living in the same household, sexual relations between them are prohibited between the ages of 16 and 18, even though they are perfectly permissible in our general law. If I think only of Members of this
      582
      House, I am aware of at least one of my colleagues on the Conservative Benches who is the son of first cousins who are married to each other. This provision has therefore puzzled me somewhat.
      If the Government's purpose is, for understandable reasons, to prevent, for example, a first cousin aged 28 having sexual relations with another cousin who is aged 17, I fully endorse that principle when there may be a caring connection between the two. However, that can be provided for elsewhere in this subsection. What the Government have done is to provide a blanket prohibition in relation to two first cousins who may meet under the same roof at the age of 17 starting a sexual relationship, when in any other context it would be perfectly permissible. It is a small matter that may affect very few people, but I remain troubled by the inclusion of the provision in the Bill in this way. I do not see the sense of it.
      6.30 pm
      Surely the purpose behind the Minister's intent in these clauses is to ensure that those in a caring relationship do not get involved in a sexual relationship with those aged under 18. I wholly applaud that, but the provision cannot be designed to catch two 17-year-olds who happen to live together in the same household when, in any other context, their commencing a sexual relationship would be completely permissible. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Minister will take these points on board.
      Paul Goggins: I thank the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) for all that he has done in Committee and more widely as an active member of the taskforce for child protection on the internet. He rightly said that I said that I would reflect on the points that he made in Committee. I have reflected on them and, sadly from his point of view, I have concluded that I cannot accept his new clause. I hope that he will understand the reasons for that and feel comfortable about withdrawing it.
      It is common ground between us that Luke Sadowski should have been disqualified. There appears to have been an error in the court procedure, but it is worth pointing out that the Department for Education and Skills operates list 99, which disqualifies teachers and trainee teachers from being able to work with children. I also confirm that the criminal records are checked for anyone who applies to become a teacher or trainee teacher.
      I have raised the issue at the heart of the hon. Gentleman's concern with the Crown Prosecution Service and the Judicial Studies Board, and they have made a commitment to me that they will reissue guidance to prosecutors and improve the training of the judiciary to cover this deeply regrettable lapse, which should not have happened.
      The hon. Gentleman accepts that we cannot have a completely automatic system of disqualification. His amendment refers to the fact that there would be certain penalty thresholds and it would enable someone to appeal against disqualification. Even if disqualification were automatic, the court would still need to state that openly in court to clarify that an offender had received one of the qualifying sentences and to ensure that the

      583
      offender knew that he was disqualified. That would enable him to appeal if he wished to exercise that right. Furthermore, it would only be an offence to apply for a job working with children if the offender knew that he had been disqualified. It would therefore be essential for that to be made known in court. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that the answer is to ensure that court procedures work properly, as they should have done in the case of Luke Sadowski and as they must do in future.
      We must ensure that disqualification happens automatically even if, in law, it is not automatic. I give the hon. Gentleman the clear undertaking that I will follow up his concerns—they are also my concerns—to ensure that disqualification is applied in all the appropriate circumstances.
      Government amendment No.8 will raise the maximum penalty for the offence of "Meeting a child following sexual grooming etc."—as clause 16 is headed—from seven to 10 years' imprisonment. This follows a positive and convincing debate in Committee in which strong arguments were advanced for raising the penalty to enable appropriate sentences to be passed in the most serious cases.
      Mr. Grieve: I realise that I failed to welcome what the Government have done. I do so wholeheartedly, and I am grateful to the Minister for taking on board the representations that have been made.
      Paul Goggins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. In a sense, this amendment exemplifies the spirit in which we conducted the Committee stage. A great deal of consensus emerged.
      A situation could arise in which a paedophile with many previous and serious convictions had repeatedly communicated with a number of children on the internet and in which there was clear evidence that he intended to commit perhaps a violent sex offence against one or more of them. He might set off to meet one of these children for this purpose, but the police might intervene to protect the child. We would all be clearly relieved that the offence of carrying out the sexual assault on the child did not take place but, in such cases, a maximum sentence of seven years' imprisonment may not be adequate. The proposed new maximum penalty of 10 years brings the offence in clause 16 into line with the preparatory offences in clauses 61 to 63 that also carry 10-year maximum penalties.
      The hon. Gentleman spoke to amendment No. 146, and I remind the House that the child familial sex offences are primarily designed to protect children up to the age of 18 within the family environment where they are particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse and exploitation. Because of the balance of power within the family unit and the close and trusting relationships that exist within it, the family can create particular opportunities for exploitation and abuse.
      A great deal of thought was given to the scope of this offence and the familial relationships that should be covered. It is clear that the most important factors are the proximity of the relationship and the balance of power that exists between the abuser and his victim, and these issues can extend beyond the immediate blood relatives of a child.
      584
      The definition of the family unit also needs to be drawn widely to reflect the fairly loose structure of the modern family and the sometimes transitory nature of familial relationships. Cousins have always been included in the scope of these offences and this view was generally supported in another place. The only issue raised for discussion in Committee there was the definition of the term "cousin" and the wish that this should be restricted to first cousins. That is the effect of the definition in clause 28(5)(b). I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured on that point.
      We believe that it is right to include cousins within the scope of these offences in circumstances where they live, or have lived, in the same household as the child or if they are, or have been, regularly involved in caring for, training or supervising the child. In such circumstances, when one cousin is so closely involved in the life of another, there will clearly be the opportunity for exploitative behaviour to take place and for an unsuitable relationship to develop. The hon. Gentleman asked for the reasons for our approach, and I have outlined why I cannot accept his amendment. I ask him not to press it.
      Sir Paul Beresford: This has been an unusual Bill, and it was particularly so in Committee. The Committee kept to the timetable because we had a genuine interest in targeting our discussions on certain issues. The same thing has happened this evening. The Government have shifted their posit ion in the other place and here in response to the pressures put on them, and this group of amendments is an example of that.
      Amendment No. 146 pressed for the response that we had asked for in Committee. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) will be satisfied that we have at least received some response.
      We certainly support Government amendment No. 8. The Minister was pressed by both sides in Committee and we give him his considerable due for responding in the correct way even if he did not respond in quite the way that we would have liked.
      New clause 5 was tabled to make sure that the Government were aware of the slips in court procedures that might allow a convicted and vicious paedophile to be let loose on children. The Minister has taken our points on board and clearly acted upon them. His face in Committee suggested that he would be helpful, and he has been this evening. I therefore beg to seek leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 7

      ENCRYPTION (No. 2)
      'A person convicted of an offence under section 1 of the Child Protection Act 1978 and subsequently convicted of an offence under section 53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is on the second conviction on indictment liable to—

      (a) a term of imprisonment not exceeding seven years, or

      (b) a fine, or

      (c) both.'.—[Sir Paul Beresford.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Sir Paul Beresford: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 8—Encryption (No.3)—
      "1. section 53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 there shall be inserted—
      "53A Subsequent failure to comply with a notice where protected data likely to be indecent images
      (1) Where the first and second conditions below are satisfied, section 53 of this Act shall apply as if the penalties were—

      (a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or to a fine, or to both;

      (b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both

      and the offence shall be treated as a relevant offence for the purposes of Part II of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
      (2) This first condition is—

      (a) a person has been previously convicted of an offence contrary to section 53 of this Act, and

      (b) that person has been previously convicted of an offence contrary to section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 or section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

      (2) The second condition is a further notice has been issued under section 49 of this Act.".'.
      Amendment No. 190, in page 26, line 16 [Clause 46], at end insert—
      '(5) Section 5 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (c.37) shall be amended as follows—
      (a) After subsection (6) shall be inserted—

      "(6A) Where a person is convicted or cautioned in respect of an offence under section 1(1) of this Act, then any equipment that has been used to take, make, store or distribute indecent images of children shall be forfeited.

      (6B) Section 14(1) of the Powers of Criminal Court (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c.6) shall not apply for the purposes of this section.

      (6C) Where equipment has been the subject of forfeiture under section (6A) above, a person, other than the person convicted under section 1, shall be entitled to apply to the relevant magistrates' court for return of the equipment if—

      (a) the equipment forfeited belonged not to the person convicted under section 1 but to the applicant, and

      (b) the applicant did not have knowledge of the taking, making, storing or distributing of indecent images of children, nor could he be reasonably expected to have known.

      (6D) The burden of proof for the purposes of section (6C) shall be on the applicant, and the standard of proof shall be the preponderance of probabilities.

      (6E) Where the court is satisfied that the conditions set out in (6C) above are met, they may order the return of the equipment to the applicant so Long as any indecent images that remain on the equipment can be permanently erased."

      (b) In the first line of subsection (7) the words "(2), (6) or (6A)" shall replace "(2) or (6)".'.

      Government amendments Nos. 83 and 84.
      Sir Paul Beresford: New clauses 7 and 8 and amendment No. 190 are the result of what happened in Committee, where I raised the issue of encryption because I was beginning to become aware of the difficulties that it involves. Encryption is already recognized as a problem under part II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—RIPA, for short—
      586
      under which the maximum sentence for failing to produce a code to obtain access to encrypted material is two years.
      Anyone with an interest in the activities of pedophiles knows that they collect volumes of pictures and videos of children being sexually abused, and that they film themselves. Such things are quite horrendous and it would be inappropriate for me to continue talking about them as it is not yet 8 pm. Paedophiles use such material for self-stimulation, to join paedophile groups and as a means to purchase photos, drawings and films, which are frequently kept digitally on computers, remote servers, floppy discs, CD-ROMs, storage pens and digital versatile discs. If a person is convicted of possessing such material, the sentence is usually considerably more than two years, and if the material becomes available to the police, the individual runs the risk of being prosecuted for other offences. An individual who is pressed to reveal the encryption code for such material is most unlikely to do so because if he failed to do so he could only be sentenced to two years under RIPA, and would not be put on the sex offenders list.
      The Home Office and the police have told me that they try to break the encryption, which can be done in various ways and by several agencies, including national agencies. An expert who works for the Home Office and the police told me that 80 percent. of codes have been broken so far, which means that 20 percent have not been broken. However, I have some doubt about the figure of 80 percent because information that I have received from the police shows that materials that are sent for code breaking often do not return and, if they do, there is only a 50:50 chance that the code will be broken. De-encryption also costs a lot of money and takes a long time.
      I spoke to an expert from the private sector about this matter. He smiled quietly and pointed out that the technology has reached the stage of using 128-bit encryption, which is effectively impossible to break. There are now programmers to achieve 256-bit encryption and, even more worryingly, they are available to download for free from the internet. Although the programmes are slightly complicated, they are rapidly becoming easier to use.
      The new clauses would provide that if individuals who had been convicted of sex offences against children failed to give an encryption code, they would face a sentence considerably lengthier than the current two-year sentence under RIPA. I would hope that the threat of a potential seven-year sentence would inspire such individuals to save the police and de-encryption individuals and groups a lot of time and money by coming forward with information, although I appreciate that one would not expect 100 per cent. of people to react to that.
      The Minister listened with interest to the debate on encryption in Committee and we heard soothing noises and were told that the Government would come back to it, which is why I have tabled two new clauses. I hope that he is positive about choosing one of them and although I suspect that I am being more hopeful than anything, one can but hope that he will react in such a way.

      587
      Amendment No. 190 is quite simple and its provisions were discussed in Committee. When the police take information technology equipment from individuals who are charged with sexual offences against children, they use it to assist their investigation of the crime. Details of the data are often used in the court case. In practice, the police generally keep the equipment, often even if the owner is cautioned rather than convicted. That happens because returning the equipment to the individual would go against natural justice. It would be rather like giving lollies back to a child, if that is not bad phraseology, because it would give individuals the opportunity to return to their activities. As any IT technician knows, even if attempts are made to erase data, it is quite possible for erased data to be restored. If the data are encrypted, the police have no surety that they are destroying the material or clearing the discs.
      6.45 pm
      I am sure that hon. Members are aware that accidents happen: hard discs can get dropped and, as the Minister said to me one evening, there is nothing like the effect of a sledgehammer. However, an individual could technically ask the police to return the equipment, which they must do under the current law. I have tabled amendment No. 190 because I hope that the Government will accept that the police need the law to go a little further so that such equipment would be confiscated after caution or conviction.
      Mr. Grieve: I shall not take up the House's time at length, save to say that I entirely support the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). New clause 8 relates to the extent to which individuals might try to hide behind encryption given that the sentence for non-co-operation is so much shorter than the sentence that would be received if the full offence were disclosed when the material was found, which will cause the House anxiety. Even if the Minister cannot accept the new clauses, I hope that he will give us a positive response and say that the issue will be considered. Given the growth of internet use, and especially the use of the internet for paedophile pornography, the problem is serious and it will grow unless the Government do something to solve it. The only way to do that is to ensure that people who do not co-operate by providing encryption keys in such cases are not given an advantage. I appreciate that the new clauses might pose some problems but the police usually know when they are investigating child pornography and paedophiles. In such circumstances, it is not beyond the wit of the House to construct an amendment to address that.
      Amendment No. 190 also relates to a real worry. I am especially troubled by the fact that I have been told—I am sure my hon. Friend has too—that it is almost always possible for a person with technical expertise to retrieve deleted material from a hard drive. Given that many who are interested in child pornography have expertise in the field of computers, there would be a risk that if we handed back equipment, the information remaining after the deletion process could be misused. I hope the Minister will look favourably on the amendment.
      Sandra Gidley: I rise briefly to support the new clauses and amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Mole
      588
      Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), although 1 do not think anything would be gained by prolonging the debate on them. However, I also want to make a point that was mentioned in Committee relating to Government amendments Nos. 83 and 84. We are clear about the situation regarding photographs, pseudo—photographs and images, but the Bill does not cover written material that describes paedophilia or other aspects of sexual behaviour that we might find distasteful.
      I do not think that the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration understood what I was talking about in Committee. That reassures me greatly because it probably means that she has led a sheltered life. Fairly foul material exists that graphically describes sexual acts in a way that is probably best not described. That material could encourage anyone with an interest in child sex or child exploitation to go over the edge and try it for themselves. Have the Government considered dealing with such material? If so, why is there nothing in the Bill to that effect? If not, perhaps they could think about it because it has been overlooked.
      Paul Goggins: Government amendments Nos. 83 and 84 will create a limited defense to a charge of making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child under section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978 when it is done for one of the specified purposes: for the detection, investigation or prevention of crime; for criminal proceedings; or by those who carry out the functions of the security service or GCHQ. That defense replaces the authorization scheme.
      I remind the House of the purpose of clause 47. There is no statutory defence to making indecent photographs of children. In the normal course of an investigation, the police and others, such as Internet Watch Foundation staff and systems administrators, need to access internet sites where they believe they will find indecent photographs. Their work will involve them in downloading and thus making the indecent photographs. After discussions with the police and representatives of the industry, the authorization scheme that we originally drew up has been shown to be unduly burdensome to the police and subject to delays owing to the potential number of applications for such authorization.
      The amendment creates a limited defence for specified purposes. A person shown to have made an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child will have to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that it was necessary for him to do so for one of the specified purposes. That represents the right balance, allowing those who need to act to do so while preserving a very significant obstacle to misuse by paedophiles. We acknowledge that companies wishing to assist the police may require further reassurance that their actions will be viewed as complying with the defence, so as to avoid the risk of lengthy investigation and possible prosecution. We intend that the defence will be backed up by a clear code of practice involving the Crown Prosecution Service, the police. the Internet Watch Foundation and the industry in general, setting out in sufficient detail the way in which such judgments will be made. Such a code

      589
      is best made on a non-statutory basis as it will need to be adjusted swiftly to reflect changes in technology and investigative techniques.
      Mr. Grieve: I welcome Government amendments Nos. 83 and 84, which reflect the concerns of internet service providers. They are a great improvement. The industry remains anxious about some matters. I am convinced that the code will alleviate that anxiety, but it needs to be drawn up after good consultations with the industry, which needs to be reassured that it will be able to copy and make images for the purpose of helping in the investigation of crime.
      Paul Goggins: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. If the authorization system is overly burdensome it will not be enough simply to have the defence that we propose without the wider context of the code and the support that that will afford. Clearly the code will need to give people who do that job the confidence to act. As I said several times in Committee, none of us would wish to do their job. So I commend amendments Nos. 83 and 84 to the House.
      Again, I have to disappoint the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) by telling him that I resist amendment No. 190, on forfeiture. It has been introduced following an admittedly brief debate in Committee. My hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration acknowledged that there is an issue to be addressed and agreed that we would consider the position to see whether we could introduce our own proposals. Although I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's proposals as they stand, I regret that so far we have been unable to resolve all the issues ourselves. However, I assure him and the House that we will continue to work on that problem and will introduce proposals at the earliest opportunity. As the hon. Gentleman rightly explained, I own up to belonging to the sledgehammer tendency. I hope that it gives him some comfort that that is my starting point.
      The hon. Gentleman rightly identified that the provisions set out in sections 4 and 5 of the Protection of Children Act 1978, which deal with the forfeiture of indecent photographs, do not state specifically how to deal with the equipment that is used t o create, handle or store the data concerned. In attempting to ensure that the equipment is not returned, however, the amendment would create difficulties in some circumstances. For example, if the permanent erasure of the indecent images is not completed to the satisfaction of the court, the equipment could not be returned, even to third parties, possibly causing a substantial loss. Similarly, the amendment would not allow for the fact that valuable data belonging to an innocent third party might be held on a computer owned by the offender and lost to its owner. That could include business accounts and other important data relating to an innocent third party's affairs.
      Such issues need consideration and discussion. We have begun that process, but it is not yet complete. We have also identified that further work is needed to close a gap, which the amendment would not do, between the provisions in the 1978 Act and the general forfeiture provision set out in section 143 of the Powers of
      590
      Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. I remain deeply grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his work on the subject. I assure him that we will work hard to resolve all the problems and to introduce proposals to fill the gaps at the earliest opportunity. I regret, however, that we are not at that stage yet and ask for his forbearance.
      The objective of new clause 7 is to make an offender contemplate an extended term of imprisonment for failing to disclose electronic information that he has protected. I welcome the link to part III of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. When implemented, the RIPA regime will provide a power to compel the disclosure of protected information, subject to statutory safeguards and oversight. I have to resist the new clause, however. On a technical level, it refers to an offence under section 7 of the 1978 Act rather than section 1, which would be more appropriate. More importantly, however, it does not clearly make the link between the conduct involving indecent images of children and the conduct, in the same investigation, of failing to disclose protected data when required to do so under RIPA. It simply refers to a "subsequent" conviction for a section 53 offence, which could relate to an entirely separate incident from the one in which the indecent photographs were found and could take place many years after the conviction, even when the person had been entirely rehabilitated.
      The key consideration must be that the offence of failing to disclose protected information relates directly to the offence involving indecent images. In practice, the conviction for failing to disclose might precede or be simultaneous to the conviction for the indecent photographs offence. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman may regard my comments as more smooth words, but I am sympathetic to what the amendment attempts to do. As in Committee, I undertake to consider introducing our own proposals, initially in the context of consulting on the implementation of part III of RIPA.
      I have to resist new clause 8 for the same reasons as new clause 7, although I understand the concerns that drive the hon. Gentleman to table such amendments. Quite simply, an offence of failing to comply with a RIPA requirement to disclose protected information or the means to access that information cannot be treated as a sexual offence simply because it is a repeat offence and the offender has a previous conviction for a sexual offence.
      I hope that those warm words have offered the hon. Gentleman some reassurance. I give him my pledge that I will continue to work very hard on the matter, and I look forward to working with him on the taskforce and in other forums. However, I ask him not to press his new clause and amendments.
      7 pm
      Sir Paul Beresford: It is going to be an evening of warm words and pledges, but in the circumstances I cannot but accept those offered by the Minister.
      Certainly Government amendments Nos. 83 and 84 are welcome. I neglected to say earlier that not only has there been close co-operation in Committee, which seems to be duplicated this evening, but the internet taskforce, which the Minister chairs, and its offshoots have a huge number of experts in various areas, and it may be that the amendments were derived from those experts.

      591
      I am sorry that amendment No. 190 is not acceptable, but I am certainly relieved that the sledgehammer tendency will continue and that there is a possibility of Government proposals on this matter. The same applies to the two new clauses.
      We have rattled cages again this evening, and the Government have accepted that they need to look into these matters. On those grounds, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 9

      SECTIONS 17 To 20: EXEMPTION FOR SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS
      '(1) Conduct by a person (A) which would otherwise be an offence under any of sections 17 to 20 against another person (B) is not an offence under that section, if—

      (a) B is 16 or over, and

      (b) prior to the position of trust existing and the consent of the person or persons specified in subsection (2) below apply.

      (2) The consents are—

      (a) subject to paragraphs (b) to (d) of this subsection, the consent of—

      (i) each parent (if any) of B who has parental responsibility for him; and

      (ii) each guardian (if any) of B;

      (b) where a residence order is in force with respect to B, the consent of the person or persons with whom he lives, or is to live, as a result of the order (in substitution for the consents mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection);

      (c) where a care order is in force with respect to B, the consent of the local authority designated in the order (in addition to the consents mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection);

      (d) where neither paragraph (b) or (c) of this subsection applies but a residence order was in force with respect to B immediately before he reached the age of sixteen, the consent of the person or persons with whom he lived, or was to live, as a result of the order (in substitution for the consents mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection).

      (3) In this section "guardian", "parental responsibility", "residence order" and "care order" have the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989.'.—[Dr. Evan Harris.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Dr. Evan Harris: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 118 and 10 to 12.
      Amendment No. 185, in page 14, line 14 [Clause 25], at end insert
      'and the relationship commenced before the defendant was aware that he would be in a position of trust.'.
      Amendment No. 181, in page 14, line 17 [Clause 25], leave out subsection (3) and insert—
      '(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if (A) could have predicted that he would eventually assume a position of trust.'.
      Government amendment No. 21.
      Amendment No. 148, in page 17, line 10 [Clause 31], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      592
      Amendment No. 149, in page 17, line 12 [Clause 31], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Government amendments Nos. 22 and 25.
      Amendment No. 150, in page 17, line 35 [Clause 32], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Amendment No. 151, in page 17, line 37 [Clause 32], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Government amendments Nos. 26 and 29.
      Amendment No. 152, in page 18, line 20 [Clause 33], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Amendment No. 153, in page 18, line 22 [Clause 33], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Government amendments Nos. 30 and 31.
      Amendment No. 154, in page 18, line 39 [Clause 34], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Amendment No. 155, in page 18, line 41 [Clause 34], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Government amendment No. 32.
      Amendment No. 156, in page 19, line 19 [Clause 35], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Amendment No. 157, in page 19, line 21 [Clause 35], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Amendment No. 158, in page 19, line 39 [Clause 36], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Amendment No. 159, in page 19, line 41 [Clause 36], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Amendment No. 160, in page 20, line 22 [Clause 37], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Amendment No. 161, in page 20, line 24 [Clause 37], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Amendment No. 162, in page 20, line 40 [Clause 38], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Amendment No. 163, in page 20, line 42 [Clause 38], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Amendment No. 164, in page 21, line 8 [Clause 39], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Amendment No. 165, in page 21, line 10 [Clause 39], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Amendment No. 188, in page 21, line 11 [Clause 39], at end insert—
      '( ) A person is not guilty of an offence under this section if—

      (a) the touching was for the purpose of sex education, and

      (b) B is a person with profound and multiple disabilities such that they require intensive and intimate support to understand and receive sex education, and

      (c) the education is necessary to protect B from possible abuse or harm, and

      (d) there is no alternative means of delivering this sex education because of the nature of B's disability, and

      (e) the education is carried out by qualified specialists or by staff who have received training to meet the specific needs of B, and

      (f) the decision to provide such sex education has been recommended by a multidisciplinary team.'.

      Amendment No. 166, in page 21, line 13 [Clause 39], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Amendment No. 167, in page 21, line 15 [Clause 39], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Amendment No. 168, in page 21, line 36 [Clause 40], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.

      593
      Amendment No. 169, in page 21, line 38 [Clause 40], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Amendment No. 189, in page 21, line 39 [Clause 40], at end insert—
      '( ) A person is not guilty of an offence under this section if—

      (a) A's action was for the purpose of sex education and,

      (b) B is a person with profound and multiple disabilities such that they require intensive and intimate support to understand and receive sex education, and

      (c) the education is necessary to protect B from possible abuse or harm, and

      (d) there is no alternative means of delivering this sex education because of the nature of B's disability, and

      (e) the education is carried out by qualified specialists or by staff who have received training to meet the specific needs of B, and

      (f) the decision to provide such ex education has been recommended by a multidisciplinary team.'.

      Amendment No. 170, in page 21. line 41 [Clause 40], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Amendment No. 171, in page 21. line 43 [Clause 40], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Amendment No. 172, in page 22. line 26 [Clause 41], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Amendment No. 173, in page 22. line 28 [Clause 41], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Amendment No. 174, in page 22. line 31 [Clause 41], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Amendment No. 175, in page 22. line 33 [Clause 41], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Amendment No. 176, in page 23, line 1 [Clause 42], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Amendment No. 177, in page 23, line 3 [Clause 42], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Amendment No. 178, in page 23, line 6 [Clause 42], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Amendment No. 179, in page 23, line 8 [Clause 42], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Amendment No. 180, in page 23, line 34 [Clause 43], after 'disorder', insert 'or learning disability'.
      Dr. Harris: I do not intend to detain the House long, partly because the drafting of the new clause is flawed, as hon. Members will have seen. First, it does not state that it should apply only to same-sex couples, and secondly, as currently drafted it would appear to be covered by the exemption provided in clause 25 for relationships that pre-date the position of trust. I hope that by clearly setting out those flaws I save hon. Members the time and trouble of repeating them.
      I think that what I seek to achieve has been communicated to Ministers by officials. In the situation where acts take place where B is older than 16, the same defence should exist for homosexuals as for heterosexuals. I support the Government amendments in this group which restrict the marriage exemption to cases in which B is over 16, and in any event it is more convenient to consider this issue in that context, given that the age of consent is 16 for both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
      594
      The marriage exemption in this part of the Bill is very narrow because of the exemption in clause 25, and I accept that. It covers only those areas where a position of trust predates sexual activity, where there is no premarital sexual activity and where marriage takes place where there is a position of trust and is followed by sexual activity that, without the marriage exemption, would not be exempt, as Ministers clearly believe it ought to be. Clearly there needs to be a marriage exemption for those circumstances.
      I seek to argue, through the new clause, that the same exemption, albeit narrow, should be available for homosexuals. Ideally, there would be a clause equivalent to that providing the heterosexual marriage exemption. My approach was to recognise that where B is 16 or 17, parental consent for the marriage would be needed, so clearly there could also be parental consent for a relationship that post-dates the position of trust in a same-sex relationship. That is why I have set out in the new clause the same consents that apply for 16 and 17year-olds in the Marriage Act 1949, as amended.
      I made a similar proposal during the passage of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill a number of years ago. That amendment was not accepted in both Houses of Parliament because at that point there was no likelihood of civil partnerships being just around the corner. At that time it was the intention of Liberal Democrat Members, but not, perhaps, of the Government, to ensure that equality between people of different sexualities was as complete as possible, and a clause such as this would have been necessary.
      The Government have started a consultation on civil partnerships for same-sex couples in which people would be able to register their relationship. If those civil partnerships apply, as the Government intend, only to same-sex couples, they will provide an opportunity for an equivalent exemption in these narrow circumstances. The consultation does not explicitly refer to this issue. and I seek to give the Solicitor-General an opportunity to explain the Government's position on providing equality here, to state whether there will be an equivalent exemption for relationships that are committed, just like marriages, but post-date a position of trust, and to say whether civil partnerships would be the way forward.
      I hope that the Solicitor-General will be able to provide some reassurance that, despite the tendency that we have seen in other debates for marriage to be set aside, there is an ability to ensure that the same defences apply to same-sex couples as to opposite-sex couples above the age of consent, which is the same for both. To be honest, even if the right hon. and learned Lady cannot provide that reassurance, I do not intend to press the new clause, but I hope that I am not enabling her to sell the pass, because there is some interest in the Government's intentions for equality in criminal law in the context of civil partnerships. Many people inside and outside the House will be interested to hear what she has to say.
      Sandra Gidley: I want first to talk about amendments Nos. 181 and 185, which repeat the slightly flawed attempt that I made in Committee to try to reassure myself that there are no loopholes in clause 25.1 shall try to explain the case a little more clearly than I did in Committee, by relating a number of scenarios to which the clause may relate.

      595
      I apologise in advance for not being gender-neutral, but it gets very complicated when one is talking about A and B. The first possibility that occurred to me was that of a 16-year-old girl in a developing relationship with a young teacher. The teacher decides to move and obtain a teaching post at the sixth-form college to which the girl has applied. If the relationship was sexual before the girl goes to college, the Bill does not criminalise the couple. People have an opinion as to whether teachers should be in such relationships with students, but this is not the place to get into a moral and ethical argument. If the relationship was not sexual before the girl goes to college, the Bill criminalises the relationship if it then becomes sexual.
      That seems rather perverse because most relationships are on a continuum, and there will come a point in any relationship at which it may become sexual. It seems fairly arbitrary to decide that if that point comes after the girl in question attends sixth-form college, there is suddenly something wrong with that. The clause could have another effect because, in practice, the girl could come under considerable pressure. The chap could legitimately argue, "Come on, if we don't have sex now we can't for the next two years." If the girl was wavering, that could affect her decision—[Interruption.] Members are laughing, but there is a serious point—something that puts young people under pressure to have sex when they do not want to is not necessarily a good thing, particularly given the high rate of STD infection. The Bill is therefore flawed in its current form. The defendant may also insist that the sexual relationship commenced before the position of trust arose, while the accuser states that that is not the case. That scenario is much more likely to arise if there is potential to excuse the offence by backdating the sexual intimacy.
      Finally, there may be cases in which, because of a learning disability or suchlike, a young person is targeted by an authority figure and befriended or even groomed. The relationship is not initially sexual—it is merely friendly—but when the circumstances change and contact between the two becomes more regular an abuser could press for sexual relations. An outsider might find it difficult to establish exactly when the relationship became sexual, but the reality might be that a form of grooming had taken place before the abuser manoeuvred himself into a position of sexual opportunity. In Committee, the Minister urged me to withdraw my amendment, but promised further consideration of the matter. However, I am not aware of any such consideration, so I would be grateful for clarification of the clause, which is not perfect in its current form.
      A number of my amendments try to reinstate the phrase "or learning disability" throughout the Bill. Instead of simply referring to someone "with a mental disorder", we would use the phrase "a person with a mental disorder or learning disability". I do not intend to repeat at great length the arguments that we had in Committee, but the crux of the matter is that the Government apparently consider that anybody with a learning disability is automatically regarded as having a mental disorder. Organisations such as Mencap have worked long and hard to establish learning disability as a separate entity and they regard the Government's thinking as offensive and belittling.
      596
      The Government's approach is inconsistent. The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 makes separate provision for people with a mental disorder and people with a learning disability. Section 16 states that special measures apply to witnesses with a mental disorder, as defined in the Mental Health Act 1983, and, separately, to witnesses with a
      "significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning".
      It is therefore possible for legislation to use different terminology to describe people with a mental disorder and people with learning disabilities.
      Page 21 of the explanatory notes to the draft Mental Incapacity Bill states:
      "This could cover a range of problems such as psychiatric illness, learning disability, dementia… ".
      A clear distinction is therefore made between psychiatric illness and learning disability.
      In a briefing with the Minister and her advisers before Report, I asked which part of the Department of Health dealt with the issue raised in amendments Nos. 188 and 189, which are backed by Sense. I was told it was the part that dealt with learning disability, so other people appear to think that there is a distinction to be made. It would be helpful to establish a definition of learning disability and use it throughout the Sexual Offences Bill. If there are any changes to such a definition in the Mental Incapacity Bill, the Sexual Offences Bill could be changed retrospectively.
      Finally, amendments Nos. 188 and 189 are backed by Sense and apply to people who are deaf and blind and may need sex education either because they are displaying inappropriate behaviour, perhaps in public, or are self-harming. That problem was raised on Second Reading and in Committee. The Minister has claimed that the charities involved did not agree on the way forward. There was also an understandable reluctance to include a loophole in the Bill. As a result, Sense arranged a meeting with the other charities concerned to try to reach a consensus. Unfortunately, I could not make that meeting because I could not find a parking space at a Hampshire station, but I understand that there is now consensus. The amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats therefore have the support of those other organisations.
      7.15 pm
      The amendments suggest that the following factors all need to be taken into account when providing an exemption. The touching must be for the purposes of sex education, and the recipient must have profound multiple disabilities. The education must be deemed necessary because of a problem of abuse or harm—in other words, it is fundamentally about providing protection. It should also be clear that there is no alternative. If there is another way of delivering such education, it should have a priority. The education should be carried out by qualified staff who have received training, a ad a decision must be made by a multidisciplinary team whose members are familiar with the person who will be receiving treatment—we cannot put such decisions in the hands of one person alone.
      That is a stringent set of criteria and I challenge the Minister to come up with a loophole. If the Government are still minded to reject the amendments, I should like

      597
      to know how they are going to deal with the issue. They have conceded that there is a problem and, having done so, they have a duty to act. I would therefore welcome an explanation of the way in which the problem will be dealt with in future.
      While noting the slight flaw that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) noted in one of his amendments—
      Dr. Evan Harris: It was a major flaw.
      Sandra Gidley: I was trying to be charitable to my hon. Friend. Given the fact that the equality and civil partnership issue is rising rapidly up the political agenda, it would be useful to know the Government's thinking on the matter.
      Ms Munn: I should like to speak briefly to the amendments that raise the use of the term "learning disability" and ask the Minister to respond. I, too, have spoken to at least one organisation that works with learning-disabled adults and believes that not using the term "learning-disabled" in the Bill would be a matter of great regret. I should like to focus or genuine difficulties of definition and echo what the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) said about the term "mental disorder", which does not include learning-disabled people. Its use to describe people with a learning disability can be considered offensive, but we must reflect on whether people would consider themselves to be covered by the Bill if the term is not included.
      I may be wrong, but I understand that the term "mental disorder" is defined in the Mental Health Act 1983 and relates to the term "mental impairment". I studied the legislation as a former practitioner, and my understanding is that mental impairment refers to something over and above a learning disability. It is generally taken to mean a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind that includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning, and is associated with abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the person concerned. If that is the case, using only the definition of mental disorder has serious implications for people with learning disabilities. I want the legislation to be introduced as soon as possible. It is enormously important and takes forward the current position of learning-disabled adults, who are some of the most vulnerable people around. Rightly, we are struggling to get the legislation right, and the inclusion of the term would help.
      The Solicitor-General: Further to undertakings made in Committee, we have tabled Government amendment No. 118 to bring further categories of adults within the scope of the abuse of trust offences. Perhaps I can explain it before I deal with the issues raised by the amendments moved by the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), which I shall get to in due course.
      Connexions personal advisers are already covered in clause 22(7) by virtue of the fact that they fulfil their duties under section 114 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000. Such persons can also fulfil those duties under
      598
      sections 8 to 10 of the Employment and Training Act 1973. It is clearly necessary to refer to both Acts to avoid a loophole that would enable a defendant to claim that he did not fall within the scope of those offences, and Government amendment No. 118 achieves that purpose.
      Government amendment No. 118 also brings within the scope of the Bill those who have unsupervised contact with children in the context of their duties under sections 20 or 21 of the Children Act 1989 and equivalent legislation in Northern Ireland. Such persons arrange accommodation for children who, for whatever reason, are not being looked after by those who have parental responsibility, and check that their welfare is being looked after once such accommodation has been found. They include local authority staff such as social workers and family centre staff who visit the accommodation in which a child has been placed to oversee the child's welfare. The amendment also fulfils an undertaking given by my noble Friend Baroness Scotland to Baroness Blatch when the Bill was debated in another place.
      Government amendments Nos. 10 and 11 remove the requirement that unsupervised contact between children and those who fall within the scope of the offences by virtue of their employment as children and family reporters, children's guardians and guardians ad litem must take place with the child alone. We have become concerned that the requirement for the contact to take place while the child is alone would create a loophole in the legislation that would apply where, for example, another person is present and that person has no role in supervising the defendant. For example, we would not want the presence of the complainant's younger sibling to allow the defendant to claim that a meeting did not take place with the child alone and that he does not therefore fall within the scope of the abuse of trust offences.
      We are satisfied that the requirement for the defendant to have unsupervised contact with the child is sufficient to bring him within the scope of these offences. It will be for the courts to decide, on the individual facts of each case, whether the defendant's contact with the child was unsupervised. In practice, the addition of the word "alone" adds little but creates a potential loophole, and I hope that hon. Members will support our decision to remove it from the statute.
      Government amendment No. 12 amends the definition
      "looks after on an individual basis"
      in clause 23 by replacing the words
      "has unsupervised contact with B alone"
      with
      "has unsupervised contact with B".
      That addresses the same potential loophole identified in the previous two amendments, whereby a person could argue that they fell outside the scope of the offence because, for example, a younger sibling was always present at the meetings with the complainant.
      Amendments Nos. 181 and 185 were tabled by the hon. Members for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke), for Romsey and for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). Amendment No. 181 would amend clause 26 by removing subsection (3), which includes a reverse

      599
      burden of proof ensuring that it is for the defendant to prove that a pre-existing relationship existed. We can see no justification for removing that requirement because the evidence is within the particular knowledge of the defendant and the fact of a pre-existing relationship is a true exception to the offence. A legal burden of proof on the defendant is therefore justified and proportionate in those circumstances.
      Amendments Nos. 181 and 185 would restrict the preexisting sexual relationship defence in clause 25 so that it would not apply if the defendant were aware at the inception of the relationship that he would be in a position of trust or that he could have predicted that he would eventually assume a position of trust. That relates to the example raised by the hon. Member for Romsey. There are various drafting difficulties in the amendments. For example, the terms "predicted" and "eventually assume" are, as I am sure she is aware, too vague to be included in statute. What criteria would be used to determine whether the defendant could have predicted something, and what exactly is meant by "eventually"?
      I also note that the amendments do not require knowledge that a position of trust would arise specifically between the defendant and the child concerned. Nor do they require knowledge on the part of the child of the potential future position of trust. The hon. Lady mentioned that point in her example, but it does not feature in the amendment. The defendant's knowledge, or rather prediction, of that alone is not sufficient to create a situation in which a position of trust could be used to enter into an exploitative relationship.
      There are two points on which there is certainty: when the sexual relationship started and when the position of trust started. The hon. Lady was right to remind us that there is sometimes a continuum in such matters. However, the law must try to be as certain as possible. The two certainties are when the sexual relationship started and when the position of trust started, and I think that is probably the best we can do.
      Leaving those specific points aside, I do not believe that alleged knowledge of a potential future position of trust that would arise between the parties, whether that information is known only to the defendant or to both parties, is sufficient to bring that relationship within the scope of the offences, which is the point that we are discussing. Not only would it be extremely difficult to draft such a requirement with sufficient clarity, as is evidenced by the hon. Lady's attempts, but it would not be right in principle to do so. The purpose of the abuse of trust offences is to protect young people over the age of consent from being manipulated into an exploitative relationship because of the imbalance of power that exists in a relationship of trust. Until that relationship of trust has been formed, I do not see how such a causal link can be made.
      The amendments have been tabled out of genuine concern for child protection, but where two persons who are over the age of consent have willingly entered into a sexual relationship before a relationship of trust exists between them, I cannot see that it would be right to bring the relationship within the scope of the criminal law. Where such a preexisting sexual relationship is subsequently continued after a relationship of trust has been formed between the parties, the matter may fall to be regulated by professional guidelines and employment
      600
      codes of conduct, but I continue to believe that it would be unreasonable to bring such a relationship within the scope of the criminal law. For those reasons, we cannot accept the amendments.
      Although new clause 9 seeks to create a new defence on the basis that a same-sex relationship existed prior to the onset of the position of trust, which is unnecessary because such a defence already exists in clause 25, I understand that the real intention of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) is to create a same-sex relationship exception that would mirror the marriage exception at clause 24. I agree with the sentiments that he expressed, but he has put the civil partnership cart before the horse. None the less, his point has been well flagged up.
      I appreciate the efforts made in the new clause to ensure that the exception would apply only where the relationship had the approval and consent of those who have parental responsibility for the child concerned. However, I remain concerned that such provisions would not create the same level of reassurance as a marriage contract o r indeed a civil partnership.
      7.30 pm
      As I have explained, the Government have been involved in the consideration of proposals relating to a civil partnership registration scheme and intend to introduce legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. Instructions are already in place to ensure that, if such a scheme is introduced, sexual offences legislation will be amended by that legislation to provide an equivalent to the marriage defence for persons who have entered into a registered civil partnership. I hope that that meets the point that the hon. Gentleman has done the House a favour in raising, and that that can be flagged forward into the civil partnership Bill. In the circumstances, I consider that new clause 9 is unnecessary and I hope that he will agree to withdraw the motion.
      I turn to the mental disorder clauses 31 to 34, which give specific protect on to those with a mental disorder who lack the capacity to consent. The amendments seek to loosen but not sever the causal link between the mental disorder and inability to refuse in subsection (1)(c).
      Someone who has a severe mental impairment may not have the capacity to consent, and that can be seen to result entirely from the severity of their mental impairment. There is a direct causal link. However, there are others with a mental disorder who also would not pass a test of capacity. Their lack of capacity may result in part from circumstances other than the fact of having a mental disorder but which relate to their mental disorder: for example, someone taking medication for a mental disorder, or who has spent all their lives in an institutional environment and become perhaps very compliant with requests that staff make of them but who may have had no opportunity to become aware of what sexual activity entails, or may not know that there is a choice to be made when it comes to engaging in sexual activity. They have a mental disorder, they lack the capacity to consent, they are equally vulnerable and they need our protection. However, their mental disorder may have combined with their environment in producing someone who lacks the capacity to consent.

      601
      We are concerned that a strict causal link would call into question the applicability of the clauses to such persons, and lead to challenges as to the link between the mental disorder and the capacity to consent, which, in many cases, may be very difficult to prove. Consequential amendments are included to subsection (1)(d), which deals with the mens rea of the offender. It is for those reasons that I am proposing the amendments.
      I turn to amendments Nos. 188 and 189, which reintroduce a change allowing the provision of hands-on sex education, such as teaching a person with profound and multiple disabilities to masturbate, or getting them to masturbate themselves, in strictly limited circumstances—the hon. Member for Romsey set those out—where there is no alternative way that sex education can be provided. In Committee, we made it clear that we were aware of certain differences among the learning disability charities as to the legitimacy of sex education that involved any form of sexual touching. My hon. Friend the Minister met with Sense. He spoke to it about those differences and suggested that it should meet with the charities that had reservations to see if together they could achieve some consensus on the issue.
      I understand that Sense met the other charities on 2 October and that a level of agreement was reached. As the hon. Member for Romsey said, there is a consensus in the voluntary sector. Since then, the proposals have been under consideration by the Department of Health, which in turn is having discussions with Sense. We can say that there is now, as a result of the discussions that were initiated by my hon. Friend the Minister in response to the hon. Lady's amendments, consensus in the voluntary sector. We are not quite there yet in terms of consensus between the Government and the voluntary sector. The process is ongoing, so I do not believe that we are yet in a position to decide whether a sex education exception should be legislated for and, if so, precisely what form it should take.
      Mr. Grieve: If that is the case, can that still be done if the Bill goes back to the House of Lords unamended? Will there not be a procedural difficulty if this part of the Bill has not been touched or hand led in this House? There would be no scope for the Government to bring in such an amendment.
      The Solicitor-General: I think that this Bill would not be the legislative vehicle for that amendment, but the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that there are always more legislative opportunities, which he constructively engages in, trundling along, whether it be from the Home Office or the Department of Health.
      I say absolutely genuinely that this is not a fobbing-off exercise. These are immensely difficult areas. We want to ensure that people with learning disabilities have as many rights and as full opportunities as they possibly can, but we also want to be very careful not to expose them inadvertently to sexual abuse. We must get it right. We are on our way there and have made a lot of progress, but we are not there yet. We are not in a position yet to decide.
      I will not pretend that there are not significant areas of concern about such an exception, so I am not
      602
      guaranteeing that there will be agreement between the voluntary sector and the Department of Health; I hope that there will be agreement but I am not guaranteeing it. We must be extremely careful not to open a loophole for abuse. However, the Government are committed to continue considering the issue and, if it is resolved in favour of an exception, to legislate when a suitable opportunity becomes available. For the reasons that I have given, I must resist the amendments.
      I turn to amendments Nos. 148 to 180. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) also participated in the debate on them. I understand the reasons and the strong feelings behind the amendments, as they were expressed in Committee. Again, as with civil partnerships registration and hands-on sex education, this is perhaps not the right Bill to have these discussions: while I sympathise with those views, I do not believe that the Bill is the right place to legislate on the issue.
      A new approach to defining those who should be included in the new mental health Bill is being considered, and similar consideration is taking place in relation to the mental incapacity Bill. That is the context in which all these decisions should be made. We need to have consistency across the board. Primary mental health legislation is the place to have the discussion, and that is indeed taking place.
      I reiterate that the amendments in no way affect the scope of the protection afforded by the clauses: we are not talking about changing that through the amendments. They cover that which we want to cover. We are talking about the language, and I do not say "only the language", because I understand very well that the language and how we define things is crucial. Mental disorder as defined in the Mental Health Act 1983, to which the Bill has been linked, includes those with learning disabilities. Therefore, the scope of the protection is assured. For those reasons, I must resist the amendments.
      I acknowledge that there is a separate reference to those with learning disabilities in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 but just because there is an anomaly there, it does not mean that we should create loads more in the Bill. What we need to do is get it sorted, amend all previous legislation across the board and get it dealt with in the right context-primary legislation. That is the place we should do it. I do not want us to be out of line, not least because there are concerns about challenges to detention under the Mental Health Act 1983 that may arise out of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act terminology, so we want to be consistent in that respect.
      Dr. Evan Harris: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for her comments on new clause 9, particularly in respect—she went as far as she could—of the Government's intention that, should there be civil partnerships legislation, registered civil partnership should apply as marriage applies. Indeed, in that respect, it was encouraging to hear her say that she thought that that would be a more suitable vehicle than going just with the consent, as set out in the new clause. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 10

      SEXUAL ACTIVITY IN A PUBLIC PLACE
      '1. A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally engages in sexual activity in a public place or in a lavatory to which the public or a section of the public has or is permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise, which he knows or ought to have known was likely to cause harassment, distress, alarm or offence to any other person and which causes or has caused harassment, distress, alarm or offence to any other person.
      2. It is a defence for the accused person to prove—

      (a) that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within sight or hearing who was likely to be caused harassment, distress, alarm or offence; and

      (b) that his conduct was reasonable.

      3. A constable may arrest a person without warrant if—

      (a) he engages in sexual activity which the constable warns him to stop; and

      (b) he engages in further sexual activity immediately or shortly after the warning.

      4 A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 3 of the standard scale or both.
      5. In this section "sexual" is as defined in section 79—[Dr. Evan Harris.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Dr. Evan Harris: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 50 and 51.
      Amendment No. 194, in page 34, line 18, leave out clause 66.
      Amendment No. 147, in page 34, line 20 [Clause 661, after 'lavatory', insert 'or shower cubicle'.
      Government amendments Nos. 85 and 86.
      Dr. Harris: This is an important debate because there are real problems with the drafting of clause 66, which amendment No. 194 would delete and new clause 10 would replace. It is important and habitual to set out that, like others who have spoken on the Bill, I am opposed to sexual acts in public and to sexual acts in lavatories. One need not labour the point that they are distasteful—to say the least—offensive, distressing and alarming to people. However, I should like to explain why the new clause is a better way of achieving what we are seeking. I shall then show how the Government's approach, unlike the new clause, fails to implement the recommendations of "Setting the Boundaries" or the intention behind the White Paper, and does not address concerns raised about the extent of the proposal.
      The first problem with the clause is that it is too narrow in its geography because it relates only to public lavatories. My hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) have also tabled an amendment to demonstrate that the clause is too narrow. A consequence of the narrowness of the clause is that the measure is indirectly discriminatory against men who have sex with men, including gay men but not just men
      604
      who regard themselves as gay. That is what we are talking about in terms of public lavatories; men who have sex with men.
      Mr. Grieve: I can Assure the hon. Gentleman that if he read the Committee Hansard, he would see that that is not the case. The examples I cited there included the misuse of public lavatories in various buildings for the purposes of heterosexual activity. I can assure him that the proposal is gender neutral.
      7.45 pm
      Dr. Harris: As phrased, it is gender neutral but that is not its impact because of the frequency with which the offence takes place. I have read Hansard and am aware of the case that the hon. Gentleman adduced involving sex between a man and a woman in the toilets of a court. It was not clear whether they were lawyers or not. If we study the history of prosecutions of this sort of activity, we see that there were always more complaints, prosecutions and convictions against men. As a consequence of that indirect discrimination and the disproportionate impact on men who have sex with men, the Bill fails one test—to be non-discriminatory in its impact as well as its wording.
      Sandra Gidley: My hon. Friend is over-egging the pudding with regard to the proposal having too great an impact on men who have sex with men. The simple fact is that it is easier for men to go into a toilet together than it is for a man and a woman. It is a more common offence—not a greater or lesser offence—because it is easier. There is no sinister intent to criminalise gay men.
      Dr. Harris: My hon. Friend misunderstands my point. The clause does not deal with places where men and women have sex together in public, such as in parks, lover's lanes, on trains and on top of buses. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may be suggesting their own favourites. The clause is restricted to public lavatories, and my hon. Friend makes my point; that is where men go—wrongly, in my view—to have sex with other men, but it is not where men and women go to have sex in public together. That is self-evident and—as I said at the outset—the clause is too narrow in that it includes only public lavatories and does its best to exclude from the offence sex between men and women in public places. That is the key point. As a consequence, the clause fails to meet the test of the Bill—that it should be non-discriminatory—and may give cause for redress under the Human Rights Act because of that discrimination.
      The second problem is that the clause as worded is discriminatory in its effect on gay men in their defences, compared with the equivalent defences that might be available to a heterosexual couple charged, as they would need to be, under public order legislation. Public order legislation deals with the need to avoid depraving public morals and with offending, alarming or distressing people, so clearly someone has to make a complaint and someone must be a victim of the offensive behaviour. The wording of clause 66 does not require that that offence, distress, alarm or fear be caused, so the defences available to people caught under it are fewer than those available to heterosexual people; or, indeed, people of the same sex caught in other places. That is unfair and unreasonable.

      605
      I believe that, as drafted, the clause would catch people who were not engaging in sexual activity. The clause defines an activity as sexual
      "if a reasonable person would, in all the circumstances but regardless of any person's purpose"—
      the purpose of the people concerned—
      "consider it to be sexual."
      If two men were seen leaving a toilet cubicle together, a court might consider it a reasonable assumption that they had engaged in sexual activity, which would be sufficient under the clause to convict, even if they were doing drugs or whatever. Surely we do not propose to enact a law that does that.
      The proposal recreates a victimless crime. We have gone through decades of gross indecency and buggery laws, which—where there was consent—were victimless
      crimes. The clause would recreate that as there is no provision for anyone needing to be distressed or alarmed. The new clause proposes that it should be an offence if someone is distressed, alarmed or afeared by such action. The history of the victimless crime and its disproportionate effect on gay men was set out by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) earlier, and part of the reason for "Setting the Boundaries", the White Paper and the Bill was to get away from the time when victimless crimes, particularly those of which gay men are convicted, were commonplace.
      Mr. Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman not consider that if a public lavatory is regularly misused for sexual purposes, it ceases to be a victimless crime; not because people are not present when the activity happens, but because, as a result, the use of the lavatory for legitimate purposes becomes impossible?
      Dr. Harris: On that basis, the hon. Gentleman should support the new clause, which makes it clear that that would still be an offence in a public lavatory, because one could say that it would never be reasonable for someone to consider that such activity was not likely to distress or alarm anybody. I shall deal with that when I talk about the new clause in more detail. I am prepared to make common cause with the hon. Gentleman to make that an offence, but it is not right that the definition should apply exclusively Lo public lavatories.
      Clause 66 reopens the possibility of entrapment. There is nothing to prevent entrapment; indeed, there is every likelihood that it will lead to an increase in convictions involving entrapment, when the police may go looking for someone willing to have sex, or to expose themselves for the purposes of sexual activity. The wording of the Bill means that the entrapper would not need to be distressed, alarmed or afeared—as someone who was "asking for it", and seeking to provoke the activity, would generally not be—so entrapment would reappear.
      As well as entrapment by the police there would again be scope for blackmail to take place, even when no distress or alarm had been caused to anyone. It is the job of modern sexual offences law to avoid as far as possible allowing someone to provoke an offence for the
      606
      purposes either of blackmail or of securing an easy conviction.
      In contrast, the new clause covers more public places, without the drawback in the Government's first attempt, which caused difficulty because it was regarded as extending even to secluded garden areas, because they were outwith the dwelling that was initially excluded. The new clause makes it clear that the provision would also apply to behaviour in other public places that a person
      "knows or ought to have known was likely to cause harassment, distress, alarm or offence to any other person",
      and where the behaviour provokes a complaint and
      "causes or has caused harassment, distress, alarm or offence to any other person."
      The new clause would cover other areas. If it is the Government's intention to reclaim public lavatories for the use of the public without the distress referred to by the hon. Gentleman, I support that, but the provision should apply to commons, parks and heaths as well. The Government have failed to make it do that. We now have what may be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to tackle the issue, and I do not understand why the Government do not feel that parks, heaths and commons are not suitable for reclaiming.
      The new clause requires a victim and a complaint, but the complainant could be a policeman. If two people were engaging in sexual activity in a public lavatory or other public place, a policeman could be the person who was offended. However, the wording of the new clause does not mean that anyone engaging in sexual activity in a very secluded place—such as a wood, or, indeed, their own back garden—would be liable to be convicted. That is appropriate, and strikes the right balance.
      We have to remember the Bill's context, which was based on the Home Office report "Setting the Boundaries". The report's basic set of assumptions were that
      "any application of the criminal law must be fair, necessary and proportionate";
      that
      "the criminal law should not discriminate unnecessarily between men and women nor between those of different sexual orientation";
      and that
      "the law should not intrude on consensual sexual behaviour between those over the age of consent without good cause".
      In the summary of the report, section 0.21 says:
      "We thought it important that the law should be able to deal with problems caused by inappropriate sexual behaviour in public places, including public toilets. We recommend:
      a new public order offence to enable the law to deal with sexual behaviour that a person knew or should have known was likely to cause distress, alarm or offence to others in a public place."

      607
      Chapter 8 of the report goes into some detail about that, and paragraph 8.4.2 and 3 says:
      "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 places … The common law offence of outraging public decency includes 'all open lewdness, grossly scandalous behaviour, and whatever openly outrages decency or is offensive and disgusting"—
      to someone, presumably—
      "or injurious to public morals by tending to corrupt the mind and destroy the law of decency, morality and good order'''.
      Someone therefore has to have their morals depraved—although recent case law does not require that their morals be actually depraved, so long as they are in a position where that could take place.
      Paragraph 8.4.4 points out that the Wolfenden committee argued that
      "criminal law should apply to all sexual behaviour in public and not in particular to same sex behaviour."
      Paragraph 8.4.6 says:
      "The law should be able to tackle these public order/decency issues whether they relate to heterosexual or same sex activity. Finally, we thought it "unnecessary and disproportionate to prohibit all sexual activity in public."
      This was a Home Office review, not necessarily the Government's own views, but the Government set out their view in the White Paper "Protecting the Public". I want the Government to accept that my new clause would bring them back to their original correct intention, because chapter 6.77 of that White Paper says:
      "We will also be introducing a new public order offence, specifically targeted at specified sexual acts that take place in public. The new offence of Sexual behaviour in a public place will send out a strong signal of our intention to protect people from being unwilling witnesses"—
      at that stage the Government thought that there had to be a witness—
      "to overtly sexual behaviour that most people consider should take place in private. It will be in addition to, and not a replacement for, existing public order offences. However, it is not our intention to interfere in everyday behaviour in public that does not cause offence to the vast majority of people such as kissing or cuddling".
      I hope that the Government will recognise that the new clause is more closely related to that intention than is the clause that was given to us by the House of Lords, even as amended in Committee.
      On entrapment, a letter from Stonewall to the Minister dated 24 October states:
      "It would be very regressive indeed if the result of this clause was a return to practices such as entrapment, particularly when there are far more pressing matters for the police to be dealing with".
      Stonewall states clearly that it opposes sexual activity in public lavatories, but it recognises the danger of entrapment.
      I would say that the complaints that we hear are about the use of public toilets exclusively by men having sex with men—almost to the exclusion of other people being able to use them at all—but it is not surprising that there should be more complaints about that, because the culture of gay men having sex, especially men who are married and therefore do not recognise themselves as gay, is a culture of furtive experiences.
      608
      Another reason why it is not surprising that there are more complaints about that activity is homophobia, and people's reaction to men kissing in public—and, indeed, on the television—which raises far more complaints than the sight of men and women of the same age, with the same degree of consent and the same depth of relationship, kissing. There is a differential acceptance of public displays of affection, and, therefore a different acceptance of public displays of sexual activity. That is wrong, because there should be no discrimination. People find homosexual acts offensive in a way that they do not find heterosexual acts offensive.
      The very fact that disproportionate offence is caused by homosexual acts should warn us of the pitfalls of going down a path that leads to a predominantly gay—only offence. A low threshold for distress or alarm—or likely distress or alarm may be appropriate under the new clause, but there is no threshold at all for distress, alarm, fear or offence under clause 66 as it stands.
      Clause 66 is inadequate in many ways. For those of us who want a specific provision banning sexual activity in public places, but which is not directed only and specifically against gay men, the new clause is the way to go. If the Minister is willing, I am prepared to explore ways to tighten it further. For example, subsection (2) of the new clause, which provides for the defence of a person's having reasonable belief that they were unlikely to be causing offence, need not apply to a public lavatory. That might be a way to ensure that the unacceptability of sex in public lavatories is made clear. On that basis, I hope that the Minister and other Members recognise the merits of new clause10.
      8 pm
      Mr. Grieve: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) is dissatisfied with the way in which the Bill has been amended in relation to public lavatories. This matter took up quite a lot of time in Committee and has obviously done so in the House of Lords as well. I am grateful to the Government for accepting the Lords amendment, which they amended further themselves. We have arrived at a sensible outcome, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied with it. The simple position is that public lavatories are not a proper place for sexual activity—full stop. It does not matter whether somebody notices what is going on or not; in reality, it is most unlikely that any prosecution will be brought unless somebody complains about the state the public lavatory has got into as a result of improper use. The hon. Gentleman should stop worrying about this matter and accept that the Bill as drafted is perfectly sensible.
      I turn briefly to the Government amendments in this group, which I welcome. The Minister has taken on hoard all the points made in Committee, including that relating to uncles and nephews and the definition of prohibited relations_ hips; I am extremely grateful for that. I particularly welcome the fact that, as a result of the debate in Committee, the word "structure" has been removed from clause 69 and replaced with "place". That sensible amendment will provide a greater degree of protection from the activities of voyeurs for those who

      609
      are legitimately in an enclosed space, and have no reason to believe that they will be seen. I am grateful to the Minister for those amendments.
      Sandra Gidley: I rise to speak to amendment No. 147, which is a slightly tongue-in-cheek attempt to show that clause 66 as it stands is flawed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) pointed out, we are very hung up about the particular environment of a public lavatory. There are other places, such as showers on camp sites, to which the public have access, but apparently there is no problem with such structures: the door can be closed and there is no problem with people engaging i n any sort of sexual activity.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, in that the Government seem to want to single out toilets, for a reason that I cannot quite understand. I agree with those who say that public toilets are not the place to have sex—they should be used for the purpose for which they are designed—but the subtext of some of our debates in Committee suggests that this issue involves discrimination against gay men. I do not want to pass legislation that discriminates in any way, but I must admit that I am struggling to understand that argument. Perhaps that is because I am not a gay man, but I cannot see in what way the provision discriminates, given that it applies to heterosexual sex in toilets, as well as to gay sex.
      Mr. Bryant: I am sorry that the hon. Lady entices me to my feet. I had resolved not to say any more on this matter, having failed dismally to persuade the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) of my argument in Committee; indeed, I note that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) has done just about as well as me in that regard. The history is that the police have spent vast amounts of time and energy deliberately trying to catch men having sex with men in gentlemen's toilets, and the enormous worry exists in the gay community that the police will start doing that again, because we will have expressly decided to retain this element of the legislation. Many police forces have extremely enlightened views, but as we have discovered in the past few weeks, some police forces and officers do not. It is wholly right to seek to prevent the misdemeanours referred to, but the worry is that the provision is discriminatory.
      Sandra Gidley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Much of what is said on this issue is based strongly on historical argument and expressed in that context, but I would contend that we live in an ever more accepting society. There are some who have a complete abhorrence of any sex other than heterosexual sex in the missionary position, but in general society is much more tolerant, particularly young people.
      I have to question the slightly muddled thinking, as it could be regarded, of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. He said on one occasion that the public have a greater abhorrence of seeing a gay couple speaking—[HON. MEMBERS: "Kissing."] Sorry, I meant kissing, not speaking; things have not got that bad. He said that the public have a greater abhorrence
      610
      of a gay couple kissing than of a heterosexual couple kissing at a similar stage in a relationship. However, he then said that an element of distress, alarm or offence should be involved when an offence is committed. What happens if even minor forms of sexual activity are included? As we know from discussions of another matter, kissing is sexual activity. People might be very shocked to see two gay men kissing in a public toilet, but they may not be shocked to see a heterosexual couple doing so.
      Dr. Harris: My point is that, even if we accepted the new clause, sadly, because of public attitudes, there would still be a low threshold in terms of complaints made against men having sex in public. However, the existing clause provides no threshold whatsoever. It is not as if the new clause would not allow those who are offended—we must accept that people are offended by whatever offends them—to make a complaint. But one need not reach that threshold for sex in public lavatories, whereas the existing public order offence—which might catch such behaviour in a park, or on a bus or train—does require that someone be distressed and alarmed. In other words, we are writing a disproportionate level of offence into law, even despite public attitudes.
      Sandra Gidley: I am not sure that I am any the wiser for that intervention.
      Amendment No. 147 is intended to point out a slight anomaly whereby certain activities that are just as offensive, in some eyes, are not covered by the clause as drafted. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon sought to go further, but his new clause does not achieve quite what he intends. I support his comments on the public order offence; indeed, initially, we wanted to develop our thinking on the treatment of this offence in that way. It is an offence, but I hope—and I seek reassurance from the Minister and others—that undue weight will not be placed on using the clause as a means of persecuting people or going on a witch hunt. That may not be quite the right term, but it is the only one that I can think of without a double meaning.
      To sum up, clause 66 is flawed. I would welcome hearing the Government's opinion on what has been said, but I do not think, sadly, that new clause 10 quite takes us to where we should be either.
      Mrs. Brooke: I want to say briefly that I welcome Government amendment No. 85, which came out of an excellent debate. I did not participate much in it myself, but it was fascinating to listen to it and it provides a good example of some of the good work that was done in Committee.
      On the present subject of debate, which has taken up considerable time, I want to repeat some of the points that we made in Committee. We do not feel that the Government amendment of the time, which is now clause 66, is appropriate for the Sexual Offences Bill. Our point was that it was an interim measure, but in the fullness of time when appropriate legislation came along—we acknowledged that it could not be attached to the Criminal Justice Bill—we wanted there to be a new public order offence, as recommended in "Setting the Boundaries". We do not want to lose sight of that. It is how we believe that matters should be progressed. As

      611
      I mentioned in Committee, it would have been helpful if the phrase "distress, alarm or offence" was in the clause. because it would have made it easier to move this forward as a public order offence in the future.
      I want to put those comments on record. We have heard some reassuring words from the Minister to the effect that there remains the possibility of inserting amendments into other legislation. I hope that this is not the end of the story—[Interruption.] I do not want much more talk, but suitable action on a public order offence in the future.
      Paul Goggins: Unlike the hon. Lady, I hope that this is the end of the issue.
      I begin by responding to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). As he made a powerful and knowledgeable speech, I thought that he would have made an interesting member of the Committee. If nothing else, we could have observed his developing relationship with his hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), who asked some searching questions. I shall also deal with amendment No. 147, which would add sexual activity in shower cubicles to the existing clause 66.
      Hon. Members who have followed the debate here and in the other place will be aware of the history behind this offence. We believe that existing legislation—public order Acts and provisions on outraging public decency—are already capable of covering sexual activity in public. However, we have accepted the case for a specific offence of sexual activity in a public lavatory, in acknowledgment of particular public concerns, which have been reflected in debate and in correspondence. I have to say to the hon. Member for Romsey that similar concerns have not been raised about sex in shower cubicles.
      Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: I support my hon. Friend's observations. I greatly welcome the introduction of this new offence. It is something that preoccupies quite a number of my constituents, because we have a plethora of seaside gardens that have lavatories, which, unfortunately, have attracted a considerable amount of sexual activity of the sort that we have heard discussed this evening. In common with my hon. Friend, I have never received any correspondence about sex in the shower. When I receive the same sort of mailbag on that as I do on sex in the toilet, it might become an issue. For the moment, I am delighted that we are carrying this measure forward: it will bring much relief to many offended people in my constituency.
      8.15 pm
      Paul Goggins: I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend is pleased with this particular clause. Those who might engage in sex in shower cubicles may be caught by existing legislation, which could cover that particular instance.
      612
      The new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon does not recognise that we are making an important distinction—
      Sandra Gidley: If the offence of having sex in a shower cubicle is covered by existing legislation, why is the parallel offence of having sex in a public toilet not so covered?
      Paul Goggins: That is the whole point, and we covered it extensively in Committee. We believe that sex in toilets is already covered, but we are making the point of explicitly making it a separate offence. That has always been clear and we accept it. Indeed, the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) are delighted by it.
      Several hon. Membersrose—
      Paul Goggins: I am not going to give way again, as I am conscious of the time and of the fact that we have much else to debate. Those who spoke to the various amendments have received a fair hearing in the House.
      As I was saying, new clause 10 does not recognise that we are making an important distinction between sexual activity in toilets and sexual activity in public generally. We are seeking to outlaw all sexual activity in public toilets, but sexual activity in public per se is not a crime unless it causes harassment, alarm, distress or offence. The Government believe that sexual activity in public toilets is wholly inappropriate. On the other hand, if a couple take care to find an isolated area where they may reasonably expect to be unobserved in order to engage in sexual activity, we would not wish to criminalise them. However, we do wish to make it absolutely clear that sexual activity in public toilets is wrong. We do not wish to allow offenders to argue that they did not expect someone else to see or hear them because it was late at night, or to question whether an unfortunate witness was really distressed by their activities.
      Concerns have been raised in the debate tonight—and movingly in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), who may not have won the
      day but made a powerful case—that the provisions could become a modern way of targeting the gay community. I said to my hon. Friend in Committee and repeat it now that in cultural terms we live in a very different age, frankly, than when homosexuals were pursued by the police in public toilets. I recall a time when the gay community, or individual homosexual men, were targeted in public toilets in Manchester. Yet within a mile of those toilets today, there is the gay village, which shows that the whole culture has changed.
      I must make it plain to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon that the police have an obligation to prosecute the law equally. I certainly undertake to monitor the impact of the legislation to ensure that it is implemented fairly and that gay men or any other group are not singled out in any particular way. If there is any question of people being blackmailed, blackmail is an offence, which should be dealt with in the appropriate way. I therefore resist the new clause and associated amendments.
      I shall not detain the House for long in dealing with the Government amendments. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has acknowledged the

      613
      improvements that we have made. We concluded that there was no justification for treating categories of relatives any differently, so we tabled Government amendments Nos. 50 and 51 to bring relationships between aunts and uncles and their blood nephews and nieces within the scope of the offences in the Bill.
      Finally, I should like to deal with the offence of voyeurism. As the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) said, we had a very good debate in Committee, although she acknowledged that she was a voyeur rather than a participant in it. These Government amendments remove the reference to "structure" from the definition in clause 69 of a private act for the purposes of the voyeurism offence. I was certainly persuaded by the strength of the argument put forward by members of the Committee about the scope of the offence. As drafted, the definition of a private act covers someone being undressed, in their underwear, using the toilet or engaging in a sexual act of a type not normally done in public when in a structure in which they might reasonably expect privacy. In Committee, we discussed the scope of the offence, and whether it should protect those not only in a structure that affords privacy, but in other places or spaces where privacy might reasonably have been expected.
      Government amendment No. 85 removes the term "structure" in this context and replaces it with "place". I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), because she made that clear and simple suggestion in Committee. The amendment will widen the scope of the offence to protect someone engaging in a private act in any place where they could reasonably expect privacy. It will be for the court to determine whether or not their expectation of privacy was reasonable. Government amendment No. 86 is simply a minor consequential drafting amendment ensuring that the definition of "structure" remains in force to cover the term as it is used in clause 68. I urge the House to accept these amendments and I hope that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon will withdraw his new clause.
      Dr. Evan Harris: It is disappointing that the Minister would not engage in formal debate on this important issue by taking interventions. I would have asked him two questions. First, he says that he wants to make sex in public lavatories a particular offence because of the number of complaints from the public, but why must we always give in to public opinion when the impact will be discriminatory? That was the justification used for years of discriminatory sex laws. Secondly, why is the Minister concerned only with public lavatories? Does he not think that no-go areas on Clapham common and Hampstead heath and in other parks are worth reclaiming for the public for the same reason? If this new offence is good enough for public lavatories, it should be good enough for other areas.
      The Minister said that the police have a duty to prosecute the law equally. I agree, but the law is not equal in this instance. The hon. Gentleman would not
      614
      take an intervention on the point, but it is clear that the standard of complaint required for sex outside public lavatories, which can take place between men and women and not just between men, has a higher threshold—the need for someone to be distressed or alarmed by it—than sex in public lavatories. That means that convictions will be easier to obtain and even with an equal prosecution of the law there will be a disproportionate effect. The law will no longer be equal in terms of the defence available. The Minister has failed to deal with that point and has therefore spoilt what would otherwise be a useful Bill, for me and for many people outside the House who are concerned about the history of discrimination in this area.
      I am grateful to my Front-Bench colleagues for recognising that clause 66 is unsatisfactory. I recognise that they have a responsibility to deal with the best possible outcome at this point rather than with the best outcome possible, but I maintain that in years to come the Bill will have a disproportionate effect. The Government, and those who have acquiesced to the Bill, have created an inconsistency and have failed to take the action in other areas of the law that would be necessary for a widely based law. The Government need only look at the proposals in their own White Paper to see that they have made a U-turn and conceded an unreasonable argument from the official Opposition and Members of the House of Lords. Time will show that it will lead to unjustified discrimination.
      I would not win a vote on the issue and I shall not divide the House, but I wished to make it clear that if prosecutions are disproportionate—and entrapment and blackmail ensue—the Minister had the opportunity to take a fairer approach that applied to people of all sexualities. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 4

      SEXUAL ASSAULT
      Mrs. Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 187, in page 3, line 15 [Clause 4], at end insert—
      '(c) a person aged below 18 years at the time of the offence shall be assessed by a multidisciplinary team and be eligible for treatment, even if he does not subsequently become subject to notification requirements.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      Amendment No. 116, in page 5, line 34 [Clause 13], leave out '9' and insert '10'.
      Amendment No. 144, in page 5, line 34 [Clause 13], leave out '9 to' and insert '11 and'.
      Amendment No. 117, in page 5, line 34 [Clause 13], at end insert—
      '( ) A person under 18 (A) commits an offence if

      (a) he intentionally touches another person B,

      (b) the touching is sexual,

      (c) B is under 13 or B is over 13 but does not consent to the activity and A does not reasonably believe that B consents.'.

      615
      Amendment No. 145, in page 5, line 34 [Clause 13], at end insert—
      '(1A) A person under 18 commits an offence if he does anything which would be an offence under sections 9 and 10 if he were aged 18 save that conduct by a person (A) with another person (B) which would otherwise be an offence under this section shall not be an offence if:

      (a) B is aged between 13 and 16 and A is no more than 2 years older than B,

      (b) B has the capacity to consent to that conduct,

      (c) B does consent to that conduct,

      (d) The conduct does not involve penetration,

      (1B) B will be regarded as having the capacity to consent to conduct by A only if B is capable of understanding the nature and implications and reasonably foreseeable consequences of such conduct.'.
      Amendment No. 192, in page 5, line 34 [Clause 13], at end insert—
      '( ) A person under the age of 18 does not commit an offence if the sexual activity is consensual and with someone of similar age and is initiated by the participating parties. Exempted sexual activity does not include penetration of the vagina, of the anus or of the mouth by a penis.'.
      Amendment No. 193, in page 5, line 39 [Clause 13], at end insert—
      '(3) In respect of consensual sexual activity any decision about prosecution would be based upon consideration of the best interests of any child involved.'.
      Amendment No. 196, in page 5, line 39 [Clause 13], at end insert—
      '(3) Any decision about prosecution would be based upon consideration of the best interests of any child involved.'.
      Mrs. Brooke: In Committee, I welcomed the amendments tabled by the Government to the effect that young people under 18 who had committed what might be regarded as more minor offences would not necessarily be put on the sexual offenders register. However, the Minister commented in Committee that as a result not all individuals would be eligible for a multi-agency assessment and subsequent treatment. On Second Reading, I mentioned a case in my constituency of a boy who committed an offence at the age of 14 and received a fine of £ 10 but no treatment. At the age of 19, he committed a serious offence and 13 years later he is still in prison. I feel passionately that we must ensure that young offenders, even those who receive only a caution, receive assessment and treatment. That is when it is most needed. I know that the Minister does not want such a provision in the Bill, but I am very concerned that it will slip through the net unless we make the point to him over and over again. I hope that the Government will appreciate that I do so with the greatest sincerity and from my experience of the tragedy experienced not only by the victim and their family, but by the family of the offender.
      I come to the most important issue that we will discuss tonight. It was unresolved in Committee, even though we all tried to find a solution. At this late stage we still have a responsibility to try to reach that solution. This is a 21st century Bill, but it must be a matter for great concern that it will criminalise normal teenage behaviour. My colleagues and I do not propose that the age of consent should be lowered and we made that clear in Committee; however we have to find a solution to this issue.
      616
      We need co-operation from the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills on the guidelines for the Bill. We need to introduce information about relationships between young people to sex and relationship education—including at parenting classes. It is vital to get this right. A young teacher asked me at the weekend whether the Bill would mean that teachers should stop 12 and 13-year-olds kissing at school discos. I do not make that point lightly. If the Bill criminalises that sort of activity, what are teachers supposed to do, given the positions that they hold? That comment gave me a good reason for carrying on with the amendment.
      8.30 pm
      Our amendments resulted from a great deal of thought, if not a great deal of legal input—in fact, none, since we simply reflected on all that had been said in Committee. As all our complex arguments, complicated amendments and even common-sense amendments—more of which we offer now—were turned down, it seemed that we should try to achieve the bare minimum tonight. It was clear in Committee that we needed to detach clause 9 from clause 13—they were clauses 10 and 14 in Committee, but I shall stick now to the new numbers. I thought that I would try to go no further than that this evening, even though I am pretty concerned about some of the Bill's criminalisation of normal activities. In that way, I thought, I might at least tackle this basic problem about kissing and affection.
      Amendment No. 116 would simply detach clause 9 from the all-embracing clause 13. Having done that, I then seek to add to clause 13 to provide for child protection—a point I ask Members to consider closely. If the amendment were accepted by itself, it would require follow-up work on clause 9, which would then not be compatible with clause 13. It would be possible to make the two clauses compatible simply by adding a fourth point to the effect that A would have to be more than two years older than B. I was reluctant to do that because I do not find offensive the idea that a 17-year-old and a 14-year-old should kiss. However, making the difference three years would trigger the need for consequential amendments to clause 9, and that, as I am neither a lawyer nor a draftsman, is not my job.
      The basic approach of detaching clause 9 from clause 13 and putting all possible safeguards into the Bill—more could be added in the way that I have suggested; for example, A could be more than two years older than B or more than three years older; or more could be added on the test for consent—offers a solution to our problem, although I cannot pretend that it is a perfect one. It took me hours of thought and determination to reach that point, although the House may not think so given my rather ragged amendment. I hope that the amendment will not simply be knocked out of court because it is not complete. I can see a way through that problem.
      I will be minded to press for a vote on the amendment if the Minister does not say something that addresses the problem. I should be happy to support other amendments, but I am convinced that we must show the world and young people that we care about them and do not want to criminalise them for normal behaviour.
      Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I appreciate what the hon. Lady is saying, but according to the police, one reason why there are so few prosecutions in this area is that the law simply is not specific or clear. I have gained the impression that the hon. Lady seeks to introduce a series of caveats to clauses that seem to me to be very straightforward. That would not b ring any progress or any more convictions than occur at present because of the lack of clarity.
      Mrs. Brooke: That was an important intervention, allowing me to say categorically that I am here because I do not want 14-year-olds or 15-year-olds to be convicted for kissing. I have not attempted to remove from the Bill anything involving penetration or any of the other things that obviously go on, given what we hear about the number of teenagers who engage in sexual activity. I have not attempted anything as ambitious as that, but I feel that we need to tackle the problem in clause 13, which really is most offensive. It has been brilliant working on the Bill, but I have a huge commitment to trying to obtain something sensible on this point and to give a better message to young people. They receive enough bad messages from us, and this one will buzz around all sorts of youth groups—"Now they are doing this to us." That is the message that is being sent out, and we need to send a better message and to put common sense back into the Bill in this area, alongside all the good proposals that it contains elsewhere.
      I am minded to push for a vote on amendment No. 116 to establish the principle that the Government, with all the expertise at their disposal, should do all that they can to come up with a technical answer.
      Mr. Dawson: I sympathise with the case made by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke). I want to speak only to amendment No. 196. I beg the forgiveness of the House if there has been any confusion—amendment No. 193 was a mistake. I handed in the wrong piece of paper—mea culpa.
      Amendment No. 196 would acid to clause 13 the provision:
      "Any decision about prosecution would be based upon consideration of the best interests of any child involved."
      I agree that the clause is the most unsatisfactory provision in what is, on the whole, an extremely fine Bill. The clause is appropriately named, but if it is not amended I foresee the day when youth groups throughout the country will produce shock-horror videos about it.
      I do not believe that clause 13 will lead to young people being prosecuted or being put into youth custody for kissing or touching each other. The Government have assured us that that will not happen and that the regulations will operate in such a way as to prevent it. I accept their good intentions.
      I also accept and share the Government's concern to protect children from sexual offences committed by other children. It is an extraordinary and disturbing fact that as many as 40 per cent. of offences against children are committed by their peers. I share, too, the Government's commitment to an equalised age of consent at 16 and to the principle, reinforced throughout the Bill, that a child aged under 13 is not capable of giving legally significant: consent. Those are
      618
      vital, protective measures that will help children to resist peer pressure to take part in sexual activity before they feel that they are ready.
      I share all the Government's intentions for the protection of children, and my main concern about clause 13 is that it will undermine those efforts. Young people have already greeted with complete incredulity the fact that we could even consider such provisions. I have spoken to young people from the UK Youth Parliament and from my constituency and they feel that politicians who could even consider implementing such a clause are wholly out of touch and are certainly out of sympathy with the lives of young people.
      All our positive efforts in the Bill will be dismissed if we do not amend the clause. All the messages that the Government are trying to get over and all the positive work that they are doing to try to help young people will be dismissed out of hand and forgotten. The clause will undermine all that work.
      We are told that a third of all men and a quarter of all women claim to have had sexual intercourse before the age of 16. The bald statements in the clause will undermine the serious efforts that are being made to address teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Clause 13 sends out conflicting messages to young people who need good information and responsible help.
      The clause could compound the problems of a young person who is being pressured into a sexual relationship. They could be told that, after all, they consented, or that they, as well as the person who is pressurising them, could be put into custody. That is the sort of message that could be given to young people and it will undermine the rest of the Bill.
      At present, clause 13 is a hostage to fortune—or to the misfortune of vulnerable young people. It leaves the Government in the position of saying, "Yes, that is what the Bill says, but it is not what we really mean". That cannot be right; it cannot be an appropriate message to give young people.
      Clause 13 offers nothing to young people who have actually committed serious sexual offences. Their problems would be compounded by a period in custody, yet their dangerous and damaging behaviour could be addressed by appropriate treatment.
      Amendment No. 196 is the most modest amendment of all. It would introduce no radical new principle, but it would incorporate the paramount principle of the Children Act 1989. It would not preclude the consideration of other factors, such as the public interest, in deciding whether to prosecute, but it would give appropriate prominence to the best interests of the child. In addressing itself to the best interests of any child involved, it would allow an opportunity to consider the merits of treatment for those who have committed offences before, or possibly in preference to the case for prosecution. I hope that it would reinforce the message that although we do not condone sexual activity between under-16s, we do not prefer condemnation to sympathy, understanding and care.
      I have had the opportunity to have a preview of what my hon. Friend the Minister might possibly say in response to amendment No. 196, because he wrote to me last Thursday in response to letter in which I raised the issue. I am grateful to have this opportunity to get my

      619
      retaliation in first. The purpose of the amendment is to be sceptical about the merits of prosecution, but it would not reduce the protection afforded to young people. In fact, as I have argued, it could increase that protection.
      Amendment No. 196 would in no way weaken the age of consent or introduce any element of decriminalisation. Despite the fact that, so far, there has been no consensus about the ways in which clause 13 could be changed, there would be a consensus about the desirability of incorporating the paramount and well-accepted principle of the Children Act 1989.
      This issue is extremely difficult and the Government have an extremely difficult balancing act to perform. In giving way to the best interests of the child, amendment No. 196 would achieve a better balance—a balance more in keeping with the commitment in the long title of the Bill to protect children from harm than clause 13, and I hope that amendment No. 196 will be supported.
      Lynne Jones: I very much share the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). Although I wish to speak to amendment No. 192, which I tabled, I realise that since it was devised the hon. Lady has tabled amendments that are more clearly drafted and suit the purpose of dealing with teenage sexual activity more effectively.
      Members of the parliamentary Labour party have received a briefing note on the Bill today that states:
      "The age of consent for all sexual activity is 16. This is well known, well respected and well understood".
      Well, I disagree. I think that most people believe that the age of consent relates to penetrative sexual activity, not to the sort of thing that many young people get up to as part of their normal activity—the sort of kissing and cuddling or even heavy petting in which young people engage, and in which I suspect many hon. Members engaged when they were younger. Many people would be shocked to discover that we are introducing laws that will criminalise such activity.
      The Minister told me in a letter that
      "under the existing law, children are not prosecuted for engaging in harmless sexual activity and"
      the Government
      "do not expect this Bill to make any difference"
      He added that the Government would introduce guidance to ensure that that was the case. Of course, he repeated those assurances in Committee. Although the Government state that their aim is not to criminalise young people, that is exactly what the Bill will do. The reason why nothing serious happens at the moment is that, as I have said, the law is not understood or is ignored.
      I am very concerned that the new offence replaces old terms, such as "indecency", with the much broader and more easily proved term, "sexual activity". As other Members have said, these measures will do nothing to enhance the reputation of parliamentarians among young people, who will be alarmed that we are considering criminalising the sort of activity that many of us will have engaged in when we were young. Even if the guidance makes criminal charges unlikely, a new law
      620
      sends strong messages even when not enforced—the obvious example is section 28, which had a blighting effect on education about homosexuality for a whole generation of children.
      8.45 pm
      Finally, will my hon. Friend tell me how complaints to police using the literal wording of the legislation will be avoided? Is he not concerned that third parties could easily bring forward complaints under this legislation as it stands, causing distress to young people involved and wasting police time? I hope that the Government will consider introducing amendments that have the effect of ensuring that young people are safeguarded from inappropriate sexual advances, while at the same time not criminalising normal sexual activity in which young people engage, in the way that the Bill currently proposes.
      Mr. Grieve: I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made on both sides of the House about the problems that this part of the Bill has presented. On Second Reading, I said to the Home Secretary, in response to his challenge, that I hoped that one of us—I hoped that it might be me—might obtain the magnum of champagne that he had promised to anyone who solved the conundrum of how to deal with providing protection for those aged between 13 and 16 while not overtly criminalising activities that everybody regards as perfectly normal. Amendment No. 145 is my last attempt at doing that. It is similar to the proposal of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), and seeks, with an age difference of two years, to permit sexual touching that does not involve penetration. It is a simple amendment, and if it were accepted by the Government, it would meet that problem.
      I cannot escape the fact that, as we debated this matter in Committee, it became clear to me that if my amendment were accepted, it would decriminalise activities between a 16-year-old and a 14-year-old or a 17-year-old and a 15-year-old that many might regard as extremely undesirable. The question that I asked the Minister in Committee was: notwithstanding that, might it be proper to say that however undesirable it was, it was not a matter on which the criminal law should be invoked if a were to happen? Other sanctions might have to be applied—or other disciplinary regulations imposed—if it were in a school setting where it should not take place.
      I accept that this is a big problem. I can see that the Minister has a point, which he made perfectly properly in Committee. There will be occasions when the nature of the relationship, and the anxiety about the relative absence of proper consent because of a dominance by one party over the other, gives cause for serious concern.
      I must therefore say reluctantly that the Minister has persuaded me at least to the extent that I am not willing to press my amendment to a vote this evening if it does not meet with the Government's approval. I am not saying that I am happy with the situation: I remain as concerned about the matter as I was when I first raised it on Second Reading. Having said that, I accept that the Government's approach to this matter has been

      621
      reasonable and measured, even though the end result remains unsatisfactory. I suspect: that the Minister shares that view, but sometimes I fear that Parliament may simply be left with unsatisfactory consequences of perfectly acceptable legislation.
      Paul Goggins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I will deal with clause 13 and the amendments to it in a moment.
      On amendment No. 187, I fully understand the desire to ensure that young offenders who are at risk and in need of care receive appropriate ad vice and protection. However, for the reasons that I outlined in Committee and that I would explain again now if we had longer, I remain unconvinced that imposing a statutory requirement would add anything to the current arrangements. I want to encourage the statutory services and voluntary organisations to continue to develop those arrangements.
      Many of the amendments exemplify an issue that has focused my mind for the best part of the past six months. Since Second Reading, in Committee and through the summer, I have sought with officials, colleagues and others to try to find a solution to the problem that we face. I wish to place on record my appreciation to all those who participated in that—whether they were politicians, non-governmental organisations, officials or whoever. A genuine attempt was made to try to find a solution, but I have concluded that the solution that people were looking for is simply not available.
      The Bill tries to balance concerns about innocent, consensual sexual activity between under-16s with the need to provide protection for children. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) was right to point out the level of sexual assaults carried out on children by other children. In that context, I visited the Haven project in London, one of the sexual assault referral centres—[Interruption.] I am advised that it is in the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. Such is the level of concern, the centre has found it necessary to develop a specialist service for children.
      I want to re-emphasise that my aim is not to criminalise children and young people, but to protect them and ensure that we do not have confusion but clarity in the law. I know that hon. Members on both sides have tried to find different ways of resolving the problem. The first was by reference to age, but we immediately hit the problem that age is not a proxy for maturity. Children and young people of a similar age may have very different levels of maturity.
      The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) refers to people of a "similar age", but there is no definition of what we mean by "similar". Does it mean a difference of one or two years? Such issues are extraordinarily difficult. Amendment No. 117 refers to children under 13 and to children over 13, but it does not tell us what we would do with children who actually are 13. Many difficulties arise from trying to resolve the issue by reference to age.
      Others have tried to resolve the problem by reference to type of activity, drawing a distinction between penetrative and non-penetrative sexual activity.
      622
      However, there are many forms of non-penetrative sexual activity which, when undertaken by children, would be extremely serious. We cannot, as Members of the House, ignore their seriousness.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre tried to resolve the problem by referring to the welfare of the children, but whose welfare does that mean? What happens if issues of welfare conflict between the two children involved? There is also a public interest in such decisions.
      Mr. Dawson: I do not find my hon. Friend's argument at all conclusive. Balancing the interests and welfare of the children concerned will be a prime consideration in any case.
      Paul Goggins: It will be a consideration in relation to deciding whether to prosecute. The interests of children are taken account of at all stages in the criminal justice system. Nothing is added by my hon. Friend's amendment. The interests, welfare and background of those who commit offences when they are children are always taken into account in decisions about whether to prosecute and in the outcome in court if they are found guilty.
      Lynne Jones: Would it not therefore be appropriate to enshrine such a provision in the Bill so that it sends out a clear message to young people?
      Paul Goggins: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but a clear message will be sent out via the guidance that will go to the prosecution service. That will make it absolutely clear that a whole series of considerations about circumstances and the children involved should be taken into account. Such guidelines currently exist for situations when sexual activity between children is illegal and there have not been prosecutions. I believe strongly that there will not be prosecutions in future.
      I hope that hon. Members have observed from the Government amendments that the Government listened carefully in Committee and beyond to the many points that have been made, and we have listened just as avidly to points made today. My overall conclusion is that all the options that have been offered would have driven a hole through the age of consent. It is important for the House to send out a clear message—not least to young people—that the age of consent counts for something. Children should not feel under any pressure from the age of consent in any sense or feel that if they do consent to sex under the age of 16, there is something wrong with them.
      There are no convictions at present. The guidance will be strong and I do not think that there will be prosecutions in the future for less serious consensual sexual activity between children. On that basis, and having listened carefully and agonised over the issues, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments to a Division because I shall certainly resist them.
      Mrs. Brooke: I thank the Minister for his words and given the lateness of the hour, I shall not press amendment No. 187 to a Division. However, I shall press amendment No. 116 at the appropriate time. That

      623
      is not because I want to weaken child protection in any way but because I want to register in the strongest terms my opinion that the issue should have been addressed. At the very least, we must send the strongest possible message that the guidelines must be comprehensive. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 8

      CAUSING OR INCITING A CHILD UNDER 13 TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY
      Amendments made: No. 1, in page 4, line 7, leave out from 'section,' to 'if' in line 11.—[Ms Harman.
      No. 2, in page 4, line 16, at end insert
      ',
      is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
      ( ) Unless subsection (2) applies, 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 to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

      (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.'.—[Mr. Heppell.]

    Clause 9

      SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH A CHILD
      Amendments made: No. 3, in page 4, line 26, after 'section', insert
      ', if the touching involved—

      (a) penetration of B's anus or vagina with a part of A's body or anything else,

      (b) penetration of B's mouth with A's penis,

      (c) penetration of A's anus or vagina with a part of B's body, or

      (d) penetration of A's mouth with B's penis,'.

      No. 4, in page 4, line 27, at end insert—
      '( ) Unless subsection (2) applies, 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 to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

      (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.'.—[Mr. Heppell.]

    Clause 10

      CAUSING OR INCITING A CHILD TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY
      Amendments made: No. 5, in page 4, line 37, after 'section', insert
      ', if the activity caused or incited involved—

      (a) penetration of B's anus or vagina,

      (b) penetration of B's mouth with a person's penis,

      (c) penetration of a person's anus or vagina with a part of B's body or by B with anything else, or

      (d) penetration of a person's mouth with B's penis,'.

      No. 6, in page 4, line 38, at end insert—
      '( ) Unless subsection (2) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
      624

      (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

      (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.'.—[Mr. Heppell.]

    Clause 13

      CHILD SEX OFFENCES COMMITTED BY CHILDREN OR YOUNG PERSONS
      Amendment proposed: No. 116, in page 5, line 34, leave out '9' and insert '10'.—[Mrs. Brooke.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 40, Noes 278.

      Division No. 349]

      [8:57 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Barrett, John

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Breed, Colin

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Öpik, Lembit

      Burnett, John

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Burstow, Paul

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Rendel, David

      Calton, Mrs. Patsy

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Doughty, Sue

      Sanders, Adrian

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Weir, Michael

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Harvey, Nick

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Willis, Phil

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Wishart, Pete

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Keetch, Paul

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lamb, Norman

      Mr. Andrew Stunell and

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Mr. David Heath

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Burnham, Andy

      Ainger, Nick

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Cairns, David

      Allen, Graham

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Caplin, Ivor

      Baird, Vera

      Casale, Roger

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Caton, Martin

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Beard, Nigel

      Challen, Colin

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Bell, Stuart

      Chaytor, David

      Benn, rh Hilary

      Clapham, Michael

      Bennett, Andrew

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Berry, Roger

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Betts, Clive

      Blackman, Liz

      Clelland, David

      Blunkett, rh David

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Borrow, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Coleman, Iain

      Brennan, Kevin

      Colman, Tony

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Connarty, Michael

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Browne, Desmond

      Cousins, Jim

      Bryant, Chris

      Crausby, David

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Cruddas, Jon

      625

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Cummings, John

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      David, Wayne

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Kidney, David

      Denham, rh John

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Doran, Frank

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Lepper, David

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Edwards, Huw

      Levitt, Torn (High Peak)

      Efford, Clive

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Love, Andrew

      Farrelly, Paul

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Fisher, Mark

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Flint, Caroline

      McCabe, Stephen

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Follett, Barbara

      MacDonald, Calum

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      MacDougall, John

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      McIsaac, Shona

      McKechin, Ann

      Foulkes, rh George

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      McNulty, Tony

      Gardiner, Barry

      MacShane, Denis

      Gerrard, Neil

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      McWalter, Tony

      Goggins, Paul

      McWilliam, John

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hain, rh Peter

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hanson, David

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Martlew, Eric

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Healey, John

      Miliband, David

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mole, Chris

      Hendrick, Mark

      Moran, Margaret

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Morley, Elliot

      Heppell, John

      Mountford, Kali

      Hermon, Lady

      Mudie, George

      Hesford, Stephen

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Organ, Diana

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Owen, Albert

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Picking, Anne

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Plaskitt, James

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Illsley, Eric

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Prosser, Gwyn

      626

      Purchase, Ken

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Purnell, James

      Stringer, Graham

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

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

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Timms, Stephen

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Trickett, Jon

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Ruane, Chris

      Ruddock, Joan

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Salter, Martin

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Ward, Claire

      Sawford, Phil

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Watts, David

      Shaw, Jonathan

      White, Brian

      Sheridan, Jim

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Short, rh Clare

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Wills, Michael

      Singh, Marsha

      Winnick, David

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      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)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Spellar, rh John

      Wyatt, Derek

      Squire, Rachel

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stevenson, George

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Charlotte Atkins

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of proceedings to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [15 July].
      Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      9.10 pm
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I am in a unique position this evening because, thanks to the work of hon. Members from all parties, Members of the House of Lords and many outside organisations, we not only have a better Bill but one that is built on consensus. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who has done a good job tonight, and two former Home Office Ministers who helped with the Bill—the Secretaries of State for Constitutional Affairs and for International Development. As hon. Members can see, people get promotion by being involved with the Bill. Above all, I thank my good friend, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins)—I almost called him Sir Paul—for his work in Committee. In all seriousness, we are grateful for the

      627
      work of Committee members, the way in which the Opposition have responded and the spirit of consensus that developed from Second Reading onwards. That is an exemplar for Parliament as a whole, and embodies the way in which the Chamber and politics generally should operate.
      It was with trepidation that we drew up the Bill, and dealt with the balance between offenders and offences. For the past 50 years, from 1956 onwards, people have been reluctant to change the law or engage vigorously with difficult issues because of the dangers of taking them out of context. This Parliament has engaged with those issues, and one Committee member even described the measure as a "model Bill". We owe everyone from all parts of the House who has led and participated in debate on the Bill a deep debt of gratitude. I am more of a politician than a parliamentarian, but I think that it has been is an example of Parliament at its best.
      The tone that was adopted when the Bill was introduced, and continued in Committee and on Report, showed that we wanted to deal with some of the most difficult problems as well as issues that required sensitive handling in their presentation to the public. On Second Reading, we reflected on comments made in the House of Lords, some amusing, some which made us grimace, and some things that we would rather forget. However, in the House and in Committee those issues have been dealt with in a way that has led to consensus, and I am grateful to everybody for that. Of course, different points of view have been expressed. I am not often outdone by Parliament on the sentences that should be imposed on people who commit crime, but on the issue of grooming we accepted the additional penalty that the Committee and the House suggested. We have been able to close loopholes that were drawn to our attention by the media, making it an offence, for example, to undress a child without the interference that would previously have warranted immediate action and a court case.
      We have had genuine differences, which have arisen again today, on issues such as anonymity, where for once it was not the Government who wanted to legislate; I know that we in the Home Office sometimes go for legislation first and think of other solutions afterwards.
      Simon Hughes: An unusual paradox.
      Mr. Blunkett: This is not the former Liberal Democrat spokesman's swansong. I could not miss the voice, the manner or the heckling. Nevertheless, his contribution is welcome because he has seen the Bill through with us.
      On anonymity, I hope that the Association of Chief Police Officers and the media, as well as the way in which we can toughen the guidance, will make a difference. I am certain that, if they do not make a difference, the attitude that has emerged in this House and the House of Lords will ensure that further steps are taken. That is both a clarification and a warning to those who have engaged with the issue.
      Implementation will be vital. As was mentioned on Second Reading and in the statement on domestic violence, unless action is forthcoming from good words, there is no point in our spending time deliberating in Committee and in the House. The inter-ministerial
      628
      group on sexual offenders and the taskforce on child protection on the internet are crucial in carrying forward Members' work and ensuring that we have solutions that work.
      As I said, modernising the law on sexual offences has been a bed of nails for a very long time. We needed to modernise the law in the 21st century not simply because of equality or fairness, or simply because it was right to do so, but because it was essential to get the law right to tackle acts that all of us would agree are heinous crimes. It was therefore important to ensure that we were not engaged in a past agenda concerning private behaviour and how people live their lives—an agenda that occupied people in the 20th century for far too long. As someone who is known in Labour circles as a bit of an authoritarian, it has been a particular pleasure and pride for me to be the Home Secretary who has introduced this legislation in 2003. I do not want to be compared with Richard Nixon, but it took him to recognise the Republic of China, so there is hope for me in the future—although not, it must be said, in recording people's phone calls.
      Mr. Barry Gardiner: We've got the tapes.
      Mr. Blunkett: You've got the tapes; you've got the message.
      Finally, I thank the non-governmental organisations that have campaigned, advised and, on occasion, supported us. The venture has been collaborative and a genuine model for how we should proceed. It has been an example of how Parliament can make a difference. It is a great pity that because of consensus rather than controversy, very little of what has occurred will be recorded in the news media tomorrow morning.
      9.18 pm
      Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his words and the spirit in which the legislation has been introduced. The subject is not easy—I certainly did not find it so, and I am sure that that is true of all those who served in Committee. There was a common determination that we should not approach the Bill in a partisan way, and I hope and believe that we have created legislation that will stand the test of time.
      A great deal of credit goes to the Government. When the Bill started out in the House of Lords, there may well have been a temptation, particularly when the key areas relating to rape were placed under scrutiny, for the Government to cease the consensual approach and feel that they were being threatened. It is greatly to the Home Secretary's credit that he listened carefully to what was being said and accepted amendments that I believe have in no way detracted from what he was trying to achieve in changing the law in relation to rape, but have provided essential safeguards that will guarantee that a fair trial can take place. The Government are to be commended for what they have done in that respect.
      When we have approached the Bill here, it has been noteworthy that, because of the good work in another place, many areas of the Bill have gone through, I hope not on the nod—I hope that we have always scrutinised it sufficiently—but at any rate with no dispute whatever.

      629
      On those matters where there have been anxieties, one has only to look at the number of amendments tabled by the Government on Report to acknowledge that they have taken on board most, if not all, of the anxieties that have been expressed. In every respect, the Bill leaves the House in a better state than that in which it arrived, although it had already arrived in a good state because of the Government's attitude from the outset.
      I thank—I echo what the Home Secretary said—the non-governmental organisations. I also thank the police, who have provided us throughout the Bill with much support and assistance in difficult areas, particularly many of those dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). I thank him for organising some briefings that we received during the Bill's passage. I also thank the Government Whip exceptionally in respect of this Bill, and those who have whipped for the Opposition. We have succeeded in scrutinising in every aspect in Committee a Bill that was timetabled. I am sorry that we did not quite achieve it on Report but I do not blame the Government for that. Indeed, it would be churlish to blame Liberal Democrat Front Benchers. The blame certainly lies elsewhere.
      The Bill is modernising and it is now gender neutral, and I am delighted about that. I am also delighted that it will clearly provide greater safeguards for children, which has been a great anxiety in the House. I hope very much that those work. I am pleased by the modernisation of some areas of law, which while understandable were archaic. I greatly welcome the Government's last-minute decision to accept that the marriage exception was irrelevant in the 21st century. While it may have been appropriate 100 years ago, it ceases to be so when we are living in a. much more diverse society where there have to be ground rules about the way people behave.
      I do not want to take up more of: he House's time. It has been a pleasure and, indeed, a privilege to participate in the passage of the Bill. As for anonymity, the one outstanding matter, I am grateful to the Home Secretary for what he said. It is an area of deep anxiety. I hope that he can accept in that spirit the reason why we have kept on raising it, even though II accept that the Bill will not stand or fall by that particular clause. I hope that the Government can come away with constructive proposals by negotiation with the media, but if they cannot it is a matter that we will have to tackle, because otherwise the administration of justice will become very difficult.
      I do not want to end on an unhappy note. The good note that I can end on is that I think that we have done—I hope that we have done—a good job. I thank all those who have participated in the Bill for making that possible.
      9.24 pm
      Ms Munn: It is difficult to overstate the importance of the Bill. As has been said, this is an incredibly complex area. Legislating on it is not easy. Indeed, the more we look into it and examine the situation, the harder it is to come up with proposals that will work. Offences of this nature change over time. In particular, the introduction of such things as the internet have made such matters very complex.
      630
      To be subjected to a sexual offence is devastating. It is not to overstate the case to say that, for many people, it can scar their whole lives, but that is not to take away from the people who come through that experience and, rightly, describe themselves as survivors. Many of those people have suffered for many years the frustration of seeing inadequate justice in place to deal with those offences. Their families and those who work in that sector, as I did for a number of years, have felt that our justice system was not up to dealing with such offences. Equally, it is important that future offending is prevented and the Bill, commendably, seeks to do that as well. I am encouraged by the seriousness about the offences and the lengths to which the Bill goes to ensure the protection of the most vulnerable in our society.
      The Bill seeks to offer protection not just to children but to adults with learning disabilities and mental disorders, and it recognises that part of the devastation that people experience when subject to such offences is the betrayal of trust. How can vulnerable adults and their families and children and their parents who have been subject to such an offence ever feel that they can trust people who are placed in positions of responsibility?
      The Bill sends out a clear message to society in general as to what is acceptable and unacceptable and, beyond that, it takes seriously the fact that this is not just a question of what happens in our country and tackles so-called "sex tourism." The Bill states that what is not acceptable for children in our country should not be acceptable for children in other countries.
      There are relatively few people in the Chamber, but we should not underestimate the importance of the Bill to many people. There will be people out there watching this on television and looking at what has been said. Following previous debates on this subject, I have received phone calls and letters from people throughout the country saying how important it has been to have these matters debated.
      The Government have done a good job in tackling the issue and should be congratulated on that, as should Members on both sides of the House. It is a complex area, and the Bill needs to be implemented and monitored. It is only through the process of implementation that we will learn whether the clauses we have agreed will achieve the aims that everybody wants to see achieved. In monitoring that, we will come to understand whether we need further legislation to tackle these serious offences.
      9.27 pm
      Simon Hughes: I am pleased to have the opportunity of seeing the Bill through. The Home Secretary knows that there are two other Bills that we have to see through together before my current Home Office work load is passed on entirely to my colleagues.
      It is a great pleasure to welcome a Bill that, as the Home Secretary said, had been sitting around as an idea. Some of us had been lobbying for a reform of this area of the law for a long time, and I pay tribute to the Government for bringing the Bill through a proper consultative process, a good review body that came up with a set of sensible suggestions and then a consultative Government paper. Like the reform of coroners, a subject that has also been sitting on the shelves of the

      631
      Home Office for a long time, this matter needed the attention of Ministers, who have produced what is substantially a very good Bill.
      I pay unequivocal tribute to the Home Secretary and his Ministers for the way in which they have made sure that the Bill got on to the statute book. His colleagues past and present have co-operated with my colleagues and me, and with others, to make sure that we get the best possible agreement in all areas of the Bill. I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), to the Solicitor-General and to now-elevated colleagues who have gone before. As the Home Secretary said, we all hope that being on Home Office duty provides us with a launching platform for greater things. There may even be those on the Conservative Front Bench with the same hope, although they are not all here tonight to express it.
      Mr. Bryant: They are not here at all.
      Simon Hughes: They are well represented by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), although his elder and better is no doubt not far away.
      I add tributes to four of my party colleagues in particular. My hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) have borne the brunt of the effort in this place and have done their job extremely well, while my colleagues Baroness Walmsley and Lord Thomas of Gresford did the same in the other place. This was a Bill where one had to be pretty committed to do the work, and the work was done by my colleagues to their credit and to the benefit of the Bill. They worked well with colleagues from all parties. I add a tribute to Lord Alli, who tabled significant amendments that were supported across the House. Like many of my colleagues, he sought to improve some areas that were technically very difficult, and about which there had been much controversy. As a result we have produced a much better Bill, but not without considerable effort.
      Finally in my thank you list, as well as thanking many voluntary bodies and the police in general, I pay particular tribute to the Metropolitan police, who briefed colleagues in all parts of the House effectively, competently and supportively.
      This was none of my doing, but I appreciate the fact that, apart from the last three groups of amendments on Report, everything was dealt with within agreed times. That is certainly the best way to approach such legislation. We should not be passing laws relating to criminal offences without having time to debate them and ensure that we get them right.
      I shall now single out the substantive issues. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) said, this Bill is hugely important outside this place. We have reformed the law on rape significantly and for the better. The struggles that the House of Lords went through to try to get that right are important. There was a moment when it looked as if it would be possible to convict someone of that most serious offence without their having understood what they were doing. At one stage in the Lords, there was the possibility that a defendant in a rape trial would no longer be able to argue that he believed that the alleged victim was consenting. That has
      632
      been changed in a way that does not, I believe, prejudice the victim, but does ensure that the person accused is given a fair trial. That is a hugely important factor in dealing with this most serious offence.
      Various other areas of the law were improved in the House of Lords, with the result that on a whole set of issues the prosecution was indeed required to establish the burden of proof, which had not been clear at the beginning. Another small but important issue was raised in the Lords, and the Government agreed that people who give advice, such as the agony aunts of this world, should not be criminalised for the advice that they give.
      It was also important to state in law that people who abuse positions of trust should be prosecuted, and minors are now much better protected, whether from grooming, from people abusing positions of trust or from other people in the family. I agree with the Minister that that protection also applies within the marriage relationship. We cannot allow young people to be abused and exploited as was possible under the previous law.
      There are other tricky areas, which are difficult to deal with, and which I am aware sometimes raise a laugh outside among the public. We did not get it right in the beginning, and people who walk round their homes with no clothes on, without doing anything else, could have been prosecuted just for that. The Government understood that the law needed to be drafted properly so that people who chose to do that did not unwittingly find themselves in court. Likewise, people who cause no offence and have no ill motive can be without clothes in parts of the country where that is permitted—such as on beaches in Dorset, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) explained, or elsewhere.
      We may not have perfectly right the difficult subject of sex in public places. The Minister knows my views: we argued that that activity should be dealt with within a public order context rather than in sexual offences legislation. None the less, the Liberal Democrats, like all the other parties, are clear that it is important to understand that public conveniences are just that, and must not be abused by people in a way that prevents the public from using them as conveniences. I hope that message has come out loud and clear from all parts of the House.
      Finally, I hope that it will be noted that we have also tidied up a few little things that would otherwise have been wrong and anomalous. For example, people who have committed offences that are no longer offences will not remain on the sex offenders register. Such matters are important. Their implications may be limited, but they are hugely important for the individuals involved.
      I draw two messages from the Bill. One is that young people are now better protected by the law from people within their family, from other people whom they know, and from outsiders who seek to abuse them. Secondly, where that happens, we need to make sure that the police have the resources they need to follow up offences that will be on the statute book in the next few days. If we are to ensure, as we should, that those who groom young people into prospective crime are caught, we need to ensure that all the police authorities have the facilities and numbers to follow matters through.

      633
      As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) said, this is good legislation—not perfect, but significantly better than before—that is fair to men and women and to different types of relationship. But the proof of the pudding will come when we discover whether it is used wisely and understood clearly, and whether those with the authority to implement it are given the resources to do so. We wish the Bill well, and I am pleased that my colleagues in particular have been able to contribute to improving substantially what is very important legislation.
      9.35 pm
      Mr. Bryant: This is becoming a bit of a love-in, with all of us congratulating one another—
      Mr. Blunkett: Only in the legal sense.
      Mr. Bryant: Indeed. I, too, would like to congratulate the Home Office on being courageously bold in a quiet way, and on achieving what is, by all accounts, important legislation that will probably have a more direct effect on people's lives than much other legislation, even though it will barely be reported in tomorrow's newspapers and other media. This has been a good process. The initial consultation did, indeed, set the boundaries, and Ministers' response to probing amendments in Committee was entirely helpful. Making sex and sexuality, which are so often profoundly divisive issues in society, matters of open consensus in the House is a remarkable achievement; if only we could provide the same advice to the Anglican Church.
      This is an excellent Bill primarily because of the added protection that it gives to children. Many of my constituents have been very concerned in recent years about the seeming increase in the number of child abuse stories. They will be pleased to learn that we are moving with the times and providing stronger protection, at a time when people are able to travel more around the world. One of my constituents is a very close family relative of two young children who were abducted and murdered some 15 years ago. Still nobody has been convicted of those murders, and I know that my constituent passionately wants the double jeopardy rule to be reformed as the Government would like it to be. My constituent does not understand why the House of Lords still has not finished with the Criminal Justice Bill, and looks forward to its completing its legislative passage.
      I should also like to congratulate the Home Secretary as a gay man, because one of the most extraordinary aspects of this Bill is that it is probably changing more laws on homosexuality than on many of the other issues facing us. We barely talked about that issue in Committee because there is general consensus on it, but it took some courage to introduce many of the amendments. Ironically, the law on homosexuality in this country has probably been more illiberal and discriminatory in the past 150 years than it has in the past 1,000. Indeed, every time a Bill has been introduced to try to improve matters in the past 50 years, we have tended to take two steps forward and one step back. Many people will be profoundly happy to see the end of
      634
      the offences of solicitation, of gross indecency, of procuring others to commit homosexual acts, and of assault with intent to commit buggery.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) has referred to the Government's recent decision to include section 93 and schedule 4, which provide for those convicted of now abolished homosexual offences to come off the sex offenders register. That is good for those individuals because it allows them to get on with the rest of their lives. Equally importantly, it is good for the register, because people can now have absolute confidence that those on it are included for a very good reason.
      Many congratulations, then, and further congratulations to the Home Secretary on the amendment tabled in the other place to the Criminal Justice Bill, which will make homophobic hate crimes illegal in the same way as racial hate crimes. That is a movement entirely in the right direction and should be welcomed.
      I believe that this is a fine Bill. For once, we have not moved two steps forward and one step back. This is a resolute step forward and, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said earlier, it is a Bill that will stand the test of time.
      9.40 pm
      Dr. Evan Harris: This is indeed important legislation and I share the pleasure of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant). I am pleased to see the abolition of existing discriminatory offences, particularly gross indecency and buggery, which were especially important in terms of their scope and the number of people whose lives were blighted by the threat of blackmail and shame for what were consenting offences. The changes made in that area of law are more important than other legal changes in respect of rights for gays and, more widely, for gays and lesbians.
      The Government can rightly take pride in taking action, because it was not an easy process. It was clear from the outset that it would take a good deal of departmental time to have a review, a consultation and a White Paper and then a contentious Bill that would be difficult to whip, particularly in the other place. Gaining consensus in the House of Lords was particularly difficult.
      I take particular pleasure in knowing that when the idea of having a review, which later became "Setting the Boundaries", was first mooted from the Dispatch Box in February 1999, it was partly in response to a new clause that I had proposed to the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill 1998—a Bill that was later blocked in the House of Lords and had to be pushed through under the Parliament Act. The amendment dealt with the privacy provision, which meant that even a consensual homosexual act could never be lawful if more than two people were present. A review was proposed in response to my new clause and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Government for initiating it. I also thank the people who served on that review, which set out for the first time the need for gender-neutral and sexuality-neutral legislation.
      I share the joy of the hon. Member for Rhondda at seeing both clause 93 and schedule 4 enacted. It is all the more laudable that the Government acted in that

      635
      respect—they can again take great pride—because it was not the Government's initial position that something needed to be done in this area. In the Committee considering the Bill to which 1 referred, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), then a Home Office Minister, said to me:
      "It is important that we get one thing crystal clear. I suggested that the hon. Gentleman was being cavalier in his apparent disregard of the public expenditure implications of the course that he is proposing. Is he seriously suggesting that police time should be spent going through the charge sheets of individuals who have pleaded guilty, been convicted or been cautioned for the offences in question, in order to determine into which of the three categories"—
      consensual, non—consensual, private—
      "they fall, and so whether his new clause will bite? Does he consider that to be a justifiable use of police time?"—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 11 February 1999; c. 148.]
      The Government have certainly now accepted that it is an appropriate use of Home Office time for that work to be done. We have had to wait a long time for those measures, which should have been introduced earlier.
      In respect of the one substantive amendment—amendment No. 195—that was not agreed, I hope that
      there will be an informal time limit on the Home Office's determination of this matter. Even a month taken to act in respect of something that has always been consensual and should never have been registrable is a month too long.
      It was a little churlish of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) to argue that 45 minutes for debating the issue of sex in public lavatories was too much, particularly when he himself made several pertinent interventions in that debate. As I said, singling out public lavatories for a lower standard of complaint, a lower standard of proof and a lower number of available defences than for sex in parks, commons, heaths and other areas is a questionable path down which to go. That is my only negative point about the Bill.
      Finally, it is important to note that the Government have only just started to deal with some issues, particularly trafficking and the exploitation of people—mainly women, and often, sadly, children—as sex workers. I am glad that, following the evaluation of pilot schemes, cross-European and international work, the Government have recognised that there is clearly more to do. On the question of prostitution, I am delighted that the Government have had the courage to initiate a review in that area also and I hope that it leads to legislation—
      Mr. Deputy Speake (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that on Third Reading he should be talking about what is in the Bill, and not speculating about the future. Other hon. Members are waiting to speak on the Bill.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Dawson: It was a privilege to serve on the Committee on this historic Bill. It is a fine Bill that will offer protection to many vulnerable people in this country and abroad for many years to come. It was a very positive experience being part of a Committee that had a genuine debate, with sincere and committed people on both sides doing their level best to try to improve the legislation.
      636
      Huge challenges lie ahead. We have improved the law on prostitution, on the protection of children who have been sexually abused, on young people who are themselves abusers and on trafficking. It is now essential that we improve the resources for, and availability of, treatment and support for offenders to ensure that the legal protection that we have put in place makes a real difference to people's lives. I have great hopes for further legislation that may stem from this Bill. We have laid down important structures in the Bill, including provision on the inability of young people under the age of 13 to consent to sexual relations. That will have profound implications for the age of criminal responsibility in the future.
      The biggest challenge that will arise from the Bill will be faced not only by the Home Office, the Government and Ministers, but by all of us. The most important way in which we can protect children who are sexually abused in our society is by ensuring that we have a nationwide network of treatment centres for adult abusers. That heinous behaviour can and must be addressed properly, and it is a challenge for all of us whether we are prepared to accept such centres, whose fundamental role is to protect children, in the heart of our constituencies. These are huge issues for all communities. Sexual abuse is rife in our society and we must ensure that children are much better protected by putting such a network in place.
      9.47 pm
      Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Like all the other hon. Members who have spoken on Third Reading, I am profoundly grateful to the Government for introducing this Bill, especially the clauses that will protect young people with learning difficulties. I am the mother of a daughter with a learning difficulty, who will achieve the maturity age of a six-year-old. Like many other hon. Members, I have had parents of children with learning difficulties coming to my surgeries. Some of those children have been sexually abused, some of them in care homes. Unfortunately, achieving a prosecution has always been incredibly difficult because there have always been debates about whether or not such an individual is capable of consenting to sex.
      The reality is that my daughter will never be in a fit position to consent, or otherwise, to sex. In fact, it would take very little to induce her into any form of behaviour. The prospect for many parents of children with such difficulties was that they could never be exposed to society. They would never have the opportunity to live in sheltered accommodation, because if they were exposed to some sort of sexual activity, it would be almost impossible to achieve redress. There would only have been a terribly assault and no actual justice for the individual. That remains the case until we prove that this legislation works.
      I was unable to speak on the Bill earlier because it covers such a highly emotive area for me and for people and parents like me. The effectiveness of the Bill will be borne out only if there are successful prosecutions, as the Minister said. It will be so if my colleagues in Mencap tell me that it is working and that those people feel that they have more rights and a greater chance of justice when acts are committed against them. It will be so if the police feel more disposed to take prosecutions

      637
      to the Crown Prosecution Service and when the CPS is confident enough to take those cases to court. Few cases get there now.
      I welcome the Bill from that personal perspective and on behalf of many parents in a pos tion similar to my own. I thank the Home Secretary for his reassurances on anonymity. The guidelines that will soon be issued to the press will, I hope, have the desired effect. I am deeply concerned about the publication of scandalous stories and their effects on innocent people and on the juries who are expected to reach judgment.
      Vera Baird: I pay the greatest of respect to what has just been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas).
      I shall return the mood to one of congratulation by complimenting the Government on tile excellence of the Bill. It was a true pleasure to serve on the Committee, and I congratulate the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary who has dealt so well, so amiably and so flexibly with the Bill this evening. I also compliment the advisers who have worked extremely hard, sometimes running to stand still.
      Clause 1 is of particular importance. It did not end as it started and has been amended for the better. Its purpose has unflinchingly remained the same throughout. For women, it is a progressive and symbolic provision. It has taken since 1975 to find a Home Office sufficiently understanding to reverse the rule in Morgan v. the Director of Public Prosecutions. That rule said that it is a complete defence to rape for a man, whatever the woman says or does, to say that he believed that she was consenting. Because of the emphasis placed by the clause on the actions carried out by the defendant to check the complainant's state of mind, it will also be much less possible for previous sexual history to be used to say that that was what persuaded a man that a woman was, in fact, consenting.
      Finally, I appeal to the Government to hold the fort on anonymity. Clause 1 brings twin changes of great benefit to women in the continued fight for sexual rights. I congratulate the Home Secretary.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the two motions.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. I 18(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      FAMILY LAW
      That the draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 10th September, be approved.
      ROAD TRAFFIC
      That the draft Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 15th October, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the two motions.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
      REDUCED RATES OF VAT
      That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 11817/03, draft Council Directive amending Directive 77/388/ EEC as regards reduced rates of Value Added Tax; and supports the Government's position both that the proposals as they relate to zero rates are unacceptable in their current form and that it will not accept any proposals that would harm its social objectives or undermine the fairness of the United Kingdom's VAT system and the competitiveness of the UK economy.

      OFFICIAL FEED AND FOOD CONTROLS
      That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 6090/03, a draft Regulation on official feed and food controls; and supports the Government's view that the measure will improve the consistency and effectiveness of feed and food law enforcement throughout Europe thereby increasing consumer safety and protection and facilitating the functioning of the single market.— [Ms Bridget Prentice.]
      Question agreed to.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting on Thursday 6th November, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr Peter Hain relating to Programming of Bills and Deferred Divisions not later than Six o'clock; such Questions shall include any Questions on Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; the Questions may be put after the moment of interruption; and the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 29th October 2002 relating to Deferred Divisions shall not apply.[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

    Ordered,
    That Mr David Cameron be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Mr John Bercow be added—[Mr. Luff]

  Acute Hospitals (Working-time Directive)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  9.54 pm
  Dr. Richard Taylor: I am amazed and delighted to have been able to hear the concord and unanimity of our previous debate, which was a delight, rather than the usual arguments that go from side to side of the House. I am also delighted that I shall not have to watch the clock and that I may be able to go on for a little longer than a quarter of an hour—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It may help the hon. Gentleman to know that I shall have to interrupt him at 10 o'clock to put the Question again.
  Dr. Taylor: You are very kind, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have had that experience once before, so I shall sit down quickly when the time comes.
  Unfortunately, I shall not be continuing the picture of concord, pleasure and happiness, as I am about to throw a large stone into that lovely tranquil pond. The effect on acute hospital services of the European working time directive can be likened to a time bomb. There is some warning so that people can begin to plan how to cope with it, which is why I am raising the subject. I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), and hope to hear from him that the Government are taking that potential time bomb seriously and that they have some answers.
  The problems are recognised by the professions, although not by the public; nor are they recognised by many MPs, given the staggering lack of attendance in the Chamber—unless that is due to my reputation for thoroughly boring oratory. I fear that if the time bomb is not defused it threatens to disrupt the Government's splendid intentions for updating the national health service and improving hospital services. I am purposely scaremongering, in the hope that I shall stimulate a response from the Minister that reassures me that my worries are somewhat in vain.
  The threat from the working time directive is especially to acute services—accident and emergency departments, medical units, surgical units, acute orthopaedic units and obstetric units. The hours of junior doctors have, rightly, been cut. My first job—44 years ago—was half a mile from this place. I worked for one of the old-style consultants who expected all the castors on the beds in the ward to be pointing in the same direction. At any time of the day or night, he would summon his housemen to greet him in the hospital foyer. He expected them to work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for six months at a time. Inevitably, housemen such as me cracked up halfway through, so I am wholly in favour of junior doctors being given a reasonable lifestyle.
  I am delighted that over the past few years there have been progressive cuts in hours and improvements in pay. The onerous on-call rotas have been better paid. More recently, there have been limitations on hours. Those measures are essential in the interests of the health of junior doctors and of their family life. Most of all, they
  640
  are essential in the interests of patients because of the quality of care that junior doctors can give when they are reasonably rested.
  However, there are already some grumblings from some junior doctors, especially junior surgeons, that they are not receiving enough hands-on experience—the
  surgical term is "not enough cutting". Under the working-time directive, there will be further restrictions on the hours of junior doctors: 58 hours a week soon, progressing slowly to 48 hours. However, the killer fact, as the Secretary of State for Health acknowledged last week at a meeting of the Select Committee, is that time on call, even if one is asleep, counts as time working and
  has to be included in that 58—ultimately 48—hours. There will be huge penalties if trusts do not manage to get down to those levels. Obviously, the effect is that we need more doctors of all grades very rapidly. That is impossible because of the speed with which—
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  Dr. Taylor: The major problem with the reduced hours is that on-call rotas become impossible and we have to move entirely to shift systems for junior doctors. Shifts are largely unpopular. Doctors do not come into the job to work shifts; they come in to get to know patients and to see them through the whole admission process and then perhaps to follow them up as outpatients. That becomes entirely impossible with the shift system, so continuity of care becomes a problem.
  Doctors need absolutely excellent notes, and excellent hand-over and excellent communication between doctors and between nurses are needed. There has been a very sad recent example of that simply not happening. The Health Committee conducted an inquiry into Lord Laming's report on the Victoria Climbie tragedy. The communication between doctors, nurses and, indeed, hospitals handling that tragic case left so much to be desired that the importance of the continuation of care was underlined time and again. Not only do the notes have to be written and be legible, they have to be read by the people taking over. So shift systems are very difficult to make work.
  I must mention the consultant. Life becomes impossible for the really conscientious consultant because he or she is aware that he or she is the only person providing continuity of care, as everyone else is on a shift system. Let us consider what that is like for patients. They arrive at hospital and are clerked in by a junior doctor. They unburden their soul and tell the doctor all about themselves, their illnesses and their secrets, but they never see that doctor again. That is demoralising not only for those patients, but for the doctor. To get round the problem, we obviously need more consultants a nd more junior doctors very rapidly. I fully support the Government's plans for more money, more doctors and more nurses, but we need them quickly. We have to be worried about vacancy figures for consultants because they contain certain inaccuracies.
  I shall spend a few minutes talking about the views of those in some of the different specialties. Not very long ago, the Royal College of Physicians—my own

  641
  college—carried out a survey of 211 acute hospitals in England and Wales. It found that 166 of those hospitals were felt to have insufficient middle-grade doctors—specialist registrars—to give continuous 24-hour cover for acute medical admissions and 44 of them had fewer than five middle—grade doctors, and we do not know how they are coping at the moment.
  Mr. Archie Norman: The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. I agree with every word he has said and I congratulate him on raising what is, as he says, a very important subject. Does he agree that the greatest difficulties will be experienced by the smaller acute units that simply do not have the number of registrars and doctors to provide the necessary cover and that, if we proceed with haste in implementing the working time directive, some of those units will have to close?
  Dr. Taylor: That point is well made, and I shall deal with—it I am not pulling any punches—by listing the hospitals that will soon be under threat.
  The Royal College of Physicians is extraordinarily worried. The Royal College of Surgeons is also worried. It is concerned, too, about the abbreviated teaching that surgeons are now getting, and it is worried that if the training is hurried through even more, we will get newly appointed consultants who do not have as much experience as they ought to have.
  The president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists kindly wrote to me in July this year, saying that
  "there are currently insufficient junior doctors to provide adequate levels of service cover on wards and there will not be enough qualified doctors to fill vacant consultant posts in the near future."
  That is without taking into account the working time directive, if it is to be fully enforced. For the obstetricians, the situation is compounded by a tremendous shortage of midwives, and one sees little chance of that being improved. The obstetricians are also worried about the adverse impact on training. The move for obstetricians and gynaecologists to be either gynaecologists or obstetricians will compound the problem again, because twice as many are needed if they are not doing both jobs.
  The anaesthetists perhaps present the starkest problem. It is already a shortage specialty, and I have heard a claim that to meet NHS targets and comply with the working time directive from the anaesthetic point of view, every graduate from every medical school for the next five years would have to become an anaesthetist.
  Lastly, accident and emergency is the bread and butter and is most important to all our constituents. It depends on all the other specialties being there, and it also depends on rotas, which will be extraordinarily difficult to meet. That raises the question, as the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) mentioned, of the viability of a number of hospitals, A and E departments and acute services. Where hospitals that are quite large are very close together, we must ask how much can survive at each of them. We think of Shrewsbury and Telford, Ormskirk. and Southport,
  642
  Wakefield and Pontefract, Cheltenham and Gloucester, and Hartlepool, which is very near Stockton and Middlesbrough. In relation to smaller acute hospitals, we must look at Bassetlaw, Grantham, Horton hospital in Banbury, Weston-super-Mare, Halton general in R uncorn, Hexham, Montagu hospital in Mexborough, Bridlington, Newark, Clacton, Louth—I could go on. The list is very long.
  What is the Government's role? First, it is to admit the potential crisis. I was delighted that the Secretary of State said to the Health Committee that the working time directive—particularly the effect of being on-call counting as work, even when one is asleep—was a killer. A glimpse of recognition is therefore coming through. The solution must bear in mind the patient as well as the staff. It must steer between safety, what is financially possible, access and conflicting advice. On the one side are the militant junior members of the British Medical Association saying, "Get on with it. We can't wait for it." On the other, the more sane and sober royal colleges are injecting an air of realism, saying, "For goodness' sake, please give us more time. We know you are putting in more doctors, and you are putting in the money, but it must have time to filter through."
  The Government have made a start in addressing the problem with the splendid document, "Keeping the NHS Local—A New Direction of Travel", which came
  out in February. It emphasises the importance of local services to local people. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will realise that I would not be here at all if wholesale downgrading against local people's wishes was a viable possibility.
  In my neck of the woods, we have shown absolutely that we cannot replace a full A and E department serving 135,000 people who live close by with a minor injuries unit without a doctor, and expect those needing to see a doctor in an emergency to go 14 to 35 miles without overloading other A and E departments and the ambulance service and without dire social consequences.
  Only last week, I received a letter from an 88-year-old lady who had been taken to hospital in an emergency after she had suffered a minor collapse. She was taken 18 miles away and her two elderly friends of 90 and 91 went with her. She did not need admitting to hospital; she only needed to hear a doctor say that she was all right. However, she ended up 18 miles away from home and the only way to return was by taxi. These three elderly ladies, of whom two are partially sighted, had to find a taxi and rake out their handbags when they got home to find the £46 to pay. That is absolutely unacceptable.
  The answer must be to provide if not all full A and E departments, acceptable local emergency centres that will keep most local people within their area. That is essential for my constituents as well as for those who go to the small local hospitals, which will almost inevitably have to be reconfigured in some way or another. I hope that the Minister will explain how the Government will solve the problem by taking into account the needs of patients and staff.
  I finish with some comments from the Royal College of Physicians specialist registrar adviser, who forecasts two possible scenarios. If the Government press ahead with full implementation of the working time directive, he says that the consequences may be catastrophic.

  643
  However, the Government could be forced politically by umpteen threatened closures to accept at the eleventh hour that postponement is inevitable. I conclude with a quote from the same specialist registrar adviser. He says:
  "Ultimately, there may be a difficult choice between compliance with bad European law and the maintenance of safe levels of care."
  10.13 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) on obtaining this debate and on his continued interest in an important issue about which he has strong views.
  I assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not in any way underestimate the impact of the working time directive on the NHS. I am not sure that I would liken it to a time bomb, but it certainly represents a huge challenge. Recent judgments by the European Court of Justice have complicated matters further, and the hon. Gentleman asks us whether we are prepared for the implementation of the directive by August 2004. Let me make it clear that we have put in place a considerable and extensive work programme designed to help and support the NHS with its implementation. That said, it is unrealistic and wrong to expect the Department of Health to micro-manage compliance. As the hon. Gentleman implied, thorough local planning for the working time directive is crucial to achieving compliance.
  For that reason, we have instructed strategic health authorities to monitor progress in every trust. In turn, we are working closely with SHAs in particular on those issues where national solutions or actions are needed. All trusts have been asked to provide SHAs by the middle of this month with a summary of their plans to achieve compliance. They have also been asked to provide fully detailed action plans by 31 December this year to facilitate national solutions where appropriate. Nationally, we are picking up on reports from SHAs and many pilot sites and other projects, and we are already working hard to help spread good practice from the pilots and provide tools to help with implementation, as well as taking direct action on national issues.
  Implementing the working time directive requires examining the quality of service that we provide to patients and improving the working lives of doctors in training. Tired doctors and long hours are not acceptable in this day and age. The directive is not unwelcome. It is a sensible reform that could improve the health and safety and working lives of all employees in the NHS.
  The recent judgments of the European Court of Justice have changed our understanding of what is meant by working time and made it much more difficult to comply with the requirements of the working time directive for doctors in training. There are particular questions about whether time spent asleep but on call should count as working time and trigger an entitlement to compensatory rest, and how soon such rest should be taken. We have registered our concern with the European Commission about the impact of those judgments. Other countries have joined us in expressing their concerns and we shall continue to press the case for
  644
  a revision of the directive to deal with the problems raised. However, let me stress that the deadline of 1 August 2004 remains in place and it is important that we work towards it.
  On the other hand, we should not be too pessimistic about our ability to meet the requirements of the directive for doctors in training. We have achieved much over recent years through the new deal initiative and I think that we can claim already to have made significant progress in reducing the hours that junior doctors work. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman recognised that progress.
  Our latest national monitoring exercise, which was carried out earlier this year and validated by junior doctors themselves, indicated that, as a result of new deal, almost 90 per cent. of all junior doctors were working fewer than 56 hours per week and almost 80 per cent. of junior doctors met both the 56-hour limit and the new deal rest requirement. However, I accept that we need to go further. Reducing the hours that doctors in training work will involve changing the way in which we organise and provide many of our services, especially at night and weekends. It will also require changes to how we employ many of our staff and the way in which they work. It is for that reason that several national pilot sites are testing new ways of providing services so that we can learn lessons from their experience.
  To facilitate that further, we are working with the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges under the terms of a memorandum of understanding. In addition, we are working with individual medical royal colleges, the joint consultants committee of the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and other key stakeholders through regular meetings to consider issues for which national solutions are needed. Let us be clear that this is not only a junior doctor issue. It is about different and better ways of working throughout all professional groups in the NHS. The potential contributions of nurses, midwives, therapists, pharmacists and support workers, as well as doctors, are critical to the redesign of services. Redesign is one of the key tools to help to achieve a reduction in the hours that doctors in training work, and it has the potential to provide new ways of delivering services that avoid the need for reconfiguration.
  Mr. Norman: Does the Minister accept that the case made by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) and many others. including the Royal College of Physicians and the BMA, is not that the working time directive is a bad idea of itself but that the NHS is simply not prepared for its implementation? It is common sense to say that there is every case for deferring implementation so that hospitals, and especially smaller units, are allowed more time to prepare for it. If the Minister does not accept that, will he guarantee that not one single acute bed will be lost and that not one single acute unit will close at night as a consequence of implementation in August 2004?
  Dr. Ladyman: The guarantee of not losing a single bed or a single service is unreasonable. Services will certainly change. However, it would be our objective to strive to meet that guarantee. I expect to give the hon. Gentleman an idea of how we intend to achieve that and I hope that he will be in a better position to judge whether the NHS will be prepared in time.

  645
  As I said, the issue is not simply about junior doctors: it is about different and better ways of working across all professional groups, and redesigning services so that we do not need to reconfigure them. That means approaching planning for reducing the hours that doctors in training work from a different perspective, especially in dealing with acute services out of hours. Our hospital at night pilot sites are developing some interesting models. For example, rather than maintaining multiple rotas across all the specialties at night, a single, multidisciplinary team is put together to cover the whole hospital, or at least a large part of it, for the out-of-hours period. The composition of the team is determined by analysing what actually happens during the out-of-hours period and, from that, defining what skills are needed within the team to ensure safe, high-quality services at all times. That is the sort of reconfiguration and redesign of working practice of which the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) is no doubt aware from his experiences outside the House. It shows the effort that we need to make in the NHS.
  In respect of maternity services and the care of the new born, paediatrics and obstetrics are two acute specialties that do not easily lend themselves to cross-cover. We are funding national pilot sites concerned specifically with those services. We recognise that they require particular and different solutions from those needed for general acute services. I am delighted that Professor Bill Dunlop, president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and chairman of the joint consultants committee, is chairing a working party to consider the issues and possible solutions further.
  Some solutions that we are considering specifically to keep services local include increasing the supply of staff and exploring skill-mix, but that will, of course, need to be considered in light of the national service framework for children, which will cover maternity services. Other options available for consideration will include innovative models of maternal and neonatal care, including the scope for extending midwife-led care and the potential for midwives to enhance their roles. The Department has also invested centrally in the growth of both paediatrics and obstetrics and gynaecology specialties. As a result, the number of trainees increased by about 27 per cent. for paediatrics and 10 per cent. for obstetrics and gynaecology between 1997 and 2002.
  So far as smaller hospitals are concerned, reconfiguration and implementation of the directive need not mean closure of local hospitals. When combined with the potential of redesign, and considering the whole health system in the locality, models of care can be developed that enable all the hospitals in an area to work together to provide the full range of services for local people. There will need to be significant changes to ways of working, including much greater use of non-medical practitioners and increasing use of emergency teams to provide cover at night. That is why we are encouraging and funding the piloting of innovative service delivery models that have the potential to improve sustainability of services, especially in smaller hospitals. That includes working with health systems to plan change and build on the evidence base to support the concepts and service models described in
  646
  "Keeping the NHS Local—A New Direction of Travel", which I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Wyre Forest describe as a splendid document.
  Importantly, that strategy means that the NHS needs to develop options for change with, rather than for, patients and local people, another point made by the hon. Gentleman. That does not mean, however, that local hospitals will never change. There will be times when there is strong evidence to support the centralisation of some specialised care into larger centres to give patients the best possible outcomes. Equally, there will be opportunities to move services out of larger centres into more local settings. That is another reason why I cannot give the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells the guarantee that he sought because there will be times when it is inevitable that services change.
  Our focus is on redesign rather than relocation. Redesigning services extends the options for meeting local needs and expectations. The NHS needs to exploit the contributions of different hospitals and primary, intermediate and social care providers. They need to work in partnership, with genuine integration and joint planning of services. The strategic health authorities are also overseeing that work. In very simple terms, the key to planning for compliance can be described as the three R's: rotas, roles and redesigned services. Many parts of the NHS are already putting that planning into effect.
  As well as the hospital at night pilots we have 10 working time directive pilot projects up and running, testing new approaches to service delivery and showing how effective new roles for staff and new ways of working can be. Some of those pilots are looking at doctors' rotas. They are testing the benefits of consultants working at night and of senior house officers cross-covering between medicine and surgery or medicine and accident and emergency. They are testing shift systems for doctors, and rotas that combine SHOs with other practitioners at night and out of hours. Those changes can be challenging, but they can also be rewarding.
  Other pilots are testing changes to the traditional roles of non-medical practitioners; there are new roles for nurse practitioners on call to the wards at night. In another pilot, theatre technicians have been given the opportunity to train to work in resuscitation teams. One of the pilots is developing new, non-medical roles in anaesthesia in several trusts around the country, supported by the Modernisation Agency's changing work force programme. In another pilot, nurses, operating department technicians and a physiotherapist are training together as peri-operative specialist practitioners to take on the complete care of patients before and after operations.
  Overall, our strategy for reducing the hours that junior doctors in training work is a multi-faceted challenge and one that is underpinned by the safety of patients. Although it is individual NHS trusts that have to find the right solutions for their local circumstances, they can do that only with the right support from their strategic health authorities, from professional organisations and from the Department of Health. So I am pleased to be able to tell the House that all those organisations are indeed working closely together at

  647
  national level to ensure that the quality of service is maintained and, where possible, improved during implementation of the directive.
  I recognise that more must be done to reduce working hours, and that will inevitably mean further investment to support the changes that will be necessary. We have already allocated over £21 million this year to the NHS to prepare for the directive's implementation. Of that, over £7 million has supported the working time directive and hospital at night pilot projects, and a further £12 million is going to SHAs to provide further local support.
  Clearly, if we are to succeed in reducing the hours that junior doctors work there will be a need for more doctors, although that is not, and cannot be, the only solution. It is important also that trusts demonstrate that they have considered all the options and not gone straight for the more and more doctors scenario. We must use this opportunity to move away from outdated working practices that are not helpful to doctors in training or, more importantly, the quality of patient care.
  On that point, I am proud to say that we have increased significantly the number of consultants in post: their numbers have risen by nearly 7,000 since 1997, an increase of 32 per cent. We will increase the numbers of consultants and GPs by a further 15,000 by 2008 over the 2001 figure. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest acknowledged what we have achieved so far, but said that he wanted the doctors to become available more quickly. We want that too, but they do not grow on trees, and they take time to train. We are producing them as rapidly as we can.
  In addition, we have achieved our target of a further 1,000 specialist registrars 18 months ahead of schedule, and that growth is continuing. In 2003–04, we are distributing central funding for the implementation of 400 more training opportunities and we have also given trusts scope to create up to 1,500 additional specialist registrar opportunities through local funding. We have made it clear that those training opportunities should be implemented in a way that supports compliance.
  648
  As I stressed earlier, we have made it clear that SHAs must ensure that every trust prepares a fully detailed action plan to achieve compliance. The strategy for achieving that may include additional specialist registrar posts, and opportunities to fund additional posts locally should be targeted to support that. If further national training numbers are needed to support compliance, they will be released on the completion of plans signed off by SHAs in collaboration with postgraduate deaneries.
  We must be clear that increases in training numbers should not be a substitute for changing working practices; it is not possible to comply with the directive solely by increasing the number of specialist registrars. To target the limited resource of additional doctors most effectively, it is essential that plans are quality-assured and produced through a robust process, including consultation with neighbouring work force development confederations and postgraduate deaneries where necessary.
  Trusts already have the scope to convert SHO posts to specialist registrar posts—up to 700 in surgical specialties and up to 600 in other specialties. WDCs and postgraduate deans are currently working with trusts on SHO conversions, and that should be explored as a strategy to help to achieve compliance, linked to a review of the level of cover needed at different times of the day and night.
  In 2003–04, we are distributing central funding for the implementation of 400 more training opportunities, and we have also given trusts scope to create up to 1,500 additional specialist registrar opportunities through local funding. Postgraduate deans are giving priority to hospitals facing working-time directive challenges when considering—
  The motion having been made at 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 half-past Ten o'clock.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Criminal Justice Board (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the work of the Crown Prosecution Service with the Nottingham Criminal Justice Board. [135225]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS Nottinghamshire is a very active member of the Local Criminal Justice Board and chairs two of its sub groups. One of these, which includes Victim Support, has engineered considerable improvements for dealing with vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. The group are now pioneering a system to provide updates and guidance to victims about their cases.

  The Chief Crown Prosecutor also leads a group which is working on ways to improve communications between the agencies and the community. A regular bi-monthly bulletin is to be published for MPs and community groups which will explain the work of the board and the progress it is making in dealing with the offences that disrupt and disturb local communities. On behalf of the board, the Chief Crown Prosecutor is also leading an initiative to ensure all schools in Nottinghamshire are aware of the work and structure of the Local Criminal Justice Board.

  The Crown Prosecution Service is also a major contributor to the board's delivery group which is tasked with narrowing the justice gap, bringing more persistent offenders to justice, and decreasing the cracked and ineffective trial rate.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on her policy on prosecution of offences arising from domestic violence. [135228]

  The Solicitor-General
  The CPS handles around 13,000 cases involving domestic violence each year which arc conducted in accordance with the Crown Prosecution Service revised policy on prosecution of cases of domestic violence issued in November 2001. The policy focuses on the safety of the victim and children, while holding abusers accountable for their actions.

  EU Fraud
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Solicitor-General what mechanism she has for co-operating with the EU authorities in prosecuting fraud cases involving EU funds. [135229]
  388W
  The Solicitor-General
  Member states may request mutual legal assistance in gathering evidence by invoking the European Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance 1959. The UK prosecuting authorities can similarly seek assistance from other member states.

  The United Kingdom Central Authority (UKCA) at the Home Office receives incoming requests for assistance. The Metropolitan Police, the Serious Fraud Office and Customs and Excise would gather evidence in England and Wales in response to an incoming request.

  The European Community institutions established the European Anti Fraud Office (Office Europeen de lutte antifraude—OLAF) in 1999 as a successor to the Task Force for the co-ordination of fraud prevention (UCLAF). It is an independent body, but remains part of the European Commission. This is the principle authority with responsibility for investigating fraud involving EU funds.

  Football (Prosecutions)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many professional footballers have been charged in the past 12 years for(a) acts of violence and (b) disorderly behaviour during matches. [135230]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service holds no central records on the occupation of defendants in criminal cases or on particular offences

  Iraq
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Solicitor-General, pursuant to her answer of 20 October,Official Report, column 352W, on Iraq, to the hon. Member for Medway, what constituted the effects in UN Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687 which, combined with Resolution 1441, provided a legal base for the use of force in Iraq. [134468]

  The Solicitor-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Stone on 17 March,Official Report, column 515W. This set out the written answer given by the Attorney General in the House of Lords on the same day, which explained how, in his view, authority to use force against Iraq existed from the combined effect of resolutions 678. 687 and 1441.

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many allegations of bribery of a foreign public official have been passed to the Serious Fraud Office since 14 February 2002; and how many of these allegations have resulted in an investigation; and whether any charges or arrests have been made under Part 12 since that date. [132361]

  The Solicitor-General
  Part 12 of the Act came into force in February 2002. The Act is not retrospective and to prosecute under the provisions of Part 12, all elements of the overseas offence must have taken place after February 2002. The very nature of such offences is that they can take some time to surface, and as such a period where no prosecutions are instituted is to be expected.
  389W
  There have been no specific referrals made to the SFO where bribery of a foreign public official is the sole or principle allegation, or where it has been appropriate to invoke powers under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. As such no investigations have been commenced where the focus has been on Part 12 offences.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the Chiefs of Staff expressed unease to him in March regarding the proposed war against Iraq. [136075]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 16 September 2003,Official Report, column 635W.

  Madrid Initiative
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement about the Madrid Initiative in response to Pakistan's capacity to export nuclear weapons; [135390]

  (2) what discussions he has had with his Madrid Initiative counterparts regarding Pakistan's capacity to export nuclear weapons. [135391]

  The Prime Minister
  The first meeting of the Proliferation Security Initiative was held in Madrid on 12 June. Subsequent meetings were held in July, August and October in Brisbane, Paris and London respectively.

  The Proliferation Security Initiative aims to counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems and related materials by any state or non-state actor. No specific countries have been identified as primary targets of the Initiative.

  We regularly urge all states to sign, ratify and abide by the obligations of all treaties and conventions covering the development of such weapons.

  Official Buildings
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the buildings within a mile of Parliament for which the staff of 10 Downing street have responsibility, giving in each case the date of acquisition; and whether acquisition was in each case(a) as a result of a departmental transfer and (b) a new acquisition by the Government; and what the buildings are used for. [134421]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

CONSTITUTIONL AFFAIRS

  County Courts (Security)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what measures are being taken to improve the safety and security of staff working in county courts. [134914]
  390W
  Mr. Leslie
  The DCA and Court Service take the health, safety and security of its employees very seriously. The Department has minimum security standards for county courts. The purpose of these standards is to ensure that appropriate security arrangements exist to protect staff, judiciary and court users. The Department undertakes a rolling programme of inspections to ensure that standards are being met. Security reviews also take place following any major incident. The standards are kept under review to ensure that they properly take account of any new or emerging risks and threats. The Department also has a rolling programme of fire safety and general health and safety inspections to ensure that its buildings are safe and all relevant legislation is being complied with.

  Edmonton County Court
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, if he will make a statement on the progress made in reconstructing Edmonton County Court since September. [134915]

  Mr. Leslie
  On 1 September 2003, a suspected arson attack resulted in extensive damage to Edmonton County Court. Following an extensive programme of replacement and improvements, the court was able to fully re-open for business on 13 October 2003.

  To alleviate the fears of court users and help prevent damage to the building by similar future attacks, a number of security improvements, including the installation of CCTV cameras, are being put in place.

  EDS
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will list payments made to EDS in respect of the courts' computer systems in each of the last five financial years; and if he will make a statement. [134231]

  Mr. Leslie
  The following net payments were made to EDS in the last five financial years in respect of the courts' computer systems (LOCCS contract):

  £ million

  1998–99

  5.92

  1999–2000

  14.35

  2000–01

  24.9

  2001–02

  33.4

  2002–03

  17.5

  The pattern of expenditure reflects the wide-ranging programme, beginning in 1999, to modernise the Department's work, to increase its efficiency and provide better customer service, which has varied the level of payments from year to year. This programme included the provision of new services, such as:

  modifications to the court case management system to include a module for family work;

  modernisation of the jury summoning system;

  modern IT support for the Judiciary; and,

  the Money Claims Online project.

  Privy Council Judicial Committee
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, what countries use the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as their final court of appeal; how many cases have been heard by the Judicial Committee from each of these countries in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [134824]

  Number of appeals

  Country

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Total

  Antigua and Barbuda

  2

  —

  1

  2

  —

  5

  The Bahamas

  4

  2(1)

  3

  3(1)

  5

  17(2)

  Barbados

  —

  2(1)

  —

  2

  —

  4(1)

  Belize

  4(1)

  2(1)

  1(1)

  3(1)

  1

  11(4)

  Brunei1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Dominica

  —

  —

  2(1)

  —

  1

  3(1)

  Grenada

  2

  —

  1

  4(1)

  2

  9(1)

  Jamaica

  9

  7(1)

  10

  4

  8(1)

  38(2)

  Kiribati2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mauritius

  3

  3

  4(1)

  2(1)

  3(1)

  15(3)

  New Zealand3

  6(1)

  10(4)

  8(2)

  16(3)

  14(1)

  54(11)

  St. Christopher and Nevis

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  4

  St. Lucia

  —

  1

  3(2)

  —

  2

  6(2)

  St. Vincent and the Grenadines

  2

  —

  4(1)

  1

  1(1)

  8(2)

  Trinidad and Tobago

  8

  15(1)

  8(1)

  8(1)

  14(3)

  53(6)

  Tuvalu

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 An appeal lies from the Court of Appeal of Brunei to the Sultan and Yang di-Pertuan, in civil cases only. By agreement between Her Majesty and the Sultan these appeals are heard by the Judicial Committee who report their opinion to him instead of to Her Majesty.

  2 The appeal lies only in constitutional cases affecting a Banaban.

  3 New Zealand has recently legislated to abolish the appeal for all cases heard by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand after the end of 2003.

  Note:
  Figures in brackets (included in the total annual figure given) are for appeals disposed of without a hearing. These were mostly dismissed for non-prosecution or withdrawn.

  Rape Cases
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what action he has taken to remove circuit judges from the list of those permitted to try rape cases in the last two years. [134939]

  Mr. Leslie
  Section 75 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 states that the Lord Chief Justice, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, can, by means of a practice direction, determine the cases or classes of cases suitable for allocation to High Court Judges, Circuit Judges and Recorders. From time to time successive Lord Chief Justices have issued such practice directions. In October 2001, the current Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, issued a practice direction entitled 'Directions by the Lord Chief Justice for the Classification of the business of the Crown Court and Allocation to Crown Court Centres'. This Practice Direction again determined that all High Court Judges and those Circuit Judges and Recorders, approved for that purpose by the Senior Presiding Judge, with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice, can hear rape cases.

  Judges trying rape cases are, of course, under constant public scrutiny. Where problems about judicial conduct become apparent to the Court of Appeal, the papers are referred to the relevant Presiding Judge, or to the Senior Presiding Judge personally. Any complaints, as well as any information suggesting possible inappropriate judicial behaviour, are immediately investigated, and reports in the media of judicial behaviour which, if correct, would give rise to concern,
  392W
  Mr. Leslie
  The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the final court of appeal for the independent Commonwealth countries listed in the first column of the table, as well as for the United Kingdom overseas territories and Crown dependencies. The table shows the number of appeals from the countries concerned disposed of by the Judicial Committee in each of the five years up to 2002. Some of these appeals were disposed of without a hearing.

  are checked for correctness and completeness by the Presiding Judges. It is, of course, open to the Lord Chief Justice, acting on his own initiative, or on the recommendation of the Senior Presiding Judge, to remove any individual authorisation. The Lord Chief Justice has not had occasion to do this in the last two years.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Banking Services
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with clearing banks about the need to ensure their services are accessible to people who wish to conduct their business on a face-to-face basis and the role which post offices and sub-post offices can play in achieving this. [135016]

  Mr. Timms
  None. This is a commercial matter for the banks. Banking and other financial services are central to the Post Office's strategy for the future of the network. With almost 17,000 offices, Post Office Ltd has one of the largest retail networks of any organisation in Europe and the Government's investment of £480 million on computerising the post office network means that the Post Office can achieve a new role as a convenient place for people to do their banking

  Universal banking services which successfully went live on 1 April, and these services together with Post Office Ltd's plans for an expansion of network banking

  393W
  (commercial arrangements between the Post Office and individual banks providing access to standard bank accounts at post office counters) should lead to a substantial increase in the number of people using post offices for banking transactions.

  CDs
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to protect the interests of consumers from copy protected music CDs. [133410]

  Ms Hewitt
  Rights owners must be able to use technology to protect their works against unauthorised copying and be free to issue their products, such as music CDs, in copy-protected format. However, these

  Application

  Applied

  Approved

  Size (MW)

  Type

  Status

  Raventhorpe

  8 May 1998

  15 November 2000

  450

  CCGT

  Not built

  Isle of Grain

  18 May 1998

  15 November 2000

  1,200

  CCGT

  Not built

  Langage

  9 June 1998

  15 November 2000

  1,010

  CCGT

  Not yet started

  Stoke-on-Trent

  28 September 1998

  14 May 1999

  58

  CHP GT

  Not available

  Cantley

  3 February 1999

  9 December 1999

  70

  CHP GT

  Not available

  Beglan Bay

  23 April 1999

  16 July 1999

  525

  CCGT

  2003

  Belvedere

  29 September

  —

  70

  Wates

  Public inquiry

  South Killingholme

  23 September 2000

  22 March 2001

  700

  CHP CCGT

  2003

  Halewood

  29 August 2000

  4 April 2001

  70

  CHP GT

  Not available

  Trafford Park

  15 September 2000

  10 May 2001

  65

  CHP GT

  Not available

  Avonmouth

  19 October 2000

  14 September 2001

  180

  CHP GT

  Not built

  Cefn Croes

  24 July 2000

  23 May 2002

  60

  Onshore

  Not yet started

  Heathrow Airport

  2 January 2001

  —

  65

  CHP GT

  To be decided

  Carrington

  5 February 2001

  18 July 2002

  65

  CHP GT

  Not available

  Scroby Sands

  5 March 2001

  17 April 2002

  78

  Offshore

  Under construction

  Sheffield

  25 April 2001

  —

  65

  CHP GT

  To be decided

  Marchwood

  8 November 2001

  28 November 2002

  860

  CCGT

  Not yet started

  Hatfield Colliery

  9 April 2001

  5 August 2003

  430

  Coal IGCC

  Not yet started

  North Hoyle

  18 February 2002

  31 July 2002

  90

  Offshore

  Under construction

  Rhyl Fiats

  25 March 2002

  12 December 2002

  150

  Offshore

  Not yet started

  Barrow

  31 May 2002

  10 March 2003

  108

  Offshore

  Not yet started

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what contingency plans her Department has to prevent power failures in the United Kingdom. [134126]

  Mr. Timms
  I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to her on Tuesday 14 October 2003,Official Report, column 118W.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to ensure continuity of electricity supply; and if she will assess the likely effect on companies and individuals of widespread power cuts. [134236]

  Mr. Timms
  I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for the Vale of York on Tuesday 14 October 2003,Official Report, column 118W.

  Euro
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many speeches she has made since June 2003 supporting entry into the euro. [131719]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer given by the Financial Secretary on 14 October 2003,Official Report, column 142W.
  394W
  products should be identifiable as such, and we welcome music industry guidelines which recommend clear labelling as regards compatibility with various types of consumer equipment on which the CDs could be expected to be playable.

  Electricity
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list, for each of the last five years, applications for construction of new electricity generation capacity for which her approval has been(a) sought and (b) given, broken down by (i) type, (ii) size and (iii) proposed or actual in-service date. [132433]

  Mr. Timms
  The following is the information requested:

  European Power Networks (Balkans)
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made on European power networks for the Balkans; what remains to be done; when it is expected to be completed; and if she will make a statement. [135441]

  Mr. Timms
  Following proposals from the Commission, the countries of the South-East Europe electricity market signed a Memorandum of Understanding—the Athens Memorandum—in November 2002 which would create a single electricity market in the area by 2005, with rules reflecting those of the EU's internal market. The Memorandum also set up a number of institutions collectively called the 'Athens Process'. The agreement paves the way for the eventual integration of the regional electricity market into the wider European one.

  The process is taking place in close co-operation with all international donors active on a regional basis and the Stability Pact.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in what ways her Department is promoting the use of information technology solutions as a replacement for paper work. [135509]
  395W
  Mr. Timms
  The DTI is promoting the use of information technology solutions in a number of ways, both in conveying key messages to the business community and in the way the Department itself enables its own business processes. UK Online for Business was launched in September 2000 with the aim of promoting the benefits of information and communication technologies. The programme provides impartial advice on how e-business can help businesses reduce costs and increase efficiency by integrating their internal processes and working with customers and suppliers online. This core use of ICT and the more specific usage of e-business technologies to engage, for example, in e-procurement, accounts and collaborative design will provide business with the real potential to reduce and replace paper work.

  The DTI is working with industry to establish a UK Oil Portal on the world wide web, which will enable all business processes associated with granting consents, approvals and regulatory reporting across all Government Departments to be undertaken electronically in a secure manner.

  DTI's Export Control Organisation (ECO) has a number of in-house databases and makes constant use of electronic records when processing licence applications and in responding to requests for information from Government Ministers, Parliament and exporters. The ECO has also recently introduced a facility to enable applications to be made over the Internet.

  Internally, at DTI we are making increasing use of online internal business processesfor our finance and personnel systems, and use our intranet for mainstream communication to staff. We have had an electronic document and records management system for all our five thousand headquarters staff since April 2003, replacing the previous paper system.

  Internet Access
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) households (i) have internet access and (ii) have broadband access, and how many (b) businesses have (1) internet access and (2) broadband access, broken down by (A) constituency and (B) postcode. [134488]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: In the second quarter of 2003, 12.0 million (48 per cent.) of households in the UK were connected to the internet from the home, according to the latest ONS statistics published on 30 September 2003. Oftel's research found that 65 per cent. of SMEs had internet access at end August 2003. Oftel publishes data on the combined total take-up of broadband by UK homes and businesses. At end September 2003, there were over 2,628,100 broadband subscribers, of which 2,341,000 were residential broadband subscribers and 288,1000 were business broadband subscribers. Oftel monitors the UK narrowband and broadband markets. The findings are published regularly on its website http://www.oftel.gov.uk. Statistical data on take-up of the internet in the UK is published regularly by the ONS on its website hap:// www.statistics.gov.uk.

  Data broken down by constituency and postcodes level are not available.

  Mineworkers' Pension Scheme
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will decide whether to extend the eligibility criterion for the lump sum payment to certain members of the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme from five years' service to four years and six months' service; and if she will make a statement. [135589]

  Mr. Timms
  The intention of the scheme to help those MPS members on the lowest pensions who left British Coal before or shortly after 1975 is to address the problem of retired mineworkers who receive very low pensions in spite of lengthy service in the industry. For this reason, mineworkers with less than five years contributory service were excluded. I have no plans to revisit these criteria.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the tracing exercise to locate members of the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme for whom no contact details are known will be completed; and if she will make a statement. [135590]

  Mr. Timms
  It is expected the tracing exercise will be completed by the end of the summer 2004.

  Mobile Telephone Calls
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was spent on mobile telephone calls by her Department in the last financial year. [135506]

  Ms Hewitt
  Responsibility for the provision of mobile telephones for official purposes and for payment of the associated call charges was devolved to individual directorates, agencies and NDPBs at the end of March 1993. Since August 1997, the DTI has increasingly made use of the central Mobile Telecommunications contract managed by the Office for Government Commerce. This contract provides a call-off arrangement for DTI users at advantageous prices ensuring that the Department obtains good value for money. Due to the devolved responsibility for mobile telephone management the only information that can be provided at non-disproportionate cost is the total expenditure with DTI's main suppliers of mobile telephony. From the information currently available, expenditure last year was £342,964 which included both equipment and call charges.

  Post Office Card Account
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which bank supports the Post Office card account; at what location customers' details are kept with this bank; which other banks were considered for support of card accounts; and if she will make a statement. [135593]

  Mr. Timms
  These are matters that fall within the day-to-day responsibility of Post Office Ltd. and I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Renewable Energy Grants
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will recognise Solartwin as a new technology in relation to the awarding of Clear Skies grants. [135893]

  Mr. Timms
  Solartwin was recognised as an innovative technology when it was developed with a DTI SMART award funding. Solartwin has been on the list of Clear Skies approved products for some months now.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reasons the Clear Skies Grant Scheme requires the use of digital thermometers. [135894]

  Mr. Timms
  The Clear Skies criterion does not stipulate the use of a digital thermometer where a differential temperature controller is used that can be set to limit the temperature of the water in the cylinder. Systems that do not employ this type of controller are required to use a digital thermometer as these give the clearest indication the system is working efficiently and also due to the high temperatures that can be reached give the most accurate temperature readings, therefore acting as a safety device to ensure individuals do not touch the system in error and get burnt in the process.

  Stamp Duty Land Tax
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact of increases in Stamp Duty Land Tax on her policies for promoting business, trade arid industry; and if she will make a statement. [135609]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government has introduced disadvantaged areas relief which provides an exemption from stamp duty land tax for transactions in non-residential land in Enterprise Areas. This will provide a major boost to businesses investing in commercial premises in those areas.

  In addition the changes I announced on 20 October to the structure for charging Stamp Duty Land Tax on the rental element of new leases will assist small and medium-sized enterprises and business start-ups.

  Telephone Exchanges
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which body owns telephone exchanges in Great Britain. [135327]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 30 October 2003]: With the exception of Kingston upon Hull, local telephone exchanges in the UK are owned by BT. In the Kingston upon Hull area, they are owned by Kingston Communications.

  Cable Companies also have facilities in areas where they have a network presence.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) whether a regulatory assessment has been made of the costs of upgrading telephone exchanges to broadband exchanges; and if she will make a statement; [135328]
  398W
  (2) which body is responsible for ensuring that companies other than British Telecom are not asked to pay an uncompetitive price for upgrading telephone exchanges to make them broadband enabled; [135329]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answers 30 October 2003]: Telephone exchanges can be upgraded for broadband by their owners, or by other telecommunications providers by means of local loop unbundling. In pursuit of its broadband target, the Government is keen to see as many exchanges as possible upgraded for broadband. Nonetheless, decisions on upgrading are a commercial matter for the companies concerned.

WALES

  Bechtel
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the contracts for consultancy and work carried out by Bechtel in each year since 1997, stating in each case(a) the nature of the work, (b) the value of the contract and (c) the duration of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [133580]

  Mr. Touhig
  [holding answer 22 October 2003]: The Wales Office was established in 1999. Bechtel have not been contracted to carry out any consultancy work for the Wales Office since then.

  Stamp Duty Land Tax
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of increases in stamp duty land tax on economic regeneration policies in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [135613]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government has introduced disadvantaged areas relief which provides an exemption from stamp duty land tax for transactions in non-residential land in Enterprise Areas. There are 363 wards in Wales which qualify for this relief, representing the bottom 42 per cent. of areas in the national index of deprivation. The measure provides a major boost to businesses investing in commercial premises in Wales.

TRANSPORT

  Air Travel
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the results of the SPASM computer model run on the assumptions that air travel would by 2030 pay the same rates of tax as those currently applicable to car travel. [135183]

  Dr. Howells
  The modelling shows that, with aviation fuel taxed at the same rate as motor vehicle fuel and with VAT imposed on all flights departing from UK airports, the number of passengers using UK airports would rise from 180 million in 2000 to around 315 million in 2030. This assumes that the increase in tax causes the same percentage decrease in demand for air travel.
  399W
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the responses from the public to the consultation on the Future of Air Transport in the United Kingdom will be made available for public inspection. [135192]

  Dr. Howells
  We have received over 400,000 responses to the consultation. These are being analysed, and an index and retrieval system is being developed. We shall make the responses available before the end of this year, except where consultees have explicitly requested confidentiality.

  Responses from some key stakeholders are already in the public domain, and can be viewed on the relevant web sites.

  Gatwick Airport
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer of 11 September 2003,Official Report, column 372W, on runway capacity, what the net economic benefit would be from building a new wide spaced runway at Gatwick, counting only benefits to UK residents. [135219]

  Dr. Howells
  The net economic benefits, to UK residents only, of building a new wide spaced runway at Gatwick, over and above the benefits from maximum use of existing capacity at south east airports, is approximately £2 billion, assuming all costs and benefits are discounted at 3.5 per cent. from 2000 to 2060. This estimate also takes into account a three year delay in benefits and includes a 44 per cent. increase in costs to reflect the risk in estimating costs for engineering works.

  Highways Agency
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what costs the Highways Agency has borne in dealing with illegal occupations of its land at Foston, Derbyshire in the last 12 months. [134709]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Acting Chief Executive of the Highway's Agency, Mr. Stephen Hickey, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Stephen Hickey to Mr. Mark Todd, dated 3 November 2003:
  The Transport Minister, David Jamieson, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking what costs have been incurred in dealing with illegal occupation of land at Foston, Derbyshire, in the last 12 months.
  The total cost is not yet known as the Agency have not yet had the site cleared and have not received all invoices for the legal costs.
  To date they have incurred Solicitors fees of £3559. This figure will rise as they had to apply to Derbyshire County Court for a Writ of Restitution to enforce the earlier eviction notice.
  The total cost of securing the site with concrete blocks is £1,800, the blocks will remain following the site clearance until the land is tenanted.
  We are working closely with the Environment Agency to ensure that the land is thoroughly cleared of any debris. It is estimated that the clearance of the land will cost approx £24,000.

  Piracy
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many British registered ships have been 400W
  the subject of attack by pirates in each half year for the last five years; in which areas of the world these attacks have taken place; what the cost in (a) human, (b) freight and (c) shipping terms has been; and what steps he is taking to deal with the problem. [134964]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of British registered ships that have been the subject of attack by pirates since 1998, and the areas of the world where these attacks have taken place, are as follows:

  January to June

  July to December

  1998

  Americas

  3

  —

  Indian Sub-Continent

  1

  —

  South East Asia

  —

  2

  1999

  South East Asia

  —

  1

  South America

  1

  1

  2000

  Africa

  1

  —

  Americas

  —

  2

  Far East

  —

  1

  South East Asia

  1

  2

  2001

  Indian Sub-Continent

  1

  —

  South East Asia

  1

  2

  2002

  Africa

  3

  1

  Americas

  1

  3

  Far East

  2

  —

  Indian Sub-Continent

  1

  1

  South East Asia

  3

  2

  2003

  Africa

  2

  —

  Americas

  2

  —

  Far East

  I

  —

  South East Asia

  4

  —

  Note:

  These figures are for the British Fleet, and include the United Kingdom, Crown Dependencies and Dependent Territories combined fleets.

  There have been no reported instances of any seafarers being killed on a British ship during the period, and no British ships have lbeen stolen. Ship equipment, stores, personal effects and cash have been stolen during attacks but an exact inventory is not held centrally.

  Concerted action by the international community is the key to addressing the problem. The UK has participated in several counter piracy seminars in "hotspot" areas, has prepared and issued Codes of Practice for the investigation of piracy incidents and the registration of "phantom" (stolen) ships, and raised the matter at international events, including the United Nations General Assembly.

  The UK Government meet the maritime industry on a regular basis to discuss how best the UK can continue to help tackle the problem of piracy. In November 2002 revised counter piracy advice was re-issued to all UK seafarers, and we have also issued advice on measures and equipment to assist ship operators.
  401W
  The new IMO requirements for ships to have internationally agreed security measures in place by July 2004 will also help to protect them from piracy attacks.

  Road Safety (Child Pedestrians)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many child pedestrians were injured on roads, broken down by local highway authority, in each of the last three years. [134754]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Vehicle Licensing
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what procedures are in place at the DVLA to stop documents being stolen when they are being returned to the DVLA because the addressees have moved. [135119]

  Mr. Jamieson
  DVLA expects to issue approximately 16 million vehicle registration documents and over six million driving licences this year. On past experience, less than half of 1 per cent. of this (around 110,000 items) mail will be found by Royal Mail to be undeliverable and will be returned to the Agency.

  Undelivered mail is opened under secure conditions at DVLA and the contents dealt with according to strict handling procedures. A check of DVLA records is made to compare the name and address shown with that provided by the customer. If a contact telephone number is present, the customer is contacted. Where discrepancies are identified, the problem is corrected and documents re-sent. If no error has been made, the documents are held securely for a time to allow the customer to contact the Agency. Where no further contact is received, the documents are destroyed under secure conditions.

  Undelivered identity documents, e.g. passports and birth certificates, are collected by staff from a specific team. Where no address discrepancies are present, these documents are also held securely pending contact from the customer. Where no contact is forthcoming, documents are returned to their issuing authorities, the relevant embassies or to the Home Office as appropriate.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects modernisation of the West Coast main line(a) to commence and (b) to be completed. [134588]

  Mr. McNulty
  Work to upgrade the West Coast Main Line is already under way. Completion is currently projected by 2007–08.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Delayed Discharges
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to extend the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003 to 402W
  Northern Ireland; what steps he is taking to tackle the issue of delayed discharges from hospitals in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [134831]

  Angela Smith
  I am not planning to extend the provisions of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003 to Northern Ireland or to introduce equivalent legislation in Northern Ireland. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has made it a requirement on Health and Social Services Boards to invest part of the annual additional allocations for community care services to ensure timely discharge from acute care in hospital. Furthermore the Secretary of State's Draft Priorities and Budget paper, which is currently out for consultation, proposes a new target for the Health and Personal Social Services designed to reduce the maximum waiting time for community care services for people who are medically fit for discharge so that by March 2006 no assessed person should wait for more than eight weeks in an acute hospital, other than in exceptional circumstances.

  Loyalist Decommissioning
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress made in decommissioning arms held by Loyalist terrorists. [134962]

  Jane Kennedy
  In 2003 the Loyalist Commission, along with the UDA representatives, met the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. The Prime Minister has stated clearly that the IICD will resolutely continue to pursue complete decommissioning by all paramilitary organisations, helping to bring about a permanent end to paramilitary activity in all its forms.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the amount of arms and ammunition held by Loyalist terrorists. [134975]

  Jane Kennedy
  Under Part II, Paragraph la of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information "Information whose disclosure would harm national security or defence", it would be inappropriate for the Government to comment as the information requested by the hon. Member is only available from intelligence sources.

  The Government and the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning will resolutely continue to pursue complete decommissioning by all paramilitary organisations in order to bring a complete and permanent end to paramilitary activity in all its forms.

  Police (Northern Ireland) Act
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total cost has been of changes brought about by the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000; and if he will make a statement. [134820]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 provides the legislative framework for the implementation of the changes recommended in the report of the Independent Commission on Policing. These include the creation of the Policing Board, the setting up of District Policing Partnerships, changes to
  403W
  the planning arrangements, provisions relating to recruitment and severance, and the legal basis for both the Oversight Commissioner and the RUC GC Foundation. Given the range of direct and indirect costs, it would not be practical to place a specific figure on the total amount incurred as a result of the legislation.

  Police Ombudsman
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent on the Police Ombudsman's office in Northern Ireland since 6th November. [136072]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Police Ombudsman reports the cost of running her office in each financial year since its formation is as follows:

  £

  2002–02

  1 7,821,378

  2003–03

  6,858,897

  The Police Ombudsman advises that from 1 April to 30 September 2003 the cost of running the office has been £3,104,907.

  1 This figure represents expenditure by Police Ombudsman's Office from its establishment on 6 November 2000 until 31 March 2002.

  Provisional IRA
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his assessment is of the Provisional IRA's capacity to carry out(a) targeting, (b) intimidation and (c) racketeering activities in Northern Ireland. [134633]

  Jane Kennedy
  Under Part II, Paragraph 1 a of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Information whose disclosure would harm national security or defence), it would be inappropriate for the Government to comment as the information requested by the hon. Gentleman is only available from intelligence sources.

  We now call on all paramilitary organisations to bring a complete and permanent end to paramilitary activity in all its forms.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful applications were received for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment's Research and Development programmes in each of the last three years; and what the total amount was of funding allocated for research and development programmes. [133869]

  Mr. Pearson
  Since 1 April 2000 the Innovation, Research and Technology Division of Invest Northern Ireland (and the predecessor agency, the Industrial Research and Technology Unit), supported 1,038 applications and rejected 143 applications for research and development activities. A total of £77,524,907 in grants was offered to successful applicants. Details are provided in the following table.
  404W

  Successful applications

  Rejected applications

  2000–01

  304

  83

  2001–02

  293

  86

  2002–03

  310

  47

  2003–04

  131

  25

  Total

  1,038

  143

  1 As of 21 October 2003

  Road Gritting
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will change the decision to reduce the gritting of roads and streets in North Belfast. [134634]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have asked the Chief Executive of Roads Service to write to the hon. Gentleman in response to this question. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Stamp Duty Land Tax
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact of increases in stamp duty land tax on economic regeneration policies in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [135611]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government has introduced disadvantaged areas relief which provides an exemption from stamp duty land tax for transactions in non-residential land in Enterprise Areas. There are 237 wards in Northern Ireland which qualify for this relief, representing the bottom 42 per cent. of areas in the national index of deprivation. The measure provides a major boost to businesses investing in commercial premises in Northern Ireland.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Chagos Islands
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the nationality and residential status are of the Chagos islanders; who is responsible for their well-being on arrival in the UK; and if he will nominate a Minister to meet hon. Members and concerned county councils to discuss provision of services and their costs for the islanders. [131664]

  Mr. Rammell
  By virtue of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, most Chagossians, together with most of the inhabitants of the other Overseas Territories, became British citizens (as well as Overseas Territories citizens) on the commencement of the Act on 21 May 2002. They thereby acquired the right to enter and take up residence in the UK. As regards their entitlement to state services the Chagossians who have come to the UK have the same rights, and are treated in the same way, as other British citizens coming here from overseas.

  The Chagossians, were advised that, on arrival in the UK, they would not automatically be eligible for the whole range of state benefits and that they should

  405W
  therefore have sufficient funds at their disposal to support themselves until they had fulfilled the required habitual residence test.

  Ministers would be pleased to meet hon. Members and concerned county councils, at the appropriate time, to discuss these matters.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the payment system to poppy growers in Afghanistan(a) last year and (b) this year; which countries met the cost of the system; and how much in sterling each paid; how many growers took part; how much each poppy grower received; and what the take-up rate was. [134865]

  Mr. Rammell
  In 2002, the Afghan Government considered it appropriate to offer a one-off programme of compensation payments to opium poppy farmers on the basis that the poppy crop had been planted during the Taliban regime. The UK provided financial assistance worth £21.25 million in order to support the new regime's commitment to tackle drugs production but it was the responsibility of the Afghan authorities to

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2001–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Maintenance

  19,093

  3,510

  24,561

  15,918

  1,245

  4,089

  Renovation

  3,354

  15,246

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Council tax

  202

  325

  350

  375

  410

  491

  Running costs—rent

  15,225

  25,180

  27,300

  54,000

  54,000

  54,000

  Utilities

  6,637

  8,049

  1,620

  4,723

  5,251

  3,971

  Total

  44,511

  52,309

  53,831

  75,016

  60,906

  62,551

  A downward rent review in 1995 resulted in a credit of £46,200 being received for overpaid rent during the 1997–98 period. A rent review in April 2000 resulted in a rate increase.

  EU Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the evidential basis used to support the statements in A Constitutional Treaty for the EU: The British Approach to the European Union Inter-governmental Conference, Cm 5934, that(a) outside the EU the UK would have less, not more, control of its economy, (b) the proposed constitution is no more than a tidying-up exercise, (c) the proposed constitution is arguably the most significant development since the foundation of the EEC and (d) the national Governments of member states remain in control. [135455]

  Mr. MacShane
  In relation to point(a) the full quotation from the White Paper makes our position clear: "Outside the EU, we would have less, not more, control of our economy—because to continue to trade with the Union, we would still have to be bound by its rules. But we would end up with much less say in shaping them." On point (b), the White Paper does not contain any such statement. On point (c), the White Paper does not say this. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister comments in his foreword that the enlargement
  406W
  administer the system of payments. We understand from the Afghan authorities that they provided compensation of $1,750 per hectare. Information about the total number of farmers who took part is not available. The Afghan Government estimated that 17,000 hectares of poppy were destroyed.

  In 2003, the Afghan Transitional Authority ran a non-compensated eradication programme through the Province Governors. The UK was not involved in this programme. There has not been any estimate of the amount of poppy destroyed.

  Departmental Expenditure (Official Residences)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the Department spent on(a) maintenance, (b) renovation, (c) council tax and (d) running costs of residential properties used by Ministers and officials in each year since 1997. [134689]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In the UK the Foreign and Commonwealth office maintains official residential accommodation for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary at No 1 Carlton Gardens. The spend each year on(a) maintenance, (b) renovation, (c) council tax and (d) running costs since 1997 is as follows:

  of the EU to 25 member states "will arguably be the most significant development since the foundation of the EEC". Concerning point (d), the White Paper provides the basis for this statement as follows: "The Union's powers clearly derive from the member states; and the draft Treaty preserves the principle that the most important decisions on EU issues are taken, by unanimity, by the Governments of member states."

  Great Lakes Region
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his Answer of 22 October 2003,Official Report, column 615W, on the Great Lakes Region, what monitoring took place of the Interim Emergency Multinational Force; and what monitoring is taking place of the UN Organisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo Ituri Brigade. [135215]

  Mr. Mullin
  The actions of the Interim Emergency Multinational Force (IEMF) was monitored and evaluated by the Political and Security Committee of the EU. The IEMF's operations were also discussed by EU member states.

  The work of the Ituri Brigade of the UN Organisation Mission in the DRC (MONUC) is regularly monitored by the UN's Department of Peacekeeping Operations in New York and by the UN Security Council through

  407W
  regular reporting. MONUC also provides weekly briefings to diplomatic missions in Kinshasa. Representatives from our embassy regularly visit the region and discuss the situation there with the UN Secretary General's Special Representative.

  Guantanamo Bay
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent progress has been made in discussions between the USA and UK Governments regarding the British detainees at Guantanamo Bay; and whether the possibility of repatriation remains under discussion. [135181]

  Mr. Mullin
  Discussions between the Government and the US Administration about the British nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay continue. A number of options are still being considered, including the possibility of repatriation.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs from which country the information on Iraq's alleged attempt to procure uranium from Niger was obtained; and whether he has asked that country if its details may be publicly released. [133399]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As has been said before in response to questions on this subject, the Government will not identify the source of the information received. The information was passed to the Government in confidence by the Government of another state, and is therefore covered under Exemption 1(c) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  We did seek authority from the originators to release the information to UN inspectors. This permission was not granted. We subsequently urged the Government concerned to make the information available themselves.

  Kosovo
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action has been taken to pursue those responsible for the murder in the summer of two Serbian boys by snipers in Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [135437]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Denis MacShane) issued a press statement on behalf of the Government on 14 August condemning the attack.

  The NATO-led force in Kosovo (K-FOR) and the UN Peacekeeping Mission (UNMIK) immediately launched efforts to pursue those responsible. The Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General (SRSG) established a special investigative team. K-FOR deployed 300 troops, tracker dogs, and increased ground and air patrols. UNMIK police set up mobile reserve units to conduct random vehicle checkpoints, and vehicle and foot patrols targeted with the specific aims of interdicting movement of persons with weapons and checking for criminals.
  408W
  The UK fully supports the ongoing efforts of UNMIK Police and K-FOR to find the perpetrators of this terrible attack.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the last ministerial visit from his Department to St. Helena was; and when the next one will be. [135658]

  Mr. Rammell
  St. Helena has never had a visit by a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister. There are no current plans for an FCO ministerial visit to the island.

  Mr. James Miller
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to persuade the Israeli Government to disclose to Mrs. Sophy Miller the Israeli Defence Force report into the killing of her husband Mr. James Miller. [135025]

  Mr. Mullin
  This issue has been raised with the Israelis on a number of occasions, most recently by my Noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean during her recent visit to Israel. The Israelis explained that the results of the General Command Inquiry will be one of the sources used for the Military Police investigation which we and James' family have been pressing for, and could therefore not be released prematurely. The Military Police investigation is now underway and the Israeli Government have assured us that the full results will be presented to the family.

  Somalia
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the UK Government have had with the leaders of the Somalialand region of Somalia about their aspirations for an independent state. [132249]

  Mr. Mullin
  I met with senior members of the Somaliland administration/authorities on 3 October. They referred to Somaliland's aspiration to be an independent state. The UK Government have no plans at present to recognise an independent Somaliland.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government has taken to support independent broadcasters broadcasting to Zimbabwe from outside Zimbabwe. [135209]

  Mr. Mullin
  We have made clear our support for strong, independent media reporting on Zimbabwe. The Government works with a variety of civil society and media organisations in and outside Zimbabwe to this end. We do not publish details of our co-operation with such organisations.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has raised the issue of Zimbabwe with the South African Government during their recent visit to the UK; and if he will make a statement. [135210]
  409W
  Mr. Mullin
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I had useful discussions about Zimbabwe with Foreign Minister Zuma and other South African participants in the recent London conference.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy(a) to unilaterally strengthen sanctions against Zimbabwe and (b) to seek the strengthening of sanctions against Zimbabwe by the EU. [135216]

  Mr. Mullin
  We keep our policy on sanctions against Zimbabwe under regular review. We favour multilateral sanctions wherever possible because these have a greater practical impact and send a stronger political signal.

  The EU sanctions on Zimbabwe were imposed in response to serious violations of human rights and the rule of law. The present sanctions expire in February 2004. We and our EU partners will decide then, in the light of the situation in Zimbabwe, whether to maintain or amend the present arrangements.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will press for the extension of EU targeted sanctions on senior Zanu PF officials to include spouses and children. [135221]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  When EU sanctions against Zimbabwe come up for renewal in February 2004 we and our EU partners will assess whether the Zimbabwe Government continues to engage in serious violations of human rights and of the rule of law. If the EU judges that the situation in Zimbabwe has deteriorated further it may consider extending the sanctions. It would choose to extend them in such a way as to have maximum impact on the decision makers in the Zimbabwe Government. Extending them to relatives of those on the sanctions list (within the limits of other relevant international obligations, for instance the Convention on the Rights of the Child) remains a possibility.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 21 October 2003,Official Report, column 537W, on the Zimbabwe cricket tour, what advice was given to the England and Wales Cricket Board by his Department's officials on the matter of the political situation in Zimbabwe. [135369]

  Mr. Straw
  FCO officials have not provided ECB officials with detailed briefing on the current political situation in Zimbabwe. The basic facts about this are in any event in the public domain. The ECB has not requested such a briefing so far in advance of the England cricket team's tour of Zimbabwe which is scheduled for late 2004. FCO officials have informed ECB officials about some key dates coming up in relation to Zimbabwe. They will continue to respond to requests from the ECB and other organisations for information on the political situation inside Zimbabwe and on safety and security issues.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many 410W
  abandoned cars have been removed by local authorities in England in each of the last five years; and at what estimated cost to public funds. [133528]

  Mr. Morley
  Information on abandoned vehicles was collected for the first time in the Municipal Waste Management Survey covering the financial year 2000–01. Data up to the latest year for which they are available are shown in the following table:

  Financial year

  Number of abandoned vehicles removed

  Estimated cost (£ million)1

  2000–01

  230,000

  Between 6.9 and 11.5

  2001–02

  293,000

  Between 8.79 and 14.65

  1 Based on estimeted disposal costs of between £30 and £50 per vehicle.

  Beef Exports
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the value was of United Kingdom exports of beef to the United States of America in each year since 1997. [133983]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The table shows the value of United Kingdom exports of beef to the United States of America since 1997.

  United Kingdom Beef Exports to United States of America

  £

  1997

  6,904

  1999

  3,175

  2000

  3,160

  2001

  13,537

  Note:

  There were no UK exports of beef to the United States in the years 1998, 2002 and 2003 (January to July).

  Sources:

  1. HM Customs and Excise.

  2. Data prepared by Statistics (Commodities and Food) Consultancy Trade and IT, ESD and Defra.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the steps the Government is taking to encourage the resumption of beef exports. [134668]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It has been possible since 1 August 1999 to export UK beef under the stringent rules of the Date-based Export Scheme (DBES). Beef exports resumed in September 2002 following the ending of foot and mouth disease restrictions and changes to the rules of DBES to make it easier for companies to participate. To date there are four slaughterhouses in the Scheme.

  We submitted papers to the European Commission in support of our case for further changes to the DBES and our request for restrictions to be lifted so that the UK can trade on the same basis as other member states in April 2003 and June 2003 respectively. These papers as updated are currently being considered by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). In addition, we have extended the period of rebates on DBES eligibility checks and Meat Hygiene Service supervision charges until the end of June 2004 for slaughterhouses entering the Scheme before the end of 2003. We have also Identified with industry a number of key markets so that lobbying can be targetted effectively.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to use regional average payments to implement the Common Agricultural Policy reforms; and if she will make a statement. [134125]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The deadline for responses to our consultation exercise on whether to adopt the regional average payment model of the Single Payment Scheme ended on 24 October 2003. Those responses will help inform our decisions on this matter, which we hope to announce within the next few months.

  Departmental Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much(a) electricity and (b) other energy her Department has used in each year since 1997 (i) in total and (ii) per square metre; what the projected use is for each of the following years for which forecasts are made; what plans she has to reduce usage; and if she will make a statement. [135052]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The answer in respect of parts and(a) and (b) parts (i) and (ii) for all Government Departs is shown in the attached table. Due to a number of

  Weather Corrected1 Energy Consumption (Gwh)

  Weather Corrected1 Energy Consumption (kWh/m2)

  Department

  Year

  Floor Area (m2)

  Fossil

  Electricity

  Fossil

  Electricity

  Cabinet Office2.3

  1997–98

  96,230

  16.1

  8.1

  168

  84

  1996–99

  96,230

  12.0

  9.3

  125

  97

  1999–2000

  96,230

  11.9

  10.0

  124

  104

  2000–01

  65,222

  12.4

  9.9

  190

  151

  2001–02

  126,495

  20.7

  15.7

  164

  124

  Department of Constitutional Affairs4

  1997–98

  744,310

  116.0

  66.3

  156

  89

  1996–99

  743,200

  119.1

  67.7

  160

  91

  1999–2000

  738,050

  102.7

  64.4

  139

  87

  2000–01

  734,896

  101.5

  62.5

  138

  85

  2001–02

  733,546

  84.6

  85.1

  115

  89

  Department of Culture, Media and Sports5

  1997–98

  -

  1998–99

  -

  1999–2000

  13,270

  0.4

  3.5

  33

  261

  2000–01

  13,270

  0.4

  3.5

  33

  261

  2001–02

  13,270

  0.4

  3.5

  33

  261

  Department for Education and Skills6

  1997–98

  108,009

  12.9

  20.1

  119

  186

  1998–99

  104,020

  10.6

  19.3

  102

  186

  1999–2000

  105,901

  14.7

  19.6

  139

  185

  2000–01

  102,913

  14.7

  20.6

  143

  200

  2001–02

  102,913

  15.9

  19.3

  155

  188

  Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs7

  1997–98

  176,715

  26.5

  15.9

  150

  90

  1998–99

  190,424

  27.1

  17.2

  142

  90

  1999–2000

  192,565

  23.4

  15.8

  122

  81

  2000–01

  199,817

  24.8

  16.9

  124

  84

  2001–02

  221,455

  31.6

  21.1

  143

  95

  Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Laboratories7

  1997–98

  146,205

  63.3

  31.5

  433

  216

  1998–99

  148,198

  59.0

  30.7

  398

  207

  1999–2000

  158,542

  61.6

  31.9

  389

  201

  2000–01

  155,761

  80.8

  28.3

  519

  162

  2001–02

  157,795

  91.4

  26.4

  579

  168

  Department of Health

  1997–98

  62,757

  7.1

  12.3

  113

  196

  1998–99

  62,757

  9.1

  13.4

  145

  213

  1999–2000

  62,757

  8.8

  14.1

  140

  224

  2000–01

  62,757

  7.2

  13.6

  116

  216

  2001–02

  62,757

  6.4

  13.1

  103

  209

  412W
  uncertainties about the future structure of the Department arising from the Review of Rural Delivery and the Independent Review of Public Sector Relocation it is not possible to make accurate estimates of projected energy use in future years.

  A number of measures are in place to reduce energy usage. From 1 November, all new contracts by central government department must meet minimum energy efficiency standards as well as value for money, when purchasing certain types of product. Types of products that must meet energy efficiency criteria include IT equipment, gas boilers, white goods (e.g. fridges and washing machines), televisions, lighting systems and light-bulbs.

  All but the smallest Defra sites work to reducing energy below a site-specific benchmark. Energy audits are regularly commissioned for those above benchmark and remedial action is taken as necessary, On-going energy efficiency awareness campaigns seek co-operation from staff in economy of use.

  In addition, new targets for energy use on the Government Estate are being developed under the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate. Targets will be based on current Government policy on energy use and Will be published before the end of the year.
  413W

  Weather Corrected1 Energy Consumption (GWh)

  Weather Corrected1 Energy Consumption (kWh/m2)

  Department

  Year

  Floor Area (m2)

  Fossil

  Electricity

  Fossil

  Electricity

  Department for International Development8

  1997–98

  21,608

  3.8

  3.0

  175

  141

  1998–99

  21,608

  3.8

  3.1

  174

  144

  1999–2000

  21,611

  44

  3.1

  205

  142

  2000–01

  23,402

  4.5

  3.4

  194

  147

  2001–02

  21,911

  4.2

  4.0

  194

  183

  Department of Trade and Industry9

  1997–98

  256,480

  253

  30.4

  98

  118

  1996–99

  249,320

  241

  29.6

  97

  119

  1999–2000

  255,233

  264

  30.8

  111

  121

  2000–01

  217,829

  25.6

  33.0

  118

  152

  Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions10,11 (excluding QEII Conference Centre

  1997–98

  489,563

  744

  50.3

  152

  103

  1998–99

  514,291

  644

  52.5

  125

  102

  1999–2000

  480,728

  65.6

  51.5

  136

  107

  2000–01

  398,306

  57.6

  50.9

  145

  128

  2001–02

  390,457

  69.0

  54.8

  173

  137

  QEII Conference Centre

  1997–98

  27,088

  44

  6.7

  163

  247

  1998–99

  27,088

  4.7

  8.6

  174

  317

  1999–2000

  27,081

  44

  8.1

  162

  299

  2000–01

  27,000

  45

  6.6

  166

  244

  2001–02

  27,000

  5,6

  6.7

  206

  249

  Department for Work and Pensions12

  1997–98

  2,347,775

  502.1

  237.3

  214

  101

  1998–99

  2,221,950

  441.4

  226.2

  199

  102

  1999–2000

  2,268,462

  479.1

  224.4

  211

  99

  2000–01

  2,399,225

  436.2

  229.7

  182

  96

  2001–02

  2,401,337

  4456

  248.7

  186

  104

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office13,14

  1997–98

  105,530

  236

  17.9

  224

  169

  1998–99

  105,530

  20.0

  16.8

  190

  159

  1999–2000

  87,307

  15.4

  17.4

  176

  199

  2000–01

  107,071

  142

  20.2

  132

  189

  2001–02

  85,213

  152

  16.9

  178

  199

  Home Office (excluding Prisons)

  1997–98

  186,497

  485

  24.6

  260

  133

  1998–99

  193,205

  46.2

  27.4

  239

  142

  1999–2000

  232,655

  506

  36.2

  217

  156

  2000–01

  286,009

  603

  44.1

  211

  154

  2001–02

  332,041

  798

  50

  240

  151

  Prisons15

  1997–98

  2,927,474

  1,342.6

  240.8

  459

  82

  1998–99

  2,644,588

  9642

  233.6

  365

  88

  1999–2000

  3,073,966

  1,186.3

  268.0

  386

  87

  2000–01

  3,111,213

  1,112.8

  280.4

  358

  90

  2001–02

  3,208,001

  1,127.9

  272.8

  352

  85

  Inland Revenue16

  1997–98

  1,020,692

  181,0

  87.0

  177

  85

  1998–99

  1,275,808

  175.5

  112.3

  138

  88

  1999–2000

  1,145,105

  174.9

  163.6

  153

  143

  2000–01

  1,145,105

  174.9

  163.6

  153

  143

  2001–02

  1,582,551

  2175

  175.2

  137

  111

  Ministry of Defence17,18,19,20,21,22,23 (excluding Army Overseas other than Germany

  1997–98

  5,758.6

  1,798.1

  N/A

  N/A

  1998–99

  6,525.7

  1,772.7

  N/A

  N/A

  1999–2000

  5,155.7

  1,846.5

  N/A

  N/A

  2000–01

  4,997.1

  1,873.8

  N/A

  N/A

  2001–02

  4,733.5

  1,667.3

  N/A

  N/A

  Army Overseas other than Germany17

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  85.2

  386

  Notes:

  1 All data for fossil/heating energy is weather corrected to the 1990–91 20 year degree day average This is for consistency sincere old campaign was weather corrected to the 1990–91 20 year average and the new campaign to the 1999–00 20 year average. This explains any differences between these figures and those published in the new campaign.

  2 The Cabinet Office had four agencies transferred out of its control between 1999–2000 and 2000–01

  3 The Cabinet Office had nine Regional Government Offices transferred to its estate between 2000–01 and 2001–02

  4 Previously the Lord Chancellor's Department

  5 The Department for Culture, Media and Sport have inconsistencies in their data for 2000–01 and so 2001–02 was used as their base year for the new campaign. This explains why their figures are the same for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 These inconsistencies also mean it is not meaningful to compare 2001–02 with data prior to 1999–2000

  6 DFES use some heat that is produced by a CCL exempt source. This has been included with the fossil fuel

  7 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs energy performances for the Main Estate and Laboratories in 2001–02 include consumptions from the additional buildings and longer worked hours by staff dealing with the foot and mouth emergency The Main Estate also reflected additional fully air-conditioned buildings as part of a new Agency in DEFRA.
  414W 415W
  8 The Department for International Development moved offices during 2001–02, therefore their floor area for this year has been calculated based on the proportion of the year they were in each office

  9 The Department for Trade and Industry had 3 Regional Government Offices transferred out of their estate in 2001–02

  10 The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions previously known as Department for the environment, Transport and the Regions.

  11 The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions had six Regional Government Offices transferred out of their estate in 2001–02

  12 The Department for Work and Pensions is the result of an amalgamation of the Department of Social Security and Employment Services which occurred in full in April 2002. Therefore previous separate returns for the two departments have been added together to allow comparison.

  13 The Foreign and Commonwealth Office returns for 2000–01 include their Wilton Park executive agency for the first time. This accounts for approximately 4 per cent. of the increase.

  14 In 2000–01 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office brought back into use the Old Admiralty Building, progressively relocating staff from 8 Cleveland Row, Cromwell House, 1 Palace Street and 20 Victoria Street. It retained reporting responsibilities for the vacated buildings until March 2001.

  15 It was not possible to report consistently on a small proportion of prisons throughout the three years This was mainly due to missing or incomplete data on those specific prisons.

  16 Inland Revenue 1999–2000 data was fell to be too inconsistent to be used in the comparison, therefore 2000–01 has been used in its place.

  17 The Army included energy consumption from overseas bases other than Germany for the first time in 2001–02; therefore this is entered separately

  18 For the new campaign the financial year 2001–02 is the baseline for the Army and this figure has been applied retrospectively to 1999–2000 and 2000–01 but with energy consumption from 2 sites of the Joint Helicopter Command (Odiham and Benson) removed from the 1999–2000 and 2000–01. This therefore takes into account the fact that these two sites were transferred from the RAF to the Army in April 2001.

  Actual figures for these two sites have been used since they were recorded by the RAF prior to their transfer, hence the Army retrospective figure is not the same across these three years.

  19 The Civil estate of the MOD figures do not include the London offices, with the exception of 3-5 Scotland Yard This is due to difficulties in obtaining the data as these buildings are run under PFI contracts.

  20 The civil estate of the MOD have not been able to provide figures prior to 2001–02, therefore this is being used in previous years to allow comparisons 1997–98 and 1998–99 have been entered using figures from the last year the Civil estate completed a return

  21 Defence Logistics Organisation were not in existence prior to 2000–01, therefore the figures for 2000–01 have been used in 1999–2000 to allow comparison

  22 In July 2001 the Defence Research Agency was split into DSTL and a private company, QinetiQ Therefore since July 2001 consumption in buildings used by QinetiQ have not been included

  23 The RAF have made significant savings in 2001–02 in part due to the transfer of two Joint Helicopter Command sites (Odiham and Benson) to the Army in April 2001

  Environmental Targets
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what targets the Government have set for(a) energy efficiency in the UK, (b) waste minimisation, (c) marine pollution, (d) air quality, (e) climate change, (f) renewable energy, (g) fly-tipping, (h) packaging, (i) end of life vehicles, (j) the disposal of hazardous waste, (k) incineration, (l) recycling, (m) water quality, (n) coastal erosion, (o) fuel poverty, (p) flood defence, (q) wind power use, (r) domestic waste management, (s) industrial waste management, (t) landfill, (u) greenhouse gas emissions and (v) timber procurement. [133258]

  Mr. Morley
  Government's targets and goals include the following:

  On climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy efficiency (e, u, a), the UK Climate Change Programme is designed to deliver our Kyoto Protocol target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2008–12, as well as set us on a path towards our domestic goal of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon emissions by 2010. The Government stated in the Energy White Paper our expectation for more than half the emissions reductions in the Programme to come from energy efficiency. In the White Paper, the Government also accepted the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's recommendation that the UK should put itself on a path towards a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of some 60 per cent. from current levels by about 2050.
  416W
  For renewable energy and wind power use (f, q) the Government's aim is that by 2010, 10 per cent. of the UK's electricity should be supplied from renewable sources and our aspiration is that by 2020, to double renewables' share of electricity from our 2010 target. There are currently no specific targets for particular forms of renewable energy such as wind power.

  On fuel poverty (o) the goal of the Government and Devolved Administrations is the eradication of fuel poverty as far as reasonably practicable by 2016–18, and in England and Wales for vulnerable households by 2010. In addition, in England we have a target to reduce fuel poverty among vulnerable households by improving the energy efficiency of 600,000 homes between 2001 and 2004.

  For domestic waste management, recycling and landfill (l, r, t) the targets are to recycle or compost 17 per cent. of household waste by 2003–04 and 25 per cent. by 2005–06 and, from the Landfill Directive, by 2010 to reduce biodegradable municipal waste landfilled to 75 percent. of that produced in 1995; by 2013 to 50 per cent. and by 2020 to 35 per cent.

  For waste minimisation and incineration (b, k) there are no set targets., but Government policy is to drive waste management up the waste hierarchy; this hierarchy has landfill at the bottom and minimisation at the top.

  For packaging (h), current (2002 and 2003) targets are 59 per cent. for recovery and 19 per cent. for material-specific recycling. A consultation on targets for 2004–08 has just closed.
  417W
  For the disposal of hazardous waste and industrial waste (j, s), the Waste Strategy 2000 set a target to reduce the amount of industrial and commercial waste sent to landfill to 85 per cent. of the 1998 level by 2005. This target includes hazardous waste.

  On end of life vehicles, the End of Life Vehicles Directive has not yet entered into force in the UK. The main targets will be 85 per cent. of all ELVs reused or recovered and 80 per cent. reused or recycled by January 2006, rising to 95 per cent. reused or recovered and 85 per cent. reused or recycled in 2015.

  There are currently no targets for fly-tipping (g).

  For air quality (d), the Air Quality Strategy sets targets for carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particles, sulphur dioxide, benzene and 1,3-butadiene.

  For water quality (m), the Government has targets that at least 91 per cent. of English rivers achieve their river quality targets by 2005; and that at least 97 per cent. of bathing waters in England meet the mandatory coliform standards in the 2005 bathing season.

  For marine pollution (c), the targets for reducing and eliminating marine pollution are generally those set out in the strategies on hazardous substances, radioactive substances and eutrophication agreed in the OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic and relevant EC Directives.

  For coastal erosion and flood defence (n, p), targets are to aim, by the encouragement of sustainable defence measures (including timely and effective flood warning systems), to have no loss of life through flooding; and by investing £397 million over the Spending Review period (2003–06), to reduce the risk of flooding to life, to major infrastructure, environment assets and to some 80,000 houses.

  On timber procurement (v) the UK Government are committed to, seek to procure products made from timber that has been legally felled and grown in a forest or plantation managed to sustain biodiversity, productivity, vitality and to prevent harm to other ecosystems and indigenous or forest dependent people. Targets for sustainable public procurement will be published in early 2004 as part of the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate.

  Farm Values
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what changes have taken place in the last three years in the value of(a) farmland and (b) farms and farm buildings. [134667]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Estimates are available only for the value, in the UK, of farm land and farm buildings combined. Statistics are also available on the average price of sales of farm land in England. The following tables show the most recent available data for each, in current and real terms (1995 prices).
  418W

  Value of 'farm land and buildings' in the UK

  £ million

  Current prices

  1995 prices

  1999

  90,784

  81,837

  2000

  92,767

  81,218

  2001

  96,539

  83,011

  20021

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Figures for 2002 will be published in "Agriculture in the United Kingdom" in March 2004

  Annual average price1 of agricultural land sold in England

  £ per hectare

  Current prices

  1995 prices

  1999

  6,652

  5,994

  2000

  7,057

  6,177

  2001

  7,328

  6,299

  2002

  6,956

  5,884

  1 Provisonal

  Fisheries
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate the amounts of each fish species removed by fishing vessels other than those registered in the UK from each of the statistical fishing regions which fall within the UK's national waters, in each of the past five years. [133992]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The information requested is available from data submitted by Member States and others to the European Commission on their landings offish from the ICES Divisions that surround the UK coast (Divisions IV, VI and VII), and a copy of results has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  GM Crops
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in relation to the farm scale evaluations of GM crops(a) which herbicides were used in the maize trials and whether these will continue to be legally available to farmers, (b) who was responsible for the independent measurement of maize yields and herbicide inputs and (c) whether comparisons between GM and non-GM maize yields were of crops using identical herbicide use. [134923]

  Mr. Morley
  All of the herbicides used in the GM crop farm-scale evaluations, both on the GM crops and the non-GM equivalents, are listed in full in the scientific papers published on 16 October 2003 (see Champion et al. 2003; "Crop management and agronomic context of the farm scale evaluations of genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops";Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society(B). 358 (1439): 1801–1818. A copy of this journal has been placed in the Library. Three herbicides used in the maize trials have been withdrawn as part of the EU review programme of pesticide active ingredients. The herbicides Atrazine and Simazine can be used for a further 18 months. Cyanazine can be used until the end of December 2003.

  The independent research team carrying out the evaluations audited the herbicide use by the farmers and monitored growth stages of the crops to compare yields. They concluded that the trials were conducted fairly. This approach and conclusion was endorsed by the

  419W
  independent Scientific Steering Committee and again independently assessed and by the journal referees; see Champion et al. 2003 for more details.

  Comparisons were not made using identical herbicide regimes as the purpose of the trials was specifically to assess the impact on wildlife of the different herbicide regimes used on the GM and non-GM crops.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list(a) Government-commissioned research and inquiries, (b) peer-reviewed research undertaken by others, (c) non-peer-reviewed research undertaken by others and (d) other information or sources of data upon which her Department will draw in making its decisions on the licensing of GM crops; and if she will set out for each item of work commissioned by her Department the date on which it was (i) commissioned and (ii) placed or expected to be placed in the public domain. [135139]

  Mr. Morley
  An application for consent to grow a GM crop must be supported by a dossier of information about the particular GM crop, its properties and behaviour. In considering whether to license a particular Genetically Modified Organism for release in the UK my Department seeks the advice of the Government's

  Defra research project

  Due for publication

  Modelling effects of herbicide and insecticide management

  December 2003

  Biodiversity effects of management associated with GM cropping systems

  December 2003

  Monitoring movement of herbicide resistance genes from farm scale evaluation field sites to populations of wild crop relatives

  December 2003

  Gene Flow Monitoring from the FSE sites: Monitoring Gene Flow from the GM Crop to Non-GM Equivalent Crops in the Vicinity. Part 2: Oilseed Rape.

  November 2003

  The Potential Value of the FSE sites to assess the impact of GMHT crops on birds

  November 2003

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission report on co-existence and liability of GM and non-GM seeds and crops will be published. [135141]

  Mr. Morley
  We expect this report to be published by the end of November.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with representatives of the organic farming and growing sectors on(a) co-existence with GM crops and (b) liability for cross-contamination of GM crops. [135142]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra Ministers and officials have had many discussions on GM crops with representatives of the organic sector. For example, the co-existence of GM and organic crops was considered at a meeting of the Organic Action Plan Group chaired by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary (Commons), on 17 September 2003, and I had a meeting on 29 October 2003 with several organic groups to hear their views on GM issues.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the weight she will give to the results of the GM Nation consultation exercise in making decisions on the future use of GM biotechnology. [135147]
  420W
  statutory advisers on the release of GMOs—The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE). In making advice ACRE will consider the application and any available relevant information on the implications of the proposed release. This will include relevant data or literature whether commissioned by the Government or by others, and whether peer reviewed or not peer reviewed.

  Details of Government-commissioned GMO related research work are available on our website at www. defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/research. This includes details of completed projects and links to download or order any published reports. In addition to those projects listed on the website the following table shows other Defra funded research projects currently under way and indicates when they are expected to be published.

  The volume of GMO related work published by others, either in peer-reviewed or non-peer reviewed publications, is vast and continually growing. The body of literature was recently reviewed by the GM Science Review Panel as part of the GM Dialogue, and their final report is available at www.gmsciencedebate. org.uk. This report has been made available to ACRE. In addition ACRE members are kept informed of any new publications as and when they appear.

  Mr. Morley
  GM biotechnology has a wide range of current and potential applications, for example, in the areas of health care, medicines, genomics, animal and plant health, food and agriculture. The results of the GM Nation? exercise will help to inform us in making policy decisions in these areas.

  Magnox Power Stations
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will announce her decision on the Environment Agency's proposed decision on the Magnox power stations; and whether the continued operation of the Magnox stations is justified in accordance with the requirements of European law (Article 6 of Council Directive 96/29/ Euratom). [134265]

  Mr. Morley
  An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  GM Inspectorate
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many persons are employed in the GM Inspectorate in terms of(a) individuals and (b) whole-time equivalents; what the figures were in each of the last five years; what the total staff cost was in each of those years; what their functions were; and what assessment she has made of the achievements of the staff of the Inspectorate. [132456]
  421W
  Mr. Morley
  The Defra GM Inspectorate comprises inspectors based at the Central Science Laboratory and at the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Prior to 2000 all the work was carried out by HSE inspectors. Details of staff numbers and costs for the last five years are in the table.

  Staff

  HSE Whole-time equivalents (staff years)

  Costs (£)

  Staff

  CSL Whole-time equivalents (staff years)

  Costs (£)

  1998–99

  4

  0.7

  105,000

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  1999–00

  4

  1.1

  76,434

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  2000–01

  5

  0.35

  52,000

  5

  0.97

  95,116

  2001–02

  5

  0.2

  21,600

  5

  3.10

  222,490

  2002–03

  6

  0.3

  33,670

  5

  2.04

  237,849

  2003–04

  5

  0.76

  —

  4

  3.71

  —

  The functions of the GM Inspectorate at CSL are primarily to monitor compliance in England and Wales with consents issued under Directive 2001/18 on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) both for placing on the market of GMOs as or in products (Part C) and for any other purpose (Part B) and to ensure that the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and related legislation are adhered to. The Inspectorate also conducts research to underpin its forensic work, and maintains links with inspectors elsewhere in the UK and throughout the EU.

  The Inspectorate at HSE reports on the environmental aspects of contained uses of GMOs (other than GM micro-organisms) in England, Scotland and Wales, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and related legislation and monitors compliance with consents issued under Part B of Directive 2001/18 for clinical trials of GMOs.

  The number of inspectors deployed reflects the numbers of consents and releases to be monitored, this varies from year to year. For example there are currently no GM crop trials taking place but there were over 120 crop trials in 2002.

  The Inspectorates' performance is regularly monitored. A measure of their achievement is that there has been no evidence of harm to the environment from GM crop releases or from GMOs kept under contained use conditions. The Inspectorate at CSL publishes an annual report.

  Noise Nuisance
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will bring forward proposals to amend the statutory noise nuisance provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to include excessive noise from cars driven off road on public open spaces. [134394]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government see no need to amend the existing provisions under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which could be used to abate excessive noise from cars driven off road on public open spaces. Police lead on this issue as they have a wide range of relevant powers, and unlike local authority officers, are able to pursue offenders across ground.
  422W
  From 1 January 2003 the police have new powers under sections 59 and 60 of the Police Reform Act 2002 to seize vehicles, which are being driven in a careless and inconsiderate manner, and in a way which causes alarm, distress or annoyance.

  Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to receive the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee's Annual Report. [134074]

  Mr. Morley
  The Annual Report of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee for 2002–3 is likely to be submitted formally to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and to her Ministerial colleagues in the Devolved Administrations for Scotland and for Wales, in the latter part of November. It will be made public at the same time.

  Regional Producers Ltd. (Wiltshire)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what Government support has been given in the last three years to Regional Producers Ltd. (Wiltshire); and what recent discussions she has held with Regional Producers Ltd. (Wiltshire) about their future viability. [133059]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Regional Producers Ltd. (Wiltshire) was set up using funding from Business Link for Berkshire and Wiltshire and the South West of England Regional Development Agency. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has had no discussions with Regional Producers Ltd. (Wiltshire) about their viability.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of biofuel sold in the United Kingdom was recycled cooking oil in the last year for which figures are available. [134376]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Currently, half of the two million litres of biodiesel sold each month in the UK comes from recycled vegetable oil. The remainder is imported and is manufactured from virgin rape seed oil.

  Rural Affairs Forum
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many speakers from the private sector will address the Rural Affairs Forum's Conference on Rural Regeneration. [135592]

  Alun Michael
  The purpose of the Rural Affairs Conference is to enable people from every sector of rural interest to engage in a wide-ranging discussion of issues affecting rural communities and to advise the Government. The value of the Conference will derive largely from the discussion and debate among a number of people including Ministers and those with academic, business and public sector expertise. Professor Peter Midmore will offer his perspective on the changing countryside in the 21st century, while breakout groups will involve business representatives and will be led by
  423W
  people including a representative of the Country, Land and Business Association and representative from Co-operatives UK.

  Stamp Duty Land Tax
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of increases in stamp duty land tax on her policy for rural economic regeneration and diversification; and if she will make a statement. [135610]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government has introduced disadvantaged areas relief which provides an exemption from stamp duty land tax for transactions in non-residential land in Enterprise Areas, including some rural areas. This will provide a major boost to businesses investing in commercial premises, including agricultural premises, in those areas.

  In addition the changes I announced on 20 October to the structure for charging Stamp Duty Land Tax on the rental element of new leases will assist small and medium-sized enterprises such as smaller farms.

  Surface Water
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was allocated(a) in England and (b) to Essex County Council for surface water alleviation schemes in each of the last five years for which figures are available; how much is allocated in each case in 2003–04; and how much she expects to allocate in each case in 2004–05. [135166]

  Mr. Morley
  Funding for surface water alleviation schemes comes from several different sources.

  Funding for local authority surface water alleviation schemes falls wihtin the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services part of the local government finance settlement. Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services covers a wide range of services totalling more than £10 billion each year. Within this budget, no specific allocation is made for surface water alleviation schemes, but the proportion attributed on average is very small.

  Defra provides grant aid to the flood and coastal defence operating authorities—the Environment Agency, local authorities and (in areas with special drainage needs) internal drainage boards—to assist with their capital works and related projects and studies to manage the risk of flooding from watercourses and the sea. Grant paid to all authorities in England (in cash terms) is set out as follows. The figures in the table include items such as contributions to the Environment Agency for their work on flood warning including public awareness, catchment flood management plans and the new National Flood and Coastal Defence Database. They exclude supplementary credit approvals for local authorities and grant for projects to manage coastal erosion although significant flood risk benefits often arise from the latter.
  424W

  £ million

  1998–99

  35.0

  1999–2000

  34.8

  2000–01

  34.8

  2001–02

  57.9

  2002–03

  78.4

  2003–04

  80.0

  For 2004–05 the total allocation is £137 million but the split between flood defence and coastal erosion is still being considered.

  No grant has been paid to Essex County Council although substantial sums have been paid to the Environment Agency and district councils for projects in Essex.

  Highways authorities and water companies also have responsibilities for some types of surface water alleviation schemes.

  Coastal Defence
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many coastal defence projects using timber are under way; how much funding her Department has provided for these projects; and what measures have been taken to ensure that this timber is from sustainable sources. [134504]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: Defra does not collect information on the materials used by operating authorities in coastal defence projects and it would involve disproportionate cost to do so.

  Defra's guidance to operating authorities on the use of resources is that care should always be taken to minimise any detrimental impacts on biodiversity and the wider environment. It is preferable to use resources that are abundant rather than those that are scarce, and to use those resources as efficiently as possible. In addition, where timber is used, Defra encourages operating authorities to obtain tropical and native timbers from certified and sustainable sources.

  Timber Procurement
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what form she plans the central point of expertise on Government timber procurement (CPET) will take; how it will function; and who will staff it. [134557]

  Mr. Morley
  Plans for a central point of expertise on timber (CPET) are not yet finalised. I will make a further statement when the key decisions have been taken.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what responses her Department received to its consultations on the establishment of a central point of expertise on Government timber procurement regarding what type of central point of expertise on timber procurement should be established; and how she plans to act on these recommendations. [134558]

  Mr. Morley
  The concept of a central point of expertise on timber (CPET) was one of the recommendations made by consultants ERM in their scoping study report published on 6 August 2002. That
  425W
  report was made in the light of consultations with stakeholders, primarily at a meeting on 25 March 2002. A second consultation meeting was held on 2 September 2002 and written comments were received from various interested parties too. A record of the two meetings can be viewed on the Tropical Forest Forum's website at http://www.forestforum. org.uk/tradeb.htm

  The recommendation for a CPET, which was broadly agreed by the stakeholders, suggested that the service could be provided either by a suitably qualified civil servant or by a commissioned service contract to an appropriately qualified consultant. Stakeholders generally held the view that they should be involved in the key decisions taken by a CPET to ensure transparency and a degree of independence.

  Early in 2003 Defra held discussions with potential service providers to discuss how a commissioned service could be set up, how it would operate and what key outputs it would be expected to deliver. Following those discussions Defra has been considering the options available to ensure that the CPET would provide best value for money given the resources available. I will make a further statement when the key decisions have been taken.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 1 September 2003,Official Report, column 860W, on timber, what progress has been made in the establishment of a central point of expertise on Government timber procurement (CPET); what funding has been allocated to the CPET; and when the CPET will be operational. [134577]

  Mr. Morley
  Since 1 September the Government have been reviewing options for establishing a central point of expertise on timber (CPET). Decisions on funding will be made when that review is completed and the CPET will be established as soon after that as possible.

CABINET OFFICE

  Bechtel
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the contracts for consultancy and other work carried out by Bechtel in each year since 1997, stating in each case(a) the nature of the work, (b) the value of the contract and (c) the duration of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [135902]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office and COI have had no contracts for consultancy and other work with Bechtel since 1997.

DEFENCE

  Suez Medal
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the time scale for awarding the Suez medal to veterans. [135563]

  Mr. Caplin
  I am delighted to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the first medals to eligible Suez veterans were presented on 27 October. Over 12,000 applications 426W
  have been received so far. All medals will be issued as quickly as possible and it is anticipated that over 900 will have been despatched by the end of this week in time for them to be worn on Remembrance Sunday.

  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Suez medals will be awarded to veterans. [135554]

  Mr. Caplin
  I am delighted to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the first medals to eligible Suez veterans were presented on 27 October. All medals will be issued as quickly as possible and it is anticipated that over 900 will have been despatched by the end of this week in time for them to be worn on Remembrance Sunday.

  Sierra Leone
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of his Department in Sierra Leone. [135564]

  Mr. Ingram
  The United Kingdom has played, and continues to play, a prominent role in helping to restore peace in Sierra Leone. We remain committed to help establish a peaceful and stable Sierra Leone which is no longer at risk from internal and external armed conflict. We are also working closely with the Government of Sierra Leone in support of their wider Security Sector Reform programme and in support of the UN mission; UNAMSIL.

  Iraq
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current security situation in Iraq. [135565]

  Mr. Hoon
  Although recent attacks in Iraq have received wide coverage, we should not forget that much of the country is remarkably stable. The vast majority of attacks against the coalition are concentrated in a limited area in and to the North West of Baghdad. Coalition forces, under US leadership, are working hard to counter these threats and will not be deflected from that mission. Across the country, meanwhile, increasing numbers of Iraqi police are on patrol, reconstruction continues and normal civil activities are pursued without incident.

  The situation in the British area of responsibility also remains generally calm, although vigilance is still required in the face of occasional incidents.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the security situation in Iraq. [135566]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston).

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Service personnel are deployed in Iraq. [135567]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are currently around 11,000 UK Service personnel serving in Iraq.
  427W
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total cost is of munitions used by the armed forces in Iraq over the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [135379]

  Mr. Ingram
  The total cost of operations in Iraq during financial year 2002–03 has been published in the Departmental Resource Accounts for that year. The detailed costs of munitions consumed over the latter part of the last 12 months are still being calculated and I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the morale of United Kingdom personnel serving with Headquarters, Combined Joint Task Force, in Baghdad. [130332]

  Mr. Ingram
  All Commanders constantly monitor morale as part of their duties. Within the Combined Joint Task Force-7 Headquarters in Baghdad, morale is assessed to be good.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what secure rest and relaxation facilities are available to off-duty United Kingdom military personnel in Baghdad. [130331]

  Mr. Ingra
  Servicemen in Baghdad are never off-duty, but the Baghdad Support Unit has been specifically set up to provide the support needed by all British Forces in Baghdad. Given the operational circumstances, all personnel are relatively comfortably accommodated. All United Kingdom staff have access to elements of the Operational Welfare Package including internet, welfare phones, radio, TV and sports equipment. Rest and Relaxation (R&R) is taken out of theatre, in either the UK or Germany.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to reduce the risk to coalition troops of attacks by former Ba'athist elements and other terrorist groups in Iraq. [132133]

  Mr. Ingram
  Force Protection is one of the highest priorities for United Kingdom Forces. Commanders on the ground employ appropriate Force Protection measures in accordance with threat assessments. The security situation is under constant review and Commanders adapt protection measures to reflect different circumstances. Coalition partners are responsible for the provision of their own force protection.

  Astute Class Submarines
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the construction of the(a) second and (b) third units of the Astute Class. [134955]

  Mr. Ingram
  Construction of the second and third Astute Class submarines is proceeding in accordance with the agreed programme.

  The keel of the second submarine, HMS Ambush, was laid on 22 October 2003 by the Minister for Defence Procurement, at BAE Systems' shipyard at Barrow-in-Furness. Construction is progressing well and we are confident that the same high levels of fabrication quality seen on HMS Astute will be achieved on HMS Ambush.
  428W
  Construction of the third boat in the Class, HMS Artful, is underway, with the manufacture of hull rings and bulkheads progressing satisfactorily.

  C130 Aircraft
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what have been the(a) highest and (b) lowest monitored mission readiness rates for RAF C130 aircraft of each type in the past three years. [134484]

  Mr. Ingram
  The required Readiness States for C130 Force Elements in each of the last three years have been met.

  As monitored mission readiness rates is not a term with a precise military definition, I have interpreted this as serviceability rates, figures for which arebased on a snapshot of serviceability taken at 8:00 am each day. For the C-130J, these figures start from May 2002, when all aircraft had entered service; for the C-130K, they start from November 2001, as prior to this time a number of aircraft were out of service but awaiting return to Lockheed Martin.

  Highest serviceability rate (percentage)

  Lowest serviceability rate (percentage)

  C-130J

  69

  46

  C-130k

  76

  37

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what problems have been experienced with the engines of the RAF's C130J aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [134485]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Hercules C-130J aircraft is powered by the Rolls-Royce Allison turbo prop engine. Some problems with the engine turbine blades have been identified when the engine is operated at maximum continuous power for long periods. Work is continuing with Lockheed Martin and Rolls-Royce to identify a solution.

  Chartered Airlines
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which airlines have been chartered to fly British forces personnel to deployments in each of the past three years. [134460]

  Mr. Ingram
  During the past three financial years and during the current financial year to date, British Forces personnel have been deployed on aircraft chartered from the airlines set out below:

  Financial Year 2000–01

  Air 2000

  Air Atlanta

  Air Holland

  Air Mediterranee

  Airtours and Fly Fti

  British Midland

  British World Airways

  Channel Express

  Citybird

  Corsair

  EAAC

  429W

  Emerald Airways

  Excel Airways

  Hapag Lloyd

  JMC

  Lauda Air

  Maersk

  Monarch

  Nortwest Airlines

  Prime Airlines

  Royal Brunei

  Sobelair

  Sterling European

  Titan Airways

  Financial Year 2001–2002

  Air 2000

  Air Atlanta

  Air Scandic

  Airtours and Fly Fti

  Britannia

  British Airways

  British World

  Airways

  Channel Express

  Corsair

  Cougar

  EAAC

  Excel Airways

  Lauda Air

  Maersk

  Monarch

  Mytravel

  Prime Airlines

  Royal Brunei

  Titan Airways

  Transavia

  Virgin Express

  Financial Year 2002–2003

  Air 2000

  Air Holland

  Air Luxor

  Astraeus

  Britannia

  British Airways

  Corsair

  EAAC

  Euro Atlantic

  Excel Airways

  JMC

  LTU INT

  Maersk

  Monarch

  Mytravel

  Prime Airlines

  Sobelair

  World Airways

  Yes Linhas Aereas

  Financial Year 2003–2004

  Air 2000

  Air Holland

  Air Luxor

  Air Plus Comet

  Air Scandic

  430W

  Britannia

  Condor

  Corsair

  EAAC

  Euro Atlantic

  Excel Airways

  Flyjet

  Lauda Air

  Maersk

  Monarch

  Mytravel

  Sobelair

  Titan Airways

  Yes Linhas Aereas

  Civilian Rescues
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many civilians in non-war situations have been rescued or aided by the British armed forces(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) elsewhere in each of the last five years; and what the total cost to public funds was; [129609]

  (2) what plans he has to recover all or any of the cost of civilian rescues by the armed forces in non-war situations from (a) those rescued and (b) other third parties. [129610]

  Mr. Ingram
  The armed forces can rescue or aid civilians in a very wide range of circumstances, both at home and overseas.

  With the exception of the RAF and Royal Navy's Search and Rescue (SAR) effort, information on the numbers of civilians rescued by the armed forces—for example during land-based peace keeping operations, or routine deployments by RN ships at sea—is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Although the military SAR teams' primary purpose is to recover aircrew from crashed military aircraft, over 90 per cent. of callouts each year are to civilian incidents. RAF and Royal Navy SAR units make an essential contribution to the search and rescue effort around the UK, forming part of the national UK SAR coverage throughout the year for air, land and maritime operations.

  The following table gives the number of civilians assisted by Armed Forces Search and Rescue Units in the UK and abroad.

  Civilians assisted by Armed Forces Search and Rescue Units

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Co-ordinated by UK RCC1

  1,137

  1,108

  1,254

  1,134

  1,171

  Co-ordinated by overseas RCCs1

  Cyprus

  21

  15

  11

  3

  0

  Falklands

  24

  13

  15

  13

  12

  Co-ordinated by other overseas units

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1 RCC—Rescue Co-ordination Centre

  MOD policy on charging is based on Chapter 23 of "Government Accounting" (GA). Goods and services provided to the department or other agency or authority

  431W
  having policy and therefore financial responsibility should be charged for unless there are exceptional circumstances.

  In 2001 MOD simplified its charging regime in the UK for MACC assistance, allowing emergency assistance to be given free where there is a danger to life (rather than only "immediate" danger which applied previously), and at full cost once the danger has passed. Emergency MACC is a rapid response by the Services to sudden disaster. Search and rescue tasks in support of the UK Ambulance Authorities for Medevac transfers, attract a charge at the "no-loss cost" rate, that is levied by the MOD to recover its out of pocket expenses. The basis for other charges for search and rescue tasks is currently under review.

  It is not possible to provide detailed information on the costs charged for Military Aid to the Civil Community (MACC). Costs of individual operations are by and large reimbursed direct to the budgets which incurred the costs.

  Courts Martial (Scotland)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the court martial trials conducted in Scotland since 1997; how many of these concluded in conviction of the accused; how many were dismissed; and if he will make a statement. [135201]

  Mr. Caplin
  The number of Service personnel tried by Courts-Martial held in Scotland since 1997 together with the number of convictions, acquittals arid subsequent dismissals from the armed forces are as follows:

  Service personnel tried

  Convictions

  Subsequent dismissal

  Acquittals

  19971

  17

  17

  3

  0

  1998

  22

  17

  6

  5

  1999

  21

  18

  7

  3

  2000

  14

  11

  2

  3

  2001

  13

  12

  3

  1

  2002

  16

  12

  6

  4

  2003

  11

  8

  0

  3

  1 RAF figures cover the period 1 April to 31 December 1997.

  These figures do not indicate the number of offences committed in Scotland. The majority of cases are heard in permanent court centres, of which there is none in. Scotland.

  Cyprus
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his(a) policy is and (b) procedures are in place for British (i) forces personnel and (ii) employees from the Sovereign base areas visiting the occupied areas of Cyprus. [135012]

  Mr. Ingram
  British Forces Cyprus Service Personnel, UK Based Civilians, authorised UK Officials and their dependants and specified close relatives are permitted to visit Northern Cyprus. Such personnel either cross as tourists or on passes arranged by the British High Commission. The procedures for issuing passes remain under review in the light of on-going political developments affecting the island.

  Defence Spending
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of defence spending per capita in each of the home countries of the United Kingdom in 2003–04. [135559]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Defence Aim is to deliver security for the people of the United Kingdom and the Overseas Territories by defending them, including against terrorism; and to act as a force for good by strengthening international peace and stability. We do this by providing a world-class national capability—not a specifically regional one. No estimate of the nature suggested has therefore been made.

  Separated Service
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the frequency of detached duties for(a) medical staff,(b) RAF regiment personnel and (c) catering staff. [133156]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Naval Service has introduced a maximum limit for separated service for junior rates of 660 days in a rolling three-year period, and to date, no-one has exceeded this limit. While Royal Navy medics and chefs are examples of current shortage categories and some personnel are stretched, the aim is that this will be balanced out over a three-year period.

  The Army introduced Separated Service recording in December 2002, but will not have sufficiently mature information for release until mid-2004, by when there will have been a minimum of 12 months data for analysis. Information on the frequency of detached duties for medical staff is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. For catering staff, chefs are embedded in every deployable Army unit and again specific details on individuals are not held centrally.

  The RAF introduced a Separated Service (SS) recording system on 1 April 1997 to monitor the amount of time personnel spend on detached duty. The levels of Separated Service1 for operational reasons, from September 2002 to August 2003 for medical staff, RAF regiment personnel and catering staff were as follows:
  1 An incidence of Separated Service is recorded when an individual is absent from their parent unit for three nights or more.

  Branch/trade1

  Medical

  RAF regiment

  Catering

  Less than 90 days

  Number

  417

  832

  411

  Percentage

  30.3

  40.1

  31.7

  90 to 139 days

  Number

  158

  486

  230

  Percentage

  11.5

  23.7

  17.8

  Over 140 days

  Number

  27

  188

  42

  Percentage

  1.9

  9.2

  3.2

  1 All figures include officers and other ranks.

  European Rapid Reaction Force
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the European Rapid Reaction Force; and if he will make a statement. [135457]
  433W
  Mr. Hoon
  There is no European Army or standing European Rapid Reaction Force nor any EU agreement to create one. Forces are offered by EU Member states for EU crisis management operations on a voluntary, case-by-case basis. This is no different from the arrangements for NATO crisis management operations. Member states have, however, set themselves a Headline Goal to be able to deploy within 60 days, and sustain for at least one year, some 50-60,000 personnel on crisis management operations including smaller rapid response elements available and deployable at very high readiness. I discussed the improvement of European military capabilities, in particular the creation of a European Defence Agency for capability development, with my EU counterparts at the Informal meeting of EU Defence Ministers in Rome on 3–4 October.

  Hawk 128
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the capability the Hawk 128 Advanced Jet Trainer will give the RAF to train pilots for the(a) Eurofighter Typhoon and (b) Joint Strike Fighter. [135547] The

  Mr. Ingram
  The Hawk 128 will provide RAF and Royal Navy pilots with a modern and highly capable training aircraft. This will ensure our future pilots are capable of meeting the demands of the next generation of highly capable frontline aircraft, such as Typhoon and Joint Strike Fighter.

  HMS Cambeltown
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department(a) will publish the report into HMS Cambeltown running aground in 2001 and(b) expects to announce the costs of (i) recovery and (ii) repair; and if he will make a statement. [134957]

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

  Infantry Battalions
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has(a) to disband and (b) to amalgamate Army infantry battalions. [133488]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is a continuing need to assess force structures in order to ensure that we have the balanced, flexible forces needed to meet the full range of operational contingencies. However, there are currently no plans to disband or amalgamate Army infantry battalions, nor are there plans to reduce the current overall strength of the Army. The White Paper to be published later this year will provide an updated statement of defence policy.

  JTIDS Capability
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which aircraft are fielded with joint tactical information and distribution system capability; what other types of aircraft will receive JTIDS capability; and when it will be installed in each type. [134462]
  434W
  Mr. Ingram
  The Joint Tactical Information and Distribution System (JTIDS) is operational on the following types of UK aircraft: Sentry E-3D, Tornado F3, Nimrod R, VC10 and Tristar Tanker aircraft and Sea King AEW. It is also being fitted on Typhoon, Nimrod M RA4 and Sentinel R Mk1. Installation is planned on Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft in 2005, Tornado GR4 and Harrier GR9 in 2006, A400M in 2007 and Joint Combat Aircraft in 2010. These dates can be up to two years before in service date to allow for integration and acceptance. Other future aircraft types are also expected to be fitted with this capability.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints he has received of low flying by RAF fast jets in each year since 2000. [135410]

  Mr. Caplin
  The number of complaints received by the Ministry of Defence Lower Airspace Complaints and Enquiries Unit for low flying by RAF fast jets over the last four calendar years was as follows:

  Number of complaints

  2000

  2,699

  2001

  2,612

  2002

  3,009

  2003

  1 2,735

  1 Up to end September.

  Mutual Defence Agreement
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the joint working groups since 1997 conducted under the auspices of the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement. [134906]

  Mr. Caplin
  Joint Working Groups conducted since 1997 under the auspices of the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement have exchanged technical information on the following subjects:

  Radiation Simulation and Kinetic Effects Technology

  Energetic Materials

  Nuclear Materials

  Warhead Electrical Components and Technologies

  Non-nuclear Materials

  Nuclear Counter Terrorism Technology

  Facilities

  Nuclear Weapons Engineering

  Nuclear Warhead Physics

  Computational Technology

  Aircraft, Missile and Space System Hardening

  Laboratory Plasma Physics

  Manufacturing Practices

  Nuclear Warhead Accident Response Technology

  Nuclear Weapon Code Development

  Nuclear Weapon Environment and Damage Effects

  Methodologies for Nuclear Weapon Safety Assurance

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's assessment is of the implications
  435W
  for the long-term future effectiveness of the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. [133722]

  Mr. Hoon
  As was made clear in the Strategic Defence Review, Supporting Essay Five, Chapter 14, we will, for as long as Britain has nuclear forces, ensure that we have a robust capability at the Atomic Weapons Establishment to underwrite the safety and reliability of our nuclear warheads, without recourse to nuclear weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosion. This approach is consistent with our continued support for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

  Piracy
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the contribution that his Department is making to tackling piracy on the high seas. [134954]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence acts in concert with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for Transport in seeking to tackle both piracy on the high seas, and maritime armed crime, which takes place in states' territorial waters. The Defence Intelligence Staff is actively engaged with national and international defence intelligence and maritime security communities, as well as commercial shipping and other organisations, to promote wider awareness, understanding, and co-operation in dealing with this growing world wide problem. The Defence Intelligence Staff also produces reports and analyses, including the "Worldwide Threat To Shipping", published on the World Wide Web at http://www. rnreference.mod.uk.

  In addition, under international law, the Royal Navy, like all other navies, is obliged to render assistance to other mariners. The RN deploys ships worldwide on a range of tasks, and in the event that a RN ship encounters a clearly defined case of piracy on the high seas, RN policy is to counter the incident and arrest those responsible in accordance with the appropriate rules of engagement. Commanding Officers on all RN ships are given guidance on the threat, and on recommended courses of action. Responses to individual incidents of maritime armed crime in territorial waters are a matter for the State which holds jurisdiction.

  Private Alison Croft
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the principal recommendations of the Board of Inquiry Report on the death of Private Alison Croft at Dalton Barracks in Abingdon, Oxfordshire, on 28 September 2002 were; when the Board was convened; when it was completed; and for how many hours it sat. [132190]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Board of Inquiry will not he convened until the Oxfordshire Coroner's inquest has ruled.

  Private William Graham
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the rank and regiment of officers provided 436W
  legal representation for Private William Graham following the fatal shooting of Private Anthony Green. [132196]

  Mr. Ingram
  A civilian lawyer provided legal representation.

  Procurement
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on which occasions since 1997 procurement decisions have been taken on the basis of criteria other than value for money; and if he will make a statement; [134132]

  (2) what studies have been commissioned by the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Equipment Capability) on the value for money of domestic procurement; and if he will make a statement. [134133]

  Mr. Ingram
  Information derived from all individual procurement decisions taken throughout the Department, of which there are many thousands each year, is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  However, value for money is a fundamental factor in all our procurement decisions. In assessing value for money we take account of the long term implications of decisions, including their industrial and wider economic impact. As set out in the Government's Defence Industrial Policy we seek to maximise the economic benefit to the UK from our defence expenditure, a healthy and globally competitive defence industry and the development of a high value technologically-skilled industrial base, consistent with the Governments wider manufacturing strategy.

  QinetiQ
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans QinetiQ has for its future operations at Defford in Worcestershire. [135466]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 30 October 2003]: The Ministry of Defence retains a business interest in the Defford site and is discussing the future of the facilities there with QinetiQ.

  Saudi Arabia
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the(a) role and (b) activities of his Department's Saudi Arabian project office. [132896]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 October 2003]: The Director General of the Saudi Armed Forces Project (DGSAP) and his staff are responsible for fulfilling the Ministry of Defence's obligations under Government-to-Government arrangements with Saudi Arabia covering the supply of military aircraft, naval vessels, weapons and associated support services, commonly known as the Al Yamamah Programme (AY). In this role. DGSAP officials are involved in the negotiation of the AY contracts, the monitoring of the programme, prime contractor performance in respect of the delivery of goods and services to the Saudi Armed Forces, and, when satisfied, the endorsement of claims made in accordance with the terms of the AY contracts for

  437W
  payment by the Saudi Government. In pursuit of these activities DGSAP staff are based both in the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what reports he received regarding improper practices in relation to BAE Systems'(a) operations in, and (b) contracts with, Saudi Arabia; and if he will make a statement; [133098]

  (2) what discussions he had with the Serious Fraud Office in relation to BAE Systems'(a) operations in, and (b) contracts with, Saudi Arabia; and if he will make a statement; [133099]

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when the Permanent Secretary or other officials(a) first received and(b) first read the papers sent by the Serious Fraud Office on 8 March 2001 in respect of allegations against British Aerospace/BAE Systems and Robert Lee International; [132916]

  (2) whether the contents of the papers sent by the Serious Fraud Office to the Permanent Secretary on 8 March 2001 in respect of allegations against British Aerospace/BAE Systems and Robert Lee International were communicated in any way to the then Secretary of State or his successor; [132917]

  (3) what investigations took place within his Department into the contents of the papers sent by the Serious Fraud Office to the Permanent Secretary on 8 March 2001 in respect of allegations against British Aerospace/BAE Systems and Robert Lee International; [132918]

  (4) how many times(a) the Secretary of State,(b) his predecessors,(c) the Permanent Secretary and (d) other Ministry of Defence officials have met representatives of British Aerospace/BAE Systems to discuss issues relating to Saudi Arabia since May 1997. [132919]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) wrote to the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence in March 2001 about allegations of fraud in connection with a sub-contractor to BAE Systems. The SFO informed the Permanent Secretary that there was insufficient evidence to support a criminal investigation of the fraud allegations, but wished to bring it to his attention in case Government money might be involved. The Permanent Secretary established that the allegations were not of direct relevance to the Ministry of Defence, as they related to the role of a subcontractor (Robert Lee International) to BAE Systems, and Government money had not been involved. Having been informed, however, that the Chairman of BAE Systems was already aware of this matter, the Permanent Secretary raised it with the Chairman, in the context of the Government's robust anti-fraud policy, for any further inquiries he deemed appropriate.

  Since the allegations of fraud were not a matter for the Ministry of Defence, it was not considered necessary to bring them to the attention of the Secretary of State. Ministers and officials at the Ministry of Defence have discussed issues related to Saudi Arabia with representatives of BAE Systems on numerous occasions since 1997.

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with(a) the Defence Housing Executive and (b) Defence Estates concerning the future of the married quarters estate. [133377]

  Mr. Caplin
  I have had discussions with the Chief Executives of both agencies on a range of topics. These have included the married quarters estate.

  Shoeburyness Firing Range
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the new range in Shoeburyness. [134094]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Shoeburyness ranges are included in the Long Term Partnering Agreement that has been negotiated with QinetiQ for the delivery of a long-term test and evaluation capability to the Ministry of Defence. This agreement came into effect on 1 April 2003.

  Trafalgar Class Submarines
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Trafalgar Class submarines are available for operational tasking. [134463]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are four Trafalgar Class submarines available for operational tasking:

  HMS Turbulent, HMS Tireless, HMS Torbay, HMS Triumph.

  Type 45s
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what delays there have been to the Type 45 programme; and what the in-service date is for the first of the class. [135393]

  Mr. Ingram
  The currently approved in-service date (ISD) is November 2007 but this has always been challenging. Full production of the first of class started a few months behind the original schedule and the programme is currently under review. Any change will be announced when that work is complete, later this year.

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's assessment is of the threat to the United Kingdom and its interests from ballistic missiles in the aftermath of the Iraq war; and if he will make a statement. [133720]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the Ministry of Defence paper, "Missile Defence, a Public Discussion Paper", which was published in December 2002. A copy is available in the Library of the House. It is also available at: www.mod.uk

  Since that assessment was published, coalition operations in Iraq have successfully removed the threat of ballistic missiles that were held by, or under development by, the former Iraqi regime.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department will take to encourage social landlords to take more enforcement measures against anti-social tenants; and what assessment he has made of the implications for the Anti-Social Behaviour Action Plan of the awarding of costs against the housing association in the case THCH v. Mr. Joseph Loomes. [134580]

  Keith Hill
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is extending the range of tools that social landlords can use to tackle anti-social behaviour. These include broadening the range of landlords who can take out injunctions against tenants who behave in an anti-social manner, introducing a power for social landlords to demote secure and assured tenants to a less favourable form of tenancy, and generally ensuring that the responses to anti-social behaviour are appropriately focused on the needs of the community. In addition, social landlords will be required to prepare and publish policies and procedures in relation to anti-social behaviour, which will be available to tenants and other residents.

  It is the responsibility of social landlords to ensure that they use the appropriate enforcement measure to address the variety of anti-social behaviour cases that may arise. However, the general purpose of the measures in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill is to encourage and facilitate social landlords taking a more active approach in their dealings with anti-social behaviour.

  The definition of anti-social behaviour used in Part 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour Bill refers to conduct which is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance rather than behaviour which has actually caused nuisance or annoyance to named individuals. This makes it clear that landlords can use evidence from people other than the direct victims of the behaviour in proceedings for injunctions or demotion orders. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister hopes that this will encourage more social landlords to be proactive in their management of such behaviour, for example by using professional witnesses in situations where individual victims are too scared or intimidated to give evidence.

  Regarding the specific case mentioned, it does not have any significant implications for the Anti-social Behaviour Action Plan, as the judgment is specific to that case. However, the broadening of injunctive powers included within the Anti-social Behaviour Bill mentioned earlier should make it easier for registered social landlords, including Tower Hamlets Community Homes, to undertake successful court action.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from(a) the Durham constabulary, (b) the Local Government Association and (c) other interested parties concerning problems in obtaining anti-social behaviour orders. [134650]
  440W
  Ms Blears
  I am not aware that any representations from Durham constabulary regarding problems with Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) have been received. We work closely with the Local Government Association and other interested parties concerning ASBOs.

  Legislative changes were introduced by the Police Reform Act 2002 to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of ASBOs in response to problems identified by the Home Office review of ASBOs published in April 2002. These changes were accompanied by Home Office guidance on both ASBOs and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs) which was distributed to local authorities and police in November 2002.

  The Anti-social Behaviour Bill builds on these improvements. The ASBO measures respond to the experiences of relevant authorities and the needs of witnesses and victims and are intended to close loopholes, making ASBOs more easily obtainable for all cases where they would be appropriate.

  The Home Office is also setting up an action line, website and training academy which will provide support for agencies to enable them to use the full range of interventions for tackling anti-social behaviour.

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Government will adopt the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee that the statutory reporting restrictions, which preserve the anonymity of victims of sexual offences, are extended to persons accused of historical child abuse. [128358]

  Paul Goggins
  The Government believes that there should be no change in the law relating to anonymity. In our view, informed and strengthened guidance to the police and the media is preferable to any change in legislation. The Police Code of Conduct provides that information which comes into the possession of the police should be treated as confidential. It should not be used for personal benefit and neither should it be divulged to other parties except in the proper course of police duty. Unauthorised disclosure of information on a suspect by a police officer is likely to be considered a breach of this Code. Such a breach would mean that an officer's conduct had not met the appropriate standard for the purposes of the Police (Conduct) Regulations, and disciplinary proceedings might commence. An officer could face dismissal or even prosecution, depending on the circumstances of the case.

  We have reached an agreement with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) that it will amend its media and disciplinary guidelines to all forces to give greater prominence to the rules that govern the release of information about anyone suspected of, but not yet charged with, an offence. We are working to ensure that the guidelines are consistently and robustly enforced. Similarly, Ministers are in discussion with media representatives to assess how unhelpful or intrusive reporting of such cases can be avoided with a view to amending and strengthening the Press Complaints Commission's Code of Practice. An officer could face dismissal or even prosecution, depending on the circumstances of the case. We have reached an

  441W
  agreement with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) that it will amend its media and disciplinary guidelines to all forces to give greater prominence to the rules that govern the release of information about anyone suspected of, but not yet charged with, an offence. We are working to ensure that the guidelines are consistently and robustly enforced. Similarly, Ministers are in discussion with media representatives to assess how unhelpful or intrusive reporting of such cases can be avoided with a view to amending and strengthening the Press Complaints Commission's Code of Practice.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding is available to finance the introduction of CCTV cameras in(a) schools and(b) town centres; and if he will make a statement. [134595]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: The Crime Reduction Programme Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Initiative funded 684 CCTV schemes across England and Wales. The main areas covered by these schemes were town centres/shopping centres, car parks, residential areas, community shopping areas, hospitals, and rail stations.

  Under the Small Retailers in Deprived Areas (SRDA) Initiative, £15 million was provided to improve security of small retailers, including the provision of CCTV where appropriate. In year one of the initiative (2001–02) approximately 50 per cent. of the projects involved the installation or upgrading of CCTV in either individual shop units or covering shopping parades or precincts. In year two (2002–03) it rose to almost 70 per cent. and in year three (2003–04) it is 63 per cent.

  Both the CCTV and SRDA Initiatives are fully committed and drawing to a close. Future CCTV schemes can be financed through the Building Safer Communities (BSC) Fund, which is used to strategically tackle local crime reduction priorities through a number of interventions including CCTV. For 2003–04 the fund provided local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships with £72.3million.

  Section 5 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires the responsible authorities of the CDRP to work in co-operation with other bodies, including education, in completing a crime and disorder audit and strategy. This engagement should ensure access to funding if it is considered a priority for the area. The CDRP can then consider whether installing CCTV cameras in schools and town centres fits with its local priorities.

  Community Support Officers
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the powers of community support officers. [134936]

  Ms Blears
  Subject to Parliamentary approval the Anti-social Behaviour Bill will extend the following powers to Community Support Officers (CSOs):

  The power to disperse groups.

  The power to issue a fixed penalty notice for graffiti and fly-posting.

  442W

  The power to issue a fixed penalty notice to parents for truancy.

  The power to stop cyclists in order to issue a fixed penalty notice for cycling on a footpath.

  Crime Statistics
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were committed per head of population in the(a) Avon and Somerset, (b) Bedfordshire,(c) Leicestershire, (d) Nottinghamshire and (e) South Yorkshire police force areas in the last five years for which figures are available. [135044]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 29 October 2003]: The requested information is given in the table.

  Number of crimes recorded by the police per 1,000 population

  Police force area

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Avon and somerset

  102

  99

  99

  118

  117

  Bedfordshire

  89

  96

  88

  92

  108

  Leicestershire

  101

  102

  92

  94

  104

  Nottinghamshire

  131

  133

  135

  154

  159

  South Yorkshire

  102

  101

  96

  104

  120

  There was a change of counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, which had the effect of increasing the number of crimes counted. Numbers of offences for years before and after this date, and figures calculated from them, are therefore not directly comparable.

  The National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) was introduced across England and Wales in April 2002. Some police forces adopted the Standard prior to this date. Bedfordshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and South Yorkshire police force areas introduced the Standard in April 2002, and Avon and Somerset police introduced the Standard in October 2000. Broadly, the NCRS had the effect of increasing the number of crimes recorded by the police. Therefore, following the introduction of the Standard numbers of recorded crimes and figures derived from them are not comparable with previous years.

  Dog Thefts
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase penalties on conviction for the theft of pet dogs; and if he will make a statement. [132838]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 October 2003]: There are no plans to increase penalties for the theft of pet dogs. The courts already have robust sentencing powers for theft: the current maximum penalty is seven years imprisonment.

  The Government believe that these penalties sufficiently reflect the seriousness of the offence.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost was to his Department of mobile phones supplied to ministers and officials in each year since 1997. [123149]
  443W
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To provide the hon. Member with a full answer will incur disproportionate cost. I can, however, provide information on mobile phones and associated equipment purchased via our central procurement unit since 1997, which is as follows:

  Total expenditure, mobile phones and associated equipment

  £

  1997

  175.00

  1998

  5,516.16

  1999

  163,933.83

  2000

  146,201.48

  2001

  46,491.25

  The cost of mobile phones and associated equipment purchased for core Home Office staff via our central procurement unit during 2002 was £64,750. Information is not held centrally on call and line rental charges and could be provided, again, only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions there have been under the Mobile Telephones (Reprogramming) Act 2002. [133970]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not available through our formal statistical channels. Court proceedings for offences under the Mobile Telephone (Re-programming) Act 2002 only became identifiable in the statistics collected centrally in January 2003. Statistics for 2003 will be published in the autumn of 2004 to ensure all court data is validated and corrected.

  However, police forces have been running operations and several arrests and charges have already been made under the Act. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 7 July 2003, Official Report, column 641W.

  North Wales Police
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many community support officers have been employed by North Wales police in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [134507]

  Ms Blears
  The first year in which community support officers (CSOs) could be recruited was 2002–03. North Wales police had no CSOs in that year. This financial year, they planned to recruit eight CSOs and all eight commenced employment on 1 September 2003.

  People Trafficking
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase penalties for those engaged in the trafficking of(a) women and (b) children for the illegal sex industry in England and Wales. [134353]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government takes very seriously the issue of trafficking people for sexual exploitation. At present, the Nationality, Asylum and Immigration Act 2002 contains an offence of trafficking for prostitution, which makes it an offence, punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment, to traffic someone (whether an adult or a child) into or out of the United Kingdom for the purposes of exploiting them in prostitution.
  444W
  The Sexual Offences Bill, introduced into the House of Lords on 28 January 2003 proposes new comprehensive offences of trafficking for sexual exploitation to replace the stop-gap offence introduced by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. These new offences tackle the movement of people into, within and out of the UK for the purposes of sexual exploitation, and will also carry maximum penalties of 14 years imprisonment. The offence relating to trafficking within the UK applies equally to UK nationals trafficked from place to place in the UK, and to foreign nationals brought here and then moved around from place to place within the UK. This is the first time that the trafficking of UK nationals within the UK has been tackled in legislation.

  Internationally, we are committed to addressing the issue of trafficking by our involvement with the EU Framework Decision on combating the trafficking of human beings, and the UN protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking.

  We believe 14 years is the appropriate maximum penalty for trafficking an adult or child. This is the highest determinate penalty available to the courts and we consider that it provides a proportionate response to the range of criminal behaviour involved in trafficking. Where the trafficked person is also subjected to a sexual or violent offence, this can be charged in its own right and the offender will then additionally be liable for the penalties that attach to those offences.

  Police
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many ex-police officers are being paid a pension because of early retirement through ill health; and what monitoring systems are in place to ensure that the ill health is not transient. [134543]

  Ms Blears
  The requested figures are not centrally available. However the number of ill-health retirements within the police service has been falling over recent years from a level of 14.8 per 1,000 officer strength in 1997–98 to 8.8 per 1,000 in 2001–02.

  Regulation K1 of the Police Pension Regulations 1987 gives the police authority the discretion to review whether the disablement of a person in receipt of a police ill-health pension has ceased. Such reviews can be held at intervals that the authority considers appropriate. We would expect police authorities to continue to review the circumstances in any case where it was felt that there was a reasonable prospect for the cessation of disablement and that the former officer could be re-engaged.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been killed in each of the last five years by the police(a) during police action, (b) as a result of police pursuits and (c) in police custody. [134728]

  Ms Blears
  In each of the last five years, for which Home Office figures have been published, the total number of people who died during or following police action are as follows.
  445W

  1997–1998—69

  1998–1999—67

  1999–2000—70

  2000–2001—52

  2001–2002—70

  Within those totals:

  1997–98

  Eleven died during or following police pursuits and 40 died in or following police custody.

  1998–99

  Four died during or following police pursuits and 41 died in or following police custody.

  1999–2000

  Ninteen died during or following police pursuits and 30 died in or following police custody.

  2000–01

  Seventeen died during or following police pursuits and 25 died in or following police custody.

  2001–02

  Thirty died during or following police pursuits and 22 died in or following police custody.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) crimes committed there were in police authority areas in England in the last year for which figures are available. [135320]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: The latest published information on the number of police officers by police force area in England is published in Table 1 of 'Police Service Strength, England and Wales, 31 March 2003' (Home Office Statistical Bulletin 11/03).

  The latest published information on the number of crimes recorded in each police force area in England is contained in Table 6.04 of 'Crime in England and Wales 2002/03' (Home Office Statistical Bulletin 07/03).

  Copies of both publications are available in the Library.

  Prisoners
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are held(a) over 50 miles and(b) over 100 miles from their committal court town. [133395]

  Paul Goggins
  An individual prisoners' court details are recorded to show first court appearance, committal, remand, conviction or sentencing. Information specifically on committal court details could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  As at 30 September 2003, the latest date for which information is available, details of all types of court information, including committal, remand, convicting and sentencing, were available for 71,089 prisoners, or 96 per cent. of the total prison population of 73,741 on that day. This information is shown in the following table.
  446W

  Distance from court town

  Number of prisoners

  As a percentage of the total popuplation1

  Held under 50 miles from their court town

  44,955

  63

  Held between 50 and 100 miles from their court town

  15,254

  22

  Held over 100 miles from their court town

  10,880

  15

  Total

  71,089

  100

  1 Based on the 96 per cent. of the population for which court data is available

  Private Office Costs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the running costs have been of ministers' private offices in his Department in each year since 1997. [123104]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Running costs for my department, Ministers' offices, the Private Office Management Support Unit and Parliamentary Secretariat for each year from 1997 were as follows:

  Year

  Pay costs

  Other running costs

  1997–98

  1,551,644

  572,622

  1998–99

  1,566,018

  1,202,633

  1999–2000

  1,619,459

  791,588

  2000–01

  1,223,794

  841,809

  2001–02

  1,643,622

  943,022

  The running costs for the whole of Private Office—including non Ministerial Offices—in 2001–02 was £4,492,704 and in 2002–03 was £5,176,925. Changes in financial recording systems from 2001 mean that it is no longer possible, without disproportionate cost, to separate the cost of Ministerial from non-Ministerial offices. Consequently this figure is not directly comparable with those provided prior to 2001–02, which did not include the cost of the offices of the Permanent Secretary, the Director General, Resources and Performance, Special Advisers, as well as the Typing Centre and the Ministerial Briefing Unit, which was largely created by bringing together existing staff in other Directorates. The figure for 2002–03 also includes office running costs for an additional Minister.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders under the supervision of the Probation Service are categorised as(a) low, (b) medium or (c) high risk. [133972]

  Paul Goggins
  Information about risk of harm is collected through the Offender Assessment System (OASys) that is being implemented in the National Probation Service and the Prison Service. We currently have standardised information in a comparable format from some 5,000 OASys assessments in four probation areas. Analysis of this data produces the percentages for the level of risk of harm shown in the table.

  Until next summer, when we will have data from all 42 probation areas, we will not know whether this profile reflects the pattern across the National Probation

  447W
  Service. Until then we will not be able to say with confidence how many offenders under probation supervision fall into each risk of harm category.

  Level of risk of harm

  Percentage of offenders based on data from four areas

  Very high

  0.4

  High

  6.5

  Medium

  25.1

  Low

  68.0

  Total

  100

  Silverlands
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimated open market value of Silverlands, Chertsey was(a) at 30 June 2001 and (b) after the completion of refurbishment works in summer 2002; what the open market value is now; and what the total cost of works carried out to the property since 30 June 2001 is. [131504]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Prior to the start of the conversion works in July 2001, Silverlands was valued by the district valuer at an open market value of £2.3 million.

  The last district valuer valuation of June 2002 contained an open market value, following conversion works, between £3.25 and £3.5 million.

  The Department of Health has not undertaken any subsequent valuations on this property.

  The total cost of works carried out to the property since June 2002 is minimal.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average monthly cost of(a) maintenance and (b) security of Silverlands, Chertsey was to government departments in the last five years. [131505]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  There was nil expenditure for the Home Department except for the period between September 2001 and June 2002, in which a total of £3.7million was spent on the Silverlands refurbishment project, of which approximately £2.8million related to maintenance and £0.9million to security. The average costs of the project were:

  (a) maintenance: £280,000 per month

  (b) security: £90,000 per month.

  All figures are inclusive of VAT.

  The final account and retention release, and associated fees, are still outstanding on the project. These are currently estimated at about £320,000.

  In addition to the above, the Department of Health has advised us that:

  (a) maintenance cost prior to and after refurbishment has been minimal

  (b) the following has been spent on security per month:

  August 1999 to December 2001—Average£10,000

  July to October 2002—£55,000

  October 2002 to June 2003—£22,000

  June 2003 onwards £13,000

  This averages £15,795 per month.
  448W
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost to date is to(a) his Department and(b) the Department of Health of (i) building works and (ii) security provision at Silverlands, Chertsey. [131506]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The cost to the Home Department of the refurbishment works to date is £3.7 million of which £2.8 millio a related to (i) maintenance and £0.9 million related to (ii) security. The final account and retention release, and associated fees, are still outstanding on the project. These are currently estimated at about £320,000. These figures are inclusive of VAT.

  In addition to the above the Department of Health has advised us that (i) building works has been minimal and (ii) security provision at Silverlands, Chertsey, to date has cost £695,000.

  Terrestrial Trunked Radio System
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) of 4 June 2003,Official Report, column 462W, on the Terrestrial Trunked Radio System, what reports he has received from police officers of ill health effects which they attribute to TETRA. [134738]

  Ms Blears
  The Home Office has received no reports from police officers of ill-health effects which they attribute to TETRA. We were however made aware by representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Police Federation that some early users of the system were concerned about potential health effects of the TETRA technology. We have addressed these concerns by taking independent expert advice and setting up a long-term research programme. The experts concluded that it was unlikely that TETRA technology could lose a risk to health, and this has been confirmed by the research results to date. More information can be found at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/tetra.html.

  Violent Crime (Easington)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many violent crimes occurred in the Easington sub division of the Durham County Police Authority in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002; and if he will make a statement. [134651]

  Ms Blears
  Numbers of violent crimes which occurred in Easington are recorded and published at Basic Command Unit (BCU) level. Violent crime is comprised of violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery. The requested information is given in the table.

  Number of violent crimes recorded by the police for Easington Basic Command Unit

  Crimes recorded

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Robbery

  1999–2000

  729

  48

  21

  2000–01

  629

  35

  22

  2001–02

  820

  39

  35

  2002–03

  1,095

  33

  51

  449W
  The National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) was introduced across England and Wales in April 2002. Some police forces adopted the Standard prior to this date. Durham police force introduced the Standard in January 2002. Broadly, the NCRS had the effect of increasing the number of crimes recorded by the police. Therefore, following the introduction of the Standard, numbers of recorded crimes are not directly comparable with previous years.

SCOTLAND

  Stamp Duty Land Tax
  Mr. Frisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of increases in stamp duty land tax on economic regeneration policies in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [135612]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have introduced disadvantaged areas relief which provides an exemption from stamp duty land tax for transactions in non-residential land in Enterprise Areas. There are 135 areas in Scotland which qualify for this relief, selected by reference to the national index of deprivation. The measure provides a major boost to businesses investing in commercial premises in Scotland.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Alcohol Labelling
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received regarding bringing alcohol labelling in line with those placed on tobacco products. [132758]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department of Health has received a number of representations consisting of correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members and from members of the public. The Department has also received a petition from the British Association for the Study of the Liver, the British Society for Gastroenterology and the British Liver Trust. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety at the Home Office (Ms Blears), has received similar representations in her role as Sponsor Minister for the Strategy Unit Project to develop an Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England.

  Anti-doping Policy
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to recommend the classification of additional anabolic steroids. [135527]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government have no plans to make recommendations on the classification of additional anabolic steroids. This is a matter entirely for UK Sport, the UK's national anti-doping agency, to ensure that all dope test samples are analysed in accordance with the Olympic Movement's Anti-Doping Code of prohibited 450W
  substances and methods (January 2003), and from January 2004, the World Anti-Doping Code list of prohibited substances and methods.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the efficacy of drug-testing procedures in sports, with particular reference to football. [135086]

  Mr. Caborn
  The UK is at the forefront of the international sporting community's fight against doping in sport The UK's national anti-doping policy is in line with the International Standard for Doping Control which requires sport's governing bodies to carry out a robust in and out of competition dope testing programme. This policy ensures that all sports in the UK have consistent anti-doping procedures and regulations that are transparent and fair to their athletes. It is a matter for the UK's national anti-doping agency, UK Sport, and sport's governing bodies to administer this policy.

  UK Sport is working with sport's governing bodies, including the Football Association, on implementing the world anti-doping code into their drug testing programmes which will result in the harmonisation of anti-doping processes across countries by the 2004 Olympic games in Athens.

  Bechtel
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the contracts for(a) consultancy and (b) other work carried out by Bechtel in each year since 1997, stating in each case (i) the nature of the work, (ii) the value of the contract and (iii) the duration of the contract; and if she will make a statement. [134731]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 29 October 2003]: DCMS have no record of any contract with Bechtel over the period 1997 to 2003.

  Fair Shares Programme
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much Lottery money has been distributed through the Fair Shares programme; and what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the programme. [135652]

  Estelle Morris
  The fair share initiative aims to ensure that those communities at greatest disadvantage do not lose out from Lottery funding. In its first year of operation, over £31 million has been distributed through the Community Fund's grants programmes targeted at fair share areas; grants of between £200,000 and £2.2 million have been committed under the New Opportunities Fund's 'fair share: transforming your space' programme; and a £50 million fair share Trust has been set up, to be delivered by the Community Foundation Network. The programme has achieved 90 per cent. of its projected funding target for 2002–03. Now that these building blocks are in place, I expect to see a steady increase in the flow of funding over the remaining two years of the programme.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money raised from the National Lottery has been spent in(a) East Yorkshire, (b) West Yorkshire and (c) Greater London, in each of the past four years for which figures are available. [135335]

  Estelle Morris
  The requested information is in the following table.

  This information is derived from the Department's National Lottery awards database which contains information provided by the distributing bodies.

  East Yorkshire is taken as the area of the hon. Member's constituency, West Yorkshire comprises Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees, Leeds and Wakefield local authority areas.

  £

  East Yorkshire

  West Yorkshire

  Greater London

  1999

  912,015

  46,778,718

  410,955,361

  2000

  440,600

  35,725,974

  229,659,961

  2001

  1,007,825

  39,472,855

  324,572,862

  2002

  286,344

  68,784,738

  357,138,602

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the Lottery awards made by each funding body in Somerset in each year since 2000. [135420]

  Estelle Morris
  811 Lottery awards have been made since 1 January 2000 in Somerset.

  Dates of Lottery awards, name of recipients, and the Lottery distributor concerned will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the Lottery awards made by each funding body in(a) the North West, (b) Lancashire and (c) Chorley in each year since 2000. [135523]

  Estelle Morris
  8,881 Lottery awards have been made since 1 January 2000 in the North West region. 1,721 Lottery awards have been made since 1 January 2000 in Lancashire. 179 Lottery awards have been made to Chorley since 1 January 2000.

  The information concerning the North West region was placed in the Libraries of both Houses in response to a question from the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on 29 October 2003, Official Report, column 274.

  Olympic Games
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what estimate she has made of the percentage of the hotel rooms planned to be available in London by the time of the 2012 Olympics which will be of an inspected standard; [135830]

  (2) what percentage of funding she estimates will be spent on improving hotel facilities in the event of a successful 2012 London Olympic bid. [135843]
  452W
  Tessa Jowell
  The assessment of the cost and benefit implications of bidding for and staging the Olympics and Paralympic Games in London in 2012 undertaken by Arup in May 2003, drawing on London Tourist Board figures, projected up to 200,000 rooms in hotels/guest houses as potentially available within International Olympic Committee (IOC) visitor travel time requirements of one hour.

  Detailed information on accommodation is required by the IOC for the applicant city questionnaire, and London 2012 Ltd., the company set up to prepare the Olympic bid, are undertaking further work to verify and refine these figures. We would look to the LDA, working in partnerships with local authorities, agencies and businesses, to consider what action or investment they might take, including the development of their existing tourism infrastructure, to capture the benefits from the Olympics.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to involve(a) arts and (b) cultural organisations in developing the London Olympic Bid for 2012. [135832]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Olympics are not just about Sport; they will embrace the wider cultural life of the capital and of the country. One of the IOC requirements for the Games is for a Cultural Olympiad, a four year long cultural and educational programme around the Games which can be used to build community support and involvement. The plans for this Olympiad will form a part of the Candidature file which London 2012 Ltd. are preparing to submit to the International Olympic Committee in November 2004 and my Department will ensure that the relevant arts and cultural organisations are involved in their development.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of hotel rooms in London were classified as substandard in the last year for which figures are available. [135842]

  Mr. Caborn
  We are not aware of any such classification. In November 2002, the London Development Agency (LDA) report 'Improving the Quality of Visitor Accommodation in London' (commissioned by DCMS) estimated that 38 per cent. of London's serviced accommodation establishments were covered by the National Quality Assurance Standards (NQAS) schemes for serviced accommodation. The LDA is working hard to encourage further subscription. The report also found that 57 per cent. of hotel rooms in London belonged to branded hotel chains.

  This Department is committed to raising accommodation quality through the NQAS schemes, and through supporting skills and training in the industry. To tackle under-performing establishments that are ineligible for NQAS, we are currently piloting a 'Fitness for Purpose' initiative in six local authorities, including the London boroughs of Greenwich and Camden. The aim is to help failing accommodation providers to meet minimum legal requirements on health and safety, food hygiene, trading standards and fire safety.

  Stamp Duty Land Tax
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the impact of increases in stamp duty land tax on her policy for(a) the preservation of historic piers and regeneration of seaside towns and (b) for public houses and other licensed premises; and if she will make a statement. [135615]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have introduced disadvantaged areas relief which provides an exemption from stamp duty land tax for transactions in non-residential land in Enterprise Areas, including several areas in seaside towns. This will provide a major boost to businesses investing in commercial premises in those areas. No assessment has been undertaken of the effect on the preservation of historic piers.

  The impact of stamp duty land tax on public houses and other licensed premises was considered and discussed as part of the recent consultation process.

  Tourism
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to use the creative industries in the promotion of British tourism(a) within the United Kingdom and (b) abroad. [135834]

  Mr. Caborn
  VisitBritain promotes Britain overseas as a tourist destination and it promotes England to the domestic market. The creative industries are an important element in its campaigns. VisitBritain's website promotes creative events taking place across the country such as opera, ballet, film, exhibitions and arts festivals. VisitBritain's current European "Short Breaks" campaign has a strong cultural message, taking advantage of the European Capital of Culture competition. Other examples of campaigns include a "movie map" which uses film locations to encourage tourism, campaigns based around individual films such as Harry Potter and Johnny English, the sponsorship of a forthcoming Britain-related fashion show in Argentina and the launch of an animated film in Japan based on the famous 'Moving Castles' Novel by Dianna Wynne Jones. Domestically, VisitBritain has worked with Warner Classics to produce an 'Essentially England' CD-Rom which uses classical music to promote tourism.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many foreign visitors she estimates visited(a) Bath, (b) York, (c) Liverpool, (d) Snowdonia, (e) Edinburgh, (f) Stratford upon Avon and (g) London in 2002–03. [135838]

  Mr. Caborn
  The following table shows the number of visits made by foreign residents to these places in 2002, since data on visits to areas around the UK are produced by calendar year.

  Area

  Number of visits made by foreign residents in 2002

  Bath

  205,000

  York

  230,000

  Liverpool

  193,000

  Snowdonia

  Not available

  454W

  Area

  Number of visits made by foreign residents in 2002

  Caernarfonshire and Merionethshire (includes Snowdonia)

  21,000

  Edinburgh

  849,000

  Stratford Upon Avon

  110,000

  London

  11,603,000

  Note:

  Figures for Snowdonia alone are not available, but figures are available for the combined regions of Caernarfonshire and Merionethshire, which contain Snowdonia.

  Source:

  International Passenger Survey, National Statistics

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  International Student Visas
  Mrs. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which universities have the largest numbers of students studying on international student visas. [129426]

  Alan Johnson
  Information on the number of non-European Union students studying at higher education institutions in England for 2001/02 shows that the largest number of these students are studying at the universities listed in the following table. Information is not collected on the visa status of these students.

  Institution

  Number

  London School of Economics and Political Science

  3,425

  Middlesex University

  3,348

  The University of Oxford

  3,265

  The University of Cambridge

  3,065

  The University of Nottingham

  3,042

  The University of Warwick

  3,038

  University College London

  2,933

  The University of Leeds

  2,855

  The University of Birmingham

  2,827

  The Victoria University of Manchester

  2,795

  The University of Sheffield

  2,440

  The London Institute

  2,105

  The University of Westminster

  2,104

  Imperial College of Science, Technology & Medicine

  2,014

  City University

  1,872

  King's College London

  1,869

  University of Luton

  1,759

  The University of Leicester

  1,710

  Oxford Brookes University

  1,679

  The University of North London

  1,677

  Employment and Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the outcome was of the Employment and Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council on 20 October 2003; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [133984]

  Mr. Pond
  I have been asked to reply.
  455W
  My hon
  . Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers (Mr. Sutcliffe), represented the UK at the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 20 October 2003.

  The Council held a public debate on the Commission Communication on Immigration, Integration and Employment.

  The UK stated that immigration alone would not solve Europe's demographic problem and that the Employment Strategy provided the appropriate framework for improving the participation of immigrants in the labour market. Several delegations argued that member states should meet their demand for additional labour from national and European sources before seeking immigrants from outside the EU.

  On integrating immigrants, the UK stressed the need to provide language, skills and citizenship training for recent and next generation immigrants to prevent social exclusion and burdens on the public purse and argued that a job was the best means of social integration.

  The Council adopted Conclusions on the open method of co-ordination of adequate and sustainable pensions. There will be a progress report to the Council on 1 December 2003 about pensions indicators.

  The Council reached political agreement on a Directive protecting workers from the risks from exposure to electromagnetic fields and waves, as well as on the decision to renew the spending programme to prevent and combat violence against women, young people and children (Daphne II). The UK supported both decisions.

  The Council agreed an orientation towards political agreement on Chapters 7 and 8 of Regulation 1408/71 on social security coordination. The chapters cover pre-retirement benefits and family benefits.

  The Council agreed an orientation towards a political agreement on a Regulation amending Regulation 1408/71 to align provisions in readiness for the launch of European Health Card in June 2004.

  The Council approved the opinion of the Social Protection Committee on a Commission Communication on streamlining open co-ordination in the field of social protection.

  The Council adopted without discussion a resolution on transforming undeclared work into regular employment in the context of the European Employment Strategy, and a resolution encouraging member states to consider the provision of various services for victims of trafficking.

  Under Any Other Business, the Belgians presented a short paper on Growth and Competitiveness.

  No Health or Consumer Affairs items were on the agenda.

  No votes were taken at this Council.

  Fieldwork
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what assessment he has made 456W
  of the implications of access to field work in schools for the promotion of environmental awareness; and whether the provision for field work within the national curriculum will ensure that enough employees with adequate skills are available to bodies who carry out environmental impact assessments; [135904]

  (2) what assessment he has made of whether the encouragement of fieldwork as a teaching method is adequately supported by teacher training courses; [135905]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the Growing Schools Initiative as a sufficient alternative to a formal requirement for out of classroom activity for the (a) science GCSE and (b) biology A-level curricula; [135906]

  (4) whether his Green Action Plan for Education will specify the need for out of class room activity as part of the national curriculum for appropriate subjects. [135907]

  Mr. Miliband
  No assessment has been made of the implications of access to fieldwork in schools for the promotion of environmental awareness. It is important to note, however, that there are requirements for Education for Sustainable Development both in Geography and in Science, including science GCSE and AS/A Level qualifications.

  Although the National Curriculum is not designed to provide vocational training, under the proposed 14-19 reforms set out in the Green Paper 'Excellence and Opportunity', young people would have greater flexibility in selecting their options, and may choose to pursue courses which cover environmental impacts.

  No assessment has been made of whether the encouragement of fieldwork as a teaching method is adequately supported by teacher training courses. However, under the standards for qualified teacher status and requirements for initial teacher training, teacher trainers use non-school settings such as fieldwork, visits to museums and other off-site locations. All newly qualified teachers are now required to be able to plan opportunities for pupils to learn in out-of-school contexts. Teacher training providers can also take trainees' prior achievement into account. This means, for example, that a trainee teacher who has previously worked in a fieldwork centre can have this experience taken into account when their training needs are assessed.

  In addition to this, we anticipate that, over time, our new Science Learning Centres, the preferred suppliers for six of which along with a national centre were recently announced, will help science teachers and technicians to develop their skills in out of the classroom teaching.

  No assessment has been made of the Growing Schools Programme providing an alternative to out of classroom activity for Science GCSE or 'A' level biology because it is not an alternative. Growing Schools supports teachers in using the outdoors for teaching subjects across the curriculum for pupils of all ages, including in Science GCSE and Biology A level.
  457W
  The Department's Sustainable Action Plan for Education and Skills does not specify the need for out of classroom activity as part of the National Curriculum. However the Geography programmes of study at Key Stages 1, 2 and 3 do specify the requirement for all pupils to carry out fieldwork investigations outside the classroom.

  Funding (Primary Schools)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the funding arrangements for primary school non-contact time. [135469]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer. 30 October 2003]: Many primary teachers already receive non-contact time as part of their regular timetable. As a result of the National Agreement on raising standards and tackling workload, all teachers will be entitled to 10 per cent. guaranteed time for planning, preparation and assessment (PPA) from 1 September 2005.

  The costs of implementing this contractual change in primary schools will vary. Many schools have already done so; others will need to take a rigorous look at how they use their existing resources. The more radical approach a school takes in pursuing workforce reform, the lower the cost is likely to be. Schools that abandon unnecessary tasks; reform their use of support staff; maximise the contribution of ICT and reduce reliance on expensive supply teachers will be able to deliver guaranteed PPA time from their base budgets.

  The announcement, on 29 October, of a package of measures to deliver greater stability in school budgets for 2004–05 and 2005–06 will also help primary schools plan for the introduction of guaranteed PPA time.

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people resident in Tynemouth constituency are(a) further and (b) higher education students. [130387]

  Alan Johnson
  Figures are not available at constituency level. The available figures cover North Tyneside LEA.

  In 2001/02,16,445 people resident in North Tyneside LEA attended Further Education (FE) sector colleges.

  In 2002/03, 856 people resident in North Tyneside LEA were accepted through the Universities and, Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) onto full-time undergraduate courses.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people in(a) Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire are (i) further and (ii) higher education students. [129891]

  Alan Johnson
  Figures are not available at constituency level. The available figures cover Buckinghamshire LEA.

  In 2001/02, 19,396 people resident in Buckinghamshire LEA attended further education (FE) sector colleges.
  458W
  In 2002/03, 3,316 people resident in Buckinghamshire were accepted through the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) onto full-time undergraduate courses.

  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people beginning higher education courses in 2002 had previously attended a fee-paying school. [130382]

  Alan Johnson
  The available information is from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) and covers full-time undergraduate entrants. Figures are in the table.

  Accepted applicants through UCAS to undergraduate courses by previous educational establishment, 2002 entry

  Previous educational establishment

  Numbers

  Percentage of known

  Maintained school

  121,911

  46

  Independent school

  30,293

  11

  Further education colleges

  110,083

  42

  Other

  1,480

  1

  Total known

  263,767

  100

  Unknown

  67,958

  ?

  Total

  331,725

  ?

  Source:

  UCAS

  Learning Support Units
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how much funding each learning support unit has attracted for each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority; [133681]

  (2) what funding has been provided to each learning support unit in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority; [133682]

  (3) how many learning support units in England (a) opened and (b) closed in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority. [133683]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 30 April 2003,Official Report, column 411W.

  Literacy/Numeracy Strategies
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the contractual penalties incurred by contractors responsible for the delivery of primary(a) literacy and (b) numeracy strategies for failure to meet targets set by the strategies in the last three years. [131342]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The responsibility for the achievement of the primary literacy and numeracy national targets lies solely with the Department for Education and Skills. The contractor responsible for the delivery of the primary literacy and numeracy strategies, CfBT Education Services, provides educational and operational support under the strategic direction of the Department.

  Medical Examinations (Schools)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills at what age medical examinations are normally carried out on school pupils. [134795]
  459W
  Dr. Ladyman
  I have been asked to reply.

  The provision of medical examinations for pupils at school is a matter for local primary care trusts to consider in accordance with professional advice.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will reply to the questions of the hon. Member for Edmonton, Refs(a) 120769, (b) 120770, (c) 120771, (d) 120772 and (e) 120773, tabled on 19 June. [125007]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Replies were issued on:

  (a) 23 September

  (b) 7 July

  (c) 14 July

  (d) 14 July

  (e) 30 September

  Phonics Teaching Methods
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make an assessment of the need for further clarification of the National Literacy Strategy's Framework for Teaching guidance on phonics instruction. [135022]

  Mr. Miliband
  As outlined in the Department's response in August to Professor Greg Brooks' report of the phonics seminar held in March 2003, we agree that some clarification of the National Literacy Strategy's Framework for teaching is required and the Primary Strategy is developing further guidance, including a supplement to the "Progression in Phonics" material. This supplement will be made available to teachers towards the end of the spring term 2004.

  Pupil Safety
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures he proposes to take to ensure that(a) local education authorities and (b) individual schools (i) take steps to assess the safety of pupils on journeys between home and school and (ii) take action where appropriate to improve their safety. [135476]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In September 2003, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I launched an Action Plan to encourage more children to walk, cycle and take the bus to school where it is safe for them to do so. We are encouraging all schools to put in place School Travel Plans, which will be developed jointly by schools, parents, local authorities and others. Safety will be an important consideration, and my Department is providing capital funding which can be used for safety related changes to school premises. Outside school premises, local authority highways departments are responsible for road safety and are an integral part of the school travel planning process.

  Local education authorities arrange home to school transport where they consider it is necessary for pupils to get to school. In deciding on appropriate provision, they must consider several matters including pupils' ages and the nature of their routes to school. In "Travelling to School: an Action Plan", we set out
  460W
  proposals to encourage local authorities to trial innovative school transport arrangements, and we identified pupils travelling along routes that their parents consider unsafe as a group who could benefit from exemplar schemes.

  School Funding (Suffolk)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 7 July 2003,Official Report column 632W, on school funding (Suffolk), what representations he has received from Suffolk county council about the funding of schools in Suffolk. [135794]

  Mr. Miliband
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from the local authority and schools in Suffolk about the funding of schools. He made a statement to the House on 29 October 2003 about support for schools in 2004–05 and 200–06.

  Skills
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment his Department has made of the effect on the UK skills base of those on low incomes choosing not to seek new employment because of concerns over short term cash flow problems. [129862]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This Department has not made an assessment of the effect on the skills base if those on low incomes choose not to seek new employment. The recent Skills Strategy White Paper sets out a number of measures aimed at ensuring individuals have the skills they need to be employable, and work productively in a flexible labour market. In addition, the 'Department for Work and Pensions is committed to making work pay for all those who are able to work, and to supporting households, including low-income households, in sustaining employment.

  The Department for Work and Pensions believe that most people moving from one job to another will be able to manage until they receive payment from their new job, as wages are paid in arrears. For those in receipt of working tax credit, continuity of payment is maintained when people move from one job to another, as long as the gap between jobs is no more than seven days. The new working tax credit has been extended to people aged 25 and over without children. If people receive the child tax credit, this continues to be paid direct to the main carer throughout any changes in employment. People in low paid employment may also be entitled to housing benefit and council tax benefit.

  People who are unable to manage while waiting for payment of wages, leading to a serious risk to their own health or safety or that of their family, may be able to get an interest free Crisis Loan. Repayment of a Crisis Loan does not start until the period of crisis is over and the rate of repayment takes account of a person's income and other commitments to avoid hardship.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he is taking to ensure
  461W
  that student loans associated with top-up fees are available to students whose faith precludes the charging of interest. [134497]

  Alan Johnson
  Student loans are not commercial loans. The Government uprates the value of the outstanding loan in line with the general rate of inflation, to make sure that all borrowers pay back the same amount that they borrowed in real terms. We understand that some students believe that this precludes them from taking out such a loan. However, a recent survey of students by religious group, conducted for the report "Minority Ethnic Students in Higher Education", found that 64 per cent. of Muslims reported having a student loan; that was only slightly less than Hindu groups (66 per cent.), Sikh groups (66 per cent.) and Christian groups 169 per cent.)1

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has met representatives from the Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS) on 8 July to discuss their concerns regarding student loans. Officials from my Department have also held further discussions with FOSIS representatives recently and will continue to do so.

  1 Source:

  IES/Mori Survey 2002. All figures are taken from table 6.3 of the report "Minority Ethnic Students in Higher Education", which was published in July 2003.

  Teenage Pregnancy
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action is being taken to tackle teenage pregnancy in deprived areas; and if he will make a statement. [120773]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The similar geography of teenage pregnancy and deprivation suggests that while there is still much work to do, the encouraging 10 per cent. decline in England's under 18 conception rate from 1998 to 2001 has been largely achieved through targeted work in deprived localities with 'nigh numbers of conceptions by:The allocation of funding to teenage pregnancy partnerships based on teenage pregnancy rates.
  The use of research and toolkits to address the needs of vulnerable groups. For example, "Teenage Pregnancy and Neighbourhood Renewal: Learning from New Deal for Communities" which details good practice in new deal for community areas and share the main learning points from that practice.
  New deal for communities and other neighbourhood renewal pathfinder programmes are given support and guidance in tackling teenage pregnancy as an issue through learning events and written guidance.
  Encouraging local strategies to target wares with a high number of teenage conceptions.
  The development of a programme of work to improve our understanding of the relationship between teenage pregnancy and socio-economic factors.

  The association between deprivation and teenage pregnancy is well established and reflected in the under 18 conception rates for local authorities across England. To achieve its national targets of halving the under 18 conception rate and reducing the inequality in rates between wards by at least 25 per cent. by 2010, the teenage pregnancy strategy must focus its work on deprived areas with high conception rates.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he will take to alleviate hardship arising from top-up fees for students whose family relationship has been broken. [134496]

  Alan Johnson
  We expect the student support arrangements for students that are either irreconcilably estranged from their parents or whose parents are no longer living together to continue as they are now, when variable fees are introduced from 2006. The current arrangements are set out as follows:

  If a student is irreconcilably estranged from his or her parents, they are treated as independent for the purposes of assessing student support. Where such a student's personal income while on the course is below £10,000, they are entitled to the full fee remission grant to cover the standard fee and to a full maintenance loan. If their income is £15,200 or below, they will be entitled to the full higher education grant when this is introduced from 2004.

  If a student's parents are no longer living together, the income to be used for the purposes of assessing student support will continue to be that of the parent considered to be most appropriate. If that parental income is £15,200 or below, the student will be eligible for a full higher education grant; if below £20,970, they will be eligible for the full fee remission grant to cover the standard fee; and if below £31,230, a full maintenance loan.

  Both types of students will be able to take out a loan for fees to cover the balance of the fee above the standard fee once variable fees are introduced.

  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what advantages in charging top-up fees will accrue to universities with(a) high levels and (b) low levels of students from low income backgrounds. [135472]

  Alan Johnson
  No university will be advantaged or disadvantaged in terms of additional fee income by the makeup of their intake. It will be for universities to assess the advantages and disadvantages of charging fees and what level of fee they should charge, up to the maximum of £3,000, provided they have an access agreement.

  University Drop-out Rates
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the drop-out rate was at universities in England and Wales in each year since 1997. [130377]

  Alan Johnson
  The latest available figures giving non-completion rates for students starting full-time first degree courses in England and in Wales are as follows:
  463W

  Non-completion for students starting full-time first degree courses in England and Wales

  Non completion rate (percentage)1

  Students starting courses in:

  England

  Wales

  1999/2000

  16

  15

  1998/99

  16

  14

  1997/98

  16

  16

  1 Non-completion is regarded as those who do not gain a qualification from their original course or from any other course and do not transfer to another institution.

  Source:

  HEFCE Performance Indicators

  Figures published in 2003 by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) show that the UK as a whole has one of the lowest non-completion rates among OECD countries.

  University Students (Buckinghamshire)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of A-level students from(a) the Chesham and Amersham constituency and (b) Buckinghamshire secured a place at university in the last year for which figures are available. [129889]

  Alan Johnson
  The available information shows that, in 2002, the proportion of 18-year-olds resident in Buckinghamshire who obtained two or more A levels and who were accepted onto a full-time or sandwich undergraduate course in the UK via the Universities and Colleges Admission Service (UCAS) was 65 per cent. compared to the national average of 61 per cent.

  Figures are not available at constituency level.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  European Legislation
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Leader of the House what plans he has to bring forward proposals to reform the procedures used by the House for scrutiny of European legislation. [134846]

  Mr. Hain
  I have no current plans but would welcome Members' views on whether our procedures for scrutiny of European legislation need to be reformed. I intend to consult with Members on all sides of the House on the way we engage with the European legislative process and how we might do so more effectively.

TREASURY

  Council Tax
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the increase in the level of income tax which would be required if council tax were abolished and the same revenue were raised through an increase in the basic rate of income tax. [135365]
  464W
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the change in the level of income tax which would be required if council tax were abolished and the same revenue were raised through an increase in basic rate income tax. [135750]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Members to Table C8 on p.257 of the 2003 Financial Statement and Budget Report which is available in the Library of the House, and table 1.6 of Inland Revenue Statistics, available on their website at www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/tax expenditures/q_t061.htm.

  Stamp Duty Land Tax
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of increases in stamp duty land tax on his policies for promoting employment in the retail sector; and if he will make a statement. [135608]

  Ruth Kelly
  The impact of stamp duty land tax on the retail sector was considered and discussed as part of the recent consultation process.

  Aircraft Duties
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the rates of(a) duty and (b) VAT on fuel for (i) aircraft on international flights, (ii) aircraft on domestic flights, (iii) cars, (iv) buses and (v) trains; [135176]

  (2) if he will set out proposals for the future taxation of air travel, with particular reference to (a) duty on aviation fuel and (b) VAT on airline tickets in his next Pre-Budget Statement. [135177]

  John Healey
  Fuels duties are levied in accordance with fuel types and usage, and not be reference to the types of vehicle in which they are used. Customs and Excise Budget Notice 31/03, "Hydrocarbon Oils: Duty Rates", sets out the rates of duty applicable for different types of fuels, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  In the UK, VAT is charged at the standard rate of 17.5 per cent. or fuel used in cars, buses, trains and aircraft on domestic flights. Fuel used in aircraft on international flights is zero-rated.

  Debt Reduction (Serbia and Montenegro)
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects The London Club to deliver on its agreement to 65 per cent. debt reduction for Serbia and Montenegro; what has been the reason for the delay in doing so to date; what negotiations are still going on regarding this matter; what assessment he has made of whether this commitment will be fulfilled; what would be the implication of non-fulfilment of The London Club's commitment for debt relief upon that agreed by The Paris Club; and if he will make a statement. [135442]

  John Healey
  The Government expects all creditors, including those creditor banks sometimes known as the "London Club", to agree a debt restructuring with Serbia and Montenegro comparable to that provided by the "Paris Cub" of official creditors in November 2001. The Government understands that negotiations
  465W
  between the Serbia and Montenegro authorities and some creditors are continuing. We have made clear to the Serbian authorities that the UK Government supports the case for comparable treatment, although there are no UK banks among the leading private sector creditors.

  Economic Forecasts
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the Treasury's quarterly estimates of the output gap since 1990; and whether the estimates have been revised since publication of the 2003 Budget Red Book. [135779]

  Mr. Boateng
  Treasury estimates of the output gap were published in Chart B4 on page 226 of the 2003 Financial Statement and Budget Report (HC 500). These estimates will be updated in the light of latest GDP data in the forthcoming Pre-Budget Report.

  Gold Sales
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 13 February 2003, to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan),Official Report, column 861W, on gold sales, what the precise proceeds were in US dollars of the sale of 395 tonnes of gold; and what the proceeds would have been at the afternoon fix on 31 October 2003. [135350]

  Ruth Kelly
  The total proceeds from the sale of 395 tonnes of gold were US$3,496 million. At the afternoon fix on 31 October 2003, the total value of this gold was US$4,908 million. The gold sales between July 1999 and March 2002 reflected a prudent decision to reduce overexposure to a single asset in the net reserves portfolio. Thus, the difference between these two figures quoted do not represent the real financial impact of the sales, as the proceeds from the gold sales were invested in euro, dollar and yen interest-bearing assets that have also increased in value over this period. The gold sales reduced risk by around 30 per cent. (as measured by value-at-risk) and are not expected to deliver a loss in return when measured over the medium to long-term; the appropriate time horizon for such a decision.

  Number of returns issued

  Period of return

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Bulk annual issue

  7,424,907

  7,267,592

  7,237,749

  7,309,336

  7,130,076

  Notices to file

  791,647

  1,249,819

  1,417,120

  1,488,130

  1,834,610

  In year issue

  1,129,446

  806,589

  591,131

  633,534

  1575,345

  Total

  9,346,000

  9,324,000

  9,246,000

  9,431,000

  29.7

  1 To date

  2 Million estimated.

  Golden Rule
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the extent of compliance with the golden rule until 1 June 2006 on the basis of his annual forecasts. [135347]

  Mr. Boateng
  As stated in Budget 2003:"The projections for the public finances show that the Government is firmly on track to meet its strict fiscal rules over the economic cycle, including in the cautious case, and while meeting its international and public spending commitments: the average current budget since the start of the current cycle in 1999–2000 is comfortably in surplus, ensuring the Government remains on track to meet the golden rule, using cautious assumptions and in the cautious case".

  An interim forecast update will be published, as usual, in the Pre-Budget Report.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions the Treasury has had with the Financial Services Authority about including the need for financial stress testing for consumers applying for mortgages. [136285]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government legislated in June 2003 to give the Financial Services Authority responsibility for regulating mortgage business with effect from 31 October 2004. The detail of the regulatory regime for mortgages is a matter for the FSA.

  However, we are aware that the FSA has recently published its new rules for mortgage sales. These rules, which take effect from 31 October next year, mean that:
  mortgage advisers have to recommend a mortgage that is suitable. Where they consider that the consumer will be unable to afford a mortgage the rules mean that they must not make any recommendation; and
  regardless of whether or not advice is provided, mortgage lenders must be able to show that they took account of the consumer's ability to repay before agreeing to any mortgage.

  Self-assessment
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many self-assessment forms have been issued in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement on groups of people to whom the issue of forms has been extended since 1 January 1998. [135360]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The table shows the number of returns issued and gives a breakdown of those numbers.

  There have been no changes to the criteria that govern who are and who are not required to complete and submit a Self-Assessment Return since 1 January 1998.

  Timber
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what source of paper is used for banknotes; and what measures have been taken to ensure that all timber used in this paper comes from(a) legal (b) sustainable sources. [136015]

  Ruth Kelly
  The paper used for UK banknotes notes is not made from timber. It is manufactured by a specialist paper manufacturer from cotton fibre and linen rag, which gives its crisp and distinctive feel and makes it tougher and more durable than the more common wood pulp paper. Using copious amounts of water, the cotton is broken down into individual fibres and reformed into reels of paper of the quality required.

  Stamp Duty Land Tax
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the proportion of leases which will pay(a) less stamp duty, (b) more stamp duty and (c) the same amount of stamp duty following the recent changes to the charging of stamp duty on leases. [135069]

  Ruth Kelly
  The effect of the introduction of Stamp Duty Land Tax on 1 December 2003 (including the effect of the changes announced recently) is:

  Percentage

  Paying less duty

  174

  Paying the same duty

  215

  Paying more duty

  11

  1 Of which 72 per cent. reduced to nil.

  2 All of which currently pay nil.

  As a result of the increases in the thresholds for commercial and residential leases, from 1 December 2003, 87 per cent. of leases will pay no Stamp Duty Land Tax (compared with 15 per cent. who were exempt under stamp duty) and a further 2 per cent. will pay less Stamp Duty Land Tax than they would have paid stamp duty.

  As a result of the changes, only 11 per cent. of leases will pay more Stamp Duty Land Tax than they would have paid stamp duty.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of changes to the charging of stamp duty on leases on the(a) retail sector and (b) licensed trade. [135072]

  Ruth Kelly
  Detailed consultation with a wide variety of representative bodies, including those for the retail and licensed trade, were held both before and after publication of the Finance Bill 2003. Both during and after these meetings, much useful information was shared.

  Overall for commercial leases, the increase in the threshold from £60,000 to £150,000 will exempt 53 per cent. of the leases which would have paid stamp duty (in addition to the 9 per cent. of leases which currently pay no stamp duty) and the introduction of the 'slice' system will reduce the duty payable on another 5 per cent. of leases from that due under stamp duty.
  468W
  It is accepted that different sectors will be affected differently, according to the sectoral distribution of lease lengths and rentals. The percentage of leases in particular sectors which are newly exempt or will pay less under SDLT are highly sensitive to these factors.

  From data supplied by a representative body covering part of the licensed trade, analysis shows that, before 1 December 2003, 1.16 per cent.of leases taken out by its members were exempt whilst, if these leases were to be taken out on or after 1 December 2003, 37.43 per cent. would be exempt (for those leases within the data supplied.)

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what his latest estimate is of expenditure on each tax credit in each year from 2003–04 to 2005–06; and if he will make a statement; [130561]

  (2) if he will list the types of tax credits (a) provided by and (b) planned to be introduced by the Government giving their cost in each case in each year from 1997–98 to 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [130015]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Havant on 16 May 2003,Official Report, column 489W.

  Further information on Government expenditure on tax credits was set out in Chapter A of the Financial Statement and Widget Report 2003, and can also be found on the Inland Revenue National Statistics website: http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats.

  The information will be updated in the Pre-Budget Report.

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the number and proportion of families that are likely to have to repay a proportion of their tax credits due to reassessment of their income. [134927]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 27 October 2003,Official Report, column 37W, to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb).

  Working Tax Credit
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received since May on the 30 hour earnings rule applied to working tax credit; and if he will make a statement. [135374]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Entitlement to Working Tax Credit depends on a person being in "qualifying remunerative work". Claimants with responsibility for a child or qualifying young person, or who are disabled, must work for at least 16 hours a week to qualify for Working Tax Credit. Working Tax Credit extends in-work support to workers without children or a disability, provided they are aged at least 25 and work for 30 or more hours a week.
  469W
  Since 1 May 2003. Treasury Ministers have received a small number of letters from hon. Members on the hours rules in Working Tax Credit.

  VAT
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what receipts his Department received in respect of VAT on new(a) buildings and (b) schools during the last three years. [135275]

  John Healey
  The information requested is not available. Traders' VAT returns cornain no information on the items upon which VAT is charged.

  VAT (Audio Books)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on the removal of value added tax on audio books used by the visually impaired; and if he will make a statement. [135456]

  John Healey
  The Government recognises the importance of audio books to the visually impaired. Audiotapes and other specially designed equipment for visually impaired people are free from VAT. However, under long-standing formal agreements with our European partners, the UK is not permitted to extend the scope of this zero rate or to introduce any new ones.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Rail Safety (Overcrowding)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps the Government are taking to tackle the health hazards arising from overcrowded trains. [134183]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) advise that there is no hard evidence about health hazards from overcrowded trains. HSE is a member of a steering group led by the Rail Safety and Standards Board which is beginning to look into the effects resulting from overcrowding on trains, and has an interest in similar Rail Passenger Council research.

  Alcoholics
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what financial allowance is available for recovering alcoholics; who qualifies for this help; and what other assistance is available; [132943]

  (2) under what circumstances assistance to recovering alcoholics would be withdrawn; and how their eligibility for re-application is assessed. [132944]

  Maria Eagle
  People with disabilities and health problems, including alcohol-related problems, have full access to the services of Jobcentre Plus; regardless of which benefit, if any, is being claimed. In addition, Progress2work LinkUP pilots are now running in several areas across the country. These pilots will further develop our work-focused provision for disadvantaged groups such as alcohol misusers.

  Financial assistance may be available from the benefit system, depending on individual circumstances; for example, Disability Living Allowance may be awarded where a person has a requirement for personal care. Benefits may be withdrawn where the conditions of entitlement are no longer satisfied following a change of circumstances. Eligibility for a repeat claim is assessed according to individual circumstances at the time of making that claim.

  Benefit Payments
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pension and benefit recipients have been contacted regarding the transferring of the payment of their pension or benefit to direct payment; of these, how many have opted to have their pension or benefit paid into(a) a standard current bank or building society account, (b) the new bank or building society account and (c) a post office card account; and how many have failed to select an option. [135199]

  Mr. Pond
  I refer the hon. Member to the Written Answer I gave the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) on 28 October 2003,Official Report, column 207W.

  Child Support Agency
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on 472W
  progress in transferring Child Support Agency cases from the old system of calculation to the proposed new system. [134211]

  Mr. Pond
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) on 16 September 2003,Official Report, columns 696–97W.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many prosecutions have been initiated in the last year for provision of false information to the Child Support Agency. [134341]

  Mr. Pond
  Since April 2002 the Child Support Agency has initiated 15 prosecutions against clients for providing false information. Of the 14 prosecutions that have currently been heard in court the defendant was found guilty in every case.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many complaints were received per month from Child Support Agency clients(a) in the six months previous to the introduction of the new child support system and (b) in the last three months, in the latter case identifying how many of the complaints came from (i) clients of the old system and (ii) clients of the new system; what percentage of total clients the complaints represented per month; and if he will make a statement. [131447]

  Mr. Pond
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Angus Robertson, dated 27 October 2003:
  The Secretary of State, in replying to your recent Parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
  You asked about the numbers of complaints received by the Agency in the 6 months prior to the introduction of the new child support system and in the last 3 months (identifying the number received from clients on the old and new systems) and what percentage of our total clients these figures equate to.
  The figures you requested are summarised in the following tables:

  Complaints received prior to the introduction of the new child support system

  Month

  Number of complaints received

  Percentage of total clients

  September

  1,238

  0.11

  October

  1,318

  0.12

  November

  1,263

  0.12

  December

  958

  0.09

  January

  1,316

  0.12

  February

  1,515

  0.15

  Monthly Average

  1,268

  0.12

  In April 2003 we changed our complaints handling processes. This has ensured the more accurate recording of complaints and ensured the recording for the first time of telephone complaints. I have included below information on written complaints only, for a more representative comparison.
  This new system has recorded the following number of complaints:
  473W

  Complaints received in the three months up to August 2003

  Month

  Total complaints received

  Percentage of total clients

  Written complaints received

  Percentage of total clients

  June

  2,174

  0.21

  1,666

  0.16

  July

  2,684

  0.24

  2,017

  0.18

  August

  2,320

  0.19

  1,725

  0.14

  It is not possible to make an exact split between complaints from clients within the old and new arrangements because the affairs of some clients span both.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for how many days in each of the last five years Cold Weather Payments were made to residents whose homes were allocated to the(a) Leeds and (b) Nottingham weather stations. [135087]

  Mr. Pond
  Cold Weather Payments (CWPs) provide extra help to vulnerable people towards the additional costs of heating which result from a period of very cold weather in the area where they live. If the average recorded or forecast temperatures fall to 0C or below over seven consecutive days, CWPs are automatically triggered. The payments continue to be made for each seven day period that the relevant temperature criteria are met.

  Since 1998–99 CWPs were made once, during 2001–02, to eligible residents whose homes were covered by the Leeds weather station. Over the same period, CWPs were made twice during 2000–01 and once during 2001–02 to eligible residents whose homes were covered by the Nottingham weather station.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how his Department decides which of its publications should be distributed for display in post offices. [135483]

  Mr. Pond
  The decision as to which publications are displayed via the Post Office network is made within the Department's Communications Directorate.

  Senior managers meet at least every three months to agree the future publications and information to be displayed. The choice is driven by the needs of our customers and is closely linked both to the calendar year and the timing of other marketing work happening across the Department. An example of this is the display of posters and provision of leaflets from October 2003 to April 2004 in support of the Winter Fuel Campaign.

  Bi-lingual versions of the agreed publications are provided to Post Offices in Wales.

  Employee Pension Rights
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on procedures to protect employee pension rights in cases of employer insolvency due to fraud, with particular reference to requirements under the 1980 Insolvency Directive. [135092]
  474W
  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 28 October 2000]: The Pensions Compensation Board helps members of occupational pension schemes where the assets of the scheme have been reduced through dishonesty and the employer is insolvent. This is an important protection for scheme members and will act as a last resort for schemes seeking to restore their funding position.

  As stated in the Green Paper ("Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement", December 2002), we intend to increase protection to those schemes that suffer from acts of dishonesty where the employer is insolvent. In future these pension schemes will be compensated for the full amount lost.

  The new Pension Protection Fund will ensure greater protection for members in all cases of insolvency, not just those that arise due to fraud.

  We take our obligations under Article 8 of the Insolvency Directive seriously and the European Commission has confirmed that we have met those obligations.

  Employment Statistics
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have found work to date in 2003, broken down by progress to work area. [135330]

  Mr. Browne
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Employers Liability Insurance (Construction Sector)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he next plans to meet the National Federation of Roofing Contractors to discuss insurance premiums. [134947]

  Mr. Browne
  Officials from the Department met representatives of the National Federation of Roofing Contractors (NFRC) and other small businesses in the construction sector with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Office of Fair Trading to talk about the difficulties in the Employers' Liability Insurance market on 20 February 2003.

  Although the Department has no plans at present for a further meeting specifically with the NFRC, the Department's Ministers continue to meet with construction interests, most recently with the Construction Confederation on 28 October.

  We are aware of the good work that the NFRC has been doing in responding to the difficulties that its members have been encountering in seeking to obtain Employers' Liability Insurance at a reasonable price.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners with dependent children were receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee in 2002–03. [135214]

  Malcolm Wicks
  At the date of the final quarterly survey in 2002–03, the number of claimants receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee with dependants under the age of 19 was 28,600.
  475W
  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred

  2. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample, and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  3. MIG recipients are defined as Income Support benefit units where the claimant. and/or partner is aged 60 or over.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 5 per cent sample, February 2003

  Opportunity for All Report
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost was of(a) preparing, (b) printing and (c) distributing Opportunity for All Fifth Annual Report 2003, Annual Report on Health, Poverty and Social Exclusion. [135083]

  Mr. Pond
  Opportunity for all—Fifth Annual Report 2003 (Cm 5956) sets out the Government's strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion.

  The production, printing and distribution of the report, including its summary and alternative formats, cost approximately £90,000 in total.

  The report was produced by the Department for Work and Pensions but is based on contributions from a wide range of officials across other UK Government Departments and the Devolved Administrations. Determining the overall cost of preparing the report in terms of staff time could therefore be achieved only at disproportionate expense.

  The report is available in the Library.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if an individual who has recently purchased an annuity he deems to have voluntarily deprived themselves of capital in order to succeed in making a claim for pension credit. [134412]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Pension credit is designed to target more money on the poorest pensioners and to reward those making modest provision for their retirement. Where an individual has disposed of capital, consideration may be given as to whether the expenditure was reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

  The main purpose of this is to guard against people giving away capital, (or an income) to increase entitlement. However, it is not necessarily the case that a pensioner would be able to increase their entitlement by purchasing an annuity. The actual income generated by the annuity would be taken into account whereas if the money was treated as capital the first £6,000 would be ignored.

  If a person purchased a deferred annuity, (or another product which does not give them an income straightaway) for example, the deprivation rule may be considered in the light of the considerable body of case-law which has developed on similarly worded provisions.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether his Department deems an individual who has had a claim for pension credit turned down but then purchases(a) a level annuity, (b) an index-linked annuity, (c) a deferred annuity and (d) a
  476W
  single premium whole life insurance policy to have voluntarily deprived themselves of capital in order to succeed in making a claim for pension credit. [134414]

  Malcolm Wicks
  An individual may be treated as still possessing capital in any of these circumstances, but it is not necessarily the case that they will be.

  Decisions are made in the light of the circumstances of each case and the considerable body of case-law which has developed on similarly worded provisions.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners have received an increase in their entitlement under the pension credit scheme in(a) Chorley, (b) the North West and (c) the UK. [134442]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is not available for Chorley or the North West region.

  Around half of all pensioner households will be eligible for Pension Credit and stand to gain on average £400 a year (around £7 a week).

  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reported on 14 October 2003, Official Report, column 5WS, around 1.9 million pensioner households have already been awarded Pension Credit and over 1.15 million pensioners households will get more money than they would have before.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners he estimates have yet to apply through the pension credit scheme in(a) Chorley, (b) the North West and (c) the UK; and what efforts are being made to simplify the pension credit process to make it easier for pensioners to claim their entitlement. [134443]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested but we estimate that around 500,000 pensioner households in the North West and Merseyside are eligible for Pension Credit.

  The application process has been designed to be straightforward. All pensioners need do is ring our Pension Credit Application Line. Calls are free on 0800 991234 (apart from some mobiles). The Pension Service then sends the completed application form to pensioners to check, sign and return, together with any necessary documentation. The Pension Service is able to offer alternative ways of applying to suit individual circumstances, including a textphone number and a paper application form. An application form can be downloaded from the Pension Credit website at www.thepensionservice.gov.uk. Pensioners can also be put in touch with The Pension Service's local service and can be seen face-to-face either in a local surgery or, where appropriate, in the pensioner's home.

  The Pension Service provides a wide range of information and support on benefits to older people through our network of local service surgeries. Local Pension Service surgeries are held on a regular basis across all areas of the country, often in partnership with other organisations such as local authorities and Age Concern. Details of the most convenient surgery for individual pensioners and their carers can be obtained by telephoning 0845 60 60 2 65.
  477W
  The Pension Service wrote to all hon. Members at the end of July providing a full list of surgeries and opening times in individual constituencies; however I am happy to list here the regular surgeries that take place in the Chorley area:

  Chorley One Stop shop, Council Offices, Union Street

  Eccleston Library

  Fosterfields Day Centre', Eaves Lane

  Clayton Green Library

  Buxton Library

  Belmont Day Ward, Chorley Hospital

  Adlington Library

  Coppull Library

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of residents in the Manchester, Withington constituency who(a) qualify for pension credit and (b) have so far applied for pension credit. [134510]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  Around half of all pensioner households will be eligible for pension credit and stand to gain on average £400 a year (around £7 a week).

  As at May 2003, the number of minimum income guarantee recipients in Manchester Withington was around £3,200. These are the latest figures available.

  We intend from November to publish monthly reports on the progress of pension credit take-on, which will include information on the number of applications.

  Notes:

  1. The MIG figure has been rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. The MIG figure is based on a 5 per cent. sample, and therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  3. Government office region/parliamentary constituency are assigned by matching postcodes against the relevant ONS postcode directory.

  4. MIG recipients are defined as income support benefit units where the claimant, and/or partner is aged 60 or over.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 5 per cent. sample

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in(a) Scotland and (b) the Hamilton, South constituency he estimates are entitled to (i) the income-related element and (ii) the savings-related element of the Pension Credit. [134573]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  As at May 2003, the number of Minimum Income Guarantee recipients in Hamilton, South was around 2,800. These are the latest figures available.

  Around 400,000 pensioner households are eligible for Pension Credit in Scotland.

  We intend from November to publish monthly reports on the progress of Pension Credit take-on, which will include information on the number of successful applications.

  Notes:

  1. The MIG figure has been rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. The MIG figure is based on a 5 per cent. sample, and therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  478W

  3. Government office region/parliamentary constituency are assigned by matching postcodes against the relevant ONS postcode directory.

  4. MIG recipients are defined as Income Support benefit units where the claimant, and/or partner is aged 60 or over.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 5 per cent. sample.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on administrative problems which have occurred for pensioners accessing Pension Credit. [134644]

  Malcolm Wicks
  There have been no administrative problems which have significantly affected pensioners' ability to apply for Pension Credit. The Pension Credit application line (0800 99 1234), which is the main method of applying, is working well and has taken over 1.1 million calls since it became operational on 7 April. Calls are free (except for some mobile phones) and friends and family can use the application line and apply on pensioners' behalf if they are unable to make the call themselves. The Pension Service is able to offer alternative ways of applying to suit individual circumstances, including a textphone number and a paper application form. An application form can be downloaded from the Pension Credit website at www.thepensionservice.gov.uk. Pensioners can also be put in touch with The Pension Service's local service and can be seen face to face either in a local surgery or, where appropriate, in the pensioner's home. Our marketing campaign, at the heart of which is a direct mail pack to pensioner households, is designed to produce a steady build up of Pension Credit applications. I refer the hon. Member to the written statement given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Andrew Smith) on 14 October 2003,Official Report, column 5WS.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what increase in expenditure on pensions in the parliamentary constituency of Brent North has resulted from the introduction of pension credits. [135121]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. Around half of all pensioner households will be eligible for pension credit and stand to gain on average £400 a year (around £7 a week).

  It is estimated that pension credit will cost around an extra £2 billion a year.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for how many pensioners in the parliamentary constituency of Brent, North there will be an increase in their pension as a result of the introduction of the Pension Credit. [135122]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  As at May 2003, the number of Minimum Income Guarantee recipients in Brent, North was around 2,400. These are the latest figures available.

  Around 1.9 million pensioner households have already been awarded Pension Credit and over 1.1 million pensioner households will get more money than they would have before.
  479W
  We intend from November to publish monthly reports on the progress of Pension Credit take-on, which will include information on the number of successful applications.

  Notes:

  1. The MIG figure has been rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. The MIG figure is based on a 5 per cent. sample, and therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  3. Government office region/parliamentary constituency are assigned by matching postcodes against the relevant ONS postcode directory.

  4. MIG recipients are defined as Income Support benefit units where the claimant, and/or partner is aged 60 or over.

  Projected expenditure on disability and carers' benefits

  Percentage of Gross Domestic Product

  1997–98

  2002–03

  2010–11

  2020–2021

  2030–2031

  2040–41

  2050–51

  Disability benefits

  0.47

  0.52

  0.54

  0.49

  0.48

  0.45

  0.38

  Carers' benefits

  1—

  0.01

  0.01

  0.01

  0.01

  0.01

  0.01

  1 Values lower than 0.005 per cent of GDP.

  Notes:

  1. Disability benefits are Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance.

  2. Carers' benefits cover Carers' Allowance only.

  3. Projections are those underlying the Budget 2003 Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report, Annex A.

  4. Gross Domestic Product assumptions up to 2005–06 are as underlying the Budget 2003 Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report, thereafter real economic growth is assumed to be 2.0 per cent. per year.

  5. Current government policy on uprating of benefits is assumed throughout.

  6. Expenditure is for Great Britain.

  7. Figures are rounded to the nearest 0.01 per cent. of Gross Domestic Product.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of public expenditure on(a) the basic state pension, (b) SERPS and (c) the state second pension as a percentage of gross domestic product in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 2002–03, (iii) 2010,

  Projected expenditure on basic state pension, Serps and second state pension

  Percentage of Gross Domestic Product

  1997–98

  2002–03

  2010–11

  2020–2021

  2030–2031

  2040–41

  2050–51

  Basic state pension

  3.7

  3.6

  3.5

  3.1

  3.2

  2.9

  2.4

  SERPS

  0.4

  0.6

  0.8

  0.8

  0.6

  0.4

  0.2

  Second State Pension

  0

  0

  0.1

  0.2

  0.5

  0.9

  1.5

  Notes:

  1. Figures for 2010 onward are consistent with the Government Actuary's Quinquennial Review of the National Insurance Fund laid before parliament on 27 October 2003. 1997/98 is based on DWP outturn information and 2002–03 is based on estimated outturn information.

  2. All figures expressed as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product

  3. Expenditure is for Great Britain

  4. The amounts shown for SERPS and Second State Pension in the above table only include projected expenditure on additional retirement pension. Amounts paid with incapacity benefit and widows'/survivors' benefits are excluded. Expenditure on contracted-out rebates, for employees who contract-out of second state pension, is not included in the figures shown above.

  5. All projections assume current government policy remains in place until the end of the period. The estimates for basic state pension are based on uprating (in April) of an average 0.25 per cent. above the relevant (previous September) 12 months' Retail Price Index. This is to reflect the current policy for uprating the basic state pension by 2.5 per cent. in years where RPI uprating would be lower than 2.5 per cent.

  Pensions (Direct Payment)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners responded to the first letter from his Department regarding nomination of an account into which future pension payments could be made; and how many did not. [134806]

  Mr. Pond
  We do not have the information requested. This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost
  480W
  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 5 per cent. sample.

  Pensioners' Benefits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of public expenditure on(a) disability and (b) carers' benefits for pensioners as a percentage of gross domestic product in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 2002–03, (iii) 2010, (iv) 2020, (v) 2030, (vi) 2040, (vii) 2050 and (viii) for other years for which estimates have been made. [134473]

  Maria Eagle
  The information requested is in the table.

  (iv) 2020, (v) 2030, (vi) 2040, (vii) 2050 and (viii) for other years for which estimates have been made. [134476]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is in the table.

  Key figures on the progress of conversion to Direct Payment are available in the Library updated every four weeks.

  Pensions/Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what increase in Government spending on(a) pensions and (b) the minimum income guarantee there has been in Brent North since 1997. [135120]
  481W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The information that is available is in the table.

  £million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2000–02

  2002–03

  Expenditure on Income Support for the Under 60s/Minimum Income Guarantee

  Great Britain

  3,773

  3,619

  3,781

  4,095

  4,486

  4,481

  Brent North

  8

  8

  8

  9

  10

  10

  Expenditure on State Retirement Pensions

  Great Britain

  33,557

  35,575

  37,775

  38,718

  41,893

  44,346

  Brent North

  —

  —

  40

  41

  44

  47

  Notes:

  Estimates are based on a combination of samples of 5 per cent. of benefit recipients and Great Britain out-turn expenditure data.

  Figures are in nominal terms.

  Figures for state retirement pension in Brent North are unavailable prior to 1999–2000.

  Figures for 2002–03 are based on estimated expenditure, as at Budget 2003.

  Bereavement Benefits
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps have been taken in the last 12 months to ensure that information about(a) bereavement pension and (b) bereavement payment is available as widely as possible. [135485]

  Mr. Pond
  Information is available from local Jobcentre Plus and Social Security offices. and the Department for Work and Pensions website gives information about Bereavement Benefits together with leaflets and claim forms for downloading. A fully revised version of leaflet NP45 'A guide to Bereavement Benefit' for professional advisers and members of the public was published in May this year. Leaflets D49 "What to do after a death in England and Wales" and D49S "What to do after a death in Scotland" are reviewed and revised as necessary annually.

  In addition, we have been working with funeral directors, Registrars and voluntary groups such as Cruse, National Association of Widows and Citizens Advice Bureaux who may be contacted by bereaved people.

  We have worked with Registrars to amend the social security form for notifying the Department of a death (BD8) to draw greater attention to the fact that it can be used to initiate a claim for bereavement benefits, this went to print in April 2003 and has been in use by Registrars since then. Within the last year we have also arranged for Funeral Directors to De able to obtain Bereavement Benefit claim packs so that they can be given directly to bereaved people.

  We keep under review the way that information is made available about bereavement benefits so that bereaved people, at this very difficult time in their lives, know about their potential right to benefit and can act on it at the right time.

  Sign Languages
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library a copy of the submission of the Government to the Bureau of the Steering Committee on Education (Council of Europe) outlining its proposals and position statement on the legal recognition of sign languages. [135936]

  Maria Eagle
  Yes.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many new stakeholder pensions have been taken up by individuals(a) without any other form of occupation pension provision and (b) from the initial target group of those earning between £10,000 and £20,000 a year. [135015]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested in(a) is not available. Information relating to (b) is contained in the following table.

  Annual earnings of stakeholder pension policy holders

  Number of stakeholder pension sales by earnings group in 2001–02 tax year

  Under £10,000

  200,000

  £10,000 to £20,000

  330,000

  £20,000 to £30,000

  160,000

  £30,000 to £40,000

  40,000

  £40,000 to £50,000

  10,000

  £50,000 to £60,000

  10,000

  £60,000 and above

  20,000

  Notes:

  1. 60,000 of sales were to people not in work (e.g. children, spouses, the unemployed and pensioners).

  2. Numbers do not sum to total sales in tax year because of rounding of information bands to the nearest 10,000.

  3. Earned income data is derived from the Survey of Personal Incomes (SPI) and consists of all income chargeable under Schedule E (mainly pay, private and occupational pensions, retirement annuities and state retirement pensions) Schedule D Cases I and II (self-employment income), and miscellaneous other earnings.

  4. The SPI is a representative sample of nearly 200,000 individuals, drawn from the Revenue's Self Assessment, Pay As You Earn and Claims systems. Where we have been able to match these individuals to the SPI, primarily those with earned income, the totals in the tables are based on this sample.

  Source:

  Inland Revenue data for 2001–02 tax year

  Unemployment Benefits
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what range of benefits is available for those unable to find a job; under what circumstances are these benefits withdrawn: and what compulsory tasks the unemployed are asked to do in searching and applying for jobs. [132947]

  Mr. Browne
  The main benefit available to people seeking work is Jobseeker's Allowance. They may also
  483W
  be able to receive Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and Disability benefits depending on their particular circumstances. Child Benefit and Child Tax Credits can be claimed by all families with children.

  In order to receive Jobseeker's Allowance a person must be available for and actively seeking work. When they make a claim for Jobseeker's Allowance they agree the steps they will take to actively seek work. This is recorded on their Jobseeker's Agreement and reviewed on a regular basis. Jobseekers may also have to comply with a Jobseeker's Direction issued by their Adviser. This could be, for example, apply for a specific job vacancy or to attend a training course. Failure to comply with these requests without good cause could lead to a benefit sanction.

  Before a sanction is applied an independent Decision Maker will consider statements from the jobseeker and their Personal Adviser, together with the Jobseeker's Agreement and any other evidence supplied by the jobseeker. If benefit is disallowed the jobseeker is advised of their right to have the decision reconsidered or to appeal.

  Details of the steps that Jobseeker's are required to take are set out in Volume 4, Chapter 21, Paragraphs 21826 to 21828 of the Decision Makers Guide a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate how many people who became newly entitled for the 2003–04 winter fuel payment and who needed to make a claim before 19 September in order to receive their payment before Christmas failed to do so; and what the value was of such payments. [134107]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We estimate that for winter 2003–04, there could be around 600,000 people newly entitled to a Winter Fuel Payment. Around half of these will need to claim because they will not be in receipt of a relevant benefit which qualifies them for an automatic payment.

  By 19 September 2003, around 170,000 claim forms had been received and processed for payment, although some of these may have been from people entitled to an automatic payment. However, since then a further 24,000 claims were received and processed for payment.

  We are unable to provide any reliable estimate of the value of unclaimed winter fuel payments because some people aged 60 or over are excluded, others choose not to claim and payments are based on household composition.

  Where a person needs to claim, it is up to them whether they do so, and we publicise the availability of these payments. They have until 30 March 2004 to make their claim for this winter.

  Workplace Diseases
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will take steps to limit liability in employers' liability cases involving workplace diseases to the date of the publication in medical journals of research showing clear links between workplace practices and diseases. [136172]
  484W
  Mr. Browne
  We do not have any plans to introduce such a system.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much the United Kingdom has contributed to Afghanistan in each year since 2000; and wt at percentage of these amounts has gone towards(a) reconstruction, (b) military purposes and (c) emergency aid in each year. [133853]

  Hilary Benn
  Since 2000 the UK has provided 687 million to Afghanistan. Distinctions between reconstruction or development assistance, and emergency or humanitarian assistance are problematic, especially in situations like Afghanistan after the initial emergency in 2001 was over. For example, assistance managed by our Humanitarian Affairs department to support re-opening of schools or the immunisation of children, clearly has an immediate effect as well as contributing to longer-term development.

  In the financial year 2000–2001 £5 million was spent on humanitarian assistance. There was no spend for military or reconstruction work.

  In financial year 2001–2002 out of £265 million provided by the UK, £45 million (17 per cent.) was spent on humanitarian and reconstruction assistance. Most of this went to humanitarian needs because our reconstruction effort was just beginning. £220 million (83 per cent.) was spent on military operations.

  In financial year 2002–2003 the UK contributed a total of £396 million. £86 million (21 per cent.) was spent on humanitarian and reconstruction assistance. This was shared roughly equally between humanitarian assistance and reconstruction. £310 million (79 per cent.) towards supporting military operations in Afghanistan.

  In the current financial year the UK, to date, have provided £26 million for humanitarian assistance and reconstruction. The great majority of these funds have focused on reconstruction. This years figures for expenditure in support of military operations in Afghanistan will be published in the Winter Supplementary Estimates.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance is being provided to train Afghan women as(a) nurses, (b) doctors and (c) other medical professionals; in what parts of Afghanistan such assistance is being provided; what resources have been committed in support of such training; and over what time period. [134570]

  Hilary Benn
  The Department for International Development has provided some technical assistance to the Ministry of Health in Afghanistan but is not directly involved in the training of medical professionals.

  The Afghanistan. Ministry of Health has estimated a budget of $173 million to implement several national health programme; this year. More than $130 million has been already committed by donors, including the European Community, to which DFID contributes 19 per cent., for these programmes. Most of these

  485W
  programmes are nationwide. These programmes incorporate training components including the training of women. However, a breakdown showing training and resources targeted specifically at women is not currently available.

  AIDS, TB and Malaria
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. [134716]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The UK has a long-term financial commitment to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/ AIDS, TB and Malaria which will provide the fund with a total contribution of $280 million by 2008. It is too early to judge the effectiveness of the fund in combating these key diseases of poverty. We are working closely with the fund to ensure it has effective working procedures so that it can meet its overall goals.

  We have therefore made it clear that UK funding will be subject to the GFATM reflecting a clear poverty focus, achieving a better financing system, integrating the fund's activities more effectively with national programmes and meeting agreed benchmarks to monitor its effectiveness. I am pleased to report that good progress was made at the recent sixth board meeting in Thailand on many of these issues.

  Angola
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate he has made of the impact of delays in the, shipment of food aid to Angola on the humanitarian situation in the country. [135204]

  Hilary Benn
  The principal provider of food aid in Angola is the World Food Programme. WFP's current programme began in July 2002 and is due to end in December this year. It is 90 per cent. funded. The operation has both emergency relief and recovery, or rehabilitation, elements.

  We understand that due to delayed international maize shipments, the World Food Programme (WFP) is expecting shortfalls in cereals during November and December. The World Food Programme will continue to give priority to the sick and malnourished under social and nutritional programmes and these vulnerable groups will continue to receive full rations. This will minimise the negative humanitarian effects of the disruption of deliveries. However, there will be reduced availability of food aid for rehabilitation and recovery programmes.

  At the end of 2002 DFID contributed £2 million to WFP in food aid in Angola, in response to their appeal for assistance with the food pipeline. We continue to closely monitor the humanitarian situation in Angola and will respond to urgent humanitarian needs.

  Botswana
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the(a) aim, (b) structure and (c) methods of the European Union projects in Botswana to which his
  486W
  Department makes a financial contribution with particular reference to the effect their implementation (i) has and (ii) has had on the Gana and Gwi; and if he will make a statement. [134455]

  Hilary Benn
  Along with other EU member states DFID contributes to the European Development Fund (EDF), which supports projects in Botswana on the basis of a strategy agreed between the EU and the Government of Botswana. The strategy for the period 2001–07 highlights the challenges of poverty, unemployment and HIV/AIDS, and commits the EU to focus its programme mainly on human resource development. The strategy recognises that poverty is especially prevalent among those living in the remotest parts of Botswana and among ethnic minorities, but does not contain specific objectives for the impact of the EU programme on particular ethnic groups.

  Burundi
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment his Department has made of the security situation in each of Burundi's provinces since 1997; what impact the developments have had on the access of aid workers to each region; and if he will make a statement. [134423]

  Hilary Benn
  The security situation in Burundi remains unstable and fluctuates according to each province. Access for aid workers is severely constrained and both sides have tried to manipulate humanitarian assistance by controlling access.

  However, with the recent positive development in Burundi with the signing of the Pretoria Protocol on 8 October on power sharing between the FDD (Nkurunziza) and the Government of Burundi it is hoped that there will eventually be some improvement. We will continue to monitor the situation.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office provides updated Travel Advice on Burundi on its website. We always recommend reading this before travelling to Burundi.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment his Department has made of the peace accord signed in October by the President of Burundi and Pierre Nkurunziza of the Forces for the Defence of Democracy; what his assessment his Department has made of the impact the accord has so far had on(a) internally displaced people and (b) refugees from Burundi in neighbouring countries; and if he will make a statement. [134448]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK welcomes the signing of the Pretoria Protocol on 8 October between the FDD (Nkurunziza) and the Government of Burundi. This is a positive step towards implementation of the 2 December 2002 ceasefire agreement between the two parties. Further talks to resolve outstanding issues including an implementation timetable, immunity, army integration and registering the FDD as a political party, are due to take place soon. The UK is working with the Government of Burundi and our international partners to ensure momentum is not lost.
  487W
  As this accord is part of an on-going peace process, there has as yet been very little tangible effect on internally displaced people and refugees from Burundi in neighbouring countries.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many people have(a) been internally displaced in Burundi and (b) became refugees from Burundi in (i) Tanzania and (ii) Rwanda in each year since 1997, what projects aimed at these people his Department has funded; and if he will make a statement. [134449]

  Hilary Benn
  United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) gives the following figures for the total numbers of Internally Displaced People in Burundi since 1999. We have not been able to establish what proportion have been newly displaced in each year:

  December 1999—808,004

  November 2000—524,055

  October 2001—632,809

  February 2002—475,509

  June 2002—487,469

  The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UN HCR) gives the following figures for the numbers of Burundi refugees in Rwanda and Tanzania since 1997:

  1997—6,900

  1998—1,400

  1999—1,400

  2000—1,000

  2001—1,700

  2002—1,554

  2003—1,207

  Figures for numbers of refugees in Tanzania are as follows:

  1997—459,400

  1998—473,800

  1999—499,000

  2000—438,400

  2001—521,200

  2002—370,861

  2003—353,132

  Our assistance to internally displaced people and refugees is covered under our humanitarian response to the needs of those most vulnerable. This focuses on health and nutrition support through international relief organisations. So far this financial year we have provided funding of £400,000 through Medecins Sans Frontieres for medical support in Bujumbura Rural and nutrition programmes in Karuzi. We are about to make a contribution of £500,000 to the UN Consolidated Inter-Agency Appeal 2003, and are currently considering further proposals from other international NGOs and agencies.

  Locusts (North Africa)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment his Department has made of the danger posed to(a) Algerian, (b) Mauritanian, (c) Sudanese, (d) Niger
  488W
  and (e) Moroccan crops by the reported increase in migratory desert locusts in North Africa; what impact this has had on (i) food stocks in and (ii) humanitarian aid allocated to the area; and if he will make a statement. [134725]

  Hilary Benn
  The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) is monitoring the situation in North Africa closely. On 17 October, they issued an alert regarding desert locust outbreaks in Mauritania, Niger and Sudan. Since then an outbreak has also been reported in Mali. FAO are aware that southern Algeria, southern Morocco and the Red Sea coastal plains could also be at risk in the coming weeks.

  FAO are assisting national Governments in the region to respond to the threat through their Emergency Prevention System. which was set up in 1994 to help Governments control locust outbreaks in their early stages. The outbreaks have not yet had any significant impact on crops or food stocks and there has been no call for humanitarian assistance. The UK is in close touch with FAO on the issue and will carefully consider any calls for further assistance.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance he will provide to restart the investigation and trial of those responsible for the November 2002 massacres of civilians in Ankoro, in northern Katanga Province of the Democratic Re public of the Congo. [135203]

  Hilary Benn
  We are providing £700,000 in assistance to the Transition Institutions of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which include the President and Vice Presidents, the Parliament, the Senate, the Supreme Court, the Assembly and five Democracy Support Commissions (Elections, Human Rights, Anti-Corruption, Media and Truth and Reconciliation). We are also providing technical support to a European Community-led mission on the justice sector.

  These are all part of our effort to help end human rights abuses that have been so prevalent in the DRC for such a long time. We are not providing any specific assistance regarding restarting the investigation and trial of those involved in the November 2002 massacre in Ankoro.

  On the humanitarian side, we are providing £420,000 to Action Against Hunger to carry out an Emergency Nutritional Programme in Katanga Province. We are planning to provide funding through the International Rescue Committee for a basic health services programme in five provinces of DRC, including in northern Katanga.

  East Africa
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action he will take in response to the report of 15 October of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation on expected harvests in East Africa. [133763]

  Hilary Benn
  The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Foodcrops and Shortages report of October 2003 presents a mixed picture of prospects in East
  489W
  Africa. In general production is expected to be better than last year. FAO judges, however, that in a number of countries low production is anticipated. This is expected to lead to the requirement for international assistance in the form of food aid.

  The FAO reports are an important element in building up a picture of likely humanitarian needs. As one of the largest contributors of humanitarian assistance, including food aid, in Africa, we use the FAO reports, along with other evidence from Government, INGO and UN sources to target our humanitarian response.

  ECOWAS
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether his Department will offer(a) funding and (b) other support to ECOWAS in its attempts to establish a small arms unit in Abuja, Nigeria. [135136]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID recognises that more needs to be done to assist ECOWAS and its member states to combat small arms problems in West Africa. Currently the department is not funding ECOWAS in this area, but it is planning to meet with other donors and with the ECOWAS Secretariat in the forthcoming months to discuss the issue in more detail.

  Ethiopia
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what his policy is on the resettlement by the Ethiopian government in the Southern Nations, Nationalities and People's Region; and if he will make a statement. [136273]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer the hon. member for Meriden to the answer that I provided her on 6 October 2003,Official Report, column 1009W.

  Food Aid Programmes
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make it his policy not to use GM products in food aid programmes until further evaluation has been conducted of the long-term effects of GM products(a) throughout the food chain and (b) for direct consumption by humans. [135066]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID's approach to GM food and developing countries is based on the principle that both the health of people and the environment are of primary concern. Developing countries are entitled to make their own informed choices about whether or not to adopt GM technologies, and to build the capacity to manage their safe development and use. The following principles are therefore employed in relation to UK food aid contributions:Recipient governments should be given adequate information on the type of food they receive and its characteristics, including whether genetically modified;
  Recipient governments should be allowed to decide on its acceptability; and
  Donors should accept the decisions of recipients and accommodate them as far as possible. For example, if milled cereals are preferred rather than whole grain to avoid GM grain being planted as seed then this should Ix arranged.

  490W
  While respecting the need and sovereign right of recipient governments to take an informed decision, I believe that issues raised by GM crops do need to continue to be addressed separately.

  Food Initiatives
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the impact that humanitarian aid in the form of food initiatives can have on local markets in developing countries. [135065]

  Hilary Benn
  Food aid can be vital for saving lives during humanitarian crisis but inappropriately used it also has the potential to disrupt local markets, investment and food production. We have not undertaken a general assessment of the impact of humanitarian food aid initiatives on local markets in developing countries recently. However this is one of a number of issues considered by DFID when planning humanitarian aid interventions and when monitoring and reviewing individual programmes.

  Generic Drugs
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action his Department is taking to make generic drugs available for treatment in developing countries. [135186]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK Government are committed to increasing access to medicines in the developing world. The factors recognised by the World Health Organization (WHO) that can improve poor peoples' access are; affordable pricing, sustainable financing, reliable health and supply systems and the rational selection and use of existing drugs.

  Clare Short chaired a UK high level working group on Increasing Access to Essential Medicines in the Developing World. which examined the factors above in detail. The working group made a series of recommendations for action, which are being taken forward by a number of major stakeholders.

  The UK has played a leading role in setting up initiatives such as the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria (GFATM), which supply both generic and patented drugs. We want to play our part in making the Global Fund an effective instrument in the fight against AIDS, TB and malaria and recognise that to do this, it needs predictable and sustainable financing. With this in mind, the UK pledged an additional US$80 million to the GFATM (US$40 million per annum over two further years). This will extend our current commitment to 2008 and bring our total contribution to the GFATM to US$280 million. Our funding will be subject to the GFATM achieving a better financing system, agreed benchmarks to monitor effectiveness, and to improve integration of the fund's activities with national programmes. This is one of a range of mechanisms for tackling HIV/AIDS; the UK also works with other partnerships, such as the Global TB drug Facility, that procure both generic and patented drugs.

  In addition an agreement was reached at the recent World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial conference in Cancun in September that will enable poor countries with no, or insufficient, manufacturing

  491W
  capacity in the pharmaceutical sector to import generic versions of patented medicines. The UK Government worked to secure this agreement and believe it to be a very significant step. The option to use compulsory licensing provides a useful bargaining tool for governments negotiating prices with suppliers of patented medicines and should encourage the latter to reduce prices. We will monitor its impact and work with developing countries to ensure that its implementation helps promote access to essential medicines.

  Global Fund
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the Global Fund's public-private partnership structure. [135182]

  Hilary Benn
  We support the Global Fund's partnership with not only government and the private sector but also civil society and affected communities. We have not carried out any assessment of this aspect of the Global Fund. However, we are now starting a programme of work to look at different aspects of the operation of global health partnerships and the working of public-private partnership structures may form part of that.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the target level set by the UN is for UK input into the Global Fund. [135184]

  Hilary Benn
  The UN has not set a target level for UK contributions to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria. The UN did set a target of $10 billion a year to be spent in on HIV/AIDS in low income, high HIV impact countries in the UNGASS Declaration of Commitment on HIV/A1DS, signed in 2001.

  Recently, UNAIDS (the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS) have produced a report on "The state of HIV/AIDS financing", which estimates that total resources required to combat AIDS will amount to approx US$ 10.7 billion in 2005 and US$14.9 billion by 2007, rising as implementation capacity (physical and human) improves.

  Sub-Saharan Africa expenditure on HIV

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Total contribution (£ million)

  32

  42

  149

  149

  184

  UK GNI (£ million)

  849,900

  896,734

  936,586

  993,770

  1,063,090

  Percentage total contribution of GNI

  0.004

  0.005

  0.016

  0.015

  0.017

  Total contribution (£ million) in real terms using GDP deflators at market prices 2002–03 = 100

  36

  45

  158

  153

  184

  DFID welcomes the fourfold increase of programmed European Community financial support to fighting HIV/AIDS and other major communicable disease to 1.117 billion Euro for the period 2003–06. This is equivalent to 280 million Euro per year.

  The UK Government have full confidence in the EC's HIV/AIDS programmes, and in particular recognises the value of and supports the Community's
  492W
  The UK is making a significant contribution to the fight against AIDS. Our total contribution to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria will be US$280 million by 2008. Most of DFID's HIV/AIDS spending goes direct to developing countries, through Government, NGOs or the private sector. Last year we invested over £270 million on HIV/AIDS related bilateral work. We are committed to increasing our activities and spending over the next five years. We also provide significant contributions to support the HIV/AIDS programmes of multilateral agencies, including the United Nations.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the estimated donation in 2004 to the Global Fund from the UK Government is; and what plans the Government has to increase its funding in future years. [135185]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK has a long-term commitment to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria and recognises that in order to be effective it needs predictable and sustainable financing. The UK recently extended its pledge by a further 2 years to 2008 bringing our total contribution to US$280million.

  The pattern of our disbursements has been agreed with the Global Fund Secretariat—for the financial year 2003–04 the UK has provided £25 million, and for the financial year 2004–05 we will provide £30 million.

  UK funding will be subject to the GFATM reflecting a clear poverty focus, achieving a better financing system, integrating the Fund's activities more effectively with national programmes and meeting agreed benchmarks to monitor its effectiveness. I am pleased to report that good progress was made at the recent 6th Board meeting in Thailand on many of these issues.

  HIV (Sub-Saharan Africa)
  Diana Organ: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the UK's contribution to HIV programmes in Sub-Saharan Africa was (a) as a percentage of GDP and (b) in real terms in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement on EU aid for HIV programmes in Sub-Saharan Africa. [134961]
  Hilary Benn
  The UK's contributions to HIV programme were as follows:

  "Programme for Action: Accelerated action on HIV/ AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis in the context of poverty reduction"

  International Debt
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the proposals for the establishment of an international body to supervise the investment of cancelled debts. [135063]
  493W
  Hilary Benn
  The Government believe that all proceeds from debt relief should be channelled through nationally-owned poverty reduction strategies. These plans, drawn up by the countries themselves, set out how all aid flows—not only debt relief but also grants and loans—will be spent in order to maximise poverty reduction. So far, 46 countries have developed full poverty reduction strategies, and a further nine are in the pipeline. The Government believe that this form of national ownership is important, and that it would be inappropriate to pass this responsibility on to an international body.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what conditions his Department places on aid to developing countries to ensure responsible and sustainable expenditure in future when debt has been cancelled. [135067]

  Hilary Benn
  Debt relief must be linked to poverty reduction. Each country that has qualified for debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries' (HIPC) Initiative must develop and implement a nationally-owned and led poverty reduction strategy. This strategy forms the framework for spending all donor resources, not only debt relief. This improves aid effectiveness and ensures the maximum possible impact on poverty reduction.

  Governments in HIPC countries lead national processes to develop Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), in participation with civil society. These strategies set out the policy act ions Governments propose for reducing poverty.

  Together with the World Bank and the IMF, we have been ensuring that PRSPs are costed and priorities are reflected in medium term expenditure frameworks and the annual budget. Annual progress reports and regular budget reviews provide the principal mechanisms for assuring ourselves that all aid, and savings from debt relief, are channelled in ways that have the greatest impact on poverty reduction.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether the additional funding for reconstruction in Iraq announced on 14 October will come from planned expenditure for the Department. [134487]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: The £248 million committed since the beginning of this financial year has been found without any changes to existing programmes. This includes substantial contingency funding from both DFID and the Treasury's Central Reserve.

  Over the next two years, funding for the reconstruction of Iraq includes £50 million reallocated from planned programmes, together with DFID contingency funding of £115 million and contributions from other Departments. Our Public Service Agreement includes the commitment to increase the share of our bilateral programme going to low income countries to 90 per cent. by 2005–06. As a consequence of the temporary increase in funding for Iraq, which we expect to return to middle income status soon, we will also need to move a further estimated £50 million from middle
  494W
  income country Programmes to low income country programmes. This is in line with our commitment to the 90 per cent. target. The reallocation of planned expenditure should be viewed in the context of a development assistance budget that will increase by £900 million over the current spending review period 2003–06.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when refugee repatriation to Iraq will recommence; and what assistance he is offering the UNHCR to return to Iraq. [135116]

  Hilary Benn
  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has made clear that refugee repatriation to Iraq will begin once conditions have become conducive to their safe and dignified return. The Department for International Development has provided £1.75 million to UNHCR since the start of the conflict to assist with their work in Iraq and neighbouring countries.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when the Baiji oil refinery complex in Iraq will undergo its maintenance phase; and what impact this will have on oil supplies in Iraq. [135123]

  Hilary Benn
  The Baiji refinery provides more than half of Iraq's refined oil products. Major maintenance work on it is much needed and long overdue. According to the Iraqi Ministry of Oil, the most urgent work will begin in December 2003, with one of the refinery's three units being taken out of service at a time. It is expected that the initial focus will be on the gasoline equipment, while keeping the diesel and kerosene plants working as far as possible throughout the winter. Major work is expected to be deferred until the spring in order to allow for additional fuel reserves to be built up. Taking the refinery off-line when demands are high and reserves are low could risk disrupting supplies significantly. Meanwhile, fuel is being imported to help meet current demand.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what efforts are being taken to reduce smuggling of fuel products in Iraq. [135124]

  Hilary Benn
  UK forces are maintaining a long-term presence in the Arabian Gulf to intercept smugglers. Coalition forces have recently been supported by HMS Sutherland and HMS Kent. The UK is also training the Iraqi Riverine patrol service to monitor the Shatt al Arab waterway and Khawr Zubayr. Once trained, an element of this force may provide the core element of Iraqi Coastal Defence force. Measures to enhance border security have been agreed with neighbouring countries and UK forces routinely provide support to Iraq border guards.

  In a recent anti-smuggling operation, from 6 to 26 October 2003 covering the whole of the UK area of responsibility, 291 people were arrested, weapons were confiscated and over 50 vehicles, 28 barges and 12 boats suspected of smuggling oil and copper were detained. Suspected smugglers have been handed over to the Iraqi authorities to face trial. Over 2,000 US troops supported the UK-led forces in Multinational Division South East.
  495W
  This campaign has been supported by the implementation of a legal framework, through CPA Order No. 12 of 31 August 2003, which allows the confiscation of property such as trucks or ships used in the theft of natural resources or state property.

  Fuel prices are low in Iraq compared with elsewhere in the region. Until this disparity is reduced, and the economic incentive it provides is diminished, smuggling is likely to remain a problem.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq is taking to ensure the equitable distribution of fuels. [135125]

  Hilary Benn
  With the exception of kerosene, the supply of fuel in Iraq at the end of September was the best since the cessation of hostilities. This was largely due to extensive imports of gasoline, LPG and diesel by the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraqi State Oil Marketing Organisation. Imports are expected to continue into 2004 while Iraq's refining capacity recovers and the country regains self-sufficiency in fuel. The Ministry of Oil is also working towards establishing adequate reserve stocks to provide a buffer for unexpected disruptions in supply or surges in demand.

  The distribution of fuel is a challenge. Pipelines are susceptible to sabotage and theft, and the dilapidated state of many limits their capacity. Road and rail transport, which is being used to help compensate for these problems, also faces capacity constraints. The Coalition Provisional Authority is taking steps to strengthen security for pipelines and other installations by providing better communications, centralised control systems, a more integrated approach and improved incident response times.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action he is taking to increase the supply of LPG bottles available outside Baghdad. [135128]

  Hilary Benn
  The overall supply of LPG cooking gas in Iraq has improved significantly in recent months, coming close to meeting demand by the end of September 2003. However, efficient distribution throughout the country has been hampered by an over-centralised management system and communications difficulties.

  Management of the distribution system has been improved over recent weeks with the installation by the Coalition Provisional Authority of better communications systems between critical locations, and much closer co-ordination between the CPA and the sections of the Ministry of Oil responsible for distribution.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to his answer of 6 October 2003,Official Report, column 1011W, on schooling in Iraq, whether an assessment has been made of the balance between the sexes of the children taking exams in June and July. [135137]
  496W
  Hilary Benn
  No assessment has been made of the balance between the sexes of the children who took exams in Iraq during June and July. The administrative systems in the country do not at present have the capacity to collect such information.

  Jordan
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what efforts he is making to assist the Jordanian Government in reducing congestion in the port of Agaba and the delays this is causing to humanitarian shipments destined for Iraq. [135115]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is not currently assisting the Jordanian Government. However, we understand that, despite the congestion in the port, the Jordanian Government are continuing to provide support to the World Food Programme to ensure the timely delivery of food and non-food items into Iraq.

  Liberia
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance his Department is providing to Merlin in their effort to provide medical assistance to(a) Zwedru, Grand Geden County and (b) Greenville, Sinoe County, in Liberia; and if he will make a statement. [134454]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID approved a grant of £250,014 to Merlin on 22 September for the provision of health care, and supportive water and sanitation activities in the South and South-East of Liberia. This funding included support to activities in Zwedru and Greenville. On 12 October Merlin began providing health care in Zwedru and distributing essential medicines in Greenville, Sinoe County. Through DFID funding Merlin is supporting the county hospital in Zwedru, and has set up three primary health clinics in the towns of Janzohn, Toe Town, and Zleh (Grand Gedeh County). Merlin is also supporting the Greenville hospital out-patient department.

  Since June 2003, DFID has provided a total of £876,629 to support Merlin's activities in Liberia.

  Malawi
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many people he estimates are living in poverty in Malawi. [134390]

  Hilary Benn
  The most authoritative figure for the proportion of people living in poverty in Malawi came from the 1998 Integrated Household Survey. It estimated that 65 per cent. of the population of Malawi were poor of whom 27 per cent. were classified as "ultra-poor". The survey will be repeated later this year. A UN survey in 1993 estimated that 63 per cent. of the population of about 12 million were poor.

  Mali
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the prevalence of tuberculosis in Mali; and what action he is taking to assist in the treatment of people suffering from tuberculosis in Mali. [135205]
  497W
  Hilary Benn
  According to the Malian National Campaign Against Tuberculosis, the number of reported tuberculosis cases in Mali has risen from 1,886 cases per year in 1995 to 2,757 in 2002. This is partly due to the prevalence of the disease among HIV/AIDS sufferers. The Malian Government have recently launched a fresh initiative to persuade tuberculosis patients to come forward for treatment.

  DFID does not have a direct development assistance programme to Mali. Our assistance is mostly channelled through multilateral agencies, including the EC, and amounted to an estimated £12 million in 2001. However, DFID is playing a major role in supporting tuberculosis control worldwide. We support tuberculosis research programmes at the London and Liverpool Schools of Tropical Medicine, as well as providing significant contributions to the Medical Research Council and the World Health Organisation to tackle tuberculosis and other diseases. We have also committed US$280 million over seven years to the Global Fund to fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM). Decisions on which countries receive assistance are made on the basis of technical merit by the GFATM. Mali has not received support from GFATM for tuberculosis programmes, but will have another opportunity to apply in 2004.

  Maternal Health
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what response his Department will make to the report on maternal mortality published on 20 October by the World Health Organisation, UNICEF and the UN Population Fund; and if he will make a statement; [134466]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of global trends in maternal health; what impact this assessment has made on his Department's funding policy; and if he will make a statement. [134467]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID works with international partners to monitor global trends in progress towards the Millennium Development Goal of improving maternal health and its associated target of reducing the maternal mortality ratio by 75 per cent. between 1990 and 2015. The report on maternal mortality in 2000 published on 20 October by the World Health Organisation, UNICEF, and the UN Population Fund estimates that there were 529,000 maternal deaths worldwide in 2000, with a maternal mortality ratio of 400 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. The majority of the burden is borne in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.

  The report is important in highlighting the magnitude of the problem. Inadequate information systems in many poor countries mean there is a high degree of uncertainty around the estimates and so they are less useful in assessing trends over time. A proxy indicator for monitoring trends is the proportion of births attended by a skilled health worker. Skilled attendant coverage in developing countries increased from 42 per cent. in 1990 to 52 per cent. in 2000 but there was substantial variation between regions. Coverage rose significantly in East and South East Asia and in Northern Africa. It is highest in Latin America, at 85 per cent. In contrast, there has been little progress in
  498W
  sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, where women give birth without assistance from skilled attendants in more than half of cases.

  Evidence from middle-income countries suggests that significant progress can be made through improved access to skilled attendance at birth, timely access to emergency obstetric care in the event of life-threatening complications, family planning services and action to address unsafe abortion. Strengthening the health system is central to an effective response. If poorer countries are to make similar progress, substantially increased action is needed.

  DFID is focusing attention on this Millennium Development Goal. Our Public Service Agreement includes targets on skilled attendance in Africa and Asia. Our approach includes advocacy in the international arena, support to countries to strengthen health systems and maternal and reproductive health services, and support for research and improved measurement tools. Since 1997 we have committed approximately £1.5 billion to support countries to strengthen health systems. In addition we are supporting the maternal health work of international multilateral agencies and international NGOs.

  Reconstruction Funding
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what impact the additional funding for reconstruction of Iraq announced on 14 October will have on his Department's projects for middle income countries. [134486]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: Funding for the reconstruction of Iraq will not affect programmes for middle income countries in this financial year. However, in the light of the needs in Iraq and our commitment to increase the proportion of our direct assistance to low-income countries to 90 per cent. by 2005–06 we will make reductions beyond those currently planned, to other middle income country programmes over the next two years, particularly in 2005–06.

  Final decisions have not yet been taken on where reallocation will occur, However, in order to protect funding for the poorest countries they are likely to involve reductions in planned spending of around £100 million for middle income countries, other than Iraq, over the two years 2004–06. This includes the reallocation of £50 million for Iraq. As a consequence of the temporary increase in funding for Iraq, which we expect to return to middle income status soon, we will also need to move a further estimated £50 million from planned middle income country programmes to low income country programmes. This in line with our commitment to the 90 per cent. target. The reallocations of planned expenditure should be viewed in the context of a development assistance budget that will increase by £900 million over the current spending review period 2003–06.

  Safe Drinking Water
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what reports he has received on(a) the delivery of food aid to Zimbabwe to its

  499W
  final recipients and (b) allegations of its subsequent confiscation by local members of Zanu-PF: and if he will make a statement. [135206]

  Hilary Benn
  The WFP and the international NGOs all provide detailed reports on the distribution of their food aid. An incident reporting procedure has been established by WFP and if there is any politicisation of the food aid the distribution is halted immediately and is only resumed once problems have been rectified. There has been one isolated minor incident reported several months ago when food aid was confiscated by Zanu-PF officials. This was dealt with effectively by WFP and in recent months no such incidents have been reported

  The grain marketing board handles the government's food relief programme and the distribution is largely controlled by Zanu-PF officials, with the army, police and other party officials getting preference.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the World Food Programme's aid programme in Zimbabwe. [135207]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID staff based in Harare maintain very close contact with the world food programme and its operations in Zimbabwe. We are confident that they are implementing an effective programme under very difficult circumstances. The WFP undertake their own internal evaluations of their activities and we review the reports regularly.

  We have recently provided a further £5 million to the WFP for its operations in Zimbabwe and of this £0.5 million will be used to further improve its monitoring and reporting capacity.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of the population of Zimbabwe has access to a plentiful supply of safe drinking water. [135257]

  Hilary Benn
  It is not possible to provide accurate figures as many services are declining as a result of the deteriorating economy.

  According to the national environmental health office in the ministry of health and child welfare (MOHCW), access to safe water in urban areas is above 90 per cent. This figure will be an overestimate as a result of the rapid increase in urban migrations and the rapid increase of un-serviced informal settlements in semi-urban areas (especially Harare and Bulawayo). City councils are having difficulties in procuring water treatment chemicals due to lack of foreign exchange.

  The rural proportion had an estimated 75 per cent. coverage but this will vary around the country. This will also be an over estimation because it does not take account of the distance people may have to travel to get to the water point or the large number of water points that are not operational.

  Somalia
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment his Department has made of the security of deployed aid workers in(a) Somaliland and (b) other regions in
  500W
  Somalia; in what ways the security situation has changed since April; and if he will make a statement. [134755]

  Hilary Benn
  Since it declared independence from the southern Somalia, Somaliland has developed stability and greatly improved security. In December 2002 and April 2003, Somaliland organised successful municipal and presidential elections, which cemented its democratic credentials and helped to maintain security and stability. Unfortunately, in recent weeks there have been three murders of European expatriates in Somaliland including, on 20 October, the murder of two British schoolteachers in the town of Sheikh. There is no hard information on the motives for these killings and we await the outcorne of on-going investigations by the Somaliland authorities. We and the rest of the international community continue to monitor the security situation in Somaliland closely, and we are reviewing our travel. advice.

  Elsewhere in Somalia the situation remains unsettled without any form of effective Government or early prospect of elections. IGAD-sponsored reconciliation talks in Kenya are being reassessed following last week's IGAD Summit and could make progress soon. The region is principally run by armed factions, and there is no guarantee of stability or security there. The UK currently advises against travel to Southern Somalia, where a Kenyan aid worker was recently murdered. UN agencies and international organisations still run humanitarian operations in the south. Somalia has been in a volatile situation since the onset of the civil war in the late 1980s and collapse of the government in 1991.

  Although there have been a number of deaths of Europeans there has been no real change in the overall security situation since April 2003.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many wind turbines have been installed in St. Helena; when it was done; what it cost; how much revenue has been generated; whether the turbines have been economically viable; and if he will make a statement. [135659]

  Hilary Benn
  As a result of earlier studies, which had identified high fuel costs of power generation and significant potential for wind energy, three wind turbines were installed on Deadwood Plain in St. Helena in 1999. The cost, which totalled approximately £300,000, was met by DFID from our development assistance programme to St. Helena. Due to various technical problems, the turbines operated only intermittently until October 2002. Since then, they have not been in operation at all. Although this performance of the turbines has been extremely disappointing, fuel savings totalling some £140,000 did accrue to St. Helena while they were operational. This suggests that wind power should be economically viable for St. Helena, under conditions of continuous wind turbine operation. With further DFID support, therefore, the St. Helena Government has commissioned work to investigate the problems that arose and to propose options for the future. The report, which should be available by the end of this year, will be carefully considered jointly by the St. Helena Government and DFID.
  501W
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when the Government agreed to fund a breakwater to provide safe landing for tourists visiting St. Helena; and when it will be completed. [135662]

  Hilary Benn
  All embarkation and disembarkation of passengers in St. Helena entails transit by launch between the harbour steps at Jamestown and ships anchored offshore. The St. Helena Government's policy, which we fully support, is that safety must be paramount in this process. All reasonable precautions are taken, and are regularly reviewed, to ensure that this is the case; and, on occasions where sea conditions are particularly difficult, passenger transit may be suspended altogether. Past studies have not demonstrated to DFID satisfaction that a breakwater, which could be costly to construct, would substantively improve the situation and/or be justifiable on technical and economic grounds. Although the St. Helena Government remains committed to the concept, therefore, we hitherto have not agreed to fund it. In their current proposals for possible European Union assistance, however, the St. Helena authorities are including plans for wharf improvements and an investigation of alternative options for passenger landing arrangements at Jamestown. We shall be monitoring this proposed work very carefully; and we will keep the matter under regular review, in consultation with the St. Helena Government.

  Crop Dumping
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps the Government is taking to stop the practice whereby subsidised crops are grown in America and in EU member states and are subsequently dumped on African countries. [135062]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government acknowledges the damaging impact that dumping and trade-distorting subsidies have on developing countries' agriculture sectors. We fully support the commitment made at the Doha Ministerial meeting in 2001, which agreed that agriculture negotiations would aim to achieve: substantial improvements in market access; reductions of, with a view to phasing out, all forms of export subsidies; and substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic support.

  The UK has long advocated the reform of the CAP to reduce its trade distorting impacts and to enable farming in Europe to become more sustainable and market focussed. The deal agreed by EU Agriculture Ministers on 26 June this year marks a significant shift in the EU's agricultural policy. The decoupling of subsidies from production should connect European farmers much more closely to the market and have real impacts on reducing excessive production, which results in dumping and harms developing countries. Proposals for reform to other EU commodity regimes, including cotton have been submitted and are currently under discussion.

  The UK is committed to ensuring real reductions in OECD agricultural subsidies, as well as to making progress in other areas of concern not only to African developing countries. These include improving market
  502W
  access for agricultural products and establishing fair rules for special and differential treatment to safeguard food security and rural development in Africa.

  Trade (Africa)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the Institution for the Multilateral Protection of pan-African Commercial Transactions on direct investment in Africa; what regional differences there are; what impact the work of the Institution has had on development(a) throughout Africa, (b) in the regions with the highest increase in direct investment and (c) in the regions with the lowest increase in direct investment; and if he will make a statement. [134422]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has not made an assessment of the impact of the Institution for the Multilateral Protection of pan-African Commercial Transactions on direct investment in Africa. We believe such an assessment would be most appropriately carried out by the World bank who provided a $5 million IDA (International Development Association) loan for the establishment of the Africa Trade Insurance Agency (as IMPACT is also known) in 2001 and as such the initiative will be subject to IDA procedures for assessment and review.

  World Bank Projects
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether it is his policy to support World Bank projects for new roads only when subject to a full environmental impact assessment. [136095]

  Hilary Benn
  All World Bank projects must be subjected to an initial environmental assessment. This determines the environmental category of the project and the level of requirement for appraisal and implementation. All documents are in the public domain in the recipient countries.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps he is taking to ensure that World Bank support for transport projects does not require the closure of railway lines. [136096]

  Hilary Benn
  In considering whether to finance transport projects, it is World Bank practice to conduct a thorough assessment of the alternative modes of transport available, taking into account social, environmental and economic issues.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action he has taken to encourage the Zimbabwean Government to end the ban on importation of grain by private entrepreneurs and other organisations. [135340]

  Hilary Benn
  Given the substantial food aid needs in Zimbabwe, this issue is a high priority. Together with the other major donors (EU and USAID), we are promoting the liberalisation of imports and promotion of the private sector through the UN agencies, and especially the world food programme. Increased
  503W
  liberalisation of the domestic grain markets is also required as the present prices and controls make private grain imports uneconomic.

  The Government's national economic revival programme (N ERP) indicates that the private sector have an important role to play in addressing the humanitarian needs. Government, however, continue to be reluctant to liberalise grain trading and marketing and to allow the private sector a more significant role. If anything, the political initiatives at present tend towards greater control and more controlled prices.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures(a) his Department and (b) non-governmental organisations have taken to assess the (i) nutritional and (ii) food security status of all populations in Zimbabwe. [135345]

  Hilary Benn
  In January 2003, DFID provided £2.58 million to Unicef to undertake nutrition surveys and emergency supplementary feeding programmes in four countries affected by the food security crisis in southern Africa. This included Zimbabwe, where £0.25 million was spent on a nutrition survey. The field work was undertaken in February 2003 and the results were shared with the donor community in June 2003.

  In addition, DFID has been the major contributor to the vulnerability assessments that have been undertaken in the affected countries of southern Africa. These have been used to identify the most vulnerable groups and communities in Zimbabwe. Three assessments were undertaken between June 2002 and May 2003. In addition, we are supporting, together with the EU, the first urban vulnerability assessment in Zimbabwe. This should be completed by the end of November 2003.

  John Snow International-UK (JSI-UK), with DFID funding, have undertaken a survey of households affected by HIV/AIDS in Harare, which included measures of household food security and the nutritional status of children.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Access Officers
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many local authorities employ an access officer; how many do not; and if he will make a statement. [135387]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Under the Disabilities Discrimination Act 1995 local authorities, as service providers, have to consider making reasonable adjustments to the way they deliver their services so that disabled people can use them. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be initiating some research next year to assess local government's performance in meeting the needs of people with disabilities and ensuring that people with disabilities have full access to services.

  Area Investment Frameworks
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the Area Investment Frameworks which have been set up. [134790]
  504W
  Yvette Cooper
  There are 10 Area Investment Frameworks in development in the South East. They coincide with the Priority Regeneration Areas agreed by the Region in producing and implementing the Regional Economic Strategy and comprise:

  Coastal West Sussex

  Brighton and Hove

  Hastings and Bexhill

  Rest of East Sussex

  Isle of Wight

  Southampton

  Portsmouth/SE Hampshire

  North Kent—Thames Gateway

  East Kent

  Channel Corridor Kent—Folkestone/Ashford.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much funding has been granted to Area Investment Frameworks in Sussex; and from what sources. [134791]

  Yvette Cooper
  Funds are currently focused on development of the Area Investment Frameworks (AIF). The South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) provided £220,000 for delivery of the four AIFs in Sussex a figure matched by other publicly funded bodies. In future years it is intended that AIFs will guide existing expenditure of a wide range of publicly funded bodies.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people work for Area Investment Frameworks in Sussex. [134793]

  Yvette Cooper
  Area Investment Frameworks do not have employees as this is a process rather than a structure.

  Arm's-length Management
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact on public finances of money invested in housing refurbishment by (a) an arms length management organisation and(b) a council housing department. [135909]

  Keith Hill
  In 2002–03 local authorities invested around £2.5 billion in investment and maintenance of housing from their own resources and funds provided by Central Government.

  The resource provided for Arms Length Management Organisations (ALM0s) is additional to the resource that the local authority receives through mainstream housing funding.

  The Sustainable Communities Plan published in February announced that for 2003–04 to 2005–06, about £2 billion of additional investment is being made available to councils who set up acceptable arms length arrangements which deliver services which are rated as excellent (3*) or good (2*) by the Housing Inspectorate. This is in addition to the support given in 2002–03 of about £56 million.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact of regulations on the building industry on balancing demand and supply
  505W
  in the housing market; and what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry regarding regulation of the building industry. [121445]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently considering the balance of regulation regarding the housing market and is taking into account the views of other Government Departments and looking forward to the conclusions reached by the Barker Review of Housing Supply.

  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much funding the Government have provided to citizens advice bureaux in each of the last 10 years; what steps he is taking to ensure that the Citizens Advice Bureaux network is resourced to provide services to citizens excluded from conventional financial advice; and what recent discussions he has had with local authorities about the level of funding to citizens advice bureaux. [135874]

  Phil Hope
  This Government value highly the contribution that citizens advice bureaux (CABx) make to local communities. We believe that these services are best provided in a way which ensures that they meet the needs of the local community. Decisions about grant funding for individual CABx are therefore for the relevant local authority to make in the light of local priorities. The Local Government Finance Settlement 2003–04 provided local authorities with some £43 billion of general grant; this is an increase of 25 per cent. in real terms since 1997. In addition to this the Department for Trade and Industry provides funding for the national organisation of citizens advice directly.

  I have not had any recent discussions with local authorities about the level of funding for citizens advice bureaux.

  Council Housing
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what proportion of capital expenditure invested in local authority owned homes is supported by direct Government grant, where the homes are managed by(a) the local authority and (b) an arm's length management organisation: [135195]

  (2) on what basis he has calculated Government-funded remission of interest charges on capital investment made to improve local authority homes managed by (a) the local authority and (b) an arm's length management organisation. [135196]

  Keith Hill
  Housing Revenue Account (HRA) subsidy is calculated for each authority taking account of actual interest costs incurred on borrowing to finance approved capital investment in housing, plus an amount that each authority currently has to set aside to repay the principal. Nationally, the average amount met by HRA subsidy in 2002–03 was some £1.6 billion, 10 per cent. of outstanding borrowing. Arms length management organisations (ALMOs) in Rounds 1 and 2 of the programme are also eligible for additional HRA subsidy, currently calculated at a flat rate of 10 per cent. of assumed additional capital investment by the ALMO. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has proposed 506W
  that these flat rate arrangements, which were designed to provide incentives to authorities setting up the first ALMOs, will be harmonised for future years and brought into line with the normal arrangements for supporting capital investment in housing, based on actual interest rates.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost was to his Department for(a) ministerial cars and drivers, (b) taxis, (c) train travel, (d) the use of helicopters, (e) airline tickets and (f) chartered aeroplanes in each year since 1997. [123077]

  Yvette Cooper
  With regards to the cost of ministerial cars and drivers I refer the hon. Member to the letter sent by Nick Matheson, the Chief Executive of the Government Car and Despatch Agency on 17 September 2003.

  The Government annually publishes the overall costs of all ministerial overseas travel that includes cost of train tickets, airline tickets, use of helicopters and cost of planes chartered for ministerial travel. The next list for the period 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 will be published at the end of the financial year.

  The information regarding the remaining parts of the question is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  Elliott Review
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what account was taken of the Elliott Review of the Area Cost Adjustment when deciding to use the New Earnings Survey to calculate wage rates. [135650]

  Phil Hope
  The Government use the new earnings survey (NES) for the area cost adjustment (ACA). The NES is the best data for the purpose because it is drawn from a 1 per cent. sample of everyone in employment, a far larger sample survey than the main possible alternative the labour force survey (LFS).

  The Elliott review recommended that the LFS should be used as the data source for the ACA. This was on the grounds that the LFS includes data on the educational attainment of survey participants. However detailed occupation data is included in the NES. A report by the Warwick Institute for Employment Research (IER) concluded that the use of the NES for calculating the ACA does not result in any significant bias as a consequence of the inability to standardise for education, because of the detailed information on the occupation and industry of survey participants contained in the NES.

  Housing Market Renewal Pathfinders
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many staff there are, and what the annual running cost in 2003–04 is, of each of the Housing Market Renewal Pathfinders in England; and if he will make a statement. [134610]

  Yvette Cooper
  Currently each pathfinder has the following numbers of staff supporting scheme development and delivery co-ordination; Birmingham
  507W
  Sandwell (seven full-time and four part-time); East Lancashire (three full-time); Humberside (five full-time); Manchester Salford (nine full-time and seven part-time); Merseyside (four full-time); South Yorkshire (10 full-time); Newcastle (nine full-time and one part-time); North Staffs (six full-time); Oldham Rochdale (four full-time and seven part-time).

  Annual running costs in 2003–04 are not yet available. All pathfinders will be using the part of the£2.66 million allocated for preparation of their strategic schemes. Running costs will vary from pathfinder to pathfinder depending on when the schemes are agreed and large-scale implementation begins.

  Newspaper Advertising
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the expenditure of his Department and its predecessors was on newspaper advertising, broken down by title, in each year since 1997; and what estimate he has made for 2003–04. [119167]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created on 29 May 2002.

  The amount spent on press advertising since the creation of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is tabled as follows. This press activity was part of the Fire Safety public information campaign during the industrial action by the fire fighters.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no estimates for press advertising for 2003–04.

  National press

  £

  Title

  Total 2002

  Total 2003

  Total

  Daily Mail

  39,790

  7,958

  47,748

  Daily Mirror

  26,235

  6,559

  32,794

  Daily Star

  6,777

  2,711

  9,488

  Daily Telegraph

  42,270

  10,567

  52,837

  Guardian

  0

  3,589

  3,589

  Sun

  43,725

  10,931

  54,656

  Times

  6,601

  6,601

  13,201

  Independent

  12,960

  2,592

  15,552

  Standard

  2,886

  0

  2,886

  Daily Star Sunday

  2,711

  2,711

  5,422

  News of the World

  22,737

  11,369

  34,106

  Sunday Mirror

  12,418

  6,209

  18,627

  Independent Sunday

  0

  2,592

  2,592

  Total

  219,109

  74,389

  293,498

  Regional press

  £

  Title

  Total 2002

  Birmingham Evg Mail Local

  5,588

  Blackpool: West Lanes Evening Gazette

  2,315

  Bournemouth Evening Echo

  1,393

  Brighton Evening Argus

  1,839

  Bristol Evening Post

  2,277

  Huddersfield Daily Examiner

  2,535

  Hull Daily Mail

  2,112

  Leicester Mercury

  2,535

  Lincolnshire Echo

  1,083

  Liverpool Echo

  4,578

  Manchester Evening News

  2,274

  Manchester Evg News

  4,548

  Newcastle Evg Chronicle

  3,672

  508W

  Regional press

  £

  Title

  Total 2002

  Nottingham Evg Post

  2,535

  Plymouth Evening Herald

  1,653

  Scunthorpe Eve Telegraph

  882

  Sheffield Star

  4,770

  South Wales Echo

  1,842

  South Wales Evening Echo

  921

  South Wales Evening Post

  1,653

  Southern Daily Echo

  1,714

  Stoke Evg Sentinel

  1,929

  Teeside Evening Gazette

  2,560

  West Midlands Express and Star Group

  5,609

  Yorkshire Evening Post (10%)

  2,534

  Yorkshire Post

  1,267

  Total

  66,623

  North-West Regional Assembly
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time staff are employed by the North West Regional Assembly. [135796]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The North West Regional Assembly is a voluntary body. The details of its employees is a matter for the Assembly.

  Spatial Strategy (East Midlands)
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many responses have been received in respect of the East Midlands sub-regional spatial strategy from(a) county and district councils, (b) parish councils, (c) hon. Members, (d) health trusts, (e) individuals and (f) others. [135621]

  Keith Hill
  In total 1,624 responses on the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy have been recorded to date:

  (a) County and district councils—39 responses

  (b) Parish and town councils—134 responses

  (c) Hon. Members (MP/MEP)—6 responses

  (d) Health trusts—5 responses

  (e) Individuals—1,135 responses

  (f) Others (Developers, Action Groups etc)—305 responses (includes 22 from Government agencies and statutory bodies).

  Stamp Duty Land Tax
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact of increases in stamp duty land tax on his policy for urban and high street regeneration; and if he will make a statement. [135614]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have introduced disadvantaged areas relief which provides an exemption from stamp duty land tax for transactions in non-residential land in Enterprise Areas. There are 1,262 wards in England which qualify for this relief, representing the bottom 15 per cent. of the national index of deprivation. The measure provides a major boost to businesses investing in commercial premises in England.

  Suffolk County Council
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 27 October 2003, ref. 134409, what representations he has received from Suffolk County Council regarding the local government finance settlement in the last 12 months. [135792]

  Phil Hope
  In the last 12 months officials received representations from Suffolk County Council on the 2003–04 provisional local government settlement and more recently on the balance of funding review.

  Tenancy Deposit Scheme
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to reform the Tenancy Deposit Scheme to provide for the fast return of deposits to tenants by landlords; and if he will make a statement. [135588]

  Keith Hill
  Following disappointing take-up and having reached the end of Government powers to fund the voluntary pilot Tenancy Deposit Scheme, the Scheme is being wound up. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently considering the lessons from this, and will wish to take into account the Law Commission's review of tenure legislation when it publishes its interim findings on 5 November. Officials will be holding a seminar in December to discuss the case for linking legislation for compulsory measures to the Law Commission's findings.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to issue new planning policy guidance on onshore wind farms. [136194]

  Keith Hill
  A draft of the new Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS22) on renewable energy will be issued for public consultation shortly.

HEALTH

  Food Supplements
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to press for maximum permitted levels for nutrients in supplements to be set at the upper safe level currently applicable in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [134739]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government's view is that the law should permit the sale of food supplements that are safe and properly labelled. The United Kingdom continues to argue for European Union maximum permitted limits for vitamins and minerals in food supplements to be set on a safety basis.

  The Government's position on specific EU proposals for maximum limits will be based on the upper safe levels and guidance levels recommended by the independent expert group on vitamins and minerals.

  Radioactivity in Food and the Environment Report
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive the Food Standards Agency report on "Radioactivity in Food and the Environment", 2002. [134073]
  510W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Food Standards Agency published the report on "Radioactivity in Food and the Environment" for 2002 on 29 October 2003. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  For the first time, this report will contain data from monitoring of radioactivity in food and the environment throughout the United Kingdom. The report is a collaboration between the FSA, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the Environment Agency and the Environment and Heritage Service of Northern Ireland.

  Sexually Transmitted Diseases
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people in each health trust in England are registered as suffering from(a) AIDS and (b) other sexually transmitted diseases; and what the equivalent figures were for each of the last two years; [134478]

  (2) how many current recipients of NHS treatment for AIDS he estimates are not British citizens; [134479]

  (3) what action he is taking to ensure that treatment provided to non-UK citizens for AIDS does not result in inferior levels of treatment for British citizens suffering from other sexually transmitted diseases. [134480]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answers 27 October 2003]: Data on HIV and AIDS for individual health trusts are not held centrally, although data are held by region. The table gives figures broken down according to English region for 2000 to 2002 (the latest available).

  Diagnosed HIV-infected patients for whom most advanced clinical stage reported as AIDS—by region of residence when last seen for care and year of survey1

  AIDS

  Region of residence

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Yorkshire and Humberside (2001)

  n/a

  187

  239

  North East (2001)

  n/a

  78

  94

  Northern and Yorkshire (pre 2001)

  182

  n/a

  n/a

  East Midlands (2001)

  n/a

  I87

  249

  Trent (pre 2001)

  179

  n/a

  n/a

  West Midlands

  190

  252

  308

  North West

  439

  502

  548

  Eastern

  244

  297

  392

  London

  3,323

  3,814

  4,329

  South East

  524

  627

  725

  South West

  209

  242

  255

  England total2

  5,290

  6,187

  7,147

  1 Excludes asymptomatic HIV and symptomatic pre-AIDS.

  2 Includes patients whose region of residence not known.

  Note:

  Regional border and definition changes April 2001.

  Source:

  Health Protection Agency, survey of prevalent diagnosed HIV infections in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (SOPHID).

  Data on sexually transmitted infections for individual health trusts are not held centrally. The table provides data on all diagnosed infections at genito-urinary medicine clinics (excluding HIV and AIDS) according to English region for 2000 to 2002 (latest available).

  Region

  2000

  2001

  2002

  East Midlands

  33,738

  35,532

  37,697

  Eastern

  47,010

  50,742

  54,321

  London

  169,129

  181,367

  186,95

  North East

  19,712

  18,764

  19,325

  511W

  Region

  2000

  2001

  2002

  North West

  56,286

  60,679

  63,268

  South East

  79,685

  81,693

  86,977

  South West

  43,373

  46,573

  49,564

  West Midlands

  40,670

  46,555

  48,860

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  45,070

  49,104

  51,971

  England total

  534,673

  571,009

  598,933

  Source:

  Health Protection Agency.

  Eligibility for free NHS hospital treatment is based on residency in the UK, not on nationality. Anyone who is ordinarily resident in this country is entitled to free treatment, except when there are statutory charges for services, such as prescription charges. Anyone who is not ordinarily resident in the UK may be charged for any hospital treatment they receive, unless exempt under the provisions of the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989. Whether chargeable or not, no one receives preferential treatment for HIV/AIDS or any other health condition on the basis of their nationality, but are treated according to clinical need.

  Data on the citizenship of people who receive NHS treatment for HIV/AIDS are not collected.

  Arthritis
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines the Government has issued to primary care trusts on prescribing TNFa to arthritis sufferers. [133919]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department has not issued guidelines on the dispensing of anti-TNF drugs. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) issued guidance on these drugs in March 2002. They recommended that consultant rheumatologists, or consultant paediatric rheumatologists in the case of juvenile idiopathic arthritis, should prescribe these drugs, in accordance with the guidelines set out by the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) or British Paediatric Rheumatology Group (BPRG).

  The Government expect NICE guidance to be implemented in all areas as expeditiously as possible.

  Ashford (Middlesex) Hospital
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 14 October 2003,Official Report, column 212W, on Ashford (Middlesex) Hospital, what facility is out of commission; and on what date each part of it ceased to be used. [134058]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 23 October 2003]: I must apologise to the hon. Member for an error in my response to him on 14 October 2003, Official Report, column 212W.

  Facilities for the proposed new independent sector treatment centre will be provided by Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals National Health Service Trust but the final solution will depend upon negotiations between the trust and the preferred provider for this unit.
  512W
  Improved capacity managed by the Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust has meant that because of increased throughput of patients as day surgery cases and changes in operating schedules, the trust announced the temporary closure of the Fielding Ward from 31 October for a period of rive months.

  This is unrelated to the proposals for a new treatment centre.

  British Heart Foundation
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding has been allocated to the British Heart Foundation in 2002–03; and for which projects. [133925]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department did not allocate funding to the British Heart Foundation (BHF) in 2002–03. The Department works closely with the BHF on the full range of heart disease policies and values highly its distinctive contribution to preventing heart disease and improving care and services for patients.

  Cancelled Operations
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations were cancelled in England since January; and how many of these were due to delayed discharge. [129487]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data are collected quarterly on the number of operations cancelled by hospitals for non-clinical reasons: at the last minute (that is, on the day the patients are due to arrive or after arrival in hospital or on the day of their operation) and, in 2002–03 only, on the day of surgery.

  Cancelled operations data at England level and by national health service trust and strategic health authority level are available in the Library and on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/ hospitalactivity/data_requests.htm

  The data collected on cancelled operations for non-clinical reasons are not broken down into the reasons for cancellation. Therefore, no data can be provided on how many operations are cancelled due to delayed discharge from hospital.

  Car Parking (Queen Mary's, Sidcup)
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which organisation has the contract for organising car parking at Queen Mary's Sidcup NHS Trust; and what income the Trust has derived from this contract in each year. [134072]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 30 October 2003]: The company responsible for organising car parking at Queen Mary's Sidcup National Health Service Trust is CP Plus Ltd. The agreed annual value was £150,000, which has now altered to £151,029 due to changes in number of spaces available and inflation.

  Cataract Operations
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people are waiting for cataract operations in each trust within the Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority area; [131400]
  513W
  (2) what the latest average waiting time is for cataract operations in each trust within the Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority area. [131401]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answers 14 October 2003]: The Department does not hold any data on cataracts, as only specialty based data are collected centrally.

  However, ophthalmology data as a whole for trusts in the Thames Valley Health Authority area are shown in the table.

  Patients waiting for ophthalmology elective in-patient admission: position at 31 June 2003: NHS trusts within Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority

  Trust code

  Trust name

  Total number of patients waiting for admission

  Averge (median) waiting time in months

  5DK

  Newbury and Community PCT

  256

  3.38

  RBF

  Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre NHS Trust

  0

  n/a

  RD7

  Heatherwood and Wexham Park Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  n/a

  RD8

  Milton Keynes General NHS Trust

  229

  2.02

  RHW

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospital NHS Trust

  2,844

  3.89

  RTH

  The Oxford Radcliffe Hospital NHS Trust

  1,719

  3.02

  RXQ

  Buckinghamshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,009

  2.47

  source:

  Department of Health form K H07.

  Chronic Disease
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he has taken to improve access to treatment for sufferers of chronic diseases. [134803]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Our substantial increased investment in the national health service will have the effect of improving access to treatment for all patients, including those with chronic diseases. Over the years 2003–04 to 2007–08, expenditure on the NHS in England will increase on average by 7.4 per cent. a year over and above inflation—a total increase over the period of 43 per cent. in real terms. This will take the total spent on the NHS in England from £56 billion in 2002–03 to over £90 billion in 2007–08 and lead to better services for all patients.

  Maximum waiting times have fallen over the past few years and will continue to do so. By the end of 2005, the maximum waiting time for a first out-patient appointment with a consultant will fall to three months and the maximum wait for in-patient treatment will fall to six months. This will help all NHS patients, including those with chronic disease.

  We are also producing a national service framework (NSF) for long-term conditions. The NSF, which we hope to publish by December 2004, will concentrate on neurological conditions and also have generic value for people with other long-term conditions and disabilities and will inform the future planning of services.
  514W
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent by his Department on chronic disease sufferers, broken down by main categories of chronic disease, in each of the last six years. [134804]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Strategic health authorities and primary care trusts receive unified allocations to cover the costs of hospital and community health services, discretionary funding for general practice staff, premises, computers and primary care prescribing.

  The level of funding made available for the drugs, staffing and other costs of providing services for patients with chronic diseases are determined locally. It is for strategic health authorities, in partnership with primary care trusts and other local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds to provide health services for their populations, including those with chronic disease.

  Clinical Negligence
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the cost of clinical negligence claims in the NHS for each year since 1997. [134397]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The National Audit Office (NAO) summarised accounts for the national health service (England), show expenditure for claims and associated costs for clinical negligence for each year since 1997 to be as shown in the table.

  £millions

  Amount

  1996–97

  235

  1997–98

  144

  1998–99

  221

  1999–2000

  373

  2000–01

  415

  2001–02

  446

  Changes to accounting policies imposed by the NAO over the years mean that the expenditure amounts are not directly comparable.

  Cost Collection Exercise
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what conclusions he has drawn from the annual reference cost collection exercise about the cost of activity carried out for the NHS(a) by non-NHS service providers and (b) by the NHS. [133717]

  Mr. Hutton
  The 2003 reference cost collection exercise has for the first time included a requirement for the collection of data relating to services provided to national health service patients by the private sector. However, this does not include services commissioned from the voluntary and charitable sectors, and therefore it will not be possible to draw conclusions about the cost of activity carried out for the NHS by non-NHS providers as a whole.

  It is currently anticipated that publication of 2003 reference cost data on the Department's web site, and in hard copy, will take place before the end of November. Publication will be accompanied by analysis and commentary similar to that provided in previous years.

  Dental Access Centres
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each dental access centre(a) the average charge for a missed appointment and (b) the proportion of patients charged for missed pointments. [132297]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on missed appointments at dental access centres is not collected centrally, and we have no information to indicate that any dental access centres seek to levy charges for missed appointments.

  Diagnostic and Treatment Centres
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria were used in selecting the bidders for the first wave of the diagnostic and treatment centres scheme. [133934]

  Mr. Hutton
  The selection of the preferred bidders followed detailed evaluation of the submitted tenders. The evaluation criteria included clinical quality, building proposals, human resources, speed of mobilisation and delivery, affordability, value for money, bidders' corporate structure and price. There was a structured scoring mechanism against each of these criteria and total scores assessed between bidders. All preferred bidders are subject to final contract negotiation and agreement and schemes will proceed only if they provide the required level of value for money for national health service commissioners.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what qualifications are required to fit digital hearing aids; and how many people qualified to fit digital hearing aids are employed by(a) the NHS and (b) the contractors (i) Ultravox and (ii) Ormerod. [133594]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Although there are significant differences between the way digital and analogue hearing aids are fitted, there is no specific additional qualification to fit digital hearing aids. The Institute of Hearing Research estimates that 659 national health service employees have so far been trained as part of the modernising hearing aid services project to fit digital hearing aids. This includes people whose training has so far been cascaded from those trained directly. The

  Under-doctored PCT as at March 2003

  Under-doctored PCT as at March 2003

  Under-doctored PCT as at March 2003

  Eastern Cheshire

  North Sheffield

  Telford and Wrekin

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  Doncaster Central

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  Halton

  Rotherham

  Newcastle-Under-Lyme

  North Liverpool

  Doncaster East

  South Stoke

  Central Cheshire

  Doncaster West

  North Stoke

  South Sefton

  Barnsley

  Lincolnshire South West Teaching

  South Liverpool

  Bradford City

  Derbyshire Dales and South Derbyshire

  St. Helens

  Huddersfield Central

  Amber Valley

  Knowsley

  East Leeds

  Rushcliffe

  Middlesbrough

  Eastern Wakefield

  Nottingham City

  Langbaurgh

  South Leeds

  West Lincolnshire

  Sedgefield

  Calderdale

  Central Derby

  516W
  Department does not collect information about how many private sector contractors can fit digital hearing aids.

  Doctor Numbers
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which primary care trusts have been classified as being in under-doctored areas on the basis of the number of general practitioner principals, or equivalents, per weighted head of the population; what funding is being targeted at these primary care trusts in order to aid general practitioner recruitment; and if he will make a statement. [128903]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health definition of an under-doctored primary care trust (PCT) is that its number of whole time equivalent (wte) NHS Plan general practitioners (GPs) per 100,000 weighted population is less than the national average. As at the March 2003 workforce census the national average was 55.55 wte NHS Plan GPs per 100,000 weighted population.

  The PCTs, which were identified as being under-doctored as at 31 March 2003 are listed as follows.

  PCTs have been given an average cash increase exceeding 30 per cent. over the three years 2003–06. PCTs will be able to use these extra resources to deliver on both national and local priorities including recruiting additional staff in primary care. Guidance issued to PCTs entitled "Shifting the Balance of Power: New arrangements For Managing General Medical Practitioner Appointments" encouraged all PCTs to increase GP numbers, particularly in under-doctored areas. PCTs are also able to recruit additional GPs supported by general medical services non cash limited funds.

  In addition to this increase in resources the following initiatives are also designed to increase GP numbers in under-doctored areas:
  The GP Golden Hello scheme has been implemented nationally. This pays up to £5,000 to new or returning GPs, and £12,000 if they go to work in an under-doctored area.
  Under-doctored areas have also been prioritised in the distribution of the planned increase of 550 GP registrar training posts up to 2004. Furthermore £45 million has been allocated over three years to improve GP training premises and increase capacity in under-doctored areas.
  Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT) aims to deliver modern patient centres premises that will help attract and retain GPs in these under-doctored areas. The Department has earmarked £195 million to support the development of NHS LIFT.
  517W

  Under-doctored PCT as at March 2003

  Under-doctored PCT as at March 2003

  Under-doctored PCT as at March 2003

  North Tees

  Leeds West

  Greater Derby

  Hartlepool

  North Kirklees

  Bassetlaw

  Derwentside

  Bedford

  Newark and Sherwood

  Easington

  Luton

  East Lincolnshire

  Preston

  Oldbury and Smethwick

  Broxtowe and Hucknall

  Chorley and South Ribble

  Rowley, Regis and Tipton

  North Eastern Derbyshire

  West Lancashire

  Wednesbury and West Bromwich

  Gedling

  Fylde

  Dudley South

  Ashfield

  Blackburn with Darwen

  Wolverhampton City

  Mansfield District

  Wyre

  Dudley Beacon and Castle

  Enfield

  Blackpool

  Eastern Birmingham

  Havering

  Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  Walsall

  Redbridge

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  Heart of Birmingham

  Barking and Dagenham

  Stockport

  Rugby

  Hounslow

  Heywood and Middleton

  Coventry

  Greenwich

  North Manchester

  North Warwickshire

  Bexley

  Bury

  Harlow

  Sutton and Merton

  Central Manchester

  Billericay, Brentwood and Wickford

  West Wiltshire

  Bolton

  Witham, Braintree and Halstead Care Trust

  Fareham and Gosport

  Rochdale

  Epping Forest

  Isle of Wight

  Salford

  Castle Point and Rochford

  Portsmouth City

  Tameside and Glossop

  Basildon

  Canterbury and Coastal

  Ashton, Leigh and Wigan

  Southend On Sea

  Medway

  Oldham

  Thurrock

  Dartford, Gravesham and Swanley

  North Lincolnshire

  Tendring

  East Kent Coastal

  Yorkshire Wolds and Coast

  Northampton

  Swale

  North East Lincolnshire

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  Ashford

  West Hull

  Northamptonshire Heartlands

  Shepway

  Eastern Hull

  Eastern Leicester

  Sussex Downs and Weald

  North Tyneside

  Southern Norfolk

  Brighton and Hove City

  Sunderland Teaching

  Suffolk Coastal

  Adur, Arun and Worthing

  Gateshead

  Waveney

  Bexhill and Rother

  South Tyneside

  Great Yarmouth

  Hastings and St. Leonards

  South East Sheffield

  East Staffordshire

  Eastbourne Downs

  Cannock Chase

  Slough

  Drug Costs
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the percentage change in the average cost of drugs purchased by the NHS in each year since 1997. [134396]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The average annual percentage increase in the average net ingredient cost per prescription item for drugs was 4.9 per cent. from 1997 to 1998, 9.0 per cent. from 1998 to 1999, 1.3 per cent. from 1999 to 2000, 3.0 per cent. from 2000 to 2001 and 6.5 per cent. from 2001 to 2002. The average annual increase between 1997 and 2002 was 4.9 per cent. (2.5 per cent. at 1997 prices). Data relate to prescription items dispensed in the community in England.

  Edgware Hospital
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on Edgware Hospital development with particular reference to(a) what diagnostic services and equipment are to be provided, (b) how the hospital will fit into the primary care trust's intermediate care strategy and (c) what plans there are to improve cross health service border usage by residents in Brent and Harrow. [132578]

  Mr. Hutton
  The new Edgware Community Hospital is under construction and is due for completion in the summer of 2004. The capital cost of the project is £35.7 million. The new community hospital will have a range of services, including: out-patients for children and adults, including a range of therapy services, day 518W
  surgery, x-ray, urgent treatment centre with walk-in centre, birth centre, intermediate care services and services for older people with mental health problems.

  Barnet Primary Care Trust continues to develop intermediate care service, which provide support for people in their own home and also in patient and day hospital facilities. Edgware Community Hospital is integral to this strategy.

  Emergency Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals provide(a) acute services and (b) 24 hour accident and emergency services in England. [133726]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In the year 2001–02, there were 187 acute trusts in England, each of which may include more than one hospital that provides acute services.

  In the first quarter of 2003–04, there were 210 major accident and emergency departments in England offering 24-hour services. In addition, there were over 50 single-specialty departments and over 240 minor injury units/national health service walk-in centres.

  Flexible Working
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase(a) childcare options and(b) flexible working times for working mothers within the NHS. [133913]
  519W
  Mr. Hutton
  This Government recognise that to build quality services, the national health service relies upon the skill and dedication of staff, of whom over 70 percent. are women.

  Part-time working and extended maternity leave are well-established features of NHS employment, and have been for some time. However, as part of the drive to support all staff in the NHS, the NHS Plan, launched in July 2000 introduced the Improving Working Lives Standard, requiring a commitment by every NHS employer to offer a wide range of flexible employment opportunities by April 2003.

  The NHS increasingly offers a wide variety of flexible working opportunities for all staff and supports this as a principle in all cases. A central requirement is to deliver practical measures which address the potential conflict between offering people the opportunity to work more flexibly and maintaining continuity of care on a 24 hours a day, seven days a week basis.

  The NHS childcare strategy has provided central funding of over £70 million over three years to develop up to 150 extra on-site nursery facilities by 2004. So far, 140 nursery schemes, including both new and extensions to existing nurseries have been funded. Funding has been provided to help trusts and primary care trusts to employ childcare co-ordinators. The Government have committed a further £100 million to extend the NHS childcare strategy to ensure that the needs of all staff are met, including other forms of childcare for pre-school children and for older children, and to upgrade and subsidise existing NHS nurseries.

  Food Advertising
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to introduce restrictions on the advertisement of food products during children's television scheduling; [134840]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of television advertisements for (a) high fat, (b) high salt and (c) high sugar products on the health of children. [134839]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The regulation of advertising is the responsibility of Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) recently published a review on the promotion of foods to children, which concludes that
  " … this review provides sufficient evidence to show that food promotion can and is having an effect on children, particularly in the areas of food preferences, purchase behaviour and consumption."

  Food is more commonly advertised to children than adults and the foods that are advertised tend to be high in fat, salt and/or added sugars. The majority of children's diets do not meet current dietary recommendations.

  We very much welcome the thorough FSA review. The detailed report is receiving careful consideration. The FSA is holding a wider stakeholder meeting to discuss the implications of the research. We strongly encourage industry to act responsibly when promoting foods, particularly to children.
  520W
  We are committed to improving the diets of children and have a range of action in place, including the reform of the Welfare Food Scheme, action within schools (such as the Food in Schools Programme), the Five-a-day Programme, including the National School Fruit Scheme and work with industry to address sugar, fat and salt levels in the diet (working with the FSA).

  Food Standards
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what regulations are in place governing(a) the quality and (b) the origin of meat served in restaurants. [133896]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: Meat sold for human consumption at retail or in catering establishments has to comply with the Food Safety Act 1990 and regulations made under the Act. These regulations require animals slaughtered in licensed slaughterhouses to undergo veterinary ante-mortem inspection., and their carcasses to be subjected to post-mortem inspection and health marked, if found fit for human consumption, under the supervision of an official veterinarian. There are no specific regulations dealing with origin of meat served in restaurants. However, if origin information is provided it must not be false or misleading.

  Foundation Trusts
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the tot al size is of the funding facility being made available by the Department of Health to meet capital bids by the first wave foundation trust applicants. [133185]

  Mr. Hutton
  There will not be a specific allocation of capital to the financing facility. Monies disbursed will be a function of the aggregate of each national health service foundation trust's ability to borrow under the Prudential Borrowing Code and not of centrally allocated budgets.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether an area specified by an applicant for foundation trust status under sub-section 3(1)(a) of Schedule 1 to the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill may include an electoral area in Wales. [133981]

  Mr. Hutton
  No. The areas for the public constituency in question will be limited to England. However, if a national health service foundation trust's constitution includes provision for patients or carers of patients to be members of the public constituency, patients of that NHS foundation trust living in Wales would be eligible to join.

  GPs
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what circumstances general practitioners can charge British citizens for a consultation. [132769]

  Mr. Hutton
  General practitioners may charge a British citizen for a consultation only if the patient is not registered with the GP's practice under the National Health Service.
  521W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what requirement there is in the NHS for patients to be given prior notice of the retirement of their general practitioner. [132773]

  Mr. Hutton
  Regulations place a duty on primary care trusts to give notice to patients if their registered provider will no longer be able to provide services whether because of retirement or for other reasons.

  Havering Primary Care Trust
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of the Local Investment Finance Trust scheme within the Havering primary care trust area. [133275]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Barking and Havering Local Investment Finance Trust scheme selected its preferred bidder in May 2003 and plans to reach financial close shortly.

  Health Inequalities
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average journey time is for patients to the nearest(a) general practitioner surgery, (b) dentist and (c) accident and emergency unit in each county south of the River Thames. [134875]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 29 October 2003]: The Department does not collect information on journey times to health services.

  Health Services (North-West)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists work in the NHS in the North West of England. [134894]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The number of dentists working in the national health service in the North West of England at 30 June 2003 is shown in the table.

  Number of dentists working in the NHS in the North West of England at 30 June 2003

  North west region

  General Dental Service (GDS)

  2,281

  Personal Dental Service (PDS)

  127

  Community Dental Service (CDS)

  172

  Salaried Service of the GDS

  16

  Total

  2,596

  Notes:

  This data relates to 30 June 2003 except for CDS Dentists. The figures for CDS dentists are from 30 September 2001 which is the latest available data.

  Dentists working in more than one dental service are included in each service, apart from dentists working in both the PDS and GDS who are counted in the GDS only.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been treated in hospitals in the North West in each year since 1992. [134985]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  522W

  North West Region of Treatment (Y08)—count of finished in year admission episodes—NHS Hospitals 1992–93 to 2001–02

  Admissions

  1992–931

  906,614

  1993–941

  945,498

  1994–951

  1,066,424

  1995–961

  1,086,028

  1996–97

  1,677,755

  1997–98

  1,721,164

  1998–99

  1,792,784

  1999–2000

  1,821,111

  2000–01

  1,780,595

  2001–02

  1,667,105

  1 Change in organisation names and codes: previously known as North Western Regional Health Authority (YOP).

  Note:

  Admissions are defined as the first period of in-patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. Please note that admissions do not represent the number of in-patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Health Strategy (Children/Adolescents)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department contributed to the World Health Organisation's discussion forum on the planned strategy on the health of children and adolescents. [133923]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Yes. The Department was represented at the World Health Assembly meeting in May 2003 and the World Health Organisation's Regional Committee for Europe in September 2003, both of which discussed the development of a comprehensive strategy on the health of children and adolescents.

  Hospital at Night Project
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the first report on the Hospital at Night project is due to be completed. [133223]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information about the Hospital at Night project is currently available on the Configuring Hospitals website at www.doh.gov.uk/configuringhospitals. Further information will be made available on the site as the project progresses.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which hospitals are participating in the Hospital at Night project. [133224]

  Mr. Hutton
  The following four sites are piloting the hospital at night concept across adult acute specialties:

  Morecambe Bay National Health Service Trust.

  Wirral Hospital NHS Trust.

  Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust.

  Homerton Hospital NHS Trust.

  The methodology is being extended to maternity and paediatrics, and three pilots have been established:
  523W
  South East London (a sector-wide pilot). This includes:

  Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust

  Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital NHS Trust

  King's College Hospital NHS Trust

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust

  Queen Mary's Sidcup NHS Trust

  The Lewisham Hospital NHS Trust

  Newham Healthcare NHS Trust.

  Morecambe Bay NHS Trust.

  Hospital Machinery
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) ultrasound machines, (b) gamma cameras, (c) x-ray machines and (d) CT scanners the NHS has; in which hospital trust each machine is situated; and what the age of each machine is. [132780]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There is no information held by the Department of Health concerning the location or age of ultrasound scanners or x-ray machines. The latest available published data on locations of gamma cameras is available from a survey carried out in 2000 and is published at: http://www/canceruk.net/reports/ gammadata/gammadata.htm

  There are currently 322 computed tomography (CT) scanners installed in the National Health Service in England.

  A programme to provide an additional 50 machines was announced on 22 May 2003 as well as funding to support a programme of replacement over the next three years. We anticipate there will be approximately 375 CT scanners by the end of 2004, and by December 2006, no CT scanner will be older than 10 years.

  The list of CT scanners currently installed has been placed in the Library.

  Working Time Directive
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what date NHS hospital trusts have to submit plans for the implementation of the European Working Time Directive changes due in 2004. [133222]

  Mr. Hutton
  National health service trusts have been asked to prepare fully costed and robust action plans to their respective strategic health authorities by 31 December 2003.

  Hypertension
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding his Department has contributed towards National Blood Pressure Testing Week 2003; and what targets have been set. [130112]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department of Health has agreed to contribute the majority of the costs for the Blood Pressure Association's National Blood Pressure Testing Week 2003.

  We were aiming for a minimum of 70,000 individuals in England to have their blood pressure checked during the week, but early estimates based upon a random sample of testing stations suggest that the numbers tested were double this figure.
  524W
  Besides the benefit to individuals of knowing their blood pressure numbers, the National Blood Pressure Testing Week helps to extend public and professional awareness of the problem of high blood pressure people through local and national media coverage and promotion of the event.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department is doing to help people with uncontrolled blood pressure. [130116]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Under the proposed new general medical services (GMS) contract general practitioners will be expected to produce a register of patients detailing the percentage with coronary heart disease whose notes have a record of blood pressure in the previous 15 months, and also the percentage of patients with coronary disease, in whom the last blood pressure reading (measured in the last 15 months) is 150/90 or less. The standard for records has indicators for the recording of blood pressure in patients aged 45 and over.

  Additionally, the Department of Health is taking action to help prevent high blood pressure—through our work to improve diet, particularly to reduce salt in the diet, and to increase physical activity.

  Infant Formula Milk
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to ensure that the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations 1995 are being observed. [135036]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 29 October 2003]: Day to day enforcement of these regulations is the responsibility of local authority trading standards and environmental health services. Specific guidance on the enforcement of the regulations has been issued to local authorities by the local authorities co-ordinator of regulatory services. The Food Standards Agency routinely monitors and audits local authority food law enforcement services and provides specific advice on all aspects of food law enforcement, including these regulations, on request.

  Integrated Care Records
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the impact of using the integrated care records system on the time general practitioners spend with patients. [134288]

  Mr. Hutton
  The package of new information technology applications and systems will greatly reduce the requirement for general practitioners to chase test results, referral letters, appointments, process non-standard summaries and information around prescriptions. The wasted time through patients failing to attend appointments will also be reduced.

  There are significant efficiency opportunities for GPs, and the high degree of computerisation across GP practices already collects and maintains much of the data that will become standard.

  The overall result will not be a reduction in the time GPs have available to spend with their patients. Indeed, the availability of accurate and up-to-date information

  525W
  through the integrated care records service will improve the quality of care that GPs are able to provide to their patients.

  Medical Staff
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) general practitioners, (b) hospital doctors and (c) consultants in London are over (i) 45 and (ii) 55; and what proportion of the total these figures represent. [133739]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of general practitioners, hospital doctors and consultants in London broken down by age is shown in the table.

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine, Community Health Services (HCHS) and General and Personal Medical Services: General practitioners, medical and dental consultants and hospital doctors

  England, as at 30 September 2002

  numbers (headcount)

  of which:

  of which:

  All Doctors

  General Practitioners

  HCHS Doctors

  Consultants

  All age-bands

  19,990

  4,727

  15,263

  5,491

  Under 30

  3,823

  187

  3,636

  —

  30-34

  3,667

  559

  3,108

  91

  35-39

  3,242

  646

  2,596

  982

  40-44

  2,637

  750

  1,887

  1,310

  45-49

  2,063

  654

  1,409

  1,086

  50-54

  1,858

  713

  1,145

  895

  55-59

  1,538

  630

  908

  682

  60-64

  831

  357

  474

  364

  65-69

  281

  201

  80

  68

  70 and over

  50

  30

  20

  13

  Percentage aged 45 or over

  33.1

  54.7

  26.4

  56.6

  Percentage aged 55 or over

  13.5

  25.8

  9.7

  20.5

  Sources:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census.

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the efficiency of each Mental Health Review Tribunal English administrative office; and if he will make a statement. [134196]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Each Mental Health Review Tribunal office was examined in detail during the Robert Lee review. Robert Lee reported that each office had regional variations in efficiency and practice, linked to their geographical position and workload.

  The benefits of consolidating the regional offices into one model across two closely linked centres, chime with those set out in the review of tribunals and the independent review of the Mental Health Review Tribunal administration.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the benefits of establishing a single English administrative office of the Mental Health Review Tribunal; and if he will make a statement. [134197]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In 2001, Sir Andrew Leggatt reported to the Lord Chancellor on his review of tribunals. His recommendations included a central administration for all tribunals.
  526W
  In early 2002, Robert Lee undertook a review of the administration of the Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT). He reported in October, and a key recommendation was to reduce the four MHRT offices to one in order to support consistency of practice, systems and use of resources.

  Both reports supported a single administration. Current plans are to rationalise the service over two centres in London. Benefits will be:
  consistency of approach to the management and listing of cases; better and more flexible use of staff and judicial resources; and assurance for the Secretary of State for Health that his statutory obligations are met.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors underlay(a) the decision to maintain the two London offices of the Mental Health Review Tribunal and (b) the timing of the reorganisation; and if he will make a statement. [134198]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The decision to consolidate the administration in the two London offices is based upon the availability of suitable accommodation and the retention of as much staff expertise as possible.

  The timing is part of a project plan to deliver the consolidation of the administrative model by the end of this financial year.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on access to patient records by patients with mental illnesses. [134807]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Access to patient records by any patient, regardless of whether they are mentally ill, must be in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on access to mental health records of patients by voluntary sector bodies providing care to those patients. [134808]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Access to mental health records by voluntary sector bodies must be in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998, common law obligations of confidentiality and other relevant legislation.

  Midwifery
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many student nurses and midwives who left their courses in each year since 2000 as a result of pregnancy did not return after maternity absence. [133013]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what would be the annual cost nationally of(a) continuing the bursary for student midwives who have babies during their studies, (b) paying statutory maternity pay to these students and (c) paying maternity allowance to them. [133014]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not collect information on the number of student midwives who suspend their training as a result of pregnancy. It is not, therefore, possible to assess the cost of continuing to pay bursaries to such students. Similarly, and although students in general are not eligible for either statutory
  527W
  maternity pay or maternity allowance (these being dependent on a woman satisfying qualifying conditions based on employment and earnings), it is not possible to estimate the notional cost of paying either of these to any group of national health service-funded students.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many student midwives and nurses enrolled on diploma and degree courses between 2000 and 2003; how many student midwives and nurses took maternity leave within that period; and how many diploma students, who took maternity absence, were required to repay part of their bursary. [133015]

  Mr. Hutton
  During the period 2000–01 to 2002–03 the national health service commissioned a total of 67,020 nursing and midwifery training places, including post-registration places for those qualified nurses training in midwifery as a second professional registration.

  The Department does not collect information on the number of student nurses and midwives who withdraw from or suspend their training as a result of pregnancy.

  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the number of midwives needed per 100,000 of the population to provide proper safety for mothers and their babies; [133088]

  (2) how many midwives per 100,000 of the population there are in (a) the East Staffordshire Primary Care Trust area and (b) England. [133089]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government has not made any assessment of the number of midwives needed per 100,000 population. The Government expects there to be 2,000 more midwives being employed in the National Health Service in 2006 than there were in 2000. Since 2000, there has already been an increase of 680 midwives in the NHS. As at September 2002, there were 23,249 midwives.

  Information on staff in post figures for primary care trust areas is not available. Information on the number of midwives per 100,000 population in England and Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority is shown in the table.

  Midwives employed in the NHS per 100,000 population as at
  September 2002

  Headcount

  Whole-time equivalents

  England

  47

  37

  Shropshire and Staffordshire SHA

  44

  34

  The Department funded the Royal College of Midwives to produce Birthrate Plus, a tool for assessing workforce requirements in maternity units. It is for individual units and trusts to decide whether to use it.

  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many places are available for midwifery training; and if he will make a statement. [133090]

  Mr. Hutton
  In 2002–03, there were 1.433 pre-registration training places for midwifery; a further 677 nurses entered training for a second qualification as a midwife. The Government is committed to increasing the number of training places for midwifery; the NHS Plan pledged that, by 2004, there would be 5,500 more students entering training for a first qualification to 528W
  become a nurse or midwife than in 1999. Since 1999–2000, there has been an overall increase of 4,249 towards the target, including 418, or 41 per cent., more midwifery training places.

  National Staff Survey
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the results of the national staff survey. [133929]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Commission for Health Improvement is expected to publish the results of the national survey in February 2004.

  NHS Estate
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 14 October 2003,Official Report, column 52W, on the NHS Estate and health and safety, how many (a) beds and (b) patients are normally accommodated within the floor area concerned. [134067]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: This information is not collected in the format requested.

  NHS Senior Management
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trust chief executives there are in England and Wales, broken down by(a) sex, (b) background in medicine, (c) background in nursing, (d) back ground in a profession allied to medicine, (e) ethnic minority and (f) disability. [133514]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are currently 619 national health service trust chief executives in England, of whom 393 are male and 226 are female. Chief executives are not obligated to supply information on their ethnic group, nor on their background. The available information is shown in the tables. The Department does not hold information on disability of NHS trust chief executives.

  Information for Wales is a matter for the devolved administration.

  1 NHS trust chief executives by ethnic group

  Headcount

  Total

  619

  White UK

  348

  White other

  9

  Asian

  2

  Not given

  260

  2 NHS trust chief executives by background

  Headcount

  Total

  619

  Medical

  10

  Nursing

  24

  Clinical other

  11

  Previous NHS managerial

  134

  Public sector

  34

  Private sector

  18

  Voluntary sector

  5

  Finance

  21

  Not given

  362

  NHS Spending Limits
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what total capital spending limits are set for the NHS in the next three years. [133184]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the net national health service capital expenditure plans for 2004–05 to 2006–07 (England).

  Total net NHS capital expenditure plans1, England 2004–05 to 2006–07

  £ billions

  Capital expenditure

  2004–05

  23.4

  2005–06

  24.4

  2006–07

  25.2

  1 Plans as announced by the Chancellor in the Budget, 2002.

  2 colspan="2"Plan.

  NHS University
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the impact on the recruitment and retention of NHS staff which would occur if the NHS University were to require its students to pay tuition fees; [133887]

  (2) for which courses the NHS University is considering charging tuition fees; and what the expected level of such fees is; [133888]

  (3) what discussions his Department has held with (a) NHS human resources managers and (b) trade unions about the impact which charging tuition fees for NHS University courses would have on workforce development; and if he will make a statement. [133889]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: The National Health Service University (NHSU) will provide additional high quality learning opportunities at all levels for people working in health and social care. It will not generally levy charges on students for the learning opportunities offered in its initial roll-out phase. The NHSU is currently working with local employers and commissioners, through strategic health authorities, to develop its longer-term business model, and expects to attract income from a wide range of public and private sources. Any decision to levy charges on NHS staff will take account of the need to increase and widen access to education arid training within health and social care. There will be appropriate consultation on these matters with all the relevant stakeholders, including employers in the sector and trades unions.

  NHS Waiting Lists
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been removed from NHS waiting lists in each of the past three years because(a) they have died and (b) they have been admitted as an emergency for the same condition. [133247]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on Thursday 22 May 2003,Official Report, column 971W.

  Nurse Training
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much(a) time and (b) weighting is placed on hygiene and cleanliness in the standard training programme for an NHS nurse. [132308]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the time and weighting of hygiene and cleanliness training in pre-registration courses is not held centrally.

  Pre-registration nursing education programmes are jointly approved by the regulator, the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), and the relevant higher education institution. While the content must meet NMC and EU requirements, additional content may be included to reflect the employment needs of the local service providers. The current curriculum provides a grounding in nursing that would be progressed by undertaking post-registration training.

  Nursing and Midwifery Council
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many full-time staff were employed by the Nursing and Midwifery Council in each year since 2000; how many of these staff were deployed in processing(a) European applications and (b) other applications; how many applications were received in each year since 2000; what the average length of time was for dealing with applications received in each year since 2000; and how many applications received in each year since 2000 were not dealt with within this average length of time. [132886]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not collect this information. The Nursing and Midwifery Council is responsible for publishing information about its performance.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide a breakdown by country of the applications(a) received and (b) rejected by the Nursing and Midwifery Council in each year since 2000. [132889]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not collect this information. The Nursing and Midwifery Council is responsible for publishing information about its performance on applications it has received for registration and its decisions on those applications.

  Paddington Health Campus Project
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what costs have been incurred by the Paddington Health Campus project on external consultants and advisers in each of the financial years since its inception. [132566]

  Mr. Hutton
  A total of £3.177 million has been spent to 31 March 2003 on advisers' fees for planning the Paddington Health Campus.

  £1.479 million was spent on fees until October 2000 by the former Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Health Authority (on behalf of the West London Partnership Forum) to provide a strategic outline case and an outline business case. These costs include fees forthe town planning application submissions necessary as a component of this process.
  531W
  £231,000 was spent on fees between October 2000 and March 2001 by St Mary's Hospital National Health Service Trust on behalf of the Paddington Heath Campus project, whose partner organisations are St Mary's. the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust and Imperial College London.

  £520,000 was then spent on fees in the financial year 2001–02 and £947,000 in 2002–03.

  Patient Forums
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the results have been of the campaign to recruit members of the public for patient forums; [133927]

  (2) how many of the patient forums he expects to have a full quota of members by 1 December 2003. [133928]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The programme of recruitment to the patients' forums is still under way. We understand the national and local advertising campaigns have elicited a large number of applications, which are currently being processed by the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health (CPPIH).

  The CPPIH is on track for achieving full forum coverage by 1 December 2003.

  Pharmacies
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what framework regulates(a) mail order and (b) internet based pharmacies; what monitoring his Department undertakes of their activities; and if he will make a statement. [135397]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 30 October 2003]: Mail order and internet-based pharmacies are governed by the provisions of the Medicines Act 1968 and, if they provide national health service pharmaceutical services, by the NHS Act 1977. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Medicines Act and related legislation which regulate the sale and supply of medicines. The MHRA does not routinely monitor internet-based pharmacies. However, its enforcement group investigates any allegations of illegal activity of which it is made aware.

  In addition, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain is responsible for inspecting all pharmacy premises for registration purposes under the Medicines Act, including mail-order and internet based pharmacies. Its code of ethics and standards sets out the further professional standards required of remote delivery and on-line pharmacy services including safe and secure transportation and delivery of medicines, patient confidentiality, provision of information and advice and record keeping.

  Portable Oxygen Cylinders
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 2 October 2003,Offical Report, col. 1334W, on medical equipment how many portable oxygen cylinders have been purchased for (a) England, (b) each strategic health authority and (c) each NHS trust under the contract; and if he will make a statement. [132508]
  532W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The national contract is for the rental of portable oxygen cylinders, rather than the purchase. In 2002, a review revealed 18,000 cylinders from the contract were in place in National Health Service trusts in England. Information is not held centrally for each NHS trust or strategic health authority.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the impact on the Adur, Arun and Worthing primary care trust area of his Department's health policies since 1997, expressed(a) in total terms and (b) by expenditure by head of population compared with equivalent national average figures. [134780]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Figures are provided for Adur, Arun and Worthing Primary Care Trust (PCT) and in total for all PCTs in England in 2002–2003.

  It is not possible to provide any historic figures due to the re-organisation of the National Health Service. The Adur, Arun and Worthing PCT has only been in existence for the one year 2002–03.

  Total commissioning expenditure and expenditure per resident head of population is shown—weighted population figures are not available for PCT areas. It should also be noted that the individual and national figures are not directly comparable because the strategic health authorities would have differing commissioning policies in different areas.

  Commissioning Net Operating Costs 2002–2003

  Expenditure in total per head (£000)

  Expenditure per head (£)

  Adur, Arun and Worthing PCT

  209,560

  968.45

  PCTs (England)

  42,387,867

  865.62

  Note:

  2002–03 data remains provisional.

  Sources:

  Primary care trust audited summarisation schedules 2002–03.

  Primary Care Organisations—Resident Populations

  Risk Management
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which hospital trusts have achieved(a) CNST Level 3 and (b) a lower level of compliance. [132383]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on the levels of compliance for the clinical negligence scheme for trusts, as at 31 March 2003, published by the Commission for Health Improvement has been placed in the Library.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS hospital trusts(a) do and (b) do not have a current risk management/quality control system in place. [132384]

  Mr. Hutton
  All national health service trusts have risk management and internal control systems in place.

  As part of statutory reporting, chief executives are required to sign a statement on behalf of their board to the effect that they have reviewed the effectiveness of the system of internal control. This statement is published in the annual report and accounts of every NHS organisation.

  School Meals
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of 4 to 7-year-olds are entitled to participate in the national school fruit scheme; and when he expects this scheme to be in place for all children. [133910]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The national school fruit scheme will entitle every child aged four to six in local education authority schools to a free piece of fruit each school day. Children aged seven or three will also receive fruit where they share classes with children aged six or four. Region-wide pilots for the scheme have been introduced so far in four of the nine English regions, with funding from the New Opportunities Fund, and nearly half of all eligible children in England are in schools that are participating in the scheme. We are examining the practicalities of the scheme through these pilots before rolling it out nationally next year.

  Severance Payments
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many severance payments in excess of(a) £500,000 and (b) £700,000, including all benefits, have been made to NHS executives serving in the areas covered by the Surrey and Sussex and South West London strategic health authorities in the past 12 months. [132385]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Sight Tests
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many free sight tests were given to(a) pensioners, (b) children and (c) others in (i) West Sussex and (ii) England in each year since 1997. [134779]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The table shows the number of National Health Service sight tests paid for in West Sussex Health Authority for 1997–98 to 2002–03. Figures for the number of sight tests by age are not collected centrally. The table shows the number of sight test in the categories "children aged 0 to 15" and "patient aced 60 and over".

  Prevalence of cigarette smoking amongst adults aged 16 and over, by minority ethnic group—England 1999

  Cigarette smoking status (self reported)

  Black Caribbean

  Indian

  Pakistani

  Bangladeshi

  Chinese

  Irish

  General population

  Men

  Current cigarette smoker

  35

  23

  26

  44

  17

  39

  27

  Ex-regular cigarette smoker

  18

  12

  7

  10

  18

  29

  31

  Never regular cigarette smoker

  45

  65

  67

  46

  65

  32

  42

  Women

  Current cigarette smoker

  25

  6

  5

  1

  9

  33

  27

  Ex-regular cigarette smoker

  11

  1

  1

  1

  3

  25

  23

  Never regular cigarette smoker

  64

  93

  94

  98

  88

  42

  52

  Source:

  Department of Health report: 'Health Survey for England—The Health of Minority Ethnic Groups 99' (adapted from table 4.1).

  Available from the internet at:
  http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/doh/survey99/hse99-t4-1.htm

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where the smoking cessation co-ordinators in post at 31 March 2002 were based; and how many smoking cessation co-ordinators are in post. [133914]
  534W
  Eligibility to N HS sight tests was extended to those aged 60 and over from 1 April 1999. There was an increase of 2.4 million sight tests between 1998–99 and 1999–2000 in England. It is fair to assume that the vast majority of this increase was due to newly eligible people aged 60 or over obtaining NHS sight tests.

  However, some patients aged 60 and over will be eligible for sight tests for other reasons as well, for example, on income grounds. The classification for such patients will depend on the patient and the practitioner. The increase in the number of sight tests for those over 60 may therefore reflect an increasing awareness of the eligibility of over 60s.

  General Ophthalmic Services: Number of sight tests paid for in West Sussex Health Authority and England for the year's 1997–98 to 2002–03

  Thousands

  Year

  Sight tests for children 0 to 15

  Sight tests for those aged 60 and over

  Sight tests for other categories

  Total number of sight tests

  West sussex

  1997–98

  34.0

  -

  -

  95.4

  1998–99

  39.1

  -

  -

  97.3

  1999–2000

  34.5

  73.7

  41.0

  149.3

  2000–01

  36.5

  77.4

  40.5

  154.4

  2001–02

  36.5

  84.2

  31.6

  152.3

  2002–03

  30.7

  89.5

  34.8

  155.0

  England

  1997–98

  2,385.5

  -

  -

  6991.3

  1998–99

  2,458.9

  -

  -

  6992.3

  1999–2000

  2,425.7

  3,301.4

  3,672.3

  9399.4

  2000–01

  2,404.0

  3,753.3

  3,409.8

  9567.1

  2001–02

  2,374.9

  4,013.0

  3,419.5

  9807.4

  2002–03

  2,284.4

  4,135.7

  3,242.0

  9662.1

  Note:

  Data on elegibility category is derived from a 2 per cent. sample.

  Smoking
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the incidence of smoking is in the UK, broken down by ethnic origin. [133246]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not available in the form requested. The available data are shown in the table.

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  On 31 March 2002, there were 109 smoking cessation co-ordinators (whole time equivalent) in post in the former health authorities. Further information is not available.
  535W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding has been allocated for the campaign to highlight the dangers of smoking(a) in 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05. [133915]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  To date, a total of £24,103,130 has been committed to the tobacco information campaign in 2003–04. The final total for this year is not yet available and the sum allocated for 2004–05 has not been set.

  Private Patients
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total amount invoiced to private patients by NHS trusts was in each of the last five years. [135911]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not keep any information relating to such invoices.

  Social Care
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the running cost of the General Social Care Council was in each of the last five years. [134809]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The General Social Care Council has only been in operation since October 2001. Its operating costs were £4,034,000 in the financial year 2001–02 and £9,786,000 in the financial year 2002–03, its first full year of operation.

  NHS Trusts within London who have shown an increase in their elective in-patient admission list in comparison with their over 12 month waiters

  August 2001

  August 2003

  Difference over time

  NHS trusts

  Total list

  Over 12 month waiters

  Total list

  Over 12 months waiters

  Total list

  Over 12 month waiters

  Barnett & Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust

  7,575

  601

  8,513

  0

  938

  -601

  Bromley hospitals NHS Trust

  5,576

  l47

  5,610

  0

  34

  -147

  Chelsea & Westminster Hospitals NHS Trust

  2,873

  52

  2,927

  0

  54

  -52

  Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust

  5,592

  179

  6,314

  0

  722

  -179

  Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust

  2,136

  34

  2,171

  0

  35

  -34

  Lewisham Hospital NHS Trust

  3,839

  400

  3,927

  0

  88

  -400

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust

  2,564

  0

  3,302

  0

  738

  0

  Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Trust

  83

  0

  291

  0

  208

  0

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) average and (b) maximum waiting time in (i) England, (ii) each strategic health authority and (iii) each NHS trust for CT scans in each of the last six years. [132781]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Data is not collected centrally on waiting times for computed tomography (CT) scans. The length of time that a patient may have to wait for a scan is dependent on their clinical condition. Emergency cases need to be seen immediately. Other cases will be
  536W
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are employed by the General Social Care Council. [134810]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The General Social Care Council currently employs 119 members of staff: 113 full-time and six part-time.

  Waiting Lists
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were on in-patient waiting lists for(a) Hull Royal Infirmary and (b) Castle Hill Hospital in the last month for which figures are available. [132524]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 16 October 2003]: Information relating to individual hospital sites is not held centrally. However, as at 31 August 2003, 10,349 patients were waiting for elective inpatient admission at the Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals National Health Service Trust, none of whom had been waiting for more than 12 months.

  Source:

  Department of Health.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list hospital trusts in London which have experienced an increase in(a) in-patient, (b) out-patient and (c) total waiting lists in the past two years. [133746]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not collected centrally on the total out-patient waiting list in London. National health service trusts which have shown an increase in their elective in-patient admission waiting lists are shown in the table.

  carried out as quickly as possible, dependent on the clinical priority of all patients waiting to be scanned.

  Where a CT scan forms part of the diagnostic process for a patient urgently referred with suspected cancer, this will be covered by the target of a maximum two months wait from urgent referral to first treatment, which will be in place for all cancers by the end of 2005.

  The Cancer Capital Modernisation Fund and the NHS Cancer Plan has provided funding for 200 new and replacement CT scanners to increase the capacity of diagnostic services by 2004.

TRANSPORT

  Disability Discrimination Act (Rail Provisions)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  The Government today published a consultation paper on its proposals to amend the rail provisions in Part V of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA). The consultation period will end on Monday 26 January 2004.

  Amending the rail provisions of the DDA was one of the recommendations made by the Disability Rights Task Force (DRTF) in their report "From Exclusion to Inclusion". The Government have accepted the DRTF's recommendations on transport. This consultation process fulfils the commitment to take forward the recommendations for the introduction of an end date by which all rail vehicles must comply with the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998 and regulations covering the refurbishment of rail vehicles.

  The consultation also takes the opportunity to invite views on a number of associated issues that affect the operation of the rail provisions of the Act. These additional issues, which include changes to the enforcement regime and the removal of the requirement for exemptions to be granted via statutory instrument, were not covered in the DRTF report.

  As rail services are not devolved, this consultation will cover England, Scotland and Wales.

  Copies of the consultation document have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Housing Benefit
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)
  Deductions from eligible rent for heating and hot water were not increased in the 2003 uprating Order (S.I. 2003/526) from £1.15 to £1.20 as was indicated in the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, Mr. Andrew Smith, on 18 November 2002,Official Report, column 365. Eligible rent forms part of local authorities assessment of Housing Benefit.

  The annual DWP uprating circular quoted a deduction rate of £1.20, which means that some housing benefit recipients will have been underpaid. Local authorities are being advised today of the issue and are being advised to take corrective action on affected cases, and that they should consider how best to take that action given their individual circumstances.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Regional Referendums
  The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I will be launching an information campaign in the North East, North West and Yorkshire and Humber on 3 and 4 November. This campaign will explain to voters the issues around the referendums on regional assemblies and the associated local government changes, which we expect to be held next autumn. Further events will be held over the next year. Copies of the voter friendly leaflet are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Voluntary and Community Sector
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart)
  I am pleased to announce that the Government and the voluntary and community sector will be celebrating the fifth birthday of the Compact on Relations between Government and the sector with Compact Week from 3 to 9 November. The Compact is the partnership agreement for improving our relationship. Since the Compact was launched in 1998, this has been followed by five Codes of Good Practice (on consultation, funding, black and minority ethnic organisations, volunteering and community groups), and Local Compact Guidelines. Progress is being achieved across Government and the Sector in implementing the Compact and Codes. We have been working with Local Government and the majority of local authority areas are now covered by a Local Compact, also involving other local public sector bodies, for building on relationships at local level.

  We need to build further on the achievements to date by continuing to promote the Compact and good working practice between Government and the sector, and the sector's activity. Compact Week is an excellent opportunity to take steps to encourage greater awareness and make the Compact a reality across the breadth of Government and the voluntary and community sector.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Iraq (Madrid Donors' Conference)
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn)
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Donors' Conference on Iraq held in Madrid on 23 and 24 October. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Baroness Symons also attended.

  The Conference was opened by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. A total of 73 countries attended, along with 20 international organisations and 13 non-governmental organisations. The Iraqi Governing Council was represented by their President, Dr. Ayad Allawi, and a number of other members. Iraqi Ministers also participated. The Conference was characterised by a strong and visible Iraq presence, as well as by a sense

  25WS
  of the international community coming together to focus on how it can help Iraqis secure a stable and prosperous future.

  Over US$33 billion in grants and concessional loans was pledged towards Iraq's reconstruction for the period 2004 to 2007, significantly exceeding expectations. $20 billion was pledged by the USA, $5 billion by Japan, $3 billion-$5 billion by the World Bank, $2.5 billion by the IMF, and the rest by other bilateral donors, mainly from European and Arab countries. Additional pledges were made by way of export credits and assistance in kind.

  In addition to the finance committed at Madrid, Iraq's investment needs are expected to be met increasingly by oil revenues, foreign direct investment
  26WS
  and commercial lending once Iraq's debts have been rescheduled through the Paris Club. Another donor meeting could be called in the future if necessary.

  As set out in my statement to the House on 14 October, I pledged £296 million over the next two years on behalf of the United Kingdom, bringing our total commitment in Iraq since April 2003 to £544m. This commitment will not result in any reduction in DFID's planned development expenditure for low income countries, or affect our commitment of £1bn for Africa by 2005–06. Nor will it result in any reductions to existing programme commitments in the current financial year.

  The Conference Chair's Conclusions can be found on the Conference website: http:// www.comisionadoiraq.org/donors/index_ing.htm

  My speech to the Conference is on DFID's website: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

Civil Service: Draft Bill
Lord Sheldon Lord Sheldon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, as the Wicks committee recommends, the draft Bill on the Civil Service will receive pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in their response to the ninth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Government made it clear that they are committed to publishing a draft Bill as a basis for further consultation. The Government recognise that there will be wide interest in both Houses on this important constitutional issue. There will be full consultation with both Houses, but the exact mechanism for consultation has yet to be decided.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, is he aware that last Wednesday, at a conference which I attended, Sir Andrew Turnbull, the head of the Home Civil Service, replying to Sir Nigel Wicks, said that we might not even have a Civil Service Act, since it had to compete with other legislative priorities? But it is the Civil Service which enables the Government to function, and there must be some urgency to get it right. Is my noble friend aware that any failure to give this reasonable priority may give rise to suggestions that the Government do not really want a Civil Service Act?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is a matter of public record that we have agreed that we will await the publication by the Select Committee on Public Administration of its draft Bill and that the Government will produce a draft Bill for consultation with both Houses of Parliament. Obviously, it would be wrong of me to give an assurance from the Dispatch Box regarding when there will be space in the Government's programme for such a Bill. However, the Government are committed to ensuring that there is a draft Bill for full consultation.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, in the past the Government have said that the status and functions of special advisers would be dealt with in a Civil Service Bill. It is high time that such a Bill came forward and their functions were made clear.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I repeat that we are of course committed to providing the opportunity for full consultation on the content of the Bill. No doubt that.
512
is one of the subjects on which we shall require further consultation. Obviously, we are listening and we can hear that there are many calls for such an issue to be dealt with in the Bill.
Lord Peston: My Lords, while entirely accepting that my noble friend cannot commit the Government to anything in the Queen's Speech at this point, does he accept that many of us strongly believe, as my noble friend Lord Sheldon pointed out, that this is a matter of some urgency, especially given what we have learned from the Hutton inquiry about the current state of the Civil Service? I should have thought this really needs dealing with in the near future.
Secondly, my noble friend Lord Sheldon is entirely right and would receive enormous support for his proposal that a Joint Committee of both Houses should subject any such possible legislation to pre-legislative scrutiny.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that pre-legislative scrutiny is appropriate in this case, and that is what we are committed to seeing. We await the Public Administration Select Committee's publication of its draft Bill. We will look at it very closely and consider bringing forward our own draft Bill so that we can have consultation on those subjects that noble Lords feel are so urgent, a view with which I entirely agree.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if we remove from their record the constitutional machinery of government reforms which were agreed with the Liberal Democrats before they came to office, the Government's record of constitutional reform would be truly appalling? Does he further agree that the urgency of Civil Service reform and the common sense of the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, would make a radical Government reply, "Yes, sir, and we would like you to chair such a committee"?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think I agree with the noble Lord when he said that the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, had a great deal of common sense. However, I am not sure that I can agree with much else that he has said this afternoon.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if the result of the widespread consultation showed that the proposals in the draft Bill, or something akin to them, were regarded as both necessary and urgent, the Government would also feel obligated to regard them as being necessary and urgent?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I would be foolish if I did not agree with the noble Lord that there is a head of steam building up behind—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I ask the Minister please to face this way when he is speaking, because we cannot hear what he says when he politely turns round to speak to the questioner?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness; I did not mean her, or the Benches in front, any discourtesy.

513
There is a head of steam building up behind this. We recognise the urgency of the issue. We want to get it right and we want to consult. Of course the matters that the noble Lord raised with regard to a Civil Service Bill are very important.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate the irony that his noble friend Lord Sheldon said in his supplementary question that it was the Civil Service which enabled the Government to function, whereas many of us have had the impression that when anything went right, it was Ministers who took the credit?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that all governments like to claim they have got things right when things go right.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, our Benches support the concept of a Civil Service Bill, as the Minister knows, and also that of a Joint Committee on pre-legislative scrutiny. Is he aware that the Government give the impression, and have done so continuously in debates on this subject, that they do not want the Bill and intend to do very little about following up the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, about a Joint Committee? Why have they given that impression?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, excuse me if I am wrong, but I recall that there was a rather barren period of 18 years when this issue was not on the agenda at all. I have made it plain, as I know previous responses from the Government Benches have done, that we accept the case in principle for legislation. I will go on repeating that because I believe it to be the case, and it is the case.

Electricity Supply
2.42 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that there are adequate arrangements in place to deal with any deficiency in the supply of electricity that may occur in the coming winter.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as previously indicated to the House, in its recent report on winter operations, National Grid Transco said that it would like a bigger "safety cushion" of generation if the most onerous conditions occur together. National Grid, as systems operator, is best placed to make that assessment. Since the report was published, the safety cushion has grown, as generators have returned mothballed plant and are making plans to return more. Arrangements are in place to deal with shortages of supply and those are regularly tested.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, unusually, I can say that there is some comfort to be had from that
514
Answer. Is the system still in being that the grid used to run, with systematic load-shedding and voltage reductions when it became necessary? Has it recently been tested to discover whether it would be reliable if were used again?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am in danger of giving reassurance to the noble Lord twice in the space of a few minutes, which is some new kind of record from these Benches. I assure him that the system is tested regularly, not least because there have been one or two incidents of breakdown of supplies in the past couple of months, of which noble Lords will be aware. Those breakdowns resulted not from shortage of capacity but from technical problems, which are being investigated. A thorough investigation is taking place, and the Minister has asked to see the reports.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the Minister recall that when the electricity supply industry was nationalised under the CEGB, the winter margin of capacity was 35 per cent? When the industry was privatised under the previous government and the electricity pool set up, it was of the order of 27 per cent. Now, it is said to be of the order of 17 per cent, which, allowing for outages, could come down to 13 per cent. Is that not a dangerously low level at which to enter the winter?
Furthermore, with the likely withdrawal of nuclear and coal-fired stations within the next few years, will not the gap seriously widen? What are the Government's plans to fill the capacity gap?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord will recognise that the figure of 35 per cent excess capacity in the distant past was probably a wider margin than the industry needed to rely on. The margin is not now 17 per cent but 18 per cent and rising, as two mothballed plants are coming on stream. Our advice from Transco and those involved in the security of supplies is that that margin is adequate to meet the conditions foreseen for this winter.
More generally, the noble Lord is right in saying that we must address ourselves to changes in electricity supply over the next decade and beyond. Of course, the Government are following strategies that guarantee security of supplies for the future.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I will not ask a technical electrical question, although I served on the London Electricity Board. What sort of safety cushion is there for human beings, particularly the elderly, who will suffer severely from breakdowns, which occur all the time, no matter what precautions are taken? What is being done to identify people who would be particularly vulnerable to hypothermia if there were a breakdown in the power system?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is an important consideration. As the House will know, certain categories of people, particularly those who are ill in hospitals, have the additional protection of the spare electricity generating capacity in our hospitals. However, there is a problem with regard to home use

515
and, if a failure occurred, it would have drastic consequences for numbers of people. The elderly are less able to cope.
That is why it is absolutely essential for us to address ourselves to the necessary spare margin, as the Government have done in recent months. We have the reassurance that we are increasingly returning mothballed plants to service to hit the margin necessary. Any faults with regard to th2 system—and as I said a moment ago, the two faults mentioned resulted from technical faults—are being addressed as rapidly as possible.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, this issue is now being debated for the second time in the past two weeks. Since the last occasion when the matter was raised, widespread concern has been expressed by the industry itself over the practicality of bringing stations out of mothballs and their working satisfactorily. There is a widespread view in the industry that we shall run into shortages, as has happened Italy and America. What are the Government doing to counter those specific arguments from the industry and the experts involved in it?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the North American calamities were to do not with security of supply but with technical faults in the system. We have sought to learn lessons from their failures. The small difficulties that we have had—although I am aware of the consequences for people at the time, they were very short-lived, and involved a relatively small amount of the national grid transmission—have been addressed, and lessons have been learned from them.
As for the industry, let me reassure my noble friend that it was necessary for National Grid Transco, as the people best placed to assess our needs, to signal to the industry that it would like a wider cushion of security and safety for generation. That has resulted in plants coming back on stream. The signal was sent out and the response has been produced.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, the noble Lord said that we now have reserve capacity of 18 per cent but that he has two other plants coming on-stream. Can he give us the new government target for reserve capacity?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the capacities are ranged between 15 per cent and 20 per cent. Over recent weeks we have moved closer to the upper end of that range of security, as we have sought to do. That is why I am able to respond with such confidence to the House.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the emergency supplies held by hospitals. Will he confirm that it is some time since emergency supplies for London Underground were scrapped? Is he confident that that is a safe way in which to run the London Underground should a power cut for whatever reason affect the system?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the decision to end the separate generating capacity for London
516
Underground reflected a decision on whether to renew some very aged plant at very considerable cost or whether the Underground could be sustained by supplies from the National Grid. Everyone concerned has been reassured that the National Grid can provide adequately. As the House will recognise, people had acute difficulty at the end of August when one generator failed to provide to the National Grid. Although that technical breakdown could have occurred in any part of the system, it was London Underground that suffered at that time. As I said, however, my honourable friend Stephen Timms, the Minister in another place, demanded a report on what went wrong on that occasion. That report is now being analysed.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the National Grid is resistant to any single-point act of God or terrorist attack?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the National Grid is able to provide electricity according to demand and its ability to transmit that energy. As for other intruding factors, I cannot foresee them; nor, I think, can the National Grid.

Influenza
2.52 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What support they are giving to research in the United Kingdom aimed at reducing the effects of influenza in the population.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, the Government support a variety of research on influenza, all with the aim of reducing the impact of influenza on the population. It ranges from work on understanding the virus itself to development of new vaccines and improving implementation of existing immunisation programmes, to reducing the impact of a future influenza pandemic.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Does he recall a time some years ago when the effects of the anti-flu inoculation seemed as bad as the flu itself and when my noble friend Lady Trumpington, who was then a Minister, was giving wise precautionary advice from the Front Bench? Are the Government confident that a flu epidemic will not occur this winter?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we can never be sure what the future holds, but we know that early results from the Australian winter do not suggest that there will be a flu epidemic this winter. We have to watch and wait, which is why we have careful surveillance operations in place.

517
We also know that the strain of vaccine being used this year has reasonably beneficial effects in dealing with the new strain that may be coming from Australia.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I assume that the Minister is referring to the H3N2 strain of the flu vaccine.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, no doubt the Minister's notes will confirm that. Can the Minister assure the House that the NICE guidance on the use of Relenza is being fully implemented across the NHS?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to tell the noble Lord that the strain that is currently coming from Australia is the H3N2—the Fujian-like strain, which represents a slight variant on the (H3N2) Panama strain which was included in last year's vaccine. I hope that the noble Lord feels much better for that. I think that the noble Lord knows the Government's policy on NICE guidance. Our expectation generally is that the guidance will be implemented in the NHS within a three-month period.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord just took comfort from what was happening in Australia in its current winter. Is he really saying that what happens on the other side of the Earth is of relevance to here?
Lord Warner: My Lords, having watched the England rugby team, I do not have total confidence about what is happening in Australia. We have seen a tendency for flu strains that occur in winter in the southern hemisphere to move to this country over time. That is the only point that I was trying to make.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if the triple vaccine is absolutely safe, free from the fear of autism, why do we have a vaccine damage Act?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I did not say that. No drug is without some risk if it is to be effective, as I think noble Lords realise. That is why we have a licensing authority and why we have reasonable confidence in the safety of that licensing authority's decisions.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government are supporting research into live attenuated intranasal virus rather than injected virus, and whether they are concerned at the uptake of pneumococcus vaccine by those who are particularly at risk?
Lord Warner: My Lords, on the intranasal vaccine, we are watching and awaiting the experience in America where there seem to be promising early signs. Pneumococcal vaccine is, of course, a self-vaccine. This year we have extended the policy so that people aged 80 and over receive the vaccine. The take-up has been good and we are improving supplies from Germany.
Earl Howe: My Lords, did the Minister see in the Financial Times of 31st October the remarks of the
518
editor of the British Medical Journal, who suggested that the Government's emphasis on short-term targets was diverting resources away from basic clinical research? What is his view of that statement?
Lord Warner: My Lords, my view of that statement is rather wide of this particular Question.

Horses: Export for Slaughter
2.57 p.m.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have and, following the implementation of European legislation, will continue to have sufficient powers to prevent the export of live horses for slaughter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government share the concerns that many people have about the welfare of horses. We are reviewing the options available to us in the light of proposals for new European rules on animal welfare during transport to achieve controls that are similar in effect to those in our current rules.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. He will be aware of the concern expressed, for example, by the International League for the Protection of Horses on these issues. However, more specifically, is there not a danger that the protection which the Government have previously been able to extend to horses, in particular by means of the minimum value legislation and so on, is in danger unless the European draft regulations are amended or unless we manage to obtain a further derogation of the kind that we have previously enjoyed? Will the Government do everything possible to suggest and achieve suitable amendments or a suitable derogation?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is important to recognise that there never was—as I think the noble Lord recognises—a direct ban on export for slaughter. That was achieved largely through the minimum value regulations, the part of our regulations remaining in force before the Europeans legislated on the matter. It is also important to recognise that the European proposals as a whole provide for enormously improved welfare not only for horses in transit from this country but for horses throughout the Continent where there are much worse incidents of welfare transgression than there are in transport from this country. However, the noble Lord is correct that the minimum value regulations would fall if the present

519
European draft were adopted. We are therefore seeking an alternative approach with the Commission and the industry.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the British people regard horses as friends and companions and not as food and that they do not wish to cause unnecessary suffering and cruelty to their friends?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think we all recognise the special affinity that many in Britain have with horses. Therefore, it is important that we do everything we can to protect their welfare. Of course, the horse passport system, which was not uncontentious in this House, would provide some significant additional protection against horses being exported for slaughter.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as a past vice-president of the ILPH, I hope that the Minister will look beyond Europe because one of the worst trades in horse flesh originates in South America and probably enters Europe through Italy, and the conditions are an utter disgrace.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am aware of those problems. It is important to recognise that we are legislating on a European level but the European legislation would relate to any animals which were landed within Europe.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the horse passport scheme. Does he accept that under the current proposals that scheme would encourage the export of live horses to Europe, whereas the previous option; that is, issuing passports only for horses that are entering the food chain, would discourage the live export of horses to Europe?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Viscount is entirely wrong. The whole point about the horse passport scheme, and the reason much of the horse industry has supported it, is that every owner of a horse; can make the declaration that his horse is not destined for consumption as food. Therefore, once the horse passport system is in place it acts as a disincentive to try to use the new rules to export horses from here for slaughter and for the food chain.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the noble Lord can share all the concerns of my noble friend Lord Higgins as much as he likes and the Government can review all the options available as much as they like, but will he confirm that this is an area:hat has been handed irrevocably to the qualified majority vote in Brussels? There is absolutely nothing we can do about it if we are outvoted. If the corrupt octopus in Brussels wishes to proceed in the way it intends, we have nothing more to say.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I indicated earlier, the result of the corrupt octopus in Brussels—as the noble Lord defines it—taking on this responsibility is that the welfare of horses throughout the Continent will be seriously improved whereas we could affect only the very small trade across the Channel by our own rules. The concern in this country, and that of the organisation to which the noble Baroness has just referred, is the welfare of horses throughout the world. The European rules, and the enforcement of such rules across Europe, will make a big difference to that.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am genuinely puzzled by the noble Lord's reply with regard to the proposal to introduce horse passports. In what way will the introduction of those passports enable the Government to prevent the export of live horses for slaughter?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I just indicated, the horse passport scheme will require every owner of a horse to declare whether or not that horse is destined for slaughter. I am confident that the vast majority of owners of horses within the United Kingdom will so declare. That means that no horse could be exported for slaughter legitimately from this country.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, following the noble Lord's response to my noble friend, there are only about 10,000 to 12,000 horses exported each year from this country for human consumption. How will the measure stop that because those people who want to export live horses will still export them whether or not they need a licence? I do not quite see how the Minister's response has overcome that problem.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the vast majority of horses that are exported and appear in the statistics are not exported for slaughter or for the food chain. The vast majority are exported for sporting and recreational purposes. In the past horses that were on the face of it exported for recreational purposes may have been diverted into the food chain or used for nefarious purposes. However, under the horse passport scheme the receiver will obtain a certificate with the horse which states that it is not destined for human consumption and he therefore cannot use it anywhere in Europe for the production of food for human consumption.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, do the Government consider that exporting horses for slaughter is a legitimate trade?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as with other live exports, it is a legal trade under European rules, which were mitigated in part by our own rules, particularly the minimum value rules in relation to horses. However, as regards horses and other species, it is our view that the trade would be better directed to the export of dead meat rather than the export of live horses for slaughter into the food chain. There is a very small export of dead horse meat from this country.

Transas Group Bill
3.5 p.m.
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill
Lord Warner: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clause 2,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 3 to 25,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 26 to 34

Schedule 4,

Clauses 35 to 37,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 38 to 40,

Schedule 6,

Clause 41,

Schedule 7,

Clause 42,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 43 to 143,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 144 to 146,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 147 to 180,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 181 to 183,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 184 to 186,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 187 to 192,

Schedule 14,

Clauses 193 to 198.—(Lord Warner)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.— (Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line references are to Bill 66 as first printed for the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1. Clause 1, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
"( ) Subsection (4) may be satisfied by consultation before, as well as by consultation after, the coming into force of this section."
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 9 to 11 and 20 with which it is grouped.
Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 11 enable consultation— which is required with the devolved administrations or other affected bodies under Clauses 1, 3 and 27 respectively when the Secretary of State exercises certain powers to make regulations—to be satisfied by consultation before, as well as by consultation after, the coming into force of the relevant clause. That group of amendments is relatively straightforward.
Amendments Nos. 9,10 and 20 all relate to the need to make changes to scheme and target years. These three amendments—two to Clause 23(2) and one to Clause 32—would give the landfill allowances scheme the flexibility needed to ensure that the targets set by the Landfill Directive are met in the most efficient way possible.
Amendment No. 9 would allow for regulations to provide for the omitting of scheme years and Amendment No. 10 would provide for a scheme year to be a period shorter or longer than a year.
These amendments are intended to deal with the possibility that not all local authorities may be ready to start the scheme in July 2004. We are committed to starting the scheme as early as possible but we need flexibility.
Amendment No. 20 enables the Secretary of State to make different provision for the countries of the UK in relation to the powers in Clauses 3(6) and 23(2)(a), (b) and (ba). The purpose of this amendment is to enable the start and timing of the landfill allowances scheme to be tailored for each country of the UK. Again, this will ensure that all parts of the UK start the scheme at the most appropriate time. Taken as a whole these three amendments—Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 20—would provide the flexibility to adapt the structure of the landfill allowances scheme to ensure that all participants get the maximum benefit and that the UK's targets are met in the most efficient way.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.— (Lord Whitty.)
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I must declare an interest as a Somerset county councillor. The council is, of course, a waste disposal authority.
We are disappointed that the targets set do not mention waste minimisation. They do not give it importance in the hierarchy. The Bill does not acknowledge the role that waste minimisation should play as the targets for waste are set. Further, we are still

523
disappointed that the targets seem less rigorous than those envisaged by the directive. At a time when some counties are running out of landfill sites, we really cannot afford to do anything other than our utmost in this. area.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Bill that left this House did not do everything that the noble Baroness wished, including in relation to waste minimisation. In that respect, the Bill as it has come back to this House is in more or less the same form. The targets are on the trajectory towards meeting those targets under the directive. Of themselves, they will put great pressure on disposal and collection authorities to ensure that part of the solution is to reduce waste, as well as finding more environmentally friendly ways to dispose of it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
2 Clause 3, page 3, line 16, leave out "(4) and (5)" and insert "(3) and (4)"
3 Page 3, line 25, at end insert—
"( ) Subsection (8) may be satisfied by consultation before, as well as by consultation after, the coming into force of this section."
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, to which I spoke on Commons Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.— (Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 Clause 12, page 9, line 11, leave out ", and evidence as to,"
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. In doing so, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 5. The amendments concern information that waste disposal authorities are required to report to the monitoring authority.
In order for the landfill allowances scheme to run effectively and provide accurate figures about the amount of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill, it is imperative that a rigorous monitoring scheme is set up. We need to be in a position to report our progress to the European Commission, and it is vital that the Commission is convinced that the reporting system is robust.
Since the Bill was introduced, a much more effective mass balance monitoring system has been identified. That system uses returns from waste disposal authorities to identify the amount of municipal waste arising and the proportion that has been sent to landfill. For that to work effectively, it is essential not only to have information on the amount of waste sent to landfill and other waste management facilities, but to be able to require evidence to substantiate such information.
Amendment No. 4 is consequential on Amendment No. 5. Taken together, the amendments clarify the powers in Clause 12(2)(b) with respect to the supply of evidence about certain matters. Amendments Nos. 4 and
524
5 will enable an allocating authority to require waste disposal authorities to supply the monitoring authority with evidence substantiating information about matters connected with the sending of biodegradable municipal waste to landfill, and entries in any records maintained by the WDAs for the purposes of Clause 12(1). As waste disposal authorities already collect information about the amount of waste sent to landfill and other waste management facilities, the additional burden will be one only of providing supporting evidence of such matters to monitoring authorities.
I believe that the amendments will enable England and the rest of the UK to create a robust and effective monitoring system which will enable us to report our progress confidently to the EU. I commend Commons Amendment No. 4 to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.— (Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
5 Clause 12, page 9, line 13, at end insert—

"(ii) evidence to substantiate information supplied for the purpose of complying with requirements imposed under sub-paragraph (i);

(iii) evidence to substantiate entries in records maintained for the purpose of complying with provision made under subsection (l);"

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5, to which I spoke on Commons Amendment No. 4.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.— (Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to. 3.15 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
6 Clause 17, page 11, line 29, leave out subsection (4)
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6. In doing so, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 7, 12 to 19 and 21 to 31. The amendments deal with an issue discussed at some length in this House; namely, the joint working between waste collection and waste disposal authorities in two-tier areas.
I turn first to the issue of joint municipal waste management strategies, to which the Government have given considerable thought. We recognise the strong feeling expressed in both this House and another place that the two-tier structure poses additional challenges in respect of integrated waste management. A two-tier area is defined in Amendment No. 18 as,
"the area of a waste disposal authority in England which is not also a waste collection authority".
We have also accepted the need to tackle the matter through the introduction of measures encouraging better joint working between the authorities in such areas.

525
The Government do not believe that the amendment made to the Bill before it left this House, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, at Third Reading—it required authorities to produce and publish a joint strategy—is the best way to overcome the problem. While we understand what prompted the inclusion of Clause 17(4), which was added by the amendment, it is not sufficiently clear on how the duty would work in practice. Amendment No. 6 therefore removes Clause 17(4).
In place of that amendment, the Government have tabled Amendment No. 16, which introduces a new requirement for all waste authorities within a two-tier area to consult on and prepare a joint strategy for the management of municipal waste within 18 months of the day on which the Act receives Royal Assent. The strategy must be set out in a statement, which must be adequately publicised and kept under review.
Although the Government remain of the view that strategic planning is an integral part of good waste management in all authorities and areas, in framing that duty we took into account the need to ensure that local authorities had sufficient flexibility in planning for the execution of their functions. We have therefore sought to target authorities and areas that need to improve their performance, and not to impose the duty on authorities and areas which are already high performers and working well together to deliver sustainable waste management.
Some of the amendments, and principally Amendment No. 17, allow the Secretary of State to exempt through regulations an authority whose performance he considers satisfactory. First, in accordance with the Government's commitment radically to reduce the number of plans excellent authorities have to submit, we will exempt those authorities which have achieved an excellent score in their comprehensive performance assessment. Secondly, we plan to exempt those authorities whose performance on waste meets or exceeds defined targets. Taking that one step further, Amendment No. 17 also allows the Secretary of State to exempt all authorities in a two-tier area, if conditions specified by the regulations are met. Again, that is to ensure that we do not impose duties on areas where effective joint working is already a reality.
Exemption from the duty will not be open-ended, however. Amendment No. 17 enables regulations to set the duration of any exemption, and postpone the application of a duty under Amendment No. 16 at the end of any exemption. We intend to use those powers in a way that will allow authorities whose exemption ends to have a period to improve their performance before being required to produce a strategy.
Tailoring the application of the duty in that way is consistent with the Government's wider freedoms and flexibilities agenda. We will ensure that, in areas in which the authorities need to work more effectively in planning for the exercise of their functions, there is an obligation to do so. At the same time, we will protect high performers from the imposition of an additional burden.
526
Amendment No. 19 is another example of our commitment to remove ineffective burdens on local authorities. It repeals the requirement for waste collection authorities in England and Wales to produce and publicise a waste recycling plan in accordance with Section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act. It also deals with the consequential repeals to the Greater London Authority Act and the Local Government Act 2000.
Amendments Nos. 12 to 14 remove certain powers to make regulations and certain references to the duty under Section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act from Clause 29, which concerns municipal waste management strategies for Wales. The repeal of Section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act through Amendment No. 19 negates the need for those powers and references. Amendments Nos. 21 to 31 relate to the commencement and extension of Amendments Nos. 16 to 19.
The third element of the group deals with direction by waste disposal authorities. These provisions complement those on joint municipal waste management strategies and obviate the need for Clause 17(5), which was inserted into the Bill at Third Reading. Amendment No. 6 therefore removes this subsection.
Amendment No. 15, which amends Clause 31 of the Bill, seeks to maximise constructive working in two-tier areas even where a waste disposal authority is considering including in a direction to a waste collection authority requirements about the separation of delivered waste. Amendment No. 15 adds three further subsections, subsections (4B) to (4D), to Section 51 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Together these subsections require a waste disposal authority to consult WCAs in its area before giving a direction about the separation of delivered waste; to have regard to guidance given by the Secretary of State in exercising this power; and to notify any WCA which is given a direction of the reasons for that direction.
In order to ensure that a waste collection authority is not worse off financially as a result of having to comply with a direction, Amendment No. 15 also inserts a new Section 52A into the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This section requires a waste disposal authority to pay to a waste collection authority such amounts as are needed to ensure that the collection authority is not financially worse off as a result of having to comply with a direction by the disposal authority regarding the separation of waste.
New Section 52A includes provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations for determining the amount of these payments. Subsection (4) enables the Secretary of State to include in these regulations provision for amounts to be less than they would otherwise be (or to be nil) if conditions specified in the regulations are not satisfied. The purpose of this is to ensure that the waste disposal authority must make payment only if the collection authority is required by the direction to undertake more onerous separation activity than is necessary to meet its statutory performance standards.

527
Of course, we hope that waste disposal authorities will not find it necessary to make use of their power of direction. We believe that the best way to deliver real improvements in two-tier areas is through joint and co-operative working. It is to this end, and in response to concerns expressed in this House, that the Government have introduced the duty to prepare joint municipal waste management strategies in such areas.
These amendments offer an appropriate balance between the desire for an integrated approach to waste management and the rights and needs of different authorities at local, regional and national level. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.— (Lord Whitty.)
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I should be grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the amendments. However, I thought I understood them when I read them against the Bill as it left this House and I am not sure I now understand them so clearly. Be that as it may, we raised the necessity of joint working in two-tier authorities. My noble friend Lord Hanningfield, who regrettably is not here today, specifically asked for (amendments in relation to this. The Government's response answers the points my noble friend made and to that extent, the amendments are acceptable to us.
I want to ask the Minister to elucidate a little more on Amendment No. 17. It deals with the powers to disapply duties under the joint municipal waste management strategies. The formulation of these joint strategies is essential and there is no doubt that where local waste collection authorities and the waste disposal authority are working together it is reasonable that additional administrative burdens should not be placed upon them. However, not least of our difficulties in looking at Amendment: No. 17 is that it depends on regulations which we do not have before us. We have made that comment on so many occasions.
On reading the amendment, I am not clear about whether the regulations could be disapplied if only some the authorities in the two-tier areas—in other words, some of the collection authorities, or some the disposal authority, or a combination of both—were operating efficiently. If either the waste disposal authority or the waste collection authorities are not operating at the approved level of efficiency, it should not be possible to disapply the duties under the joint municipal waste management strategies.
I ask the Minister to elucidate a little further merely in order to have clarification on that point. The amendments contain many words that say not a great deal—I am aware that legislation tends to do that— and I should be grateful for clarification.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the principles laid out in Amendment No. 17. The difficulties of having a joint municipal waste management strategy should not be underestimated. My authority has completed its
528
strategy and is now running its public awareness campaign. I am only too aware of the immense amount of effort that goes into producing such a strategy.
If authorities in two-tier areas have signed up to such a strategy, what is the Government's thinking in introducing through the amendments an element of discord? An authority that is not excellent will be caught by these requirements. However, if, say, the disposal authority is excellent but a number of collection authorities are not, presumably all the signatories to the joint waste management strategy must continue to operate the plan. That is only one difficulty. It is unlikely that all the authorities in an area will achieve excellent status at the same time. If one drops out from excellent status, do they all again become subject to the strategy?
The Government have introduced another difficulty in allowing the disposal authority to give directions to the other authorities. The spirit of signing up to a waste management plan strategy should be that everyone abides by the agreements and the targets they have reached in it. The Government's prescription in that area will probably be a recipe for discord rather than anything else.
Despite those comments, I firmly believe that joint strategy working is good and I hope that the regulations will encourage it rather than introduce other elements of discord.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome of the concept of joint strategies. Undoubtedly, it resolves many of the issues that were raised at an earlier stage in this House. Amendment No. 17 implements other aspects of the Government's policy towards local authorities which, in general, received a welcome from the Opposition Front Benches. It is intended to return some flexibility to local authorities, beginning with those which perform best. That means that the disapplication of the requirements would be given to an individual authority which either had an excellent comprehensive performance assessment or passed defined objectives in relation to waste management.
The Secretary of State has the power to disapply the requirements in a two-tier area where one or more of the authorities is exempt. Clearly a judgment would have to be made in every circumstance about whether to exempt all or only some of the authorities. For example, in the case of an "excellent" county authority—I shall call it a "county authority" so that we all know what we are talking about—it would not necessarily follow that all the district authorities should also have reached the "excellent" criteria and be subject to disapplication. It would still be possible for the county either to persuade or engage in a direction to the district which was not up to standard. However, that would have to be judged on an area-by-area basis because further consultation is required on the regulations which would give effect to this clause, and some of the circumstances might be a little clearer at that point.

529
However, it is important that we have flexibility to disapply in an area where, say, the majority of waste collection, as well as waste disposal, districts and counties have met the "excellent" or "effective" criteria in relation to waste management. But if one authority held that disapplication back, it would not necessarily be the case that we would not give the disapplication to the others. However, as I said, a judgment would have to be made according to the circumstances.
On Question, Motion agreed to
3.30 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
7 Page 11, line 32, leave out subsection (5)
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.— (Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
8 Clause 22, page 15, line 24, leave out subsection (4)
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. This concerns another area that we discussed in this House at Third Reading in particular, when a definition of "composting" was added to this part of the Bill.
After due consideration, the Government decided to take steps to remove that definition, principally because the definition appears elsewhere—mainly in the EU Animal By-Products Regulation. It is obviously important that we take all aspects of biosecurity extremely seriously, and that argument was put forward in relation to the previous debate in this House. We have no intention of bringing forward any measure that would increase the risk to public or animal health. In fact, the Government have acted positively to reduce the risks associated with, for example, the composting of catering waste.
The term "composting" is used in the provisions of the Bill only as an example of the types of measure that a strategy under Clauses 17 to 20 could include to help to achieve the relevant landfill targets. The term "composting" does not appear in other parts of the Bill. Of course, it is a requirement that, in diverting waste from landfill, relevant legislation must also be complied with. Therefore, if biodegradable waste were to be composted, any relevant restrictions on that process would need to be followed.
The Government have never seen this Bill as a primary vehicle for controlling composting generally or composting catering waste in particular. The other legislation—in particular, as I said, the EU Animal By-Products Regulation, which came into force in May this year—covers the appropriate controls, including
530
those on the composting of animal by-products and waste food from food factories and retail premises. That regulation requires that animal by-products are submitted to heating to 70 degrees centigrade for one hour before being composted. That is now the standard endorsed by the EU Scientific Veterinary Committee as sufficient to destroy all damaging pathogens.
With regard specifically to catering waste, the EU regulation allows member states to introduce national standards for premises where only catering waste is to be treated, provided the controls deliver a similar level of protection. An independent assessment commissioned by the Government into the risk to public and animal health associated with the composting of catering waste concluded that, provided certain treatment standards are met and suitable controls are in place, the risks to human and animal health from the composting or biogas digestion of catering waste containing meat are acceptably low. The findings of that risk assessment enabled the department to draw up its own animal by-product regulations to replace the Animal By-Products Order. Those regulations contain controls and treatment standards for composting catering waste that adequately safeguard animal health. They came into force in July this year following, as I explained, the coming into force of the EU Animal By-Products Regulation.
Now that both the EU Animal By-Products Regulation and the UK By-Products Regulations 2003 are in place, and now that they include appropriate time and temperature requirements for composting, there is no need for a separate definition to deal with composting in this very limited sense in the Bill.
I should also add that, from a practical point of view, it would be almost impossible to work to the definition that was in the Bill when it left this House. Heating biodegradable waste to 98 degrees for a minimum of two hours would not only render the resulting material fairly useless as compost; it could also result in combustion, with the waste bursting into flames.
As I said, the Government wish to do all they can to reduce the risks associated with animal disease. They also wish to drive waste disposal up the waste hierarchy. To achieve both, it is necessary for the composting of catering waste to be an option available to waste producers and managers, provided the controls are in place to minimise the risks. The Government believe that the legislation now on the statute book in relation to the animal by-products legislation does that and that, therefore, a different definition in this Bill is unnecessary. I hope that the House will be able to support the Commons in this amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.— (Lord Whitty.)
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the recent foot and mouth outbreak is fresh in all our memories. It lay behind the insertion of our amendment, which sought to raise the temperature of composting, into the Bill as it arrived in this House. Despite three inquiries of

531
various forms, the cause of that outbreak was never specifically identified. However, even an independent inquiry into the 1960s outbreak could not identify the cause of that outbreak, although the report that followed that inquiry included the cryptic wording that it was almost certainly due to the importation of the virus in meat bones that had come from abroad. One has to make a similar assumption about the recent outbreak, although it is an assumption.
As a result of the recent outbreak, we do know the consequences of the arrival in this country of the virus, which certainly does not normally exist here. The cost to the nation's economy was far larger than the cost to the agricultural industry, and that should be borne in mind. Therefore, there was a very good reason for seeking absolute biosecurity in the waste disposal process, and specifically in the composting process.
I have received some interesting correspondence from the Minister's department on this matter. Some of it I considered slightly strange. The noble Lord has repeated the possibility of the occurrence of spontaneous combustion if we heat compost to 98 degrees centigrade. Spontaneous combustion can take place in peculiar circumstances, but I am sure that if one produced compost in what I would call monitored circumstances, 98 degrees centigrade would not be a problem.
It was also suggested that heating compost to 98 degrees would reduce it to a sludge. My reaction to that is that those who wrote that paper could never have been in the kitchen when their wives were cooking. A joint is put into an oven at a much higher temperature than that—probably double that. I know that my wife bakes cakes in the oven at far higher temperatures than that; they stay in the oven for a longer time and come out as something that is wholly edible, very refreshing and delightful.
One needs some realism. As for sterilising the compost material, so destroying the beneficial bacteria that will make the process work, one could easily answer that by heating the compost at:he end of the process. Be that as it may, at Third Reading we asked for an absolute assurance. The Minister was unable to give it and I accept that it would probably never be possible for him to give such an assurance because I suspect that most scientists would deny that there can be absolute security. The fact is that composting, along with recycling, is at the core of the Government's policy for reducing waste going to landfill. Therefore, it has to be accepted. We shall have to look at matters in that light.
The noble Lord has mentioned the European directive and the European risk assessment that the Government are right to follow, but it is a risk assessment. It does not say that the risk is zero. There is mention of once in 120 years there being a possible risk. With a bit of luck, veterinary science will improve matters long before we get to 120 years. I hope that we shall have an interval of 20 or 30 years before the next inadvertent importation of the foot and mouth virus to this country.
I recognise that we shall have to accept the amendment, otherwise we put this country at an artificial disadvantage vis-à-vis our European
532
neighbours in regard to the waste disposal process. They like to call us the "dirty man of Europe", but we are not. I do not think that we should be at such a competitive disadvantage. However, we have to acknowledge that there is still a risk. I hope that it is a very slight one and I hope that veterinary science will come to our rescue before we have another problem. It is a wish and a hope but not a certainty.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am slightly confused by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, on the analogy of cooking and composting. I can assure him that in some households often the husband, the partner or the children do the cooking.
On the amendment, as the Minister will know, I am relieved. I argued long and hard through the Water Bill to achieve definitions more in line with European definitions so that we all talk about the same thing. I am pleased to see that the amendment brings us closer to what will be a common understanding in the directive. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that one worry is that compost is adequately treated, for all the reasons that he gave.
Another worry—I am glad that the Minister's assurances in another place are on record—concerns reassuring the waste disposal authorities that biodegradable waste can be composted and that incineration will not be the only acceptable method, indeed the first method, that is considered for disposal. Post the foot and mouth disease outbreak that was the reaction; that to be safe we had better start looking at incinerating everything. Of course, it would be disastrous to incinerate all materials that, if treated correctly, could be composted.
I gather that the Government will undertake a research programme into the reduction of the biodegradable content achieved by each treatment type and that Defra will set guidelines on the different types of treatment. However, I am unclear about the timescale in which those guidelines will be issued. Are we looking at a couple of years or more than that? Perhaps the Minister could give an idea of the timescale. If people are to set up composting methods and are to set aside areas for that, they would welcome Defra giving guidance on that in the near future.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in response to the last point of the noble Baroness, the department will be giving guidance on the immediate application in the near future, but clearly the research programmes are not complete. Some of them will run for more than a year so it will be some time before we could consider whether we need to change that guidance in the light of further research. Clearly, further research may be necessary. The immediate guidelines, based on knowledge as of now, will come out in spring next year.
On the diversion of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, into his wife's cooking, I am not sure that she will entirely appreciate the analogy with compost. Nevertheless, I am sure her cakes are lovely. The noble

533
Lord says that he has been engaged in some strange communications with my department; sometimes I am as well. The fact is that there is a danger—it may be a remote one—of combustion at that level, but the more important issue is whether one destroys the effectiveness of the compost and changes the nature of the compost at that level. All the scientific and veterinary advice is that the 70 degree figure for most purposes in the European regulations would apply. As the noble Lord and the noble Baroness recognise, our industry will benefit if everyone operates to the same standards. That is what will happen via the Animal By-Products Regulations.
On the foot and mouth position, while, regrettably, we do not know from where the virus came, we know the original farm where it was ingested. At that point the existing regulations were not being observed. It is important for farmers and for everyone else that we observe the new regulations and observe them throughout Europe. That may well result in the outcome that the noble Lord seeks; namely, that it will be many decades before we are visited by such a terrible disease again. This Bill is not the appropriate place to define that; since the Bill was last discussed in this House we have defined it elsewhere. I commend Commons Amendment No. 8 to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
9 Clause 23. page 15. line 43, after "adding" insert "or omitting"
10 Page 15, line 43, at end insert—
"(ba) providing for a scheme year to be a period shorter or longer than a year;"
11 Clause 27, page 17, line 44, at end insert—
"( ) Subsection (2) may be satisfied by consultation before, as well as by consultation after, the coming into force of this section."
12 Clause 29, page 19, line 17, leave out from "statements" to end of line 19
13 Page 19, line 29, leave out paragraph (1)
14 Page 19, line 38, leave out from "Wales" to end of line 42
15 Clause 31, page 20, line 32, at end insert—
"(4B) Before exercising its power to include requirements about separation in directions under subsection (4)(a) above, a waste disposal authority shall consult the waste collection authorities within its area.
(4C) In exercising its power to include requirements about separation in directions under subsection (4)(a) above, a waste disposal authority shall have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State as to the exercise of that power.
(4D) A waste disposal authority which includes requirements about separation in directions given under subsection (4)(a) above shall notify the waste collection authorities to which the directions are given of its reasons for including the requirements."
(4) After section 52 there is inserted—
"52A Payments for delivering waste pre-separated

(1) A waste disposal authority in England which is not also a waste collection authority shall pay to a waste collection authority within its area such amounts as are needed to ensure that the collection authority is not financially worse off as a result of having to comply with any separation requirements.

(2) A waste disposal authority in England which is not also a waste collection authority may pay to a waste collection authority within its area—

(a) which performs its duty under section 48(1) above by delivering waste in a state of separation, but

(b) which is not subject to any separation requirements as respects the delivery of that waste,

contributions of such amounts as the disposal authority may determine towards expenditure of the collection authority that is attributable to its delivering the waste in that state.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about how amounts to be paid under subsection (1) above are to be determined.

(4) Regulations under subsection (3) above may include provision for amounts to be less than they would otherwise be (or to be nil) if conditions specified in the regulations are not satisfied.

(5)Any question arising under subsection (1) above shall, in default of agreement between the paying and receiving authorities, be determined by arbitration.

(6) A waste collection authority in England which is not also a waste disposal authority shall supply the waste disposal authority for its area with such information as the disposal authority may reasonably require—

(a) for the purpose of determining amounts under this section, or

(b) for the purpose of estimating any amounts that would fall to be determined under this section were the collection authority to be subject to particular separation requirements.

(7) In this section "separation requirements", in relation to a waste collection authority, means requirements about separation included in directions given to it under section 51(4)(a) above.""

16 After Clause 31, Insert the following new Clause—
"Joint municipal waste management strategies: England

(1) The waste authorities for a two-tier area must, at all times after the end of the period of 18 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, have for the area a joint strategy for the management of—

(a) waste from households, and

(b) other waste that, because of its nature or composition, is similar to waste from households.

(2) The waste authorities for a two-tier area must keep under review the policies formulated by them for the purposes of subsection (1).

(3)The waste authorities for a two-tier area must, before formulating policy for the purposes of subsection (1), carry out such consultation as they consider appropriate.

(4)The waste authorities for a two-tier area must set out in a statement any policy formulated by them for the purposes of subsection (1).

(5) The waste authorities for a two-tier area must—

(a) when formulating policy for the purposes of subsection (1), and

(b) when preparing a statement under subsection (4),

have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State.

(6) The waste authorities for a two-tier area in Greater London must, when formulating policy for the purposes of subsection (1), have regard to the Mayor of London's municipal waste management strategy or. where that strategy has been revised, to that strategy as revised.

535

(7) Where the waste authorities for a two-tier area prepare a statement under subsection (4)—

(a) they must take such steps as in their opinion will give adequate publicity in the area to the statement;

(b) they must send a copy of the statement—

(i) to each of the Secretary of State and the Environment Agency, and

(ii) if the area is in Greater London, to the Mayor of London;

(c) each of the authorities must keep a copy of the statement available at all reasonable times at one of its offices for inspection by the public free of charge; and

(d)each of the authorities must supply a copy of the statement to any person who requests one, on payment by the person of such reasonable charge as the authority requires.

(8) Where subsection (1) is satisfied in relation to a two-tier area by policies set out in a statement prepared before the coming into force of that subsection—

(a) it does not matter that the policies were not formulated for the purposes of subsection (1), but

(b) subsection (2) shall apply as though the policies were formulated for the purposes of subsection (1).

(9) Subsection (3) may be satisfied by consultation before, as well as by consultation after, the coming into force of that subsection.

(10) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for subsection (1) to apply, in relation to a two-tier area specified or described in the regulations, with the substitution for "18 months" of some longer period.

(11)A statutory instrument that contains regulations under subsection (10) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(12) In section 353 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29) (Mayor's duty to prepare municipal waste management strategy), after subsection (3) there is inserted—

"(3A) In revising the municipal waste management strategy the Mayor is to have regard to any strategies which authorities in Greater London have for the purposes of section (Joint municipal waste management strategies: England) of the Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003 (joint waste management strategies for areas where disposal authority is not also collection authority).""

17 Insert the following new Clause—
"Power to disapply duties under section (Joint municipal waste management strategies: England)

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for a duty under section (Joint municipal waste management strategies: England)(l) to (7)—

(a) not to apply to an authority if conditions specified in the regulations are met;

(b) not to apply to an authority if, on an application made in accordance with the regulations, the Secretary of State is satisfied that conditions specified in the regulations are met;

(c) not to apply to the waste authorities for a two-tier area if, by reason of provision under paragraphs (a) and (b), it applies to one or more, but not all, of them;

(d) not to apply to the waste authorities for a two-tier area if, on an application made in accordance with the regulations, the Secretary of State is satisfied that conditions specified in the regulations are met.

536

(2) The power under paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) must be exercised so that provision under that paragraph will cause a duty under section (Joint municipal waste management strategies: England)(l) to (7) not to apply to an authority only if—

(a) the standard of the authority's performance in carrying out functions of its has been at, or above, a particular level, and

(b) that level is—

(i) the level that, in the Secretary of State's opinion, counts as satisfactory performance, or

(ii) a level that, in his opinion, is higher than that level.

(3) The power under paragraph (d) of subsection (1) must be exercised so that provision under that paragraph will cause a duty under section (Joint municipal waste management strategies: England)(l) to (7) not to apply to the waste authorities for a two- tier area only if—

(a) as respects at least one of the authorities, the standard of its performance in carrying out functions of its has been at, or above, a particular level, or

(b) as respects at least two of the authorities, each has so carried out functions of its that the overall standard of their performance in carrying out those functions has been at, or above, a particular level,

and (in either case) that level is one mentioned in subsection (2)(b).

(4) Subject to subsection (2), the conditions that may be specified under subsection (1)(a) include (in particular) conditions that may be met only in the case of authorities that from time to time are, by reason of provision made by or under an enactment, of a particular category.

(5) Regulations under subsection (1) may include—

(a) provision about the duration of any disapplication under that subsection of a duty;

(b) provision postponing the application of a duty on the coming to an end of a disapplication under that subsection of the duty;

(c) provision modifying the application of subsections (1) to (7) of section (Joint municipal waste management strategies: England) in relation to a two-tier area where a duty under those subsections applies to one or more, but not all, of the waste authorities for the area.

(6)A statutory instrument that contains regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(7)A reference in subsection (2)(a) or (3)(a) or (b) to functions of an authority is to functions of the authority in any capacity (and not only to functions of its in its capacity as a waste disposal authority or waste collection authority)."

18 Insert the following new Clause—
"Interpretation of Chapter 3
In this Chapter—

(a) "two-tier area" means the area of a waste disposal authority in England which is not also a waste collection authority;

(b) "the waste authorities" for a two-tier area are—

(i) the waste disposal authority for the area, and

(ii) the waste collection authorities within the area; and

(c) "waste disposal authority" and "waste collection authority" have the same meaning as in Part 2 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43)."

19 Before Clause 32, Insert the following new Clause—
"Repeal of duty to prepare recycling plans in England and Wales
The following provisions are repealed—

(a) section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43) (collection authorities' waste recycling plans),

(b) sections 353(3) and 361 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29) (which refer to section 49 of the 1990 Act), and

(c) paragraph (a) of section 7(2) of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (power to amend etc. section 49(1)(c) of the 1990 Act)."

20 Clause 32, page 20, line 37, at end insert—

"( ) Power to make regulations under section 23(2)(a), (b) or (ba) also includes—

(a)power to make different provision in relation to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland respectively, and

(b) power to make consequential provision amending section 3(6)."

21 Clause 36, page 22, line 4, after "31" insert ", (Joint municipal waste management strategies: England)(12)"
22 Page 22, line 4, after "31" insert ", (Repeal of duty to prepare recycling plans in England and Wales)(b)"
23 Page 22, line 17, leave out "Section 19 comes" and insert "Sections 19 and (Repeal of duty to prepare recycling plans in England and Wales)(c) come"
24 Page 22, line 20, at end insert—
"( ) Section (Joint municipal waste management strategies: England)(1) to (9) comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed."
25 Page 22, line 20, at end insert—

"( ) Section (Repeal of duty to prepare recycling plans in England and Wales)(a) comes into force—

(a) in relation to England, on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint;

(b) in relation to Wales, on such day as the National Assembly for Wales may by order appoint."

26 Clause 37, page 22, line 35, after "31" insert "and (Joint municipal waste management strategies: England)(1) to (11)"
27 Page 22, line 35, after "31" insert "and (Power to disapply duties under section (Joint municipal waste management strategies: England))"
28 Page 22, line 35, after "31" insert "and (Interpretation of Chapter 3)"
29 Page 22, line 35, after "31" insert "and (Repeal of duty to prepare recycling plans in England and Wales)(a) and (c)"
30 Page 22, line 38, leave out "Section" and insert "Sections (Joint municipal waste management strategies: England)(12),"
31 Page 22, line 38, leave out "34 extends" and insert "(Repeal of duty to prepare recycling plans in England and Wales)(b) and 34 extend"
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 9 to 31 en bloc to which I have already spoken.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 9 to 31.— (Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
32 Clause 38, page 23, line 3, leave out subsection (2)
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 32. This is the privilege amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 32.— (Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Anti-social Behaviour Bill
3.50 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 32 [Powers under section 30: supplemental]:
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 28, line 13, after "person" insert ". unless they are under the age of 18,"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 57, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 58, 59 and 60 standing in my name.
The arguments I put forward to the House last week on the penalties associated with the offences in Part 1 of the Bill apply to this group of amendments. I shall not weary the House with those arguments in detail, but instead I shall cut to the heart of the matter.
The offences we are considering are very minor ones. Indeed, many of us think that they should not be offences. They do not involve violence, theft or sexual violation. They simply involve refusing to move away from a place or returning to a place within 24 hours. The so-called offender may have had nothing to do with the behaviour that caused the place to be designated as one where a police officer could move people on. The person may be there for perfectly innocent and lawful purposes. Yet the Government plan to give the courts the right to incarcerate such a person for up to three months.
The Minister reassured us in Committee that three months is a maximum sentence, and we all understand that. However, I do not believe that a custodial sentence is appropriate for such a minor misdemeanour in any circumstances, and particularly not for a young person under the age of 18. Therefore, I tabled this group of amendments to make a community sentence the only sentence for those aged under 18 and for such a community sentence to be included in the list of penalties for adults for the sake of clarity.
We all understand that the sentences listed in the Bill are maximum ones, but it sends out a message to sentencers when community sentences are not even mentioned. We all know that sensible and rigorous community sentences can be a great deal more effective in preventing re-offending than a custodial sentence, particularly one as short as three months, in which the hard-pressed Prison Service has no chance of doing anything meaningful with the inmate. The

539
time in custody indeed will probably do more harm than good by alienating the so-called offender from society, separating him or her from family and putting him or her in contact with many hardened criminals from whom he is bound to learn bad lessons.
We welcome the Government's focus in their Green Paper Every Child Matters on community sentences and restorative justice. In the light of that consultation paper, it seems inconsistent to persist in refusing to consider community sentences only for under 18s for such minor offences. I beg the Government, even at this late stage in the Bill, to think again about these measures, which have already generated such anger and despair among the young people in this country. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, my Amendments Nos. 61 and 63 are in this group of amendments—slightly strangely, but I think there is a good diplomatic reason for it. I support the principle enunciated by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that a community sentence would be better for those under the age of 18 who have committed minor offences. However, the Minister has consistently put the argument that the Bill sets out maxima, and, as the noble Baroness, herself said, there is a question of psychology involved in this. Anyway, the principle she is enunciating is correct, but it is of course also possible under the Bill.
I tabled Amendments Nos. 61 and 63 because it is necessary to get county councils involved in the process of anti-social behaviour orders. That was not being done as the Bill originally stood. I tabled these amendments as I was not sure whether the Government intended to table Amendments Nos. 64 and 65. I thank the Minister for those amendments. They will spare me some trouble in a few moments. I am most grateful.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, perhaps I may add a word on my noble friend's amendments. I do not know whether the noble Baroness is aware, but on Friday the number of people held in custody in the prisons of England and Wales reached what I believe is the all-time record of 74,149 people. I suggest that Parliament should think very carefully about offences which lead to imprisonment, particularly, as my noble friend has said, short sentences for non-violent offences. I should like to remind the noble Baroness of the Statement which was issued last November jointly by the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General. It states:
"Short custodial sentences without post-release supervision, as opposed to community sentences for lesser offences, provide little opportunity for rehabilitation or to prevent re-offending and can make things worse. The cycle of of fending behaviour is more likely to be perpetuated if offenders lose their job or their home, and their family ties are broken. In addition, the pressure of dealing with increasing numbers of short-term prisoners can also disrupt the education, training and employment programmes that are proven to be effective for rehabilitating more serious, long-term offenders".
I do not know whether the noble Baroness has had the opportunity to speak to prison governors who face this problem. They tell me that short-term prisoners are a disruptive influence in an environment where many
540
people are approaching the end of their sentences and are trying their best to conform with the system and to prepare themselves for release. Additional burdens are placed on the staff and on the inmates themselves by the influx of these short-term prisoners who are interested only in getting out of prison at the end of the short period given to them by the courts. So I hope that the noble Baroness will again endorse the observations made by her colleagues and will delete these sentences of imprisonment provided by the clause.
I do not think that it is a satisfactory answer to say, "This is a maximum only", because if the courts are given a maximum, the inference is that one would like them to use it on some occasions, however rare.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I say immediately to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that I endorse what my noble and learned friends said in relation to the generality of the comments to which he alluded. I do not seek to resile from any of those statements; nor, indeed, do the Government. That does not mean that in dealing with offences of this nature one should not set the outer parameter. I also hear what the noble Lord says on the fact that the courts may be tempted to use it. If your Lordships were to look at how sentencing has worked to date, it is very rare indeed for the maxima ever to be used.
On Amendments Nos. 57 to 60,I hope I can reassure noble Lords in relation to juveniles. I clarify that the penalties set out in Clause 31(2) operate slightly differently between juveniles and adults. We say that there is no need for the Bill to spell out all the sentencing options. The options available to a court are set out in the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, as amended. I have made this point on other occasions, certainly in relation to other Bills, but it may be worth reciting it for the purpose of this debate today.
The options range, in hierarchical order, from imprisonment, community service orders and fines through to conditional and absolute discharges. Legislation creating a new offence spells out the maximum period of imprisonment, as the noble Baroness and the noble Lord both acknowledged. So we are discussing the maximum period of imprisonment or maximum fine level that can be imposed; a sentencing court can always impose a lesser penalty.
I should like noble Lords to recognise that we are trying to set out a new approach: a new menu of opportunities for the courts of which they will be able to take advantage. That is reflected in the structure of the Bill. The court is under no obligation to hand out the maximum sentences and may choose any lesser sentence depending on the circumstances of the case, including the age of the defendant.
Detention and training orders, which are the juvenile equivalent of imprisonment, can be made for a minimum of four months. So there can be no training order for less than four months. That means that where the maximum penalty of imprisonment that can be imposed is less than four months, as in this case, a detention and training order cannot be made. The

541
court will be left with the options of a community sentence, a fine, a conditional discharge or an absolute discharge. So I hope that that reassures noble Lords that the scheme, which is clearly set out, can differentiate in the way that noble Lords would most like.
Amendment No. 61, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, requires the police to consult both county and district councils before granting an authorisation. The Government recognise that county councils have an important role to play in tackling anti-social behaviour—many play an active role in local crime and disorder reduction partnerships.
We considered carefully the points made by the noble Lord in Committee. However, we thought that to add another step in the authorisation process would be overly bureaucratic. We have listened and we have reflected that listening in the amendments to which the noble Lord referred—Amendments Nos. 62, 64 and 65. The noble Lord's amendment would enable local authorities to apply for anti-social behaviour orders. We have responded and think that we have achieved his aim.
On both counts, I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will be content, because on this occasion, I may have managed to satisfy them both. 1 hope so.
4 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her response and for the supportive remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and my noble friend Lord Avebury. I ask the Minister for clarification. Was she saying that because a detention and training order cannot be made for less than four months, a three-month custodial sentence could never be applied to an under-18?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that is right. One considers the maximum under the sentencing regime. If it is three months' imprisonment, one can apply that to an adult, but the equivalent for a juvenile is a training order, which can be only for four months or more. So in the instance cited, a juvenile under the age of 18 cannot be sentenced to a training order, because that would be outwith what the court is allowed to do; so there must be a community order or fine. That is why I hope to have given the noble Baroness a little pleasure.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that clarification; it gives me some comfort. However, I must observe that the Bill has an obscure way of saying that, although the way in which the Minister put it was clear and not at all obscure.
It is important that the courts should be encouraged to use community sentences, because they are clearly not doing so anywhere near as much as even the Government would want them to—certainly not as much as many people working with young people
542
would like them to be used—instead of custodial sentences. However, in view of what the Minister said, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 58 to 60 not moved.]
Clause 36 [Interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
Clause 37 [Anti-social behaviour orders]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 30, line 15, at end insert—
"(za) after paragraph (a) there is inserted—
"(aa) in relation to England, a county council;";"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, highlighted the fact that at present, county councils cannot apply for anti-social behaviour orders. The power is currently available to the police, district councils and registered social landlords. That power has been requested by the County Councils Network and has again been proposed by the noble Lord in Amendment No. 63.
We saw the good sense of that. We have recognised that county councils have responsibilities that encompass tackling anti-social behaviour. Government Amendments Nos. 52, 64 and 65 therefore extend to county councils the power to apply for anti-social behaviour orders on the same basis as that for registered social landlords, the British Transport Police and, under the Bill, housing action trusts. I therefore ask the House to accept the government amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, it simply remains for me once again to thank the noble Baroness for having tabled the government amendments. Once again, they are welcome.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 64 and 65:
Page 30, line 20, after "acts)" insert "—

(a) after paragraph (a) there is inserted—

"(aa) in relation to a relevant authority falling within paragraph (aa) of subsection (1A), persons within the county of the county council;";

(b) "

Page 31, line 10, at end insert—
"(6A) In section IE (consultation requirements) after subsection (4) there is inserted—
"(5) Subsection (4)(a) does not apply if the relevant authority is a county council for a county in which there are no districts.""
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 38 [Certain orders made OK conviction of offences]:
The Earl of Listowel The Earl of Listowel moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 32, leave out lines 7 to 16.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the effect of the amendment is to strike out the provisions of Clause 38 relating to court reporting restrictions; in the youth court. My intention is to retain the status quo: that automatic reporting restrictions are imposed in the youth court that can be lifted only if it is in the public interest to do so.
The principal intention behind my amendment is to ask the Minister for a firm undertaking that the impact on children and families who are identified to the press is monitored carefully. In Committee, the Minister was kind enough to say that she would find all the research that she could about that to assuage my concerns. Regrettably, the only research is that which she then cited, which considers solely the effectiveness of anti-social behaviour orders, not their impact on children and families.
Indeed, that research called for further research. It stated:
"much of the information about the impact of anti-social behaviour orders remains anecdotal … in many areas partnerships were unable to say accurately what the outcome of their ASBOs had been … information is essential to decisions about whether an order is appropriate for similar kinds of behaviour in future, to establishing which conditions work best and to answer general questions about effectiveness".
It is that research for which I am calling.
The same report also expressed concern at what happens when national newspapers pick up the information passed to local newspapers, such as a "shop a yob" campaign by one local newspaper adopted in the past month by the Sun. The photographs of several young people aged 12 years or above were pictured in the Sun with their names and details of their behaviour. The majority of those young people had received anti-social behaviour orders. In Committee, the noble Baroness agreed that, sadly, many young people about whose behaviour we arc concerned lack adequate nurture. I wonder whether the Sun is the right place to make up that deficit.
In child abuse cases, principal care takers often style the child whom they are looking after as bad, evil or a demon. As noble Lords know, Victoria Climbié 's care taker took her to a local evangelical church to exorcise the demon that she believed to be in the child. Noble Lords may be aware of the case in the United States of David Pelzer, who had a very sad history of abuse. He described in his autobiography how his mother singled him out as the bad boy among his siblings. He became the centre of all her ill intent and the black sheep of the family.
One of several concerns for many is the danger of perpetuating in broader society what is begun in the family. The children are bad at home, they become bad in their neighbourhoods, they develop a pariah status among their peers and adults, and finally they are named and photographed in the local newspaper,
544
which is a certificate of their badness and failure. The adult world inadvertently colludes with what began in the dysfunctional family at the start of the child's life.
Recently, I attended the weekly assembly of a special school, where children were presented with certificates that stated: "I have not hurt another child this week". Abused and neglected children received particular attention from the school for their positive restraint in not hitting other children. The head of another school, with a very prestigious history of that type of work with such children, described the publication in newspapers of the photograph, address and details of children's anti-social acts as a certificate of failure. He was appalled by it.
Another practitioner, the founder of a therapeutic community for abused children, took into her care a 14 year-old boy who had been branded by the press with a nickname that denoted him as a verminous rodent. He had settled into the home and seemed to be making progress when the press arrived on the doorstep and he had to be moved on for the sake of the other children.
On another concern, this morning I spoke to a Cheshire magistrate who is a member of a youth panel. He remembered that, two years ago, a boy was stripped naked and tied to a lamp post in the locality as a warning about his behaviour. The magistrate said that his behaviour would not have warranted any action by a court, but the local estate so objected to it that they did to him what I described.
Recently, in the Observer, one family described their experience of intimidation by local people, who told one boy that if he stepped out of line again he would be six feet under. There is also a danger that by publishing such information one might encourage such vigilantism, which we saw in the case of people concerned about paedophiles.
The Minister may observe, as she did previously, that ASBOs tend to be given to children at the end of a long history of highly anti-social behaviour I regret that the interventions that should exist to protect these children, and the rest of us, are lacking. There has been chronic under-investment in necessary services. In the past 20 years, the youth service has shrunk by 20 per cent. A local Social Exclusion Unit report underlined in particular the availability of child and adolescent mental health services, which is very important. There may be a 12 to 18-month wait before a child can see a clinician.
The key finding of the Government's report on how to improve services for children and families, Every Child Matters, is that the workforce supporting families and children has been neglected over many years. The main effort must be to rebuild that workforce. There are measures to protect such children and to protect us from them, as well as protecting their families. I am afraid that the extreme measures promoted in the Bill are another reflection of our inability to break free from the history of neglect of such vulnerable children and families.
I do not wish to tire your Lordships' House—I have already spoken for eight minutes. I recognise the sincerity of the Government's intentions in this respect. Sometimes some of the acts that we most regret are those carried out in the process towards achieving our highest ideals. Some means of reaching the ends that we all desire are unjustifiable. All that I ask, as I asked ministerial officials several times and I asked in Committee, is for an undertaking to monitor the impact of that highly controversial publicity in the press. I look forward to the Minister's response. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, I support the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on this amendment. We return to the subject, which was discussed in Committee, because we continue to feel that this is not the right way to achieve the desired result of reducing anti-social behaviour. It carries with it the risk of far greater and more damaging negative outcomes than positive ones.
I am perfectly clear that, under the Bill, courts will retain the discretion to impose reporting restrictions where an ASBO has been imposed. But I have yet to hear a convincing argument why the current situation of automatic reporting restrictions under Section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 should not still apply, with the court using its discretion on when to lift them.
The Minister said in Committee that that was to remove the anomaly of the difference in reporting restrictions between the magistrates' court and the youth court, and so to bring them in line with each other. Yet, in the companion to the Green Paper Every Child Matters, entitled Youth Justice—The Next Steps, the first sentence of the section entitled "Basic Approach" is:
"When children and young people do become involved in crime we would continue to operate a distinct youth justice system broadly on present lines, with a clear and visible response to offending behaviour from age 10 upwards".
I have always regarded it as axiomatic that the approach to children and offending and the criminal justice system must be clearly differentiated from that relating to adults, from a philosophical, practical and humane point of view. That is what the youth justice system is predicated on. Children are not small adults. Why, therefore, do such principles not apply when it comes to ASBOs?
However, another Home Office document on ASBOs states:
"But the imposition of reporting restrictions may restrict the effectiveness of the order if the effectiveness of the ASBO will largely depend on the wider community knowing the details".
That argument for reporting details immediately risks breaching Article 40 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which asserts the obligation to respect the child's right to privacy,
"at all stages of the proceedings".
546
Nor is it in the best interests of children and young people as defined in Article 3 of the UNCRC.
The distinction between the approach of the youth courts and that of the magistrates' courts must be retained if justice is truly to be done. The welfare principle under the Children Act must have a place in the application of any sanction, and the potential harm of naming and shaming must also be taken into account.
In Committee, the Minister quoted anecdotal evidence of the effectiveness of publicity on reducing the anti-social behaviour of some young people. There is also anecdotal evidence the other way, as we have already heard from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. In one case, reported in the Observer two weeks ago, alleged vigilante attacks were made on the boys in question. In others, publicity led to young people being stigmatised in the community.
I am sure that the Government could not have envisaged the campaign that the Sun newspaper launched to "Shop a Yob", which has been identifying children all over the country, some as young as 12. That is the antithesis of responsible, local community involvement; it is vigilantism of the press. It is very difficult and dangerous to use publicity in this way because people interpret and react to information in an extremely unpredictable way. When difficult, dysfunctional and often disturbed youngsters are concerned, whose behaviour is indeed unpleasant and intimidating, the risks are magnified. Such children are rarely shamed or humiliated into positive social behaviour. They are not only demonised by the process in the eyes of some, they could equally become anti-heroes in the eyes of others. Neither is desirable, and, clearly, that is not what is intended.
What is really needed is an evaluation and further research into the effectiveness of ASBOs in reducing anti-social behaviour—just as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said—and into what effect press reporting has on young people and the community. Only then should consideration be given to the possibility of lifting reporting restrictions on the young people who are given ASBOs. ASBOs do indeed have opportunities attached, both in stopping the behaviour and removing it from a particular place—thus reassuring local people—and identifying particular troublemakers. However, ASBOs must be enforced within the context of a multi-disciplinary approach that also addresses the causes of such behaviour to ensure a positive outcome for both the young person and the community. That is the essential corollary without which the outcome is likely to be negative and the strong arm of the law a purely punitive arm without any balancing support. Only with such support do ASBOs have the chance of achieving the sort of results that we all seek.
I have just received a letter from the Minister in response to my request for more information on the recent government initiatives that form part of the thinking expressed in the Green Paper. It makes impressive reading and I thank her for the letter. The

547
£250 million investment in the Children and Adolescent Mental Health Service Network is greatly to be welcomed, as is the proportion of the Children's Fund for crime reduction. I sincerely hope that the YISPs produce the outcomes that are intended and the plans for the Connexions partnerships for vulnerable eight to 19 year-olds.
We have sought to argue this in various parts of this Bill. The opportunities offered in this area will be realised only when connections are routinely made between police intervention and other agencies— social services departments, schools, health and other agencies, including some of the initiatives that I have mentioned—as a requirement. That will require massively more resources than the Minister has mentioned, especially for the statutory agencies. Will she give us some assurance on the matter? Otherwise, I fear that the best intentions of the Government in this area will be lost.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, for her complimentary comments about the contribution made by the Government and the efforts that we are making, and I also thank the noble Earl. I very much understand why the noble Baroness and the noble Earl are pressing this issue. We have some very difficult problems to unravel. We went through many of those in Committee. We are being pulled in two different ways. We must consider the interests of the child, who is often abused and neglected and exhibits aberrant, dysfunctional behaviour as a result. That behaviour has a terrible effect on the people around them. We need to examine how best to assist such children to reintegrate. Some have become so damaged that they are incapable of responding to ordinary boundaries. These are difficult issues.
I confirm to the noble Earl that we also believe that this area has been neglected for some time. That is why the Government have put in such energy and huge investment. For example, in addition to the money referred to by the noble Baroness for mental health, there has been £342 million for behaviour improvement programmes between 2000 and 2006, £513 million provided for the Youth Service in 2003–04, the £25.5 million each year for positive activities for young people, the initial budget of £200 million for the Young People's Fund, and the £15 million per annum for positive futures. We need every penny of that money to try to cushion and support young people.
In pressing his amendment, I understand that the noble Earl is accepting that reporting restrictions on certain individuals may have to be raised, but the question is how we monitor that and test whether it is the best thing to do. We have given a lot of thought to the matter. The noble Earl seemed to be asking for a specific piece of research. The major problem associated with work of that nature is that, first, a statistically small number of people are exposed in such a way. Secondly, the nature of exposure is likely to differ considerably from area to area, and thirdly, such young people are likely to be vilified by their local community already and it would be difficult in
548
research terms to get the empirical data correct—to unpick the impact that this has on them compared with the exposure itself.
Noble Lords will know, however, that we are anxious to look at this area and cull as much information as possible. We looked at the possibility of constructing a separate research programme, how much it would cost and what its benefits would be, but we must bear in mind that we must examine the advantage to young people and how we invest in programmes likely to make a difference.
We have spent a good deal of money on improving our IT systems throughout the criminal justice system. Noble Lords will know that we are spending more than £ 1billion—£1.6 billion, I think—on that so that we have the potential to provide improved empirical data on disposals. That will provide us with a robust database of information to enable the Government to calculate the net impact of our policies and inform the making of new policies.
That is the broad context, but the noble Earl wants to know about research in this specific area. Our difficulty is not in saying that we do not think that this is an area that we should continue look at and test out, but how best to do that, how to get the research done and what it would deliver. At the moment, we do not feel that the cost benefit would be fruitful. However, we want to continue to look at this area, because it is obvious that we will have to revisit the whole issue of testing whether our policies are doing that which we seek.
If we examine the issue in the round and look at what we are doing with the Children's Fund, the children's Green Paper, and in the Bill, we see that these issues are being continually looked at to test whether the aspirations that we jointly and severally have for this piece of legislation actually deliver. Although I cannot tell your Lordships that we have a specific project in mind or that we think that there are cost benefits in carrying out a targeted piece of research, we agree that this area will be included in the other things that we must look at to ensure that we are delivering for children in a meaningful way.
We must also, however, deliver for the communities that, regrettably, are sometimes subjected to terrible behaviour. The courts will have an opportunity to address that problem. We want courts to think much more carefully about whether to grant restriction orders for children, which, as noble Lords will know, are dealt with in a significantly differently way from those for adults. The court must say whether it will lift or impose restrictions. For the children, it is a case of whether restrictions are lifted; for adults, it is whether they are imposed. We thought that, in the area of anti-social behaviour orders, it was appropriate to have a similar system.
I remind the House and the noble Baroness that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child refers to the penal law. ASBOs and the equivalent orders are civil orders. The provisions relate only to orders made on conviction. The details of the conviction that precedes the anti-social behaviour order remain under reporting restrictions until the restrictions are lifted by the court.

549
We have had to strike a difficult balance. We think that we have got it about right. We know that the orders can be beneficial. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, talked about the police and other agencies working together. She knows that part of what we are trying to do is to make the link with the police. We hope that, once the pilot is rolled out throughout the country, the CPS will be involved in charging, thus framing the sort of offences involved. We are trying to make sure that the Juvenile Bench, which will still deal with such matters, will have the information that it seeks.
The noble Baroness and the noble Earl will know well that the courts are still bound to take the welfare of the child into account, under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. The Judicial Studies Board has produced guidance on reporting restrictions in magistrates' courts, including specific advice on reporting restrictions and ASBOs. As the noble Earl is aware, the guidance includes reference to consideration of the welfare of the child.
When the Bill becomes law, there should, as with any other Bill, be training, through the Judicial Studies Board, on how it should be used and what should be done with it. Home Office officials will work with the Judicial Studies Board to ensure that the guidelines take account of the changes made by the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, so that we have a joined-up approach to how they should be applied. It is part of our security that we have tried to make sure that those who deal with sensitive issues involving children have the skills and training to be more responsive.
I am sure that Juvenile Benches throughout the country will see the campaigns that are launched and will have them in mind when they decide whether, in a particular case, it is right and proper for that child in those circumstances for the court to lift reporting restrictions. Those courts will think carefully about what may happen as a result and about the conditions that they may wish to put on the lifting of restrictions.
I hope that I have said enough to reassure noble Lords that the Government do not intend to let the issue lie fallow. We will return to the matter and continue to consider it. The interests of the children in those circumstances are at the forefront of our mind. Although I cannot give the noble Earl a specific commitment that there will be a piece of research, I can say that we will keep an eye on the issues, as the empirical data come through.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her helpful reply. In Committee, she said changes to processes in the juvenile courts were being discussed. I feel more sanguine about that. However, most anti-social behaviour orders relating to children are made in the adult court. The adult court does not have the good relationship with the local youth offending team that the juvenile court has. The adult court does not have the specialist training for dealing with children that the children's court has. The adult court does not meet in a special session once a week, as the juvenile court does, to deal with children's issues. My reason, in part, for
550
moving the amendment and asking for the research is not so much my concern that we are changing the arrangements in the juvenile courts; it is what is going on in the adult courts and how well informed and well considered their important decisions about children and their families are.
I look to your Lordships to see what support I might have in dividing the House. I am moved towards doing so. Although what the Minister said was, to some extent, reassuring, I feel that there is a danger that such children will, as so often, fall through the gaps. The Government have a huge agenda in this area, and those children may be left out. I take the Minister's point about the difficulties for local communities, but I look to your Lordships for an indication of whether it would be worthwhile to divide the House.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, in that case, I shall divide the House.
4.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 66) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 51; Not-Contents, 116.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Avebury, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Northover, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Oxford, Bp.

Brookeborough, V.

Palmer, L.

Chorley, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Roper, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Dholakia, L.

[Teller]

Elton, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Falkland, V.

Sharpies, B.

Fearn, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hamwee, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Stern, B.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Strange, B.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Tope, L.

Listowel, E.

Tordoff, L.

Lucas, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Lyell, L.

Walmsley, B. [Teller]

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Walpole, L.

McNally, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Maddock, B.

Warnock, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Ahmed, L.

Barnett, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Alli, L.

Berkeley, L.

Amos, B. (LordPresident)

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Andrews, B.

Bhatia, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Billingham, B.

551

Blackstone, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Borrie, L.

Levy, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brookman, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Burlison, L.

McCarthy, L.

Carter, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Christopher, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Corbett of Castle Vide, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Crawley, B.

Massey of Darken, B.

David, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mishcon, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [ Teller]

Morgan, L.

Desai, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Dixon, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Orme, L.

Dubs, L.

Parekh, L.

Elder, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Paul, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Pendry, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Plant of Highfidd, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Filkin, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gale, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gavron, L.

Richard, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Rooker, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Goudie, B.

Sawyer, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sheldon, L.

Gregson, L.

Simon, V.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Harrison, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Haskel, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hayman, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tenby, V.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Thornton, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Warner, L.

Hoyle, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Hughes of Woodside.L.

Weatherill, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Whitaker, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Whitty, L.

Jones, L.

Wilkins, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Layard, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.45 p.m.
Clause 39 [Penalty notices for disorderly behaviour by young persons]:
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone Baroness Linklater of Butterstone moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 32, line 41, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 relate to Clause 39 and the extension of fixed penalty notices. The purpose of Amendment No. 67 is to resist vigorously the further reduction of the age at which fixed penalty notices could be issued for disorderly behaviour—that is, from 16 years old to as young as 10 years old—by affirmative resolution. It also asserts that to use the powers of the Home
552
Secretary to further reduce the age in that way is entirely inappropriate. It is right and just that if such a measure is to be considered seriously, it must be addressed properly through primary legislation and therefore be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. Thorough consideration should be given to all the implications of such a move, which, in our view, is highly undesirable.
In Committee, we argued that a 10 year-old cannot give informed consent to the fixed penalty notice or have the capacity to understand the consequences of accepting one, as required by code C of PACE. It is an inappropriate sanction for children so young. Of itself, it could not promote positive social behaviour. It would fall on the family to pay. It therefore fails to meet the objective of a swift and direct response to disorderly behaviour on the part of such a young person. My principal point is that it should occur, if at all, only as a result of the most detailed consideration of what this means through full parliamentary process.
Clause 39 extends the fixed penalty notice scheme— introduced by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001—to 16 and 17 year-olds for disorderly behaviour. In Committee, there was discussion of the age reduction from over-18s to 16 and 17 year-olds, once the outcome of an evaluation of the scheme in four police areas had been completed. The evaluation was not available at the time, but the Minister reported that it had been completed, although not published, and that, from the point of view of the police, the outcome was favourable. As a speedy way of dealing with adult disorderly behaviour, that is encouraging. It has our full support.
Amendment No. 68 aims to ensure that the safeguards afforded by the PACE code of practice to young people under 16 years old also apply to 17 year-olds where fixed penalty notices are used. They should be activated at a police station in the presence of an appropriate adult. Code C requires that an appropriate adult be present before any interview, detention, bail or signing of a statement by an under 16 year-old. The adult must have an active role in advising the young person and ensure that the interview is conducted fairly and that the young person understands what is happening and why. It would be extremely difficult to be absolutely sure that a 16 or 17 year-old understands what is happening and why without the presence of that appropriate adult.
The amendment would ensure greater safeguards in the Bill for such young people, which are consistent with PACE. I understand that the intention is to pilot this—as with the over 18 year-olds—which I welcome. However, I should like the Minister to assure us that the PACE safeguards will be incorporated in the pilots.
During the past few years, the Government have done a great deal of work through their reformed youth justice system, to which I pay tribute. There is a whole system of, for example, reprimands, final warnings and referral orders to youth offending panels, which are a perfect example of how to bring local communities into the process of dealing with troublesome young people. They have had remarkable

553
success in involving local people, on a voluntary basis, who have never before been involved in this way. All the new provisions in the Bill sit uneasily with what is already in place.
It is felt strongly by all the children's organisations that lowering the age at which fixed penalty notices may be issued is simply to apply adult sanctions to young people—a theme to which I referred earlier— and that it is inappropriate. Young people in this age group are already significantly discriminated against as regards entitlement to financial and other benefits, and are more likely to be both out of school and out of work. The Explanatory Notes make it clear that 16 to 17 year-olds will have the same level of financial penalty imposed as that for adults, which is either £40 or £80, depending on the offence. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that only 240,000 young people in this age group are in full-time employment, and they do not have the protection of the minimum wage. Young people rarely qualify for income support and, even in cases of severe hardship, will normally receive only £32.50 per week.
Even if the expectation is that parents will have to pay the fine—and research shows that they are most likely to be unemployed, single parents—it is important to recognise the distinction between a child and an adult when applying a penalty. Therefore, I should like to ask the Minister for an assurance when she comes to reply: will the level of fines be set lower for people in this age group to take account of their age and economic position? I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, in relation to this matter. As I have said on previous occasions, we believe that penalty notices for disorder have an important role to play in tackling anti-social behaviour by juveniles. This is relatively low-level anti-social behaviour, but it does impact on the wider community and needs to be addressed. We have thought hard about this issue and have not changed our view about the need for such a sanction to be available to the police when dealing with juveniles. I know that the noble Baroness will agree with me when I say that we want to stop this kind of behaviour before it takes root. It is hoped, therefore, that we shall be able to address it more quickly and easily.
Extension of this scheme would give the police the power to tackle such behaviour. A notice will act as a deterrent, but it will not leave the young person with a criminal conviction, recognising this age group's youth and vulnerability, which is a point that I know noble Lords will share with me. Further, it will encourage the police to take action against anti-social behaviour in the street which is not being dealt with at present.
Noble Lords know that much work is being done with the Association of Chief Police Officers, which has urged the Government to extend the scheme to juveniles. As the noble Baroness mentioned, we intend to pilot the scheme first on 16 and 17 year-olds to see
554
whether it would be usefully applied to the younger age groups. The proposal has to be tested to see how it works and what benefits are derived from it.
The proposal also dovetails with what we are trying to do with local policing and initiatives: bringing in community service officers to work with police officers in a given area in order to make a difference. We believe also that it is right for parents to take responsibility for the behaviour of their children and that they should be expected to pay the penalty on their children's behalf. There is no difference, essentially, between that and the current position whereby a court may fine a child under the age of 16.
Clause 39(4) allows the Secretary of State to set the penalties at different levels for different ages, so allowing a lower amount to be set for those in the younger age groups. We shall certainly consider this aspect, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, when we look at the pilot studies and fashion them to make them work better.
Amendment No. 68 would mean that fixed penalty notices for juveniles aged under 18 could be issued only in a police station. We believe that that would reduce the effectiveness of the scheme by restricting the discretion of police officers. There will be times, in particular as regards 16 and 17 year-olds, when it will be perfectly proper to issue a notice elsewhere, so long as those young people fully understand the process. It may also be suitable for under-16 year-olds if either the parent or carer is present. We want to allow police officers to exercise their judgment.
I understand what has been said by the noble Baroness about how the scheme would operate. I hope that I have been able to reassure her that we shall look at this whole area carefully. It may be a little of a "suck it and see" exercise because we want to get it right. We have experience of using pilots in this way under other circumstances and we have found them very useful. They help to clarify what works. We want to pursue only that which works effectively, and we think that this is a good way forward. I hope that the noble Baroness will be a little comforted by what I have said.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I did not hear any mention of my resistance to the proposal by affirmative resolution to lower the possible age of imposing such fines to children as young as 10. However, that aside, I fully appreciate that the courts have the opportunity and the power to impose fines. Therefore why an additional fixed penalty scheme in this context and as set out in the Bill will have any further effect on the prevention of anti-social behaviour than have the current procedures is not at all something of which I am convinced. While I understand that it is of course proper for parents to take responsibility in the way mentioned by the Minister, we are talking here about stopping young people on the spot in regard to their offending behaviour. I am not sure that the connection is clear.
I am glad that the Minister has confirmed that there is to be careful monitoring and evaluation of the pilot schemes, and that sufficient discretion will be given to

555
the police. However, I still think it is important to seek the assurance I asked for; that is, that the PACE safeguards should be in place for 16 and 17 year-olds. The fact that it is quite difficult to see that through is not necessarily a convincing argument.
Having listened to those remarks, I hope that the Minister will have one or two further reassuring comments to make when we finally consider the matter at Third Reading. I do not intend to divide the House at this point and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 69:
After Clause 42, insert the following new clause—
"PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 222 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972: POWER OF ARREST ATTACHED TO INJUNCTION

(1) This section applies to proceedings in which a local authority is a party by virtue of section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 (power of local authority to bring, defend or appear in proceedings for the promotion or protection of the interests of inhabitants of their area).

(2) If the court grants an injunction which prohibits conduct which is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person it may, if subsection (3) below applies, attach a power of arrest to any provision of the injunction.

(3) This subsection applies if the local authority applies to the court to attach the power of arrest and the court thinks that either—

(a) the conduct mentioned in subsection (2) consists of or includes the use or threatened use of violence, or

(b) there is a significant risk of harm to the person mentioned in that subsection.

(4) Harm includes serious ill-treatment or abuse (whether physical or not).

(5) Local authority has the same meaning as in section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 [Air weapons: age limits]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 36, line 22, leave out ""seventeen"" and insert ""sixteen""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, anyone who has used a machine gun knows that, if you are lucky, you will hit the target with your first shot. After that, the bullets simply spray around the countryside. That is the purpose of a machine gun. The only reason for mentioning the weapon in this Chamber today is that it pretty closely describes the approach over the past few years of governments of both persuasions to legislation in the matter of guns and firearms. The target is and always should have been illegal guns being improperly used by criminals lor criminal purposes. The process we have gone through has hit many legitimate users of guns and firearms, very often to their disadvantage.
This group of amendments is designed to ease the problem slightly. The Bill seeks to raise the age at which air guns may be owned and carried from 14 to 17 years.
556
Earlier I sought to have the provision removed, but I received no encouragement from the Government, so I now propose the age of 16 as a possible compromise.
It is surprising how many totally adult things someone may do at the age of 16. It is possible to buy a scooter and get a licence to ride it on the roads; one can smoke, drink alcohol and indulge in sexual intercourse. Someone can join the Army as a young soldier and receive full weapons training. While a 16 year-old will not be sent to the front line to fight, he might be sent at 17—although that is neither here nor there. The Electoral Commission is considering proposals that the voting age should be lowered to 16. These are all adult qualifications—but you cannot carry around an air rifle until you are 17. That is petty and silly. The amendments in the group therefore seek that, wherever in the Bill the Government consider 17 to be the appropriate age limit, it should be changed to 16.
I have argued before that if you treat someone as responsible they will, on the whole, behave responsibly. I accept that there are always a few people who insist on misbehaving but in my general experience there is plenty of law to deal with people who misbehave and break the law, even in relation to the misuse of air rifles and airguns. The Government should have no problem in accepting the amendments. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I support the extremely modest amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. Is there any evidence from police records to suggest that 16 year-olds are more likely to misbehave with air rifles or air pistols than 17 or 18 year-olds?
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I support the amendment even though I much prefer the next group of amendments which would place us in a more satisfactory position in regard to 14 to 17 year-olds. However, these amendments would be better than nothing and provide a good start. They would show that the Government are willing to fulfil their manifesto commitment to not in any way affect shooting. I shall reserve my detailed remarks for the next group of amendments, but surely we can start moving in the right direction by accepting these.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for moving the amendment even though, if I may say so gently, its introduction was extravagantly expressed.
The purpose of Clause 44 is to tackle air weapons misuse by ensuring that young people do not have access to them without adult supervision. Noble Lords will know that many people believe that the Government have not gone far enough to keep the public safe and urge us with some vigour to go even further. We believe that the provisions in the Bill are very balanced. They raise the age limit from 14 to 17.
I know that shooting organisations are concerned about the effect the Bill may have on shooting sports— a concern also raised by the noble Lords, Lord Monson, Lord Monro and Lord Dixon-Smith—but the Government have already responded to those concerns

557
by allowing an exception for young people to use their air weapons unsupervised on private premises. The amendments would remove a further category of young person—all 16 year-olds—from the need for supervision.
I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, says about moving the age limit to 16. I remind the House that there are others who say that the voting age should be moved to 21 and some who believe that there should be a gender difference between the ages when women are allowed to vote and when men are allowed to vote.
It is important that we should remain proportionate and realistic. The current age limit is 14. We have chosen 17 as the new age limit in order to catch the age group that we believe is most likely to be involved in the misuse of air weapons. It is also consistent with other age limits in firearms law. An age limit of 16 would mean that far fewer young people would have to be supervised when handling air weapons, but this would mean less protection for the public and undermine efforts to tackle air weapon misuse. We firmly believe that 17 is the right age at which to draw the line for unsupervised access to air weapons.
I ask the noble Lord not to press the amendment. I know that we shall speak with even greater energy on this issue during the debate on the next group of amendments.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, there will be dissension for a very long time between the noble Baroness and myself over the question of when a child is grown up and when, whether and how they are capable of making responsible judgments and so on. I do not intend to prolong matters. The Minister has given me no encouragement whatever. I have become used to having buckets of cold water poured down my neck—it is not an unfamiliar sensation—and I accept it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Moynihan Lord Moynihan moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 36, line 34, at end insert—

"(5) It is not an offence under section 22(4) of this Act for a person of or over the age of fourteen to have with him an air weapon or ammunition while making the journey between his home and any premises falling within subsection (2), provided that the conditions in subsection (6) are satisfied.

(6) The conditions are that—

(a) the weapon is carried in a securely locked case;

(b) the key to the case is kept separately from the weapon;

(c) the person may not transport the gun and ammunition in the same journey;

(d) any journey falling within subsection (5) must be a direct journey.""

The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may start by stating what I hope is obvious: all law-abiding citizens support the Government's proposals for a new offence of possessing an airgun or a replica gun in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. Everyone agrees that the misuse of firearms is a genuine, deeply felt concern of the general public and that there is widespread support for measures to tackle
558
this problem. But there is no history—not one case— where legitimate shooting sports have been the subject of the misuse of firearms. We must not allow, as my noble friend said when addressing the previous group of amendments, legitimate shooting sports to be swept into ill-considered, all-embracing legislation. I hope that as a result of our deliberations the Government will now realise that, as the legislation is currently drafted, the world of sport will be seriously damaged by the Government's proposals.
Sadly, this is not the first blow that the Government have landed on the face of British sport in the Bill. At the beginning of our considerations on Report, the Government landed a further blow on the battered body of British sport—pace Tim Henman and our rugby players—by refusing here and now to reinforce the stature of our anti-doping strategy by giving a commitment to grant independent status to UK Sport's anti-doping directorate.
Now, in a further blow to the solar plexus, the Government are in danger of landing a body blow to the world of Britain's young sporting shooters. Once again the Minister for Sport in another place is silent, as he was on the first issue, his voice not to be heard defending the interests of sportsmen and women. Only the characteristic, knowledgeable voice of the former Minister, Kate Hoey, was to be heard at Second Reading. She asked:
"will my right hon. Friend ensure that the guidance notes make it clear that the Bill will not prevent legitimate young shooters going to legitimate places to shoot? Will those people be covered by the reasonable exemptions and will that be clearly stated?".
The Home Secretary was clear in his reply. He said:
"We are seeking good and lawful reasons for carrying weapons, and we need to ensure that the guidance is positive and helpful in that way".—[Official Report, Commons. 8/4/03; col. 149.]
So we look to the Minister—as highly respected as she is hard working and popular—to broaden the remit of her portfolio and support the conciliatory amendment tabled in my name which will satisfy the Home Secretary's reply to Kate Hoey.
But, first, a little background. Without exception, the world of sport, coupled with those organisations representing the countryside, have railed and rallied against the Government's misguided new restriction set out in the clause. It is some feat for the Government to have alienated in one clause the Association of Professional Clay Target Shooting Grounds, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association, the Countryside Alliance, the Gun Trade Association, the Muzzle Loaders Association, the National Rifle Association, the National Small-bore Rifle Association, the Shooting Sports Trust, the Sportsman's Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom Practical Shooting Association, the Association of Professional Shooting Instructors and the Institute of Clay Shooting Instructors—all of which make up the British Shooting Sports Council—yet they have achieved that feat. They have done so by, for the first time, making it illegal for young responsible shooters between the ages of 14 and 17 to carry air guns in public places without supervision including, of course, our 16-year-old Commonwealth gold medallist, Charlotte Kerwood.
The issue is of extreme concern to the sporting shooting community, as it could seriously impede the participation of young people in a wide range of shooting sports, something the shooting community has, for many years, worked hard to encourage. Once again, the much publicised Game Plan, the Government's supposed blueprint for sport, is blotted. For in that document the DCMS has set a target to initiate,
"a major increase in participation in sport and physical activity, primarily because of the significant health benefits and to reduce the growing costs of inactivity".
Shooting sports often require significant physical exertion and provide a wide variety of health benefits for those who participate in them. How does the restriction of young people's ability to practise these sports fit with Game Plan? The Bill will bear down disproportionately on any young responsible sportsman or woman who has permission to shoot on local farmland or who, as a trainee gamekeeper, is required to travel to an estate as their place of work.
To summarise, the legislation carries two main categories of legitimate shooters who will be affected. The first is the sports shooters who, if Labour Party manifestos are worth the paper they are written on, have an undertaking that they will not be the subject of discriminatory legislation further to restrict the enjoyment of their sport. Sadly, as currently drafted, the Bill revokes that undertaking and so affects this category of young shooters. The second category is the farmhands who frequently assist the local farmer by, for example, killing rats in barns.
Worse, the clause contradicts the Government's manifesto commitment not to place further restrictions on the sport of shooting. Moreover, if the Bill does not receive further amendment, young shooters will be allowed to use their guns on private land without supervision but will be in the conflicting position of having to be supervised when carrying these same guns in public.
The Government will of course turn to the series of statistics for crime involving air guns and replica weapons, which the Minister in another place published in response to questions from Mike Hancock, MP. Careful analysis of these statistics is important for the work of a revising Chamber, so I believe it is important to note that on the basis of government statistics, a person is more likely to be hospitalised by a tea cosy or a cotton bud than by the misuse of an air gun. Nevertheless, we should seek ways of improving enforcement and introducing further offences which allow the police to challenge any person of any age who is carrying an air gun in a public place. Both these proposals in the Bill have our support.
With the Minister's support, and accompanied by senior representatives of the British Shooting Sports Council and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, I recently met with her officials to consider ways of reaching agreement with the Government to ensure that Clause 44 of the Anti-social Behaviour Bill does not bear down disproportionately on young sporting shooters, while ensuring that the legislation remains effective and practical in targeting the abuse of
560
guns. The Government have yet to signal their agreement with the proposals we put to officials, so it is with great regret that I seek agreement on a compromise amendment, which I nevertheless hope achieves that objective.
This amendment would allow young shots to carry air guns in public places without supervision, but under very restrictive and clearly defined conditions. The many organisations to which I have referred, including the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, believe that those conditions are unnecessarily draconian, but I believe and hope they will carry the support of your Lordships across the political divide.
The amendments tabled in my name show the extent to which both I and the shooting community have strived to seek a reasoned and reasonable way to identify middle ground between the Bill as it stands and the law in its current form. Amendments Nos. 71,72,73,74 and 75 are evidence of this process, and Amendment No. 76 is the culmination of these efforts. It seeks first to allow young people to carry air guns in public without supervision, provided the gun is carried in a securely fastened case.
In the end, I have not sought to add over-complex and burdensome bureaucracy to the work of the police by requiring more than the provisions of reasonable excuse for carrying a gun, since by requesting evidence of purpose—for example, a signed letter from the parents or evidence of a place of destination and the place of residence—we would be going beyond good reason, lawful authority and the new conditions laid out in the Bill. Nevertheless, by recognising the need to carry the gun in a securely fastened case, the risk, though remote, is minimised that our 17-year-old Commonwealth gold medallist has her air gun stolen from her for criminal purposes.
Yet to make this possibility even more remote—and I remind the House that expert commentators from the police and the shooting community have not been able to identify a single offence recorded of a young 14 to 17-year-old sport shooter arrested for abusing the current freedom to carry his or her air gun to a shooting club—I propose to go further and amend the Bill to allow young people to carry air guns in public without supervision if, and only if, the guns are carried in a securely fastened case, with the new requirement for the case to be securely locked and the key kept separate from the gun.
Your Lordships will note that even the most determined criminal now has a problem. He or she can break with precedent in terms of criminal activity in this country, grab the gun case—unaware of whether there is a gun inside—knowing in advance that the law-abiding young sporting shooter will not have a key to the securely fastened case. However, I recommend going even further by introducing the provision that the air gun pellets must always be carried separately from the gun. That is an exceptionally important additional proposal which I hope will meet with the Minister's support.
In seeking consensus, I propose to go even further. The young person wishing to carry an air gun unsupervised in public must be able to prove—here I emphasise that the burden is very much on the individual—that they are travelling directly to the place where they will be practising their sport.
Amendment No. 76 seeks to protect young responsible shooters. It is regrettable that it is left to these Benches, with, I hope, support from those genuinely committed to sport on the Liberal Democrat and, indeed, the Labour Benches, to rally together on an all-party basis to address this issue. However, I hope the Minister will respond positively, support my amendment and avoid the necessity to test the will of the House. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Pendry: My Lords, I take part in this debate wearing my sporting hat. As chairman of the All-Party Sports Group, I declare an interest in this matter. I accept, of course, the main tenets of the Bill, but I think it is flawed in respect of the provision in Clause 44 which, if passed, would exclude many young people from the sport of shooting.
Although I support the sporting community, I am far from a shooter. I must confess that it is probably the last sport I would put my hand to. As a national serviceman in the Royal Air Force in the 1950s, doing my square bashing at West Kirby RAF station, I, together with some 70 conscripts, marched on orders to a rifle range, as it was deemed necessary for us to have a basic knowledge of using rifles. I failed to hit one shot anywhere near the target range, and, with 69 of my colleagues lined up to go to lunch, I was accosted by the sergeant in charge who made me sign a piece of paper stating that I was blind so that the rest could go to lunch. So you see, my Lords, shooting is hardly a sport I could have excelled in. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has said, others do. He referred to young Charlotte Kerwood, a 16-year-old gold medallist at the Commonwealth Games, and there have been many more before her.
It is a fact that many people participate in this sport across the UK—rather more than those who participate in rugby, hockey, athletics or motor sports. I recognise that the Bill has an important intention; namely, to prevent the misuse of air guns. Any changes to the Government's proposals should certainly be thought through thoroughly, and I hope the Minister will do that. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, as well as the British Association of Shooting and Conservation and the British Shooting Sports Council, have tried hard to meet the Government's concerns. They all recognise that, if the clause is passed without amendment, it will pose a significant impediment to the participation of young people in a whole range of shooting sports, from informal target practice to competitive shooting.
Shooting sports are often practised in rural areas where it is often preferable for young people to walk or cycle to the place where they shoot. Requiring young people to be supervised in those situations—or even supervised walking down the street—would surely put off the majority of youngsters who were thinking of taking up the sport. Caroline Flint MP, a Home Office Minister in the other place, argued that:
"There is no 'strong reason' why young shooters should not be supervised. It is no different to the support given to young people by parents and coaches in relation to many other sports".
562
That is a very important point. Perhaps we should be looking at it in another way: it is not a legal requirement for adults to accompany young people to practice sessions in other sporting disciplines. As with other sports, it is currently left up to parents to judge whether it would be appropriate to allow young people to travel unsupervised to the location where they practise shooting sports. Surely, young shooters should be given the same opportunities as sportsmen and women from other backgrounds.
As the author of Labour's Sporting Nation manifesto in 1997, I can assure noble Lords that it commended the sports of shooting and fishing. I hope that that will be underlined for many years to come on the Benches opposite. In the context of the Government's grass roots sports policy, surely the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, must be accepted. The DCMS has a key target to initiate,
"a major increase in participation in sport and physical activity, primarily because of the significant health benefits and to reduce the growing costs of inactivity".
Shooting sports often require significant physical exertion and provide a wide variety of health benefits for those who participate in them. If the clause is left unamended, I am concerned that it could undermine the Government's clear achievements on grass roots sport and prevent the sporting community from upholding these targets. As a result, I call on noble Lords to support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, which would allow sporting shooters a reasonable degree of freedom to practise their sport while ensuring that the Government's attempts to tackle gun crime retain their effectiveness.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment, and declare my interest as chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council, honorary president of the Gun Trade Association and a former chairman of the Firearms Consultative Committee.
I praise the work that the BSSC has put into this issue. It has worked long and hard on the matter and has been willing to go to great lengths to satisfy the Minister's concerns with regard to public safety, which some would say were adequately covered by the powers given to the police in Clause 43. The BSSC put forward the wording of these amendments, having taken great care to consult the Home Office to find a workable solution. On behalf of the BSSC, I thank my noble friend Lord Moynihan for his tireless support on the issue. He is a true friend of British sport, as we have seen throughout the passage of the Bill.
I should like to reiterate what my noble friend has said, but let us consider the matter from the point of view of the individual whom the Government are trying to isolate with the legislation. I refer to the anti-social young person who is prepared to risk the safety of others to get his kicks out of an airgun. Under the law as it stands, he can be arrested if he carries an airgun in public without a securely fastened cover. To some of your Lordships, that item might not seem all that stringent. Under my noble friend's amendments, not only would he have to do that, but he would have

563
to lock the case in which he was carrying the gun; leave the key at home; and be able to prove that he was travelling directly to a place where he has permission to use the gun for sporting purposes. He would not be allowed to carry pellets with the gun and, on top of that, he could even be required to carry valid identification and written permission from his parents and the landowner.
What young person out to create serious mischief with an airgun is going to go to the trouble of having all that information with him and, abiding by those restrictions, go and take a potshot at a cat? Young responsible sporting shooters, on the other hand, have willingly and wisely shown themselves to be prepared to give up all those freedoms to retain their right to carry the tool that they use for their sport in public places.
Her Majesty's Government say that what they propose in the clause will not affect shooting sports. The work that the BSSC has put into the issue shows exactly how passionate young sporting shooters are about protecting that aspect of their sports.
The Government say that our proposals will not work because hooligans will break the law anyway, or would do it behind our backs, and the police would be unable to stop them. Surely, the Government know that one cannot build legislation on such an assumption. Why introduce the excellent proposal in Clause 43, which the shooting community fully supports, to require everyone carrying an airgun in a public place to be able to provide good cause or reasonable excuse for so doing, if one is trying to tackle the minority of the population who will just ignore the requirement completely? It is fairly academic that the Government do not have faith in the police to do their job properly. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, Amendment No. 76 seems a reasonable amendment. If the Government are going to allow people to go on shooting rifles, and allow shooting sports generally, they will allow youth into the sport. The amendment would mean that young people could get there and take part in the sport, and would replace considerable numbers of restrictions on transporting weapons. If we say that young people must be tied to a parent or supervising adult, many young people will simply drop out and it will become more difficult.
Let us please have a little consistency. I agree that we must not take lightly firearms of any description, but if we are allowing them to be used legally, we must allow them to be used to a realistic level. We can support the amendment because it reaches that balanced point. We hope that the Government respond favourably to the issue because, realistically, they do no: have much choice—unless they are saying that they want to cut down on shooting sports.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I wholeheartedly support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Moynihan. In so doing, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the British Shooting Sports Council.
564
I absolutely understand the Government's objective in trying to marginalise those few individuals who are intent on making people's lives miserable through the irresponsible use of airguns. At the same time, it is important that the responsible—and I am sure that the Minister would agree that by far and away the majority of those who use airguns are responsible—are not penalised out of proportion.
As my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury said, as the law stands, anyone who carries an airgun in a public place without a securely fastened cover is in breach of the law. I should have thought that that was by far and away the major deterrent. The amendment would add to that a list of additional restrictions, including not carrying ammunition and the requirement to carry valid identification. I suggest that that combination would act to deter all but the very few who are intent on breaking the law.
Of course, we cannot legislate to cover all possibilities, but we must pass laws that are reasonable, practical and above all—and this is a very important point—show respect for the responsible people. If we add to the amendments the sensible proposals in Clause 43, we have reached a sensible and fair balance. Without the amendment, responsible airgun users who indulge in target shooting or carry out necessary pest control activities on farmland are likely to be seriously compromised, as indeed will other members of their families who in some cases will have to give up precious time to ferry them around.
I realise that these amendments appear to address relatively small and irrelevant issues. However, the pressures of regulation and red tape are constantly bearing down on the rural communities. The Government gave the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, the task of looking at red tape in rural matters and he came up with a whole series of proposals, but the Government completely ignored most of them. I hope that the Government realise that red tape, particularly in the rural sector, is getting out of all proportion. If the Bill is enacted as it stands at the moment, it will create considerable difficulties in the rural sector.
I therefore implore the Minister to look sensibly at these amendments. I hope that she will accept what my noble friend has suggested as a thoroughly sensible and reasonable compromise.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I support my colleagues and noble Lords on all sides of the House who have spoken in support of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Moynihan. He said, as I did in my previous intervention, that the Government's manifesto said that it would not affect shooting. However, that is exactly what is happening. We all know that it is a slippery slope into much more severe regulation, often by guidance to chief constables, which could make it very difficult indeed to operate with firearms. One sees that not only in this legislation. We saw it last weekend in the "Sports Cabinet" at which the sports Ministers, UK Sport and other sports councils met and decided that financial support would

565
not be available for the top marksmen who have done so much to win gold medals for this country in the Olympics and the Commonwealth Games. We are all aware of the immense contribution that Bisley has made.
I support the comments of my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury about the BSSC. I have been involved with that fine organisation, and I declare an interest as a past president of the NSRA, the NRA and the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association. When it comes to firearms all those organisations know what they are talking about, much more than the Government know what they are talking about. The Government ought to listen. They ought to be glad to have the advice of the BSSC on how they should proceed. The Government's thinking as manifested in their legislation shows a lack of information.
It is no wonder at all that the Government's direction in this matter is causing grave concern to some crack shots, both boys and girls. We all understand the Government's worry about imitation weapons, conversions and so on. However, an attack on youth and airguns is not justified. It is certainly not justified as regards air rifles. Most gun crime, of course, involves handguns. The provisions as they affect airguns will do nothing to help reduce the incidence of firearm crime.
We want youngsters, through experience with adults, to learn how to shoot safely and to enjoy it for years to come. It is all very well for the noble Baroness to say, "On private land they can do what they like". They have to get to that private land. They have to move from their homes to a farm or to wherever they have permission to shoot. The point applies similarly to youngsters who are high-quality marksmen and want to go to the nearest indoor range, an open range, a railway station or an airport so that they can compete internationally. All that would be banned by the Government's incredible restriction on movement for 14 to 17 year-olds.
As I said, I hope that the Minister will ensure that draft guidance is shown to both Houses of Parliament so that we can see how that guidance relates to the legislation. Very often such guidance takes a stride or two further forward than was ever approved by Members of both Houses. At this stage, however, I hope that the noble Baroness will realise that she is on a losing wicket, that she has not very many friends in this building tonight and that she might as well concede it.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I rise briefly to support strongly Amendment No. 76. I have no interest to declare. I confess, however, that I was a little bit cautious about previous amendments which we considered in Committee to address this issue. I felt that they did not meet all the Government's legitimate aspirations to protect the public. However, I think that the requirements outlined by my noble friend Lord Moynihan fully meet all sensible requirements.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, just to make it absolutely plain, I am grateful to my noble friends who
566
are advancing these amendments. They will, of course, have the full support of these Benches. The amendments reduce some of what I would call the collateral damage caused by the proposals in the Bill as it stands. I hope that the noble Baroness will find it in her heart to accept them, or make sufficiently sympathetic noises to persuade my noble friends that they need not pursue the matter tonight because the Government will improve on their proposals.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have just enjoyed a debate that could take place only in your Lordships' House, and enjoyed it we certainly have. The noble Lord, Lord Monro, said that the Government ought to listen. We have listened. Moreover, as the daughter of a very fine Caribbean cricketer, I can assure him that I intend to protect my wicket as well as I can.
Clause 44 will require young people under 17 to be supervised by an adult when carrying an air weapon in public. So a young person would indeed be able to carry an airgun if he had a reasonable excuse to do so; for example, if he was going to a club. However, he or she would have to be supervised by an adult if they were under 17.
I think that this amendment could not have been pursued with greater force and vigour than that shown by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who at one stage employed every argument to persuade that it was an efficacious, easy and not complex way forward. If only that were so. The Government have tried to be proportionate in our response to the issue. We believe that these provisions are necessary. It is when a young person is carrying a gun in public that the greatest risk of its misuse arises. It is then that the public most need to be protected. It is then that adult supervision is most required.
I know that the focus has been on what young sportsmen and women will do and on what risk they pose. As your Lordships will know, however, that is only one side of the coin. The issue is not that those who wish to behave responsibly will act improperly, but that those who can remove things from them might act improperly. Indeed, many young people already have the benefit of an accompanying adult.
I say straightaway that I recognise the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and all the attempts to formulate an exception to the requirement to assist responsible young shooters. I very much take into account what was said by all three noble Earls, Lord Shrewsbury, Lord Peel and Lord Attlee. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Peel, asked the Government to be reasonable and practicable and to show respect for the responsible. However, we believe that we are doing exactly that.
The very conditions posited by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, while not foolproof in themselves, would in combination make it difficult for anyone wanting to misuse an air weapon. We concede that. However, the same raft of conditions would also be difficult for the police to enforce. A complex exception like this would effectively undermine our efforts to tackle the increasing problem of air weapon misuse. It

567
is perfectly reasonable to expect a young person aged 16 and below to be supervised by an adult when carrying a gun in public. As I say, I hope that that already happens in most cases. Where: it does not, it will be necessary to modify that behaviour. That may cause some inconvenience but we do not think it will be of such gravity that it will imperil the sporting community in this country. Our young shooters are extremely good; they are responsible and the adults who guide them take that responsibility seriously. We believe that these provisions will constitute a balance.
We looked very carefully at the issue. As I said on a previous amendment, many argued very strongly indeed that we should not have the exception on private land, that the measure should not be permissible in the way that we have now crafted it, and that we should just expunge it. That view was expressed and the Government have been robust in saying that we want a medium way forward. I am grateful for the acknowledgement of how far the Government have listened to all the issues. However, we have to listen to both sides of the argument, not just one, in order to get a proportionate and balanced response. We believe that we now have that proportionate response. We have sought to take into consideration all the factors and have come up with a workable solution with which ACPO members and the public can be content. We have a safe and proportionate response.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to noble Lords who participated in this debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friends, to the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, who is always a wise voice in the world of sport, and to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, whose perceptive comments will, I hope, carry his colleagues through the Lobby in favour of Amendment No. 76.
All the issues have been covered in depth. I believe that these amendments are satisfactory in terms of being balanced and addressing all the issues. Very regrettably on this occasion I am not persuaded by the Minister. Having listened carefully to colleagues, I shall withdraw Amendment No. 71 and not move Amendments Nos. 72, 73, 74 and 75. However, I shall wish to seek the opinion of the House on Amendment No. 76. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 71.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 72 to 75 not moved.]
Lord Moynihan Lord Moynihan moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 36, line 34, at end insert—
"(5) It is not an offence under section 22(4) of this Act for a person of or over the age of fourteen to have with him an air gun or ammunition in a public place provided that—

(a) the air gun or rifle is so covered by a securely fastened gun over that it cannot be used;

(b) the gun cover is securely locked and the key kept eparately from the gun;

568

(c) the air gun or rifle pellets are carried separately from the gun;

(d) the person is travelling directly to or from a place at which he can lawfully use the air gun or where it has been kept on his behalf.""

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment No. 76.
5.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 76) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 119; Not-Contents, 122.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kingsland, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Arran, E.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Liverpool, E.

Attlee, E.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Avebury, L.

Lucas, L.

Biffen, L.

Luke, L.

Blackwell, L.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Bridgeman, V.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Byford, B.

Maddock, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mancroft, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Chadlington, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Colwyn, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Monson, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Moynihan, L.

Denham, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Newby, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Noakes, B.

Elton, L.

Northbrook, L.

Fearn, L.

Northover, B.

Feldman, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Fookes, B.

Onslow, E.

Fowler, L.

Palmer, L.

Freeman, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Parkinson, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar.L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Goodhart, L.

Peel, E.

Goschen, V.

Pendry, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Hanham, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Hanson, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Rees, L.

Higgins, L.

Renton, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Roper, L.

Hooper, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Howe, E.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Jacobs, L.

Selsdon, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Sharpies, B.

569

Shrewsbury, E.

Waddington, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Wakeham, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Walmsley, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Walpole, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Warnock, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Weatherill, L.

Trumpington, B.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hoyle, L.

Alli, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Andrews, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Jones, L.

Bach, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Barnett, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Layard, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Lipsey, L.

Billingham, B.

Listowel, E.

Blackstone, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Blood, B.

McCarthy, L.

Borrie, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Brookman, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Burlison, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Marsh, L.

Carter, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Christopher, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morgan, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Orme, L.

Crawley, B.

Parekh, L.

David, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Plant of Highfield, L.

Desai, L.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Dixon, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donoughue, L.

Radice, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Dubs, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Elder, L.

Richard, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Rooker, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Sawyer, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sheldon, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Simon, V.

Filkin, L.

Stem, B.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Strange, B.

Gale, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gavron, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Thornton, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Turnberg, L.

Goudie, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Warner, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Harrison, L.

Whitaker, B.

Haskel, L.

Whitty, L.

Hayman, B.

Wilkins, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.53 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 77 to 80 not moved.]
Clause 45 [Prohibition of certain air weapons]:
The Earl of Shrewsbury The Earl of Shrewsbury moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 37, line 21, leave out from "subsection" to end of line 24 and insert "(l)(c) insert—
"(d) any air weapon which—,

(i) either has a barrel less than 30 centimetres in length or is less than 60 centimetres in length overall, and

(ii) uses, or is designed or adapted for use with a self contained gas cartridge system, or

(iii) is readily convertible to fire ammunition capable of discharging a missile by the force of gunpowder or a like propellant.

(1ZA) In this section—

(a) a self contained gas cartridge is a single unit containing a propellant charge of air or carbon dioxide, a valve or other device for releasing the charge, and a propellant together with a projectile;

(b) the term "readily convertible" has the meaning ascribed to it in section 1(6) of the Firearms Act 1982 (c. 31) (control of imitation firearms readily convertible into firearms to which section 1 of the 1968 Act applies).""

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 81 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 84 to 87 and 89 to 91, particularly Amendment No. 91. Noble Lords will be aware that I declared my interest earlier.
Although the British Shooting Sports Council and the Gun Trade Association wholeheartedly support the Government's efforts to introduce legislation to target the abuse of airguns, the proposed powers that the Government intend to give themselves in Clause 45 represent a real, significant and dangerous shift of power into the hands of Ministers. That indiscriminate approach to imposing firearms controls is, to put it quite bluntly, somewhat autocratic. Ministers' attitude on the issue has been to try to solve the problem by introducing the power to ban any airgun deemed especially dangerous.
There is a real concern in the shooting community that the power proposed by the clause would eventually be used to ban a wide range of airguns, leading to the somewhat perverse situation in which controls on airguns could be far more stringent than those on Section 1 firearms. The Minister must surely agree that that arrangement would be totally illogical, and would create a considerable imbalance in the law. The risk of the powers being used in an indiscriminate way outweigh the Government's wish for the powers to be unconfined.
Amendments Nos. 81 and 89 seek to limit the order-making powers only where necessary to deal with the problem identified; namely, easily convertible air-cartridge systems. I acknowledge the Minister's comments in Committee that it would not make sense to restrict the Government to what is presently known to be the problem. However, the fact remains, as my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith emphasised in Committee,

571
that in all likelihood criminals using a sawn-off gas-powered air rifle would be unthinkable. It would be an inefficient and useless weapon for criminal purposes. Given the proposal to license rather than ban outright Brococks, which are much more suitable for criminal use when converted to fire live ammunition, it is surely undeniable that the Government's; position is unbalanced.
I am aware that my noble friend Lord Peel will address Brococks and other air-cartridge system airguns when he speaks to Amendment No. 91. However, I wonder whether the Minister has seen today's article on Brococks in the Evening Standard. If not, I draw her attention to it. It is ample and powerful evidence that the Government's plans for a partial ban will not do the trick. The only sensible way forward to protect the safety of the public in the matter is a complete ban on those weapons, and with full compensation. The argument in support of such a course of action is overwhelming.
Finally, I simply want to make two points. First, if Her Majesty's Government honestly feel that people are not responsible enough to hand their airguns in to the authorities, surely those very people are not responsible enough to hold a Section 1 firearms certificate. Secondly, if, as the Government propose, such airguns may be held by individuals on a Section 1 licence—if such persons are deemed to be responsible enough to possess the airguns—does it not follow that the shooting fraternity should be allowed their target handguns back under the very same premise? I leave the Minister with that thought. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel): My Lords, if Amendment No. 81 is agreed, I will not be able to call Amendment No. 82 because of pre-emption.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I have tabled Amendments Nos. 82, 83 and 88, but there is no need for me to detain the House for more than a few moments. My amendments run in parallel with those of my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury, and I support everything that he said. There is no point in my repeating it. The provisions illustrate again what I would call the scatter-gun approach of legislation on the subject. The amendments provide considerably more precision on any effects.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I support the amendment, but I shall restrict my remarks principally to Amendment No. 91, which seeks to replace a licensing scheme for Brococks with a compensation scheme and outright ban. That highlights the willingness of the shooting community to target firearms misuse in a specific and appropriate fashion.
Very early in the negotiations between the Home Office and the gun trade on Brococks, it became manifestly clear that it would not be possible to modify that type of gun in such a way that criminals could not convert them into live firing handguns. The fact that the Government fully accept that to be true would put Ministers under an obligation to ban the weapon rather than opt for an overly bureaucratic and
572
expensive licensing system. I emphasise that such a system would not only provide a financial disincentive to Brocock owners to obtain a licence, but allow those readily convertible guns to get into wider circulation and be used in a way contrary to the aims of the Bill. I do not believe that that is the intention of Ministers. However, that is what will happen if the Government do not accept these amendments, in particular Amendment No. 91.
Compensation schemes are not new. They were well used in two previous Acts on firearms prohibition. What is important is that these amendments demonstrate a genuine willingness by the shooting community to come forward with a genuine and realistic option to deal with a recognised problem. In view of the considerable sacrifice by shooters to work with the Government by dispensing with these problematic firearms, and in the same breath eliminating the need for additional bureaucratic licensing systems, which I am sure the Minister would be only too willing to welcome, I hope that she will look favourably at the sensible compromise provided in the amendment put forward by my noble friend.
6 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which the noble Earls, Lord Shrewsbury and Lord Peel, have sought to support the amendment and for the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that we do not have a scatter-gun approach. We have a highly focused, targeted approach but a number of noble Earls would rather our target be elsewhere. We cannot be accused of a scatter-gun approach.
It was suggested that we are taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut—more politely expressed in the contributions of noble Lords. I regret that there have been too many murders and attempted murders using these converted weapons to sustain that argument.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. That is exactly why we want them banned entirely.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we understand that, but the question is: how should we deal with them? It is true to say that these conversions are currently carried out on various types of handgun and the ammunition involved uses some kind of explosive charge. I was grateful that the noble Lord has taken on board the comments I made in Committee; namely, that we cannot prevent ever-inventive criminals seeking new and different ways. But there is a great variation in the types of rifle used and it is not always easy to classify them. I hear what the noble Lord says about getting rid of all of them, but then, returning to our earlier debate, some people will say that we are penalising the responsible for the irresponsible. Your Lordships know that the Government are loath to do that.
A revolving carbine would remain legal if we were to accept this amendment but could soon be converted to look like a conventional revolver of the type we all

573
agree should be banned. As for confining any future restrictions to weapons which can only be converted to discharge a missile by the force of gunpowder, again, it is important to be flexible and to have available a provision which can be used in respect of any new design which might come on to the market in the future. I hope that we have no need for further recourse to these powers, but if criminals start to cast around for alternative weapons, we must be able to respond quickly and flexibly.
Amendment No. 81 also suggests a definition of a self-contained gas cartridge. We are clear that the present wording excludes systems which use CO2 bulbs and bears down only on those guns which are currently causing problems.
As regards Amendment No. 90, I know that there is a strong desire to use the proposed new power to relax the controls on expanding ammunition which have been causing some difficulties, but I believe that this is something for the forthcoming review of firearms legislation generally. That matter will be debated. We will certainly look at the issue carefully in the course of that review.
Finally, Amendment No. 91 seeks to introduce provision for a compensation scheme. It does not actually apply to the prohibition on guns using the air cartridge system, only to future orders. We have previously explained why compensation is not payable in respect of the air cartridge system. Also, we have sought to strike a fair balance between the interests of the individuals who own the guns—they can continue to keep them on a certificate—and the wider public interest. As for the future, no prudent government could commit themselves to a compensation scheme without knowing what circumstances applied.
Noble Lords opposite will want to know that we do not see Clause 45 as a means of attacking the legitimate use of air weapons. But we do need appropriate and flexible powers to deal with the problems of criminal misuse. We believe that this is what Clause 45 provides and I would ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment. I reassure noble Lords that we have listened most carefully. I acknowledge that we have learnt a great deal from those with whom we have been able to consult, as they have learnt from us as we shared some of the problems that may not have been fully understood. We believe that together we have made a better fist of what needs to happen and that this is where we rest. We have been grateful, and we will continue to be, to have these discussions with all those interested in the sporting and other issues.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for those words. I appreciate her position and want to place on record the feeling from the shooting community that things have never been so good in the discourse which continues with government, ACPO and many others involved in regulation. We appreciate that.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said but she gave me little cause for comfort on Amendment No. 91. For once, we have the most unusual situation
574
in which almost the whole shooting community is pressing for stronger action: for a complete ban but with full compensation on an evil little weapon which causes massive damage in the wrong hands.
As my noble friend Lord Peel said, the precedence exists in the two Acts banning handguns. People were compensated for losing those weapons. I am adamantly against the banning of anything—except in the most exceptional circumstances. I believe that these are exceptional circumstances. I shall withdraw all my other amendments but I must press Amendment No. 91.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 82 to 90 not moved.]
The Earl of Shrewsbury The Earl of Shrewsbury moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 38, line 17, at end insert—
"(7) After section 1(5) of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 (c. 45) (prohibited weapons and ammunition) insert—
"(6) Where an order under subsection (4) may result in a person who has lawfully owned any firearm or ammunition subject to the order being deprived of his property (whether or not a form of licence may be made available) the Secretary of State shall make a draft compensation scheme.
(7) The scheme in subsection (6) shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as an order at the same time as the order under subsection (4) is laid, and shall be approved in draft by each House of Parliament.""
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
6.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 91) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 102; Not-Contents, 113.

Division No.3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Fowler, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Freeman, L.

Attlee,E.[Teller]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Avebury, L.

Goschen, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Biffen, L.

Greenway, L.

Blackwell, L.

Hanham, B.

Blatch, B.

Hanningfield, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Hanson, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Higgins, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hooper, B.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Howe, E.

Colwyn, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Denham, L.

Kingsland, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Elton, L.

Liverpool, E.

Fearn, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Feldman, L.

Lucas, L.

Fookes, B.

Luke. L.

575

Lyell, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Platt of Writtle, B.

L.

Renton, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Roper, L.

Maddock, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Mancroft, L.

Russell, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Monson, L.

Seccombe, B.[Teller]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Selsdon, L.

Sharples, B.

Moynihan, L.

Shrewsbury, E

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Noakes, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Northbrook, L.

Strathclyde, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Onslow, E.

Tordoff, L.

Palmer, L.

Waddington, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Wakeham, L.

Parkinson, L.

Walmsley, B.

Peel, E.

Walpole, L.

Perry of Southwark, B

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ahmed, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Alli, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Harris of Haringey, L.

Andrews, B.

Haskel, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hayman, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Bach, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Barnett, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hoyle, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Billingham, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Blood, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Borrie, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Brett, L.

Jones, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Brookman, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Burlison, L.

Layard, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Carter, L.

Lipsey, L.

Christopher, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

McCarthy, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Crawley, B.

Marsh, L.

David, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Desai, L.

Mitchell, L.

Dixon, L.

Morgan, L.

Donoughue, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dubs, L.

Parekh, L.

Elder, L.

Pendry, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Filkin, L.

Radice, L.

Gale, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gavron, L.

Richard, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Rooker, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

576

Simon, V.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Weatherill, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Whitaker, B.

Whitty, L.

Thornton, B.

Wilkins, B.

Turnberg, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Warner, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.19 p.m.
Clause 48 [Dealing with noise at night]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 40, line 11, at end insert—
"(5) In section 9 (section 8: supplementary), for subsection (4) substitute—
"(4) A local authority may use any sums it receives under section 8 (its "penalty receipts") only for the purposes of functions of its that are qualifying functions.
(4A) The following are qualifying functions for the purposes of this section—

(a) functions under this Act, and

(b) functions of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(4B) Regulations under subsection (4A)(b) may (in particular) have the effect that a local authority may use its penalty receipts for the purposes of any of its functions.
(4C) A local authority must supply the Secretary of State with such information relating to the use of its penalty receipts as the Secretary of State may require.
(4D) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) make provision for what a local authority is to do with its penalty receipts—

(i) pending their being used for the purposes of qualifying functions of the authority;

(ii) if they are not so used before such time after their receipt as may be specified by the regulations;

(b) make provision for accounting arrangements in respect of a local authority's penalty receipts.

(4E) The provision that may be made under subsection (4D)(a)(ii) includes (in particular) provision for the payment of sums to a person (including the Secretary of State) other than the local authority.
(4F) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the local authorities to which the regulations are to apply, and

(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate."

(6)In section 11 (interpretation and subordinate legislation), in subsection (3) after "order", in the first place where it occurs, insert "or regulations".
(7) The reference to the Noise Act 1996 (c. 37) in Schedule 1 to the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/672) is to be treated as referring to that Act as amended by this section."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland, government Amendment No. 92, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 96.
clause 48 enables all local authorities in England and Wales to issue fixed penalty notices in respect of complaints of excessive noise at night. Amendment No. 92 will allow local authorities to retain their receipts from night noise fixed penalty notices for use on any qualifying functions. That change will offer two main benefits: first, it will encourage local authorities to make more use of the night noise offence by way of fixed penalty notices; and, secondly, it will provide consistency with the proposed handling of receipts from fixed penalty notices issued for graffiti and fly-posting.
As group of amendments also allows the Secretary of State to request from local authorities for monitoring purposes information on the level and use of such income. It also provides for regulations to be made by the Secretary of State specifying which functions, in addition to those that local authorities already have, are "qualifying functions" on which receipts may be spent. That will allow the Government to consider giving additional flexibility in future in the use of such receipts by local authorities. The amendments will encourage and support the increased use of night noise fixed penalty notices with the resulting benefits for people who suffer noise from their neighbours at night.
All Government's determination to tackle the problem of fly-posting is already reflected in other clauses in the Bill. However, during earlier stages, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised some points in relation to fly-posting and the Government have reflected on those points. Government Amendment No. 96 recognises the severity of the offence and increases the level of fines for those prosecuted under Section 224(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 from level 3 (up to £1,000) to level 4 (up to £2,500). That recognises the growing incidence of fly-posting and the need for a more punitive deterrent for those responsible for the crime.
shall also mention my view of the other two amendments in this group. Through Amendment No. 94, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seeks to remove the words "or obliterate" from Section 225 of the Act, which empowers a local planning authority to "remove or obliterate" placards and posters which, in its opinion, contravene regulations. As I said in Committee, we feel that local planning authorities should keep the option of being able to obliterate a fly-poster in cases where removal may damage the fabric of the building or structure on which the poster is displayed.
The new clause would also reduce from two days to six hours the minimum period which must elapse before a local planning authority may remove or obliterate a placard or poster where it has served notice on the person responsible for the poster of its intention to do so. It would be unfair to remove any defence from a person who stood to gain from the advertisement just because the local planning authority had posted a note requesting him to remove the advertisement within six hours. Six hours is too short a limit and it would be unsound and unworkable as it is an unreasonably small time period in which to expect the advertiser to take action.
Amandment No. 93, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would require an authorised officer proposing to issue a fixed penalty notice in respect of a minor act of graffiti or fly-posting to notify the person to whom the penalty is being given of his or her right to decline the fixed penalty. I do not believe that is necessary. It is implicit in the way that authorised officers will deal with these matters that it will be clear to the offender that refusal or failure to pay the fixed penalty notice may result in his or her being prosecuted. Issuing a fixed penalty notice is an alternative to potential prosecution, and so the person receiving one will know that he or she faces a choice: to take their chance before the courts, or to pay up. That has worked perfectly well in respect of existing fixed penalty notices for littering and dog fouling. I have every expectation that it will do so in respect of graffiti and fly-posting. I therefore cannot accept either of the other two amendments in the group in the name of the noble Baroness. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the amendment that deals with the penalty. This was the last point on which I expected the Government to move, particularly as the Minister at the previous stage made some perfectly reasonable points about the Home Office needing to see how this knocked on to other offences. I am delighted to see that the Government have acted.
On obliteration, I take the point about damage to the fabric of equipment, but legislation that allows an offender to obliterate a poster by placing another one on top of it—that is what obliteration means—does not seem to me to be a proper solution. If one allowed 48 hours for removal or obliteration, quite often the event being advertised will have taken place and the poster will have done its job. However, I shall not press those two issues. Enforcement in relation to fly-posting and graffiti needs to be looked at overall. Clearly there are still problems concerned with that.
I welcome Amendment No. 92. It is good to leave money with local authorities for them to spend. When previously we debated this matter I made a point about ring-fencing. I suppose that applies here as well. I hope that there will be enough money for that not to be an issue. I hope that the new penalties will mean that the level of fly-posting will diminish. We shall see.
One point that applies also to Clause 51 (3) concerns the language used. That subsection states:
"A local authority may use any sums it receives … only for the purposes of functions of its that are qualifying functions".
The word "its" appears uncomfortable there. I would have expected the subsection to read "of it" or possibly "its functions", which would be easier. I do not expect a response to this point unless anyone on the Front Bench feels moved to provide one. I can see the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, shifting about. I am sure he would express the matter much more elegantly than the rest of us. Such matters can be tidied up at the final stage. If parliamentary counsel and the

579
powers that carry out that kind of tidying up and cross-referencing feel that that is an inelegant way of expressing the point, perhaps they would consider the provisions in Clauses 48 and 51(3). I thank the Government for moving on these issues.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 49 [Penalty notices for graffiti and fly-posting]:
[Amendment No. 93 not moved]
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
Clause 56 [Guidance]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 45, line 29, at end insert "and may not exercise any of the powers conferred by section 54 or 55 unless and until such guidance is issued to it or it is otherwise authorised"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Bill provides for local authorities to provide graffiti removal notices and, if necessary, in due course to set about removing the graffiti themselves, subject to notice and so on. We know that a great deal of negotiating is taking place between the Government and those who have street furniture that is all too often subject to graffiti. That is street furniture that contains sophisticated electronic equipment such as televisions, telephones, broadband and so on. The subject needs delicate handling. I commend the work of the Government and the industry to try to find a reasonable solution.
The Minister has written to me on the subject and has assured me that the general powers to use graffiti removal notices will not be applied initially except in those areas where pilot schemes are to take place. I am very grateful for that reassurance. It does much to relieve my concern.
However, I am slightly concerned about the final wording of the Minister's letter. He said that,
"these clauses will only come into force in 12 named local authority areas".
That is fine. He continued:
"The 12 pilots will operate according to the guidance, which will be developed in advance… in partnership with interested parties. At the end of the pilot period, we will use the experience of the pilot local authorities to produce a Regulatory Impact Assessment".
But he then states:
"This will inform decisions about commencement in the remaining authorities".
Surely, that will inform decisions about the need for amendments to the pilot schemes as, presumably, the pilot schemes will not be identical. So the wording should be wider.
Possibly, we could have tackled the matter outside the Chamber, but it would be as well to have it clarified on the Floor of the House, so that everyone knows exactly what we are talking about. That particular wording does not appear to indicate that the schemes might be modified in the light of experience, whereas I am positive in my own mind…and because I know the noble Lord well enough…that, if necessary, the pilot schemes will be adjusted before they become a universally applied scheme. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord the assurance he seeks. For the record, we shall commence these sections of the Act in 12 pilot authorities only, and we will try out the draft guidance on them. At the end of that period we will use the experience of the pilot sites to produce a regulatory impact assessment. That will do two things. It will inform decisions about amendments to future guidance, and…as I said in my letter… any subsequent commencement for all local authorities. If things need to be changed substantially, then, obviously, the commencement would be put back a little. So, certainly we will learn the lessons from those pilots, on adjusting the final version of the guidance as well as on commencement to other authorities.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that reply. It provides me with the reassurance that I needed. More importantly, it will be reassuring to those businesses involved in this particular field. They were fairly happy with the process, but just needed that final bit of reassurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 96:
After Clause 58, insert the following new clause—
"DISPLAY OF ADVERTISEMENTS IN CONTRAVENTION OF REGULATIONS
In section 224(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8) (offence of displaying advertisement in contravention of regulations) for "level 3", in both places where it occurs, substitute "level 4"."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 59 [Sale of aerosol paint to children]:
[Amendment No. 97 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 47, line 4, leave out "eighteen" and insert "sixteen"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 98 reiterates a series of arguments that I made at the beginning of the afternoon on whether 18—in this instance—is the age at which sense arrives and therefore is the age at which one is allowed to buy an aerosol spray can of paint. I do not intend to reiterate the arguments I used at the beginning of the afternoon because that should be superfluous.
The fact is that at the age of 16 one can do so many things which are characteristic of an adult. The Bill proposes that one must be 18 to purchase an aerosol spray can of paint and it makes it an offence for a retailer to sell one to anyone below that age. I cannot accept that that is reasonable. Therefore, I have tabled the amendment to change that age to 16, at which point all my earlier arguments apply. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as noble Lords will recall, we had a debate on this issue in Committee. The Government indicated that they were prepared to look at it because clearly there is a crossover between the age at which this proposed prohibition would have operated and of other entitlements at 15,16,17 and 18, which are not entirely congruent with that.
We remain convinced of the need to take the tools of the criminal damage trade out of the hands of the taggers. The precise age at which that operates is obviously a matter for debate, but it is quite clear that much of it is in the age group that we are talking about. All the research and anecdotal evidence indicates that it is around that age. However, I am reasonably convinced that the age of 18 is pitching the matter a little high, particularly as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, indicated during the course of that debate that one can drive a car at 17 but one would not be able to buy the can of spray to touch up the car, which somehow one had scraped, were one's driving to be roughly equivalent to that of most drivers at the age of 17.
I take that argument. I think there is a good argument for moving away from 18. In the circumstances, I shall not argue between 17 and 16 and I would be happy to accept the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, what else is there to say except that I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his reply? That is very kind of him. Many people, especially young people, will feel quite pleased about it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[.Amendments Nos. 99 to 101 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 47, line 14, leave out "eighteen" and insert "sixteen"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
Clause 62 [Public Assemblies]:
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 49, line 6, leave out ""20" substitute "2"" and insert ""of 20 or more persons in a public place which is wholly or partly open to the air" substitute "compromising a significant body of persons gathered in a public place which is wholly or partly open to the air in such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable belief falling within section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 104, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Linklater, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 104A. I have not previously spoken in any of the debates on the Bill. I do so partly because of my membership of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the concerns that that committee has expressed about Clause 62, as it now is.
I say at the outset that I am very sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, could not be here this evening because it was she and her advisers who very kindly met me in order to discuss this and other issues raised by the Joint Committee. Her absence prevents me from thanking her in person for the courtesy with
582
which she and her advisers very carefully considered the points we raised. I am sure my thanks will be passed to her.
The problem that Clause 62 is designed to tackle is that in Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, which triggers police powers to control public assemblies, the definition of "public assembly" is numerical—it must consist of 20 or more people. The problem that that creates is that unscrupulous, mischievous or clever barrack-room lawyers quickly realise that if they assemble in groups of 19, 18, 17 or fewer, they can evade police controls under the Act.
I understand that, at a late stage during the Bill's progress through the other place, Clause 62 was inserted without anything like the proper debate. However, in its report on the clause, the Joint Committee made several points. First, it is distinctly odd to speak of two people as a public assembly. As the whole purpose of Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 is to allow the police to prevent serious public disorder, serious damage to public property, serious disruption to life of the community or the intimidation of people going lawfully about their activities caused by large groups of people, part of that rationale would be lost if conditions could be imposed on only two people.
The committee expressed its concern that reducing the number on whom conditions could be imposed from 20 to two could undermine the claim that they were being imposed for a legitimate purpose under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights—in particular, the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly. We were concerned that that would also tend to give rise to a significant risk that the powers would be disproportionately used.
We recognise that a number of safeguards for those rights would remain in place under Section 14. We drew attention to them, but we said that, although those safeguards would be important, we remained concerned about the potential "chilling effect" on freedom of association and of expression of small gatherings of private individuals if the power to impose conditions applied to groups of only two or more people, who are inherently far less likely than are groups of 20 or more to cause serious public order. So we recommended that the Government clarify the mischief at which the extension of the power to impose conditions is aimed.
I am delighted to note that the Government Bench has now been enriched by the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. I recap by thanking her for the courteous and careful way in which she and her officials have met us to discuss the problem with Clause 62.
As I was saying, the focus of the Joint Committee on Human Rights was not just on matters of linguistics, but on the severe chilling effect that a provision that allowed the police power to control gatherings of only two or more people might have on freedom of expression and of assembly. What do I mean by "chilling effect"? It is an American phrase, meaning that those who want to gather for lawful purposes in twos, threes or fours may be deterred from doing so by a definition of public assembly as wide as "two or more people".
So the committee asked the Government to clarify the mischief and explain why existing powers under criminal and civil law could not adequately address the issue. We suggested that that would give the House the chance to consider the necessity for the clause and the proportionality of what is proposed.
I add that during the Bill's passage, an important High Court judgment has made clear that the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 can be used as the source of sweeping injunctions to prevent some animal rights extremists, for example, being able to harass people, whether in their business premises or in their homes. That is an important victory for everyone who believes that the rights to demonstrate and to free expression must be balanced against the rights and freedoms of others, especially where coercion and harassment are being used to destroy their lives and businesses. That is an important weapon.
Amendment No. 104 is intended to get away from a numerical test of two or more and to try to find a description that considers whether the body of persons is sufficiently significant to trigger the police powers. We are trying to steer a course between Scylla and Charybdis: the Scylla of too much legal certainty, on the one hand, given by a figure such as two or more— which is perfectly certain; everyone knows what "two or more" means—and the Charybdis of too much breadth.
If we choose a definition of "two or m ore", although other qualifications must be met under the Public Order Act to trigger the police powers, there may be a serious chilling effect on lawful citizens going about their lawful business, who will fear that the police in one area may be too ready to use the powers. That is why I sought to find a vaguer provision—"a significant body of persons"— which gives more protection to basic rights and freedoms.
I realise that reasonable people can disagree about the approach to the problem, but the problem is serious. One answer to the points made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights—and by me—is that the Human Rights Act 1998 will come to the rescue, because if the police abuse their powers, under the Act they are under a duty to act in a way that is compatible with the convention rights to free speech and freedom of assembly, and that we can therefore read those safeguards into the Bill.
That is true; that is always true. But whenever possible, I prefer the law—especially where basic rights and freedoms are at stake—to state clearly what should be the safeguards. It is all very well to achieve legal certainty by saying, "two or more persons"; but we achieve legal uncertainty if, to know to what the safeguards really amount, one must know what the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights state.
That is why one way—I do not suggest that it is the only one—to tackle the problem would be to write in the notion of a "significant body of persons". I agree with those who would say that that is vaguer, but I think it would be safer. The other way is, by Amendment No. 104A, to leave out the clause altogether as being unnecessary in view of the battery of criminal and civil sanctions and safeguards that already exist.
The noble Baroness kindly wrote me a full letter. It will be important for part of it to be on public record and not simply placed in the Library. Perhaps she would also address the problem of "chilling effect", which cannot be met merely by stating how existing law may be cumbersome or ineffective. It is important not to take too many powers that will chill the opportunity for people lawfully to go about their business. I know that it will be said that the other safeguards mean that, if someone misbehaves, the police will use their powers, but not otherwise. However, there is still a problem of only two people suddenly becoming a public assembly, which seems to the committee on which I am lucky to serve to be a very odd concept. We are therefore worried about the mischief to which I have drawn attention. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, there is not much to be said in favour of Amendment No. 104A, as the present law clearly leaves too many loopholes about which something must be done. However, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has made a persuasive case for Amendment No. 104. I agree with him that two is too small a number to constitute a crowd.
I think that there is a misprint in line two of the amendment, which refers to "compromising" a significant body of persons. Is it supposed to be "comprising"?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, it should say "comprising". I am grateful.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, since Committee stage, I have consulted police forces and lawyers who represent clients in cases of harassment by animal rights activists. I confirm, as the noble Baroness told the Committee, that the police want Section 14 of the Public Order Act to be amended. They say that activists are fully aware of the effect of the legislation as it stands and therefore have been turning up in numbers of fewer than 20 so that conditions cannot be imposed on them.
The police also say that other existing powers are inadequate. Section 42 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 has not worked because, when protesters turn up at the home address of an employee of the target company, they have time in which to intimidate and terrify that person before the police arrive. When directed to move away from the first home, they go to another one by pre-arrangement. There is then a chase around various houses in the neighbourhood, with the police always trying to catch up with the activists. The process leads to key employees resigning from companies. In extreme instances, the company may have to close.
I have figures for up to May 2003 of prosecutions in cases of activists intimidating Huntingdon Life Sciences and its suppliers. There were 31 prosecutions for breaches of Section 14 and only six convictions. Under Sections 3,4,4A and 5 of the Public Order Act, there were 202 prosecutions and 65 convictions. There

585
were 73 prosecutions for aggravated trespass under Sections 68 and 69 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, resulting in only 11 convictions. As drafted, those provisions apply only to trespass on land in the open air with the intention of disrupting lawful activity taking place on that land or adjacent land in the open air.
We will debate later the variation included in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, which, I presume, includes premises targeted by animal rights activists who go into offices and factories seriously to intimidate workers. It seems that Section 9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968 has not been used, although I am indebted to SHAC for the observation that that is a much wider offence than many realise.
There were 41 cases of obstruction in relation to those activities and 31 convictions. That is the highest success rate that the police have achieved in using any law against activists. There were 13 prosecutions and five convictions for obstruction of a police constable.
All those figures tend to show that the existing armoury of police powers is not effective against well organised bodies of activists determined to prevent lawful business from operating by means of intimidation and harassment, thus supporting the case made by the noble Baroness in Committee. But the Minister responsible for science said in June that a considerable amount of legislation could be used to prevent harassment, and that perhaps it had not been used to protect companies.
Statistics for Cambridgeshire show a wide variation in the success rate of prosecutions. That may reflect the police's difficulty in framing the most appropriate charges and collecting the necessary evidence to match the increasingly sophisticated methods used by activists. There are, no doubt, even greater difficulties in other counties, where police have had little or no previous experience of that kind of activity. During my enquiries, I was glad to learn that the police college in Bramshill is at a fairly advanced stage in producing guidance on the powers available and how best to use them. Noble Lords will be interested to know that SHAC already has such guidance, which it has published on its website, for its own people.
During the previous debate on the issue, I asked the Minister about the Protection from Harassment Act. Although she did not have the information at the time, I have since ascertained, with the help of our invaluable Library, that the balance has swung effectively against intimidatory protesters.
In June, the High Court confirmed an injunction granted to HLS banning SHAC, its members and other named individuals from assaulting, molesting, harassing, threatening or pestering employees or their families, and creating 50-yard exclusion zones around the homes of employees. Any breach of such an injunction is a criminal offence. So far, it has proved to be effective in that I am not aware of any breaches.
My noble friend also mentioned that SHAC has recently turned its attention to customers, suppliers and shareholders of HLS, particularly a group of Japanese
586
companies. Those companies have obtained a similar injunction under the Protection from Harassment Act parallel to the one previously gained by HLS itself. There is no reason to assume that it will not be equally effective for them. However, when I looked at SHAC's website this morning, the names of the five Japanese companies were still listed as "targets", and the so-called "evidence" against them was still being published there. Perhaps the noble Baroness will venture an opinion on whether that might constitute a criminal breach of the injunction against SHAC in respect of those companies.
What about the small firms dealing with HLS that cannot afford the hefty legal fees needed to get such an injunction? Do they need the protection that the clause would afford? Is it necessary to apply Section 14 potentially to any gathering of two people, rather than having a more narrowly aimed provision limited to the firms and individuals that have commercial dealings with HLS?
Undoubtedly, the tactics used by SHAC demand some further measures, but I think that the Government's approach is wrong. My noble friend has proposed an alternative, but we need a comprehensive review of all the available legislation, including the Protection from Harassment Act, so that an injunction might be granted, on the basis of a second application by a person trading with a given enterprise, to all persons or organisations dealing with that enterprise or investing in it, where it was apparent to the court that the purpose of those against whom the injunction was sought was to bring the lawful work of that enterprise to a stop. Under that proposal, when the Japanese companies applied, it would have been open to other victims of animal rights activists to ask the court to extend the injunction to all of them. Without such provision, every company or individual trading with HLS would have to ask for separate injunctions, when the clear purpose of SHAC as openly stated on its website is to attack everyone who trades with HLS, picking them off one by one. Further provision should apply not only to named individuals, but to any person who engages in an activity of the kind mentioned in the injunction following notice served on him by the senior police officer present. That would mean that, to stop somebody from harassing, intimidating or pestering employees of the target company, the police would not have to verify that he was a member of SHAC or one of the persons named in the original injunction.
On its website, SHAC claims not to be involved in activities of a criminal nature such as arson, attacks on companies' websites and threatening letters. However, the knowledge of what happens to anyone who ignores its warnings means that a visit to the supplier's premises and menacing behaviour, although unlikely to result in prosecution let alone conviction, is often enough to persuade the supplier to stop trading with HLS. A Section 14 order would not hinder that type of activity or dam the flood of e-mails, faxes and letters used to bring pressure to bear on companies and their directors.
Of course, everyone should be concerned with the ethical issues arising from the use of live animals for research, but the right approach is an informed

587
discussion of the type initiated recently by my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton on the report of the Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures.
SHAC wants to eliminate discussion, slicing through complicated ethical dilemmas and putting an end to research that saves tens of thousands of human lives. We need to strengthen the law so that companies engaged in or connected with this work can continue without the unremitting molestation of them and some of their employees. Let us tune what we do to the specific threat, not extend the powers of the police to impose conditions on gatherings of two or more people.
7 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for his comments. I apologise for not being here for the first word or two that he uttered, but I had the benefit of a very good discussion with him prior to today. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who gave graphic examples of why this is such a difficult and complex issue. If I may say so, he clearly demonstrated why we need this provision.
It is clear that there are a number of difficulties with Amendment No. 104 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I worry about the use of the term "a significant body of persons" because of its imprecision, which is attractive and difficult at the same time. As he is aware, we have spoken to the Association of Chief Police Officers about his amendment. It is concerned that the amendment might leave the police with fewer powers than they already have. A court might take the view that an assembly of 25 persons was not,
"a significant body of persons".
We could not guarantee how the amendment would work. We share the noble Lord's anxiety about getting precision and ensuring that the provision works in a sensible way, and we have examined the matter carefully.
To make it quite clear, when protesters or individuals are the subject of police actions, they should have a route to challenge those actions. We believe that Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 clearly requires the police to act proportionately in imposing conditions on public assemblies. Under Section 14, the police have powers to impose conditions on public assemblies, but they can use those powers only when the senior officer has reasonable grounds to believe that serious public disorder, damage to property or disruption to the life of the community might result, or that the purpose of the demonstration is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act that they have a right to do. Those are high tests to be met.
The conditions that may be imposed include the place where an assembly may be held, its maximum duration and the maximum number of people who may constitute it. So, the police may decide to order a group of protesters to stay in a particular area or limit their protest to four hours, for example. The worst that
588
could happen to a group of protesters would be for the police to order them to end their protest, with the risk of arrest if the order were not complied with. In order to police demonstrations effectively—to manage them properly—the police require flexible, clear powers. They are mindful that their role is to allow peaceful protest while at the same time maintaining public order.
Section 14 provides the police with the ability to take action to negate and control the effects of an intimidatory protest without having to arrest large numbers of people, although currently that power can be exercised only in relation to groups of 20 or more. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right—many protesters are becoming very sophisticated in utilising the safeguard provisions in current legislation to their advantage. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, would impose an additional test on the police that would make it more difficult for them to use their powers. It is much clearer for a public assembly to be defined in terms of a number of people, although I accept that many will say that the provision lacks elegance and the Scylla of precision is not something that should necessarily be reflected everywhere. However, it has utility in this case.
Turning to Amendment No. 104A, I understand the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, about Clause 62. However, as I explained, in order to police demonstrations effectively, the police require flexible, clear powers. The problem that the police have at the moment is that they can exercise their powers under Section 14 only when at least 20 people are assembled. Protesters such as animal rights activists know the law well and generally protest in much smaller numbers—or a larger group splits into several smaller groups to frustrate the policing of demonstrations, orchestrating them so that they do not fall foul of the provisions. Clause 62 amends the definition of a public assembly to two or more so that the police can deal with smaller groups such as intimidatory protests conducted by animal rights protesters outside the premises of targeted companies.
Although the police have powers in existing legislation to deal with individual misbehaviour, they need additional power to deal with the collective behaviour of an intimidating group. The imposition of conditions under Section 14 of the Public Order Act is often a more proportionate response to an intimidatory protest than arresting and prosecuting individuals. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lords will feel more assured.
I will now respond to additional comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about how the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 works, because he made some important points about the use of injunctions. We welcome the more energetic use of injunctions. However, the noble Lord will recognise how difficult it has sometimes been to get them. When there is a regular protest by the same group of protesters who are harassing individual employees of a company, for example, the police may be able to use the provisions of the 1997 Act. However, they would have to have evidence that specific individuals had

589
been harassed on at least two occasions by specific protesters. It would be difficult for the police to use this legislation in a public order situation when they needed to take immediate action to diffuse a potentially serious situation involving a group of people. The police may be able to deal with the behaviour of an individual under the 1997 Act, but not the entire group.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the police have told me that a limitation on the use of the Protection from Harassment Act is precisely as the Minister explained but has to apply to named individuals. I suggested— for future consideration, obviously—a wider scheme that would allow such an injunction to be extended to anyone who perpetrated acts of the type that we have seen against the suppliers of HLS, or investors, auditors and so forth.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, one could consider that issue in the context of amending the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. All I would say is that experience of how injunctions work at the moment shows that they must be specifically targeted on individuals for reasons of enforcement. Often, the consequence of breaching an injunction is committal, which is a denial of someone's liberty.
It would be difficult if the injunctions were so wide that no one knew whether he was caught. I am sure that it would be argued by those who wished to evade the issue that the injunctions had not been targeted on them; that they were not named individuals; that they did not have an opportunity to have their say; and that it was unjust that they should be imprisoned without a proper opportunity to know that they should have desisted from certain behaviour. There are problems with making the injunction so broad that it would catch the world at large. We would have difficulties.
Although the injunctions give protection to the employees of the companies, I am not sure that they can be a replacement for the powers of the police to deal with small assemblies. First, the injunctions that we already know about were granted on several grounds. Only one was based on intimidatory protests outside company premises. Secondly, the injunctions must be applied for by the companies. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, rightly said, it is all right for companies that can afford to take such proceedings, but we must consider how we can protect companies that are not so financially advantaged.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, could not the Attorney-General bring a public interest injunction, based on the Protection from Harassment Act?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. I suppose that one could consider that, but the point of the provisions is to give the police the flexibility and clarity that they need to address the issues on the ground as they happen. That is the security that the provisions give. It is a quick, well targeted response to a problem.
590
The companies that have injunctions in place have some protection, but there are many that do not. I do not dismiss the noble Lord's suggestion out of hand, but, even if one were to take it up, it would take time for the Attorney-General to consider the papers, consider whether such an injunction would be right and then to act. If we wanted a quick solution, that would leave it too late. It is important to have the sort of protection that will make a difference with small, intimidatory groups.
Unless and until we have a better solution, this appears to be the best that we can do. I understand what the noble Lord said about the numbers, but we have a difficult problem here. We think, having gone all round the houses, that this is about the only way in which we can grapple with the problem in a way that is proportionate. What the noble Lord said about the Human Rights Act 1998 is right. He will know that we are trying to create a culture that imbues the system so that it influences everything that the police do, whether it relates to anti-social behaviour, criminal justice legislation or sexual offences legislation. In our relationships with people, it should be like breathing.
I hope that noble Lords will find that helpful. For the benefit of any noble Lord who wishes to read the detail, I have placed in the Library a copy of the contents of the letter that I sent to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who took part in the debate. I am especially grateful to the Minister for the way in which she handled discussion before this evening and for the careful way in which she replied to the debate. I keep a motto in my chambers—a statement by a great American judge—to remind me of the danger of being too certain of anything:
"The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right".
I suspect that the Minister and I are not too sure about what is right.
Everyone in the House agrees on the aim, and we are all attempting to find the best means of achieving it. I understand the cogent and convincing argument made by the Minister. That is the first time in our debates that we have had the benefit of the full argument. I am sure that the Joint Committee on Human Rights will be grateful for that.
If the police service behaves in the way in which the Minister says that it should behave—proportionately and by ensuring that there is no chilling effect through the unnecessary use of the powers—the powers may be an important safeguard, in addition to the civil sanctions. However, it is worth putting it on record that one of the reasons why we are in the difficulty that we are in is that those who have been harassed and intimidated by bodies such as SHAC have not sought to use the powers in the Protection from Harassment Act in civil proceedings, as they ought to have done. I deplore particularly the fact that a big firm of international accountants caved in without a struggle.

591
Even the Huntingdon laboratories, for which I have the greatest sympathy, ought to have used that obvious legal tool and the common law. I am astonished that the torts that the courts fashioned long before the Protection from Harassment Act—such as intimidation—have not been used.
It is worth considering whether public interest injunctions should be sought by the Attorney-General, either to keep the heat and expense off little companies that cannot do so on their own for various reasons or in the wider public interest. As the guardian of the public interest, the Attorney-General could provide a valuable service in getting wide injunctions of the kind that were granted in the recent case. As the noble Baroness indicated, the sanctions for breach of those injunctions are draconian: people go to prison for contempt of court. That is a very effective sanction.
I think that I agree with the noble Baroness rather than with my noble friend Lord Avebury that there is a danger in having impersonal injunctions against the world at large because of the lack of legal certainty. It would have a different kind of serious chilling effect, and 1 would prefer to see the Law Officers intervening in the public interest, especially to protect vulnerable companies in the way that I suggested.
Having said all that, I repeat my expression of gratitude to the Minister and her department for having taken the issues so seriously. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 104 A not moved.]
Clause 64 [Aggravated trespass]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 49, line 32, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
"(2) In section 68 (offence of aggravated trespass) the following subsections shall be substituted for subsections (1) and (2)—

"(1) A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land and, in relation to any lawful activity on or taking place on that or adjoining land does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect—

(a) of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity,

(b) of obstructing that activity, or

(c) of disrupting that activity.

(2) Activity on any occasion on the part of a person or persons on land is "lawful" for the purposes of this section if he or they may engage in the activity on the land without committing an offence or trespassing on the land, and for the purpose of subsection (l)(b) and (c) above, the offence may be committed whether or not the person or persons who may engage in the lawful activity are physically present on the land when a person does anything intended by him to have the effects referred to in those subsections.""

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 105 deals with the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, touched on during the debate on Amendment No. 104: the vexed issue of protecting the interests of those who have legitimately been involved in growing genetically modified crops.
The case of Tilly v The Director of Public Prosecutions seemed to reveal a loophole in the law that surprised all of us. A demonstrator who uprooted GM trial crops escaped conviction for aggravated trespass on the ground that the farmer who had grown the crop was not present and had to be present for the offence to be committed. That cannot make sense. During the previous debate, I wondered whether the powers in Clause 62 could apply in such an instance. I would be interested to hear what the noble Baroness might have to say about that.
The amendment would remove the anomaly that I described. I acknowledge that it would apply to any legal activity, and it could be argued that the provision would cover field sports and other activities that could be interrupted by protesters.
As the noble Baroness indicated, protestors have become adept at interpreting the rules to make it difficult for them to be touched by the law. That is not satisfactory. It does nothing for either the country's progress or society's progress that perfectly legitimate activities can be totally disrupted. The work of anyone taking part in any experimental programme in agriculture nowadays is vulnerable. That is not in the interests of any of us. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, there is something in what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has said. Having spent a long time looking at the SHAC website and having studied reports of some of its activities, I observe that its practice has been to enter the offices or factories of target companies. It says that that renders it immune from the provisions of the 1994 Act, which refers only to activities on land and in the open air. As I understand him, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has taken those provisions and extended them so that they apply to the same intimidatory or disruptive activities when they take place in enclosed premises as if they had been in the open air. If that is the case, and I have understood him correctly, we would give that support.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I must confess that I have serious reservations with what is here proposed, although I entirely sympathise with the aim. Wherever possible, my general approach is that one should avoid using criminal law if civil-law sanctions will do the job perfectly well. The law of trespass is primarily a law created to protect property and the person in the civil law field. Sometimes one has to use the criminal law in aid of that as well. I am troubled that the width of what is proposed is disproportionate and that the better approach is the one that I advocated in the previous debate on my amendment— namely, a much wider use of civil injunctions rather than extending criminal law in this way.
I do not know whether the police service would welcome that. As with family disputes, which the Minister knows much more about through her law practice than I, one finds that the police do not wish to

593
get involved in those kinds of disputes. In this area, I would worry about the use of criminal law in a wider sense. So I would have some reservations, while sympathising with the amendment. But I shall be very interested to hear the Minister's response.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, perhaps I may say straight away that I recognise that, although the noble Lord's amendment does not refer to GM crops, it is targeted at the problems identified in the past in relation to prosecutions of those who damaged such crops. We recognise the need to look carefully at legislation in that area. I sympathise with the mischief which the amendment seeks to cure.
Although we sympathise, we do not necessarily think that this is the best way to do it. It is totally unacceptable for farmers going about their legitimate business to have their crops damaged. I say that very clearly. While I recognise the noble Lord's aim in amending the offence of aggravated trespass, this is not the only way of dealing with the problem. The proposal that we have just debated in relation to Clause 62, in certain circumstances, may be something that can be used. Twenty protesters were required. If the House is content, that will be reduced to two protesters, which may greatly assist the police. In terms of an office protest, that was the precise reason for Clause 64 being introduced.
We recognise the nature of the problem. It may be— I say "may be" because we have to look at this—that a better way of going forward would be to amend the offence of criminal damage. We need to look at all the options very carefully and to continue our discussions across government, with the police and other agencies on the best way forward. However, we do not want to rush into decisions without due consideration of what is the most appropriate action.
There is always a temptation to treat a Bill going through the House like a passing bus on to which one must jump in case one does not get another chance. On occasions, that is very successful. We shall turn to that later when we talk about high hedges. But it cannot be the vehicle on to which everything jumps. This is a difficult area, with which we must deal seriously and properly. We must find the best vehicle. We are not sure that this is the right bus for the provision, but we are hopeful that there may be a better bus that will come along fairly soon. We want to legislate on the issue at a later date. I hope that the noble Lord will understand our position.
Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, now referred to as Clause 62, could be used to deal with GM protestors. That, too, may be in our tool kit. I hope that the noble Lord will not be too disappointed. We are with him in spirit, although not on this bus.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her sympathy. There is an old saying in my part of the world: an ounce of help is
594
worth a ton of sympathy. This is a serious issue; it is a difficult problem, which will not wait for the next bus. Farmers have to plan their next year's cropping. In fact, they will have already planned next year's and the subsequent year's cropping.
If the noble Baroness had been able to say what the next bus was and when it was likely to arrive— although, given most people's bus timetables, one would still have an element of doubt in their actually arriving—
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that convention would never allow me to indicate anything of that sort. The timetable is never known.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, that is what gives us the problem. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his support. I always listen to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, with great interest. He has unparalleled legal expertise in this kind of field. The noble Baroness was not absolutely clear about whether Clause 62 might assist. She said that it was possible. The reality is that pulling up a crop out in the country is not on the same scale of vexation and intimidation as protestors being in someone's garden. Therefore, unless the police have very clear guidance—which, again is not indicated—perhaps they would hesitate to use the legislation in this way.
This is something that needs to be dealt with. Because it is a matter that affects many commercial decisions, some of which have to be made in the very short term, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
7.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 105) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 133.

Division No.4

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Greenway, L.

Attlee, E.

Hanham, B.

Blatch, B.

Howe, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Buscombe, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Byford, B.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Laird, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lyell, L.

Chadlington, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Chester, Bp.

Mancroft, L.

Colwyn, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Marshall of Knightsbridge, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Elton, L.

Noakes, B.

Fookes, B.

Northbrook, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Onslow, E.

595

Palmer, L.

Seccombe, B. [ Teller]

Parkinson, L.

Selsdon, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Sharples, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Plumb, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Renton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Waddington, L.

Saatchi, L.

Walpole, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Addington, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Alli, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Jay of Paddington, B.

Andrews, B.

Jones, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Bach, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Barker, B.

Layard, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Billingham, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Blackstone, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Borrie, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brennan, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Brookman, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Burlison, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Maddock, B.

Carter, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Chandos, V.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Mitchell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morgan, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Newby, L.

Crawley, B. [Teller]

Parekh, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Pendry, L.

David, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Desai, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dixon, L.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Donoughue, L.

Radice, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Dubs, L.

Rennard, L.

Elder, L.

Richard, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Rooker, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Roper, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Sawyer, L.

Fearn, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Filkin, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Gale, B.

Simon, V.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Taverne, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Greenfield, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Thornton, B.

Hamwee, B.

Tordoff, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Turnberg, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Haskel, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Hayman, B.

Walmsley, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Warner, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Weatherill, L.

596

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Whitaker, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Whitty, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 105A:
Before Clause 65, insert the following new clause—
"POWERS RELATING TO TRESPASSERS AND UNAUTHORISED CAMPERS: ALTERNATIVE SITE AVAILABLE

(1) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) is amended as follows.

(2) In section 61 (power to remove trespassers on land)—

(a) in subsection (1), after "If insert "the condition in subsection (1 A) is satisfied and";

(b) after subsection (1) insert—

"(1A) The condition is that the senior police officer present at the scene must consult the local authority within whose area the scene is situated as to whether there is a suitable pitch for the vehicles on a relevant caravan site which is situated within the local authority's area.";

(c) in subsection (9), before the definition of "common land", insert—

""caravan site" has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c. 62);

"relevant caravan site" means a caravan site which is—

(a) situated in the area of a local authority within whose area the land is situated, and

(b) managed by a relevant site manager;

"relevant site manager" means—

(a) a local authority within whose area the land is situated;

(b) a registered social landlord;

"registered social landlord" means a body registered as a social landlord under Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996 (c. 52);".

(3) In section 77 (power of local authority to direct unauthorised campers to leave land)—

(a) in subsection (1), after "If insert "the condition in subsection (1 A) is satisfied and";

(b) after subsection (1) insert—

"(1A) The condition is that the local authority has ascertained that there is a suitable pitch for the vehicle or vehicles on a relevant caravan site which is situated within the local authority's area.";

(c) in subsection (6), before the definition of "land" insert—

""caravan site" has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960;

597

"relevant caravan site" means a caravan site which is—

(a) situated in the area of a local authority within whose area the land is situated, and

(b) managed by a relevant site manager;

"relevant site manager" means—

(a) a local authority within whose area the land is situated;

(b) a registered social landlord;

"registered social landlord" means a body registered as a social landlord under Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996;"."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are grateful to the Government for listening to the arguments which we put to them in Committee to the effect that, in this clause, the police officer exercising the power of direction that would require travellers to leave an unauthorised caravan site should first ensure that there is somewhere else for them to go. In the government amendment, which we shall discuss in the next grouping, the officer must consult the local authority for the area as regards whether there is a suitable pitch on an official site for the travellers' vehicles. That is not wholly satisfactory because the officer is not obliged to refrain from issuing directions if the local authority states that it does not have a suitable pitch on any of its sites, and we shall have something to say about that when we come to it.
If it is the Government's view that the officer directing travellers to leave an unauthorised site should always have to consult the local authority on whether a pitch is available on an official site regardless of which Act of Parliament he happens to be using at the time, then we agree with them. It would be confusing for the police and for the travellers themselves if the officer could disregard the availability of accommodation in an area when he is acting under Section 61 of the 1994 Act but not when exercising the powers under Clause 65 of the Bill. We believe that it follows logically that when a local authority itself uses the power of direction under Section 77 of the 1994 Act, it should likewise ascertain that there is a suitable pitch or pitches on official sites in the area. That information would no doubt then be available for the magistrates if an order was sought under Section 78 of the 1994 Act.
At the moment, the powers in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act are being used regardless of the availability of official sites in an area and regardless of the requirements of common humanity which have been described by the courts. Perhaps I may give one example. In Crawley Borough Council, the extended family of John Ross, Michael McCarthy, Wesley Maughen and others has repeatedly been evicted to the detriment of the health and education needs of the whole family. Erica Ross—John Ross's sister—has
598
four children, aged 10, six, three and nearly two. The two older children started at Bewbush primary school on 11th September, but after they were evicted and went to Gratton Park three miles away, transport was not provided even though they were over the statutory limit from the school. Mr Maughen is awaiting a serious operation and the children of Mrs Julie McCarthy have already missed dental appointments because of a series of evictions.
On 13th October the council obtained a Section 78 order against the whole extended family, although eviction has been stayed by an application for judicial review, lodged on the family's behalf by a voluntary worker. There is a defect in Section 78 in that the magistrates have to grant the order irrespective of family circumstances, and legal aid is not available for contesting notices that have been served under Section 77.
I understand that the Minister believes that the new police powers in the Bill will provide an incentive to local authorities to provide sites. But why should they when all the powers in the 1994 Act give them what they want? If Amendment No. 105A is accepted, the powers of direction will be available to local authorities under that Act only when there have been inquiries about where those to be evicted could lawfully go, whether the action is taken under the Bill or the 1994 Act.
It would be confusing and unjust to apply different criteria where there are six or more caravans, as in Section 61 of the 1994 Act, as compared with five or fewer if the powers are to be exercised under the Bill. I acknowledge that there are anti-social travellers just as there are anti-social members of the settled population, but the provision in Section 61 of the 1994 Act wrongly confused the need to deal vigorously with minor criminality—which is said to be the purpose of the Bill—with the problem of unauthorised encampments, which demands remedies of a completely different kind.
For consistency between the Bill and the 1994 Act, the condition that there should be places available on an official site in the same area before travellers are directed to leave an unauthorised camp should apply to all these powers, whether they are exercised by the police or the local authority.
Amendment No. 105B would eliminate the penalty of imprisonment for a person who fails to comply with a direction under Section 61 of the 1994 Act. I do not know whether anyone has been sent to prison for this offence, but it would be an extraordinarily stupid use of Prison Service resources at a time when, as I mentioned during the debate on an earlier amendment, there are 74,149 people in custody in England and Wales. Even though, as the Minister said on the previous amendment, the maximum sentence in all these instances may be very rarely used by the court, the cumulative effect of having a number of offences on the statute book, each of which provides that a three-month prison sentence may be imposed, is harmful and leads to the clogging up of prisons by a large number of people serving short sentences for whom prison can do no good. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and to speak also to Amendment No. 105B, with which it is grouped.
This ingenious amendment deals with a number of concerns about this section of the Bill which we voiced in Committee. I said then that we were concerned about the effect of this section of the Bill on the welfare of traveller and gypsy families. I said that I had been briefed by the Children's Society and Save the Children, of which I was for a number of years a member. My noble friend the Minister gave quite firm assurances that it was no part of the Government's intention to apply the kind of pressure that could result in children being removed and brought up as non-traveller children. We are very grateful for the assurances my noble friend gave us then and these have been duly passed on to the Children's Society and the other societies concerned.
However, a number of concerns remain. There is, as we know, a shortage of caravan sites. There is clearly a local authority responsibility and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, attempts to deal with that. There are also amendments standing in the Minister's name with which we shall deal when we come to them, but the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, seem to go further than those.
Amendment No. 105B, which would amend the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, goes further. It also deals with another matter of concern to us—the matter of penalties. Amendments Nos. 113 and 114, which will be debated later, deal with the provisions in the Bill which would, I think for the first time, specifically criminalise travellers who fail to comply with a direction. These provisions; turn the tort of trespass into a crime. One set of powers applies in cases of evictions from houses and another in cases of removal from sites. In one case a population is criminalised; in another it is not. The disparity between the way in which travellers are dealt with and the way in which people are evicted from houses can only strengthen the calls for the Government to deal with the matter of sites for travellers in the context of housing and homelessness legislation, bringing the need to make provision for them and the sanctions they face in line with those applying to people in houses.
The noble Lord's ingenious amendment deals both with suitable sites and penalties. The two amendments should attract the Minister's support. I hope that he will regard them as acceptable.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I rise to support the objectives of these amendments. In particular, with reference to Amendment No. 105B, it is already a serious matter to criminalise, as the legislation does, an act of trespass which in other circumstances would be a civil tort, although I understand the context. At the least, a fine should be the maximum penalty.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the new clause suggested by the noble Lord is indeed ingenious. It
600
would add an additional precondition to the existing power to deal with trespassers on land in Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
It might be helpful if I first explain how the Government expect the new powers set out in Clauses 65 to 69 to work alongside the existing powers in Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Where local authorities have provided sites and there is a suitable pitch on that site, the police will have the power to remove trespassers from unauthorised sites under the new powers in Clauses 65 to 69. Where there are no suitable pitches available, the police will be able to use their existing powers, in Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, to direct trespassers to leave land. These powers can be used only if reasonable steps have been taken on or on behalf of the occupier to ask the trespassers to leave, and—I think this is the important element—the trespassers have caused damage to land or to property on land, used threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour towards the occupier, or have six or more vehicles between them.
In these circumstances, the Government believe that, on balance, eviction, even in the absence of a nearby alternative site, is not just appropriate but right.
Amendment No. 105A would result in the police having to ensure these pre-conditions were satisfied and there was a suitable pitch on a local authority site available for the trespassers. In many areas, that would probably leave the police with no powers at all to evict trespassers from land, even when those trespassers have caused damage to land, have been threatening towards the occupier or, to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, have been anti-social. He acknowledged that there were anti-social travellers. The Government believe that this situation would be unacceptable, and I cannot believe that that is ultimately what the noble Lord would wish to happen.
We have recognised the importance of the provision of pitches and transit sites. We established the gypsy sites refurbishment grant in 2001, as we were extremely conscious of the need to keep the network of 324 local authority authorised sites open, available for use and in reasonable condition. To date, £17 million has been competitively allocated to local authorities to upgrade their existing sites and bring unused and under-used pitches back into operation. This year—2003–04—the grant has been extended to include funding for temporary sites and emergency stopping places, as well as to continue to refurbish existing sites.
It is hoped that this extension to the grant will persuade local authorities to ensure adequate transit site provision in their areas. In March, we announced that a further £6 million over the next two years will be made available—that is, £8 million per year in each of the two years.
The Government recognise the concerns and problems with some unauthorised encampments. The Government's aim is to provide the police with an additional power to remove trespassers from land, where local authorities have made adequate site

601
provision. We do not want to make it more difficult for the police to use their existing powers, which would be the effect of the noble Lord's amendment. That would leave landowners and communities suffering from damage to land and anti-social behaviour as a result of some unauthorised encampments.
Amendment No. 105B seeks to remove part of the penalty attached to a failure to comply with a direction so that imprisonment is not an option. The penalties set out in Clause 61(4) for the offence of failing to comply with a direction are the maximum penalties that a court can impose following summary conviction. The options available to a court range, in hierarchical order, from imprisonment, community service orders and fines through to conditional and absolute discharges.
The court is under no obligation to hand out the maximum sentences and may choose any lesser sentence, depending on the circumstances of the case. The noble Lord recognised that the most severe penalty was unlikely to be used. However, the Government believe that imprisonment should be an option for the most serious cases, although we expect that to be a very rare event. There may well be circumstances in which imprisonment is entirely appropriate.
I understand entirely where the noble Lord is coming from; I have great respect for the noble Baronesses who spoke in support of the amendment. However, we think it is right that we pursue this particular course. We think it is right that the police should have this additional power, otherwise I believe that communities will be vulnerable to continued periods of anti-social behaviour and the police will not be well placed to act to prevent that.
I hope that the noble Lord, having heard what I have said and mindful of some of the amendments that the Government intend to move later, will not press his amendment this evening.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baronesses Lady Turner and Lady Whitaker for their support for these amendments. They also have the backing of the all-party group on traveller law reform, the Gypsy Council and other organisations concerned with travellers. I have to tell the Minister that they will be extremely disappointed with his reply.
The Minister has told us that there will be two parallel regimes: under one, the powers of the police under the Bill can be exercised only after they have made inquiries of a local authority to ascertain whether there are any pitches on an official site in the area of the unauthorised encampment to which anybody given a direction under Clause 65 could go. Under the second regime, a power that already exists under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act can be exercised irrespective of whether there is anywhere in the local authority area or anywhere around it for the gypsies to go.
The Minister did not even bother to comment on the example I gave him regarding the London borough of Crawley, in which an extended family had been evicted
602
serially from a number of unauthorised sites on which it was encamped. I asked him what public interest is served by continually evicting the family from one place to another, whether it be within the London borough of Crawley—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, just so that we have it accurately on the record, Crawley is a district council in west Sussex, not a London borough. I apologise to the noble Lord for not having responded to that particular point.
Of course I understand that there will be difficult and hard cases, and of course it is right that they are fairly considered. However, I think it is wrong to comment on individual cases of this sort in your Lordships' House. I do not know the full circumstances of the case; I obviously take on trust what the noble Lord says. However, I am sure that the local authority, working with the police and perhaps with education services and social services, will have considered the position very carefully. I know from my own experience just how difficult this can be. I had to deal with similar cases when I was leader of a local authority, and they are hard cases indeed.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, this was just one example. Does not the Minister know that this could be paralleled in 157 other local authorities where there are unauthorised encampments? The police are using, with varying degrees of severity, the powers they have under Section 61 of the 1994 Act. To what public purpose are they doing so, when it means that the lives of those families are disrupted and the children are not able to attend school? The problems of the traveller community are being perpetuated into the next generation, to say nothing of the serious health problems which occurred in this particular family and which are by no means unique. I happened to pick the borough of Crawley, but I could have chosen any one of dozens of other authorities throughout the country to cite as an example.
The Minister's claim that the Government are doing something about the problem is unsustainable. What the Government have done, as the noble Lord has explained—we will come to it, perhaps in more detail, in the next group of amendments—is to make a small amount of money available under the refurbishment grant for building new transit sites. In 2003–04, two such sites will be provided, in Darlington and in Lincolnshire. Under that provision, a total of 30 pitches will become available, compared with the 3,000 to 4,500 which have been said to be necessary over the next four years by the Government's own report, commissioned by the ODPM from Pat Ninier of Birmingham University. At that rate, there is not a cat in hell's chance for the provision that the noble Lord mentioned of £8 million a year, which is the same as in 2003–04. The Minister said that the Government were carrying forward that provision into 2004–05 and 2005–06—so perhaps another 30 pitches will be provided in each of those years on transit sites, and none whatever in permanent residential sites.

603
Within the time scale even of the next Parliament, it is impossible for there ever to be a local authority in which the police could legitimately exercise the powers that are conferred on them by this Bill. They will always be falling back on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. I am very disappointed by the Minister's remarks that the powers will exist in parallel and that, wherever there are not sites, the police will continue to use Section 61 of the 1994 Act, regardless of whether there is any provision in the neighbourhood.
It is too late for me to test the opinion of the House, but I can tell the Minister that people will be very upset when they read what he has said. However, in the circumstances at this late hour, I have no option but to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 105B not moved.]
Clause 65 [Power to remove trespassers: alternative site available]:
8 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I advise the House that Amendment No. 106 is grouped and that if Amendment No. 107 were accepted, I should not be able to call Amendment No. 108.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 50, line 17, leave out "'if and insert "that"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first of the amendments to Clause 65, which ostensibly gives the police additional powers to remove travellers from unauthorised encampments but in fact does nothing of the kind, as I explained when we discussed the matter in Committee. Not one of the 157 local authorities with unauthorised encampments in their area, as at the January ODPM count, had vacant pitches on their official sites that would have been available for the purpose if the Bill had been in operation at the time. As I have just explained, not one of those authorities has any plans for building new residential sites. The total amount of provision over the next few years will be only a small fraction of that which is said to be necessary by the official ODPM report commissioned from Pat Ninier of Birmingham University.
There is a defect in the clause as originally drafted— that it is for the police officer to decide whether a suitable pitch exists. We propose instead that the local authority should be required to certify that a pitch is available before the officer issues a direction in respect of a particular caravan. That would involve not only confirmation of the existence of the vacant pitch but that it was not required for some other purpose. The local authority might require it for refurbishment, or it might be needed for somebody moving on to the site, to whom a commitment had already been made, or the authority might have to make sensitive decisions about the compatibility of those who were to be the subject of the direction with those already living on the official site to which they would move.
We are pleased that the Minister has gone some way towards accepting the argument that we put in Committee that it is for a local authority and not a police officer to assess whether there is a pitch on the relevant caravan site to which the caravans under the control of the persons being directed might move. Amendment No. 110 requires an officer to consult the district and county councils whether there is a suitable pitch for the caravan or caravans on a relevant site. It is unlikely that the officer will issue the direction if he does not get satisfactory assurances. However, we assert that to put the matter beyond doubt, and for the protection of the police from subsequent accusations that the power has been wrongfully exercised, the local authority should be required to certify in writing that it has room on an official site for the persons about to be directed.
We did not use the word "suitable", as in the government amendment, because the local authority would not be able to say that the pitches were for the caravans unless they were in fact suitable. However, we would be happy to add the word if the Government agreed to the spirit of the amendment. Obviously, we hope that the Government will accept our wording for the revised condition. However, whatever the House decides, we believe it to be wrong for the condition in the Bill to be different from the one that exists already in Section 61. I know that we have already covered that, but I have to emphasise that it will be extremely confusing for the police and the travellers to be subject to two different regimes.
The other amendment in the group is Amendment No. 113, which would eliminate the penalty of three months' imprisonment for failure to comply with a Section 65 notice. Will the Minister tell us how many people have been imprisoned for failure to comply with a notice under the 1994 Act? Has there been any follow-up to establish whether the travellers sent to prison under that Act benefited from the experience, and what effect it had on their families? We need that information before we allow further criminal penalties to be levied under the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord Avebury, but I also take the opportunity to speak to the amendments in my name, which are listed with this group.
Amendment No. 109 returns to an issue that I raised in Committee, but this time the wording is more specific. The intention is to ensure that families are not split up. That is part of our concern about traveller children. The family is part of the support system for children, and splitting up families can be destructive of the welfare of children involved.
The second part of the amendment deals very precisely with the whole matter of the welfare of children. In any intervention involving children, child protection and children's welfare should be the focus of the intervention. A forced eviction is a frightening and disrupting process for any child.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has already dealt to some extent with Amendment No. 110, and I agree with what he said about it. Amendment No. 111 would

605
specify that a senior police officer should mean an officer with specific training in working with travellers and ethnic gypsies, addressing race relations and child protection. I return to some of the arguments voiced in Committee. In rejecting my amendment in Committee, my noble friend the Minister suggested the need for swifter police powers, but the Government already have powers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to move on anyone using threatening behaviour or causing damage, or to move on encampments of more than six vehicles.
Child protection concerns and the need for good race relations were not dealt with in the response to my amendment in Committee. Yet, in September 2003, the Commission for Racial Equality, writing to the Travellers' Law Reform Coalition, said:
"We also feel that it is important that police officers take a responsible approach and receive adequate training, as required by the Race Relations Act … this could then be supported by proposals for training in the guidance",
which we are expecting to be issued.
Amendment No. 112 calls for the Deputy Prime Minister, following consultation with the Commission for Racial Equality and other interested parties, to issue guidance to local authorities and the police on the operation of this section of the Bill. That has important implications for race relations. On 4th October 2002, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child noted:
"The Committee is concerned at the discrimination against children belonging to Irish and Roma Travellers. The Committee is also concerned at the existing gap between policy and effective delivery of services … In line with its previous recommendations, the Committee recommends that the State party devise … a comprehensive and constructive plan of action effectively to target the obstacles in the enjoyment of rights by these groups".
The CRE has also expressed concern at the potential adverse impact on gypsies and travellers of certain sections of the Bill, in particular Part 8, and refers to the statutory duty to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination. The amendment makes it clear that it is for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which has the lead on gypsies and travellers and unauthorised encampments, to lead on issuing guidance, rather than the Home Office.
The intention of Amendment No. 115 is to extend the defence of children to all children under 18 on site and not merely those travelling with a parent or guardian. I am returning to this amendment on Report because, possibly due to the fact that the Committee was taking place very late at night, my noble friend the Minister did not refer to it. The Bill does provide a defence for children under 18 who are in families. But as I said in Committee, some children may be travelling without a formal guardian and with no parent. That is not uncommon nowadays. As I also said in Committee, these days there are countries, particularly in eastern Europe, where Roma people suffer a great deal of persecution and harassment. Very often they may be asylum seekers who decide to send their children away, out of the way of harassment and persecution. There could very well be children who are taken care of by traveller families.
606
There are powers under child protection legislation, specifically the Children Act 1989, to address the needs and welfare of all children up to the age of 18. Inclusion of the wording in the Bill which we are seeking to remove would appear to negate the protection otherwise available to children under the age of 18.
I have not referred to Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 which are also in my name because they deal with penalties and they have already been dealt with, I think very effectively, by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I invite my noble friend to accept these amendments which we feel are entirely reasonable in the circumstances we have outlined.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I support government Amendments Nos. 108 and 110 which go far to complying with the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member; but I would also hope that my noble friend the Minister can supplement these by giving consideration to Amendments Nos. 109 and 115. These would prevent the risk of excluding gypsy, Roma and traveller children from the scope of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which other children enjoy.
As for Amendment No. 113, as noble Lords have said in debating Amendment No. 105B, this would be a great improvement in civil liberties. I also commend Amendments Nos. 111 and 112 relating to training and guidance which would help to defuse potentially prejudicial and traumatic situations. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to meet these further concerns.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I support what has been said on very many of these amendments. I hope that we will not have another demonstration of the government policy of, "Bring'em on late and reject 'em all". That is what is happening with so many of the Bills that are supposed to come before this second House of the legislature, and we will have further examples as we go on, I suspect, through the night. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will actually answer some of the points that have been made. This is supposed to be a debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has produced a manifestly unanswerable case on a number of the matters that he put. Why should not a local authority faced with a family not certify that there is another pitch to which that family and its travelling house and children can go? Why should they not? Let the Minister tell me why they should not. Why should the penalty of three months' imprisonment, challenged by Amendment No. 113, stand, advocated by the Government? Roma people are being harassed and persecuted in central Europe in an abysmal way but they find no protection in the hearts of these liberal Ministers, as indeed my noble friends are, who are put out to give a gloss to illiberal policies.
What on earth can be wrong with Amendment No. 115? If the rights of the child are as paramount as they are supposed to be in policies, why should not

607
protection be advanced for children who do not happen at the time to be residing with a parent or guardian? Oh no, they are just travellers' children; they are just Roma children. They do not count. That is the impression that the Government will give if they do not adopt a liberal attitude on such amendments as these. I just hope that my noble friend Lord Bassam, who is not an illiberal man, will see that, whatever instructions he has received, he must be liberal on amendments of this kind regarding persecuted people. I very much hope that an exception will be made for these amendments and that some acceptable attitude will come from the Government.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I rise to address the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and those spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner.
Before I draw attention to the government amendments, which very much reflect the fact that we have listened to concerns raised in Committee, I wish to address the issue of alleged ministerial illiberality. It is not a matter of our being illiberal or hard line but of dealing with the matter in a practical way respecting the rights of settled communities as much as those of traveller communities. We are trying to strike a reasonable balance in having to sort out the muddle that this Government inherited when we came to office in 1997.
I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said about the money that we were making available to local authorities to try to sort out local difficulties. We have made that money available and it is bringing improvements. It may not be at the pace and rate that the noble Lord would like to see, but as a former local authority leader for some 13 years I know from experience that there are no easy answers to these difficult questions. They are difficult and intractable questions. I urge noble Lords at least to adopt a reasonably practical approach to these matters and not to indulge in the rhetoric of attacking Ministers for their alleged illiberality when we are conscious and very mindful of the real problems which travellers and settled communities face in coming to terms with each other and living together.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, welcomed government Amendment No. 108 which seeks to ensure that before the police issue a direction for trespassers to leave land, there is an available pitch on a local authority site and that pitch is suitable. Our Amendment No. 110 puts on the face of the Bill what will happen in practice. Before giving a direction an officer will have to consult with the local authorities to enable him to assess whether a suitable pitch is available.
We shall be providing guidance to local authorities on the factors they will have to take into consideration when assessing suitability. The police will need to consider the advice of the local authority carefully before giving a direction.
608
We believe that these amendments provide a practical way of addressing the very real concerns raised by noble Lords without constraining the power to such an extent that it cannot be used to protect the communities that genuinely suffer—as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said in the past and has repeated this evening—from nuisance and anti-social behaviour as a result of some—I underline the word "some"— unauthorised encampments.
The Government believe that Amendment No. 106 is unnecessary. In order for this power to be exercised all conditions in Clause 65 would need to apply.
Amendment No. 107 seeks to provide clarification that the local authority must certify that there is a pitch on a relevant caravan site for that person to be directed to. Government Amendment No. 110 ensures that the officer making the direction consults the relevant local authority as to pitch availability. We believe that the way in which this consultation takes place is best left to guidance rather than imposing a rigid certification regime on the face of the Bill.
Amendment No. 109 ensures that all families directed to leave the land under the new power do so to a single caravan site. While we do not wish to separate families when a direction is issued, there may be situations where it may be appropriate to split a large extended family group. Obviously there needs to be some flexibility. By adding the condition that the amendment seeks, it could ironically generate a perverse incentive for travelling families to reside in large numbers to avoid being caught by the legislation. Although I certainly acknowledge the importance of assessing children's needs, we consider that to be best left to guidance which will be issued alongside the Bill. That guidance will of course reflect best practice.
Amendment No. 111 seeks to recognise that travellers and ethnic gypsies may have particular cultural expectations that should be reflected in sensitive policing decisions. We all expect police officers to carry out their duties in conformity with the requirements of race relations legislation. However, the situation is not one that can be addressed piecemeal or is specifically related to gypsy and traveller communities, as I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, my noble friend has said nothing about the need for training. I did not address that in my speech, but I thought that he would deal with it. In moving the amendment, the noble Lord made a point that the specific training mentioned in the amendments had been supported by the Commission for Racial Equality and other bodies. Is the Minister saying that the evidence of those bodies is of no value, and that the Government are quite happy with the state of the police force in dealing with such matters without further training?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I want to put on record that training is of course important. Speaking from experience, I can say that my old local authority recognised the importance of training. Those officers who were obliged to deal with the issues

609
were expected to receive some training. The police, who are invariably deployed to deal with and give support on occasion to local authority officers, had training appropriate to the issues.
All police officers are provided with community and race relations training as part of the police strategy. Specific training is given throughout the national police training curriculum and by a programme of force-based training and support, to put community and race relations very firmly in the operational context in which officers, and of course civilian staff, work. It is right that the training issues be addressed, but we think the matter best dealt with in guidance and through the usual training practices that local authorities and police authorities adopt.
Amendment No. 112 seeks to add a condition for guidance to be produced by the ODPM following consultation on the operation of the powers. I appreciate the importance of ensuring that all parties receive guidance on the implementation of the powers, but it is neither necessary nor appropriate to add that to the Bill. However, I give the assurance that we will consult the interested parties, including the Commission for Racial Equality, on guidance on the new powers. It will be very important for us to work closely with the Local Government Association, which is always involved in discussions and negotiations on such matters.
Amendment No. 113 seeks to remove part of the penalty attached to failure to comply with a direction. Amendment No. 114 would reduce the penalty to imprisonment or a fine, so that the person could not be subjected to both. The penalties mirror those currently available for the offence of failing to comply with a direction under Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The focus of the swifter police powers is to encourage trespassers to use authorised sites instead of trespassing. Amendment No. 115 would amend the defence available to a person under the age of 18 by removing the requirement that he must be residing with his parent or guardian. The aim of those new police powers is to provide swifter police action to deal with trespassers on land. Removing the condition for the person under 18 to be residing with his parent or guardian prevents any prosecution of anyone under 18. The provision is unlikely to be used on those under 18, as most will be living with their parents or guardians and therefore able to provide a defence.
We believe that many of the issues are best dealt with through the guidance that we will issue to local authorities and police on the powers. Given our commitment to guidance and consulting widely and extensively on the nature of that guidance, I suggest that the noble Lords who tabled the amendments do not press them, but support the government amendments in their place.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Turner and Lady Whitaker, and the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, for their
610
contributions to this short debate. No one has defended the Government's wording in the Bill or the Minister's concession as being sufficient to meet the difficulties we are trying to address.
We are grateful to the Minister for having listened to what was said in Committee. I have already acknowledged that Amendment No. 110 does part of what we wanted in providing that a suitable pitch should be available and that consultation with the local authority should precede any action to issue directions. However, the police will need only to consider that advice; they will not have to act on it. If the local authority says that no pitch is available, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it issuing directions.
The Minister dwelt again on the extent of the improvements which he said had been introduced by the Government since coming into office in 1997 in the provision of accommodation for gypsies and he said that perhaps that was not as much as I would like to see. It is not me he has to please; it is the 3,000 families who are currently living on unauthorised encampments, together with the people whose lives are severely affected by having those unauthorised encampments in their neighbourhood. I have always acknowledged that that is the other side of the coin.
If the provision of new sites is at the rate of only 30 per annum, which is all that can be provided for the money the Government have made available, it will take 100 years before these people are accommodated in official sites. By that time, the population will have grown. Therefore, it is not me who says that the Government's efforts are inadequate; it is the Government's own report, which they commissioned from Pat Ninier of Birmingham University. The Minister did not comment on that either in respect of this amendment or the previous one.
The Minister talked about a rigid certification regime which we are seeking to impose. We say merely that when the police consult the local authority and it looks to see whether a suitable pitch, or pitches, are available, it should write a little note certifying that that is the case. This is not a rigid regime; it merely asks the local authority to put on record what it will say to the police informally if the Minister's solution is preferred. If I were the police, I would rather that the local authority had to put it in writing so that there would be no come-back if there were an argument about whether a suitable pitch had been made available.
In answer to the eloquent speeches made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Turner and Lady Whitaker, about the needs of children, the Minister said that this is all best left to guidance. Well, we see where guidance has left the children—they are the most deprived section of any in the school regime. It is universally acknowledged by the DfES and all those who have anything to do with traveller education that such children do not do well at school and do not obtain qualifications. As I mentioned earlier, the problems with the traveller community are perpetuated into the next generation because the children are never in one place for long enough to settle down at school. Nothing in the Bill will remedy that.

611
I am pleased to hear what the Minister said about consultation. I believe that it goes a long way towards meeting the requirement in the amendment for extensive consultation to take place with the CRE on the guidance and for officers in both local authorities and the police to receive specific training based on the guidance in how to deal with the problems of ethnic Romanies and Irish travellers. I believe that that, at least, was one positive assurance that we obtained from the Minister. However, on the whole, I was disappointed by what he said about this; amendment, as 1 was by what he said about the previous one.
I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, has returned to her place. I rather wish that she had been replying to the amendment because I took the trouble to send her fairly extensive material about the non-availability of pitches on official sites. The material also set out how the scheme in the Bill will not work because for many years the accommodation which the police would be able to access when issuing directions under this provision will not be available.
However, I can see plainly that we shall not get any further on this occasion. We shall have to postpone further discussion to forums outside your Lordships' House, where I know that organisations which represent travellers will be the first to express major disappointment at the Government's attitude. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 50, line 19, after first "a" insert "suitable"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 50, line 24, at end insert—

"(3A) Subsection (3B) applies if—

(a) a police officer proposes to give a direction under subsection (1) in relation to a person and land, and

(b) it appears to him that the person has one or more caravans in his possession or under his control on the land.

(3B) The officer must consult every local authority within whose area the land is situated as to whether there is a suitable pitch for the caravan or each of the caravans on a relevant caravan site which is situated in the local authority's area."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 111 and 112 not moved.]
Clause 66 [Failure to comply with direction: offences]:
[Amendments Nos. 113 to 115 not moved]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 116:
After Clause 68, insert the following new clause—
"MISUSE OF LAND

(1) Where the use of a parcel of land changes and—

(a) the new use requires planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8) and no application has been made to the relevant planning authority for planning permission for the change of use nor granted by them, and

(b) the change of use creates a public nuisance;

the relevant local authority may take action to have the site restored to its former state.

(2) If the relevant local authority decides to take action to restore a site it must serve notice of its intention on the owners and occupiers of the site.

(3) If, on receipt of a notice, the owners or the occupiers of the site do not cease the unauthorised use immediately, they shall be guilty of an offence.

(4) a person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction to—

(a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months,

(b) a fine not exceeding £20,000, or

(c) both.

(5) Where the owner of the site is responsible for the change of use or has otherwise permitted other persons to undertake the change of use and he takes no action to restore the site, the relevant local authority may restore the site and charge the owner for the full cost of the restoration.

(6) Where the owner of the site has not authorised the occupiers of the site to change the use, the relevant local authority shall require the occupiers of the site to undertake the restoration and, if they take no action, may undertake the restoration and charge the occupiers for the full cost of the restoration."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 116 would deal with a different aspect of the problem that we have now discussed at considerable length. At this hour, I shall try not to take too much of your Lordships' time.
Because of the chronic shortage of available local authority sites, it is not at all unusual for members of the gypsy community, when they find the opportunity, to take matters into their own hands. There are occasions when that is not too objectionable. They purchase a site, harden and service it in so far as they can, and a gypsy encampment ensues.
Various problems arise with that. In so doing, they are almost invariably in breach of planning regulations because, more often than not, they will not have taken the trouble to consult the planning authority in the area before purchasing the site and making use of it. That problem arises where there are planning laws, and the local authority can take enforcement action. I know of one site in my area where that has happened. It has about 30 caravans on it. It is now completely hardened and it has been there for, I believe, at least six years. The local authority has at last got round to taking enforcement action but, in my view, that is far too late.
However, there is a reason for such delay by the local authority. Disregarding the problems of planning laws, taking enforcement action is not cheap. If such action is taken, there is still the problem of what to do with the site when the gypsies are removed. Someone must pay to get rid of the hardened, serviced site because it is in the open countryside. That will be expensive and, at present, nothing can make the owner unharden the site and restore it to its original state.
Unauthorised gypsy sites are worse than that because in their initial stages they often cause serious public nuisance. The process of hardening a gypsy site is not simple. It involves a lot of additional traffic that may travel down residential roads and out into the countryside. When a gypsy encampment first arrives there is no doubt at all that it causes a deal of public nuisance and vexation. The amendment would give the local authority the power to give notice to the owners of such a site to restore it. An offence is committed if the use does not cease. That would largely remove the expenditure from the local authority.
I expect the noble Baroness will tell me that this amendment is completely wrong and completely unworkable. That may well be. I acknowledge that it has the safeguards that apply in all the earlier situations that we have heard about. In the normal situation when gypsies move on to a site, someone objects and with the objection all the official procedures come into play. However, a particular difficulty arises when gypsies own the site.
I have the greatest sympathy with the gypsy community in this matter, particularly because of the appallingly slow rate at which it is possible for local authorities to act to provide sites. The solution ought to be that gypsies provide their own sites where they can find landowners who are willing to sell them sites. At the same time, for that to happen they would need to have discussions with the local planning authority to ensure that what they want to do is acceptable. At the moment that does not happen and the result is that they cause a great deal of offence. What is worse is that in the end they get away with, in effect, a development of land that has no planning permission and which gives them an illegal advantage over the rest of the community.
That is a very real problem in this area. Although the way in which the amendment suggests dealing with the situation may not be perfect, it would deal with it. I look forward with interest to hearing the response of the noble Baroness. I beg to move.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I support the spirit of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I have had a number of representations from elected members, local authorities and residents about exactly this kind of problem. One that comes most to mind has occurred in the Epping Forest District Council area in Essex, where a group of travellers occupy a piece of land in an unauthorised way. The council tells me that the planning legislation is simply inadequate to deal with the problem because it is impossible to obtain the necessary injunctions and orders to seek their removal.
Another more serious case concerns a village in the Surrey Heath area where a field has been bought by a group of travellers, perfectly legally, and they have sub-divided it into 26 plots. They have fenced them in, erected gates and have sold on the plots through cash deals. The land is on a flood plain and as the level has been raised by putting down hardcore, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred, there is every
614
probability that the neighbouring houses will experience a flood when we have some wet weather. In that case both the borough council and the Environment Agency sought and obtained an injunction to get the travellers off the land. In April the council issued proceedings in the High Court for an application for committal as a result of the defendant then being in contempt of the court order.
On 2nd May, Mr Justice Holland said that the injunction was "being flagrantly ignored" and that he would commit any of the named respondents if any further breaches occurred before the hearing. Then, astonishingly, on 19th May, the court took no action in the face of the further breaches of the injunction and adjourned the contempt hearing indefinitely.
It appears that the only way in which the situation can be remedied and the site restored to its previous condition is for the council to go down the tortuous route of compulsory purchase. It seems to me that there is something wrong with the system if the interests of local residents, and indeed the interests of the travellers, cannot be looked after better through the planning process. It is for that reason that I support the principle underlying the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and I hope very much that my noble friend will be able to give us some comfort on it.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Faulkner, have underlined the failure of the Tory Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, under which it was the intention that travellers— gypsies—should provide their own sites. Circular 1/94 enjoined local authorities to make provision in their planning schemes for land for that purpose.
However, in fact since the 1994 Act travellers have struggled to provide sites of their own and no local authority has stuck its head above the parapet to say, "There is a parcel of land in this area where we would welcome an application for planning permission". So, what inevitably happens is that gypsies acquire land and then apply for planning permission afterwards instead of doing it the other way around.
I am sure that if the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, reflects on the issue, he would agree with me that if a gypsy came into his local authority and asked for advice on a suitable piece of land within the area on which he might gain planning permission, he would get a fairly lusty answer. The noble Lord is nodding his head. I think that that would be the same response in any one of the hundreds of local authorities up and down the United Kingdom. So, inevitably, they acquire land in unsuitable places and ask for planning permission. Very occasionally they get it.
What the Government have failed to do—and this is something they could easily have done since 1997; it would not have cost them large amounts in resources—is at least to record how many planning permissions were asked for by gypsies for development of their own sites and their rate of success on appeals. I have repeatedly written to Ministers in the ODPM asking them to collect these statistics. They have told

615
me that the planning inspectorate has the appeal figures, but when I asked for them to be produced the planning inspectorate says that its information is not complete and that better information is provided by private agencies which will search through all the appeals and provide it for a sum of £60 per year—an amount which the ODPM is apparently unwilling to spend.
No one wants to know, apparently, the success rate for gypsies applying for planning permission on their own land or appealing against refusal of permission. If we had that information we would know whether or not the policies introduced by the Tories in 1994, including circular 1/94, have been successful. My assertion is that they have failed because it is impossible—and I said so at the time in the debates on the 1994 Act—for gypsies out of their own resources to make up for the deficiencies in the provision of sites by local authorities.
That is the situation we face. It is no good for the Minister to say that—as he did a few minutes ago— "We have a few crumbs to throw to the gypsies for transit sites" when nothing whatever is being done about permanent sites, either in the private sector or in the provision of local authority sites.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, it is clear that the problem towards which the amendment draws our attention has arisen because successive governments and local authorities have failed to produce sufficient authorised sites where gypsies can settle and reside. However, it would be helpful to know—whether from the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, or from the Government; I do not know which—what is the scale of the problem arising after purchase of sites by gypsies. Two anecdotal instances have been cited from either side of the House, but is it much more widespread than that? I do not know; perhaps someone does.
As for the amendment, it strikes me that the penalties are on the severe side and perhaps should be reduced. I have one constructive suggestion: that the Home Office and Defra should put their heads together with the Ministry of Defence to see whether there are surplus defence sites that could be made available for the purpose under discussion.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I certainly understand that the intent of the new clause is to deal with camp sites for travellers that are set up without the relevant planning permissions. However, as the amendment—and local planning authorities' existing enforcement powers—apply to travellers in the same way as to everyone else, it is best if I deal with the amendment in more general terms.
I am extremely interested in the cases drawn to our attention by my noble friend Lord Faulkner, which drew out some of the problems and deficiencies that may exist and cause problems for local communities.
I was also interested in the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about the ineffectiveness of and some of the contradictions thrown up by the 1994
616
legislation. I must tell the noble Lord that I cannot answer his question about the detailed analysis of planning applications, although it is interesting. I question whether that will help us—or, at least, local authorities—in the important business of identifying sites in future. I thought that that was optimistic legislation from the Conservatives at the time and that it was extremely unlikely ever to be used.
The new clause appears to allow local planning authorities to act to restore a site to its former state where a change of use does not have planning permission and creates a public nuisance. It also makes a change of use without planning permission an offence and provides for local authorities to restore the site and recover their costs. Those proposed powers would duplicate the enforcement powers that local planning authorities already have under Part VII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
The new clause also gives local authorities powers to act to have sites restored to their former glory—as I said—where a change of use does not have planning permission and creates a nuisance. Planning authorities already have powers under Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to serve an enforcement notice in all cases where a breach of planning control—including unauthorised change of use—has occurred.
The new clause gives power to local authorities to serve a notice on the owners and occupiers of the site requiring them to cease the unauthorised use immediately. If they do not, they will be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding £20,000 and possible imprisonment.
As well as powers to serve an enforcement notice, local authorities also have powers under Sections 183 and 184 of the Town and Country Planning Act to serve a stop notice, which requires the use or activity to cease immediately. So those powers exist.
Also, the new clause allows no right of appeal. We should be concerned about that on grounds of natural justice. It is also likely to be contrary to the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Under Section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act, there is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State against an enforcement notice. If the appeal is dismissed or not appealed, Section 179 of the Town and Country Planning Act makes it an offence to breach an enforcement notice. If found guilty, a person is subject to a fine not exceeding £20,000 on summary conviction or an unlimited fine on indictment.
Where the owner or occupier of a site takes no action to restore it, the new clause provides for the local authority to restore it and charge the owner or occupier the full cost of the restoration. Local planning authorities already have powers under Section 178 of the Town and Country Planning Act to enter the land, take the action required by the enforcement notice and restore the site to its previous condition. They may also recover the cost of taking that action from the owner of the site.

617
The new clause is not necessary, as it duplicates powers readily available to local authorities. For those reasons, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. Having said that, I appreciate some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. Clearly, careful thought has been put into the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. The Government will keep the matter under review, as with all local planning legislation in other parts of the legislative framework.
If there are specific problems of which the noble Lord does not feel that the ODPM is aware, it is open to him to draw them out to ensure that officials are apprised of any deficiencies. We need to keep a careful watch on such matters to ensure that the enforcement powers that local authorities wish to use are appropriate in all the circumstances.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, if all those powers already exist, why are they not used, and what guidance might the Government have given local authorities to encourage them to use the powers?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I ought to declare an interest in that my partner is a planning lawyer. I know that guidance on those matters is issued and updated from time to time. Obviously, local authorities must think carefully about how they use the powers. From my own experience, I am not aware of any deficiency in the enforcement powers. It depends very much on the circumstances of each case. One is aware that difficulties can arise from time to time. To return to the point that I made earlier, I look to the Local Government Association to draw out any persistent problems. If there are deficiencies, the noble Lord is right to draw them out. However, I am not sure that this is the right place to seek to remedy them.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I can see why the Government should think that this is not an appropriate place to seek to put the matter right. I am grateful for the Minister's reply and the support of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right to draw out the difficulties that exist; they are a great problem for everybody who tries to deal with the issue. The matter must be dealt with either by fresh guidance to local authorities to use existing powers or through a device such as a new clause. It may be that this is not the appropriate Bill for such a clause and that one should be included in a planning Bill.
The present situation is unsatisfactory. It is all very well to expect the Local Government Association to deal with the matter, but such problems occur one at a time in specific local authorities. It is therefore difficult to get the bulk of local authorities to take a specific interest in the problems of one local authority at any one time. Speaking as an old hand in local government, I am all too aware of that—as will be the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton.
618
I was grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. We will never know the scale of the problem because the unofficial sites that we are discussing are not subject to any normal regulation, control or counting. That is the very reason that they are able to exist. I agree with him that the penalties suggested are on the severe side. However, as the Minister would say in these circumstances, "These are maxima".
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the unofficial sites are counted together with all sites in the January and July surveys undertaken by local authorities on behalf of the ODPM. The results of those surveys are available on the ODPM website.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord because that answers the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. It is most helpful. It is quite clear that we are not going to get any further with the matter tonight and it is far too late to start messing around, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 117:
After Clause 68, insert the following new clause—
"CAUSING DANGER ON HIGHWAY PAVEMENTS AND OTHER PUBLIC PLACES
After section 163(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) insert—
"( ) A person travelling on a highway pavement or other public area that is paved, employing anything riding on wheels, without due consideration for the needs of others must stop on being required to do so by a constable in uniform.""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment would amend the Road Traffic Act 1968 to take account of a phenomenon that I suspect did not exist in any serious form when the law was passed. However, there is an increasing problem nowadays with roller-skates, skateboards and rollerblades being used on pavements and other places. One possible solution would be to agree this amendment to the Road Traffic Act so that a person travelling on wheels on the pavement—or any other paved area—without consideration must stop. They would then presumably be subject to all the other penalties that exist in the Highways Act. It mirrors what is said about traffic that is committing an offence. Presumably, other powers in the Act would be relevant. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord should be congratulated on his persistence on this matter, if not the precision of his amendment. I do not think that it is effective in its purpose because it does not create the new offence. I will deal with it as a matter of principle.
As we have said before, the Government certainly understand the concern behind the noble Lord's amendment. Skateboarding and roller-skating can cause great delight to those undertaking the activity. I have never been able to get on to a set of roller-skates and stand up, but I have seen my children do it.

619
However, we must recognise that such actions cause irritation to pedestrians in some specific local areas where it is done in an inconsiderate, dangerous and irresponsible manner.
The new clause would not ban all use of roller-skates on footways but, oddly enough, it would still have the effect of moving users from footways to roadways as they tried to avoid the risk of committing an offence, which we pointed out at an earlier stage in the Bill. These devices are not designed for use in traffic and displacing them on to roads would obviously be dangerous for both skaters and other road users. There are already sufficient powers to make by-laws to deal with this kind of nuisance, which would be a more precise way of tackling the problem.
Section 235 of the Local Government Act 1972 enables local authorities to enact by-laws with regard to skateboarding and roller-skating which can prohibit these activities in specific locations or regulate them throughout a district area. Already several local authorities have employed this provision to make it an offence to skateboard or roller-skate in designated areas, punishable by a fine on summary conviction.
Sufficient powers already exist, if there is a problem, and I urge local authorities to use the by-law route. I also urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that by-laws prohibiting an anti-social activity are not, by themselves, enough? They require enforcement. Obviously, a constable is capable of enforcing such laws, but would it not be an ideal task for the new community support officers?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my brief does not cover that issue, but that seems to be an eminently sensible suggestion. The noble Lord is right: enforcement is the key. By-laws have usually been carefully worked out in consultation with the police. I expect that a local authority seeking to get a by-law in place would want to talk urgently to the local police service to ensure that enforcement was possible. I would urge them to do exactly that.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, for his response. I should point out that Section 163(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 does not create the offences that the noble Lord is complaining about. It deals with the right to stop cars and bicycles on the highway, if an offence has been committed. The offences are all created elsewhere. The amendment would add a little subsection to that section.
I shall think about what the noble Lord said. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 118:
After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—

PART 8A
HIGH HEDGES
COMPLAINTS TO WHICH THIS PART APPLIES

(1) This Part applies to a complaint which—

(a) is made for the purposes of this Part by an owner or occupier of a domestic property; and

(b) alleges that his reasonable enjoyment of that property is being adversely affected by the height of a high hedge situated on land owned or occupied by another person.

(2) This Part also applies to a complaint which—

(a) is made for the purposes of this Part by an owner of a domestic property that is for the time being unoccupied, and

(b) alleges that the reasonable enjoyment of that property by a prospective occupier of that property would be adversely affected by the height of a high hedge situated on land owned or occupied by another person,

as it applies to a complaint falling within subsection (1).

(3) In relation to a complaint falling within subsection (2), references in sections (Procedure for dealing with complaints) and (Remedial notices) to the effect of the height of a high hedge on the complainant's reasonable enjoyment of a domestic property shall be read as references to the effect that it would have on the reasonable enjoyment of that property by a prospective occupier of the property.

26

(4) This Part does not apply to complaints about the effect of the roots of a high hedge.

(5) In this Part, in relation to a complaint—

"complainant" means—

(a) a person by whom the complaint is made; or

(b) if every person who made the complaint ceases to be an owner or occupier of the domestic property specified in the complaint, any other person who is for the time being an owner or occupier of that property;

and references to the complainant include references to one or more of the complainants;

"the neighbouring land" means the land on which the high hedge is situated; and

"the relevant authority" means the local authority in whose area that land is situated."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it gives me more than the usual delight to move this amendment. In effect, it will introduce a whole new Bill into the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. Rarely can there have been an occasion in your Lordships' House that has been greeted with such gratitude, delight, enthusiasm and warm support.
I shall not go on at great length. In the past few years, we have seen Private Member's Bills pushed through both Houses. They have attracted broad support, but, frustratingly, they have never found their way on to the statue book. This evening is an evening for paying tributes. It is difficult to leave people out, but I must congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, on her persistence and her imagination. I also record my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tempting me, at the previous stage of the Bill, to encourage the finding of a solution. We have found that solution. Stephen Pound MP must also be congratulated on his sterling efforts. My noble friend Lord Evans of Temple Guiting should be congratulated on his sterling efforts at an earlier

621
stage. My noble friend Lord Rooker should be congratulated on encouraging incitement of the issue in exchanges across the Dispatch Box. My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton and John Taylor MP also deserve congratulation. They all do.
High hedges are an anti-social problem. I am motivated by lots of things, but I have a confession to make: my mother grew a leylandii cypress hedge in the 1980s, when she was getting, shall we say, a little eccentric. She thought that her neighbours were snooping on her. I had to make a tactical intervention to ensure that the thing was trimmed back to a reasonable height. Eventually, the hedge was removed. I thought that it was a profoundly anti-social act on her part, and we had something of an argument about it. So, I appreciate from personal experience how unpleasant a problem it is and how much anti-social activity and strife between neighbours it can lead to. So I am very happy for these amendments to be introduced. They will grant relief to many citizens who have suffered greatly from the problem. I am told that when we had a consultation on the issue, the department received one of the largest ever responses, which does not surprise me at all.
In dealing with the government amendment, I must deal, too, with Amendment No. 119 to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, which requires some precision in addressing.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would permit me to introduce my amendment so that he knows what lies behind it before he tries to answer it. I know that he is fairly psychic, but I might help the House to make progress. Amendment No. 119 arises because—
A noble Lord: My Lords, the noble Lord can interrupt the Minister, but he cannot make a speech.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, for the convenience of the House, I was trying to deal with the noble Lord's amendment in my comments because I want us to move on as swiftly as possible. The problem with the amendment is that it would disapply from the scheme of regulation any evergreen hedge that affords shelter to horticultural or agricultural land. In effect, it would mean that a home owner would not be able to lodge a complaint with the local authority about any hedge which was adversely affecting his or her reasonable enjoyment of property.
We all agree that hedges have many benefits, particularly in horticulture and agriculture. Even the maligned Leyland cypress can provide admirable shelter for crops. However, the number of complaints arising under the Bill about horticultural and agricultural hedges is unlikely to be significant. Traditional countryside hedgerows tend not to comprise evergreen species and so are unlikely to be caught by the Bill at all. As regards hedges that are predominantly evergreen, government Amendment No. 118 makes clear that a complaint under the Bill must relate to hedges that are having an adverse effect
622
on domestic property. That does not completely rule out complaints about hedges on horticultural or agricultural land which adjoin residential land, but the overall number of complaints is likely to be low.
Where valid complaints about horticultural or agricultural hedges are made under the Bill, it does not follow that the local authority will order a reduction in the hedge's height, even if it finds that the hedge is having an adverse effect on the complainant's property. In determining complaints, local authorities will take account of all relevant factors, including points raised by both parties. The local authority's decision will be based on a balanced assessment of the merits of each case, having regard to individual circumstances.
The ODPM will issue guidance to local authorities on how to administer the scheme of regulation. Rights of appeal against local authority decisions have been drawn into the Bill. Obviously, I shall hear what the noble Lord has to say, but we think that we have got the balance about right. We understand that cases may arise for which the noble Lord would like to seek protection, but we can best deal with that in guidance. It would be unfortunate to begin a system of exemptions, such as that proposed in the noble Lord's amendment.
I think that we have a measure on which we have common agreement; there has been endless consultation. We have had too many Bills. The Stephen Pound Bill, which we are putting into the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, is fit for the purpose. It will serve and protect our citizens in the way in which its movers and all those who have supported it in the past seek. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 118, Amendment No. 119:
Line 26, at end insert—
"( ) This Part does not apply to any such evergreens which afford shelter to land used for the purposes of agriculture or horticulture."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Minister has done very well: he has nearly answered the point that I wanted answered. In fact, I support the amendment. All I seek from the Government is a little assurance, which I think that the noble Lord will be able to give. He might have been able to give it in rather fewer words than he actually did if I had been given the chance to introduce the amendment before he replied to it.
The noble Lord knows at least as well as I the fact that development pressures are very high in the South East and a scenario comes to mind that has not been adequately dealt with. The first is where a high hedge divides two large properties. I can think of two or three places where there are what used to be beautiful streets with lovely houses, each standing in three or four acres, often separated by high evergreen hedges. That was fine, but the pressures for development are such that the sites of those houses were worth considerably more than the properties themselves.
Over time, the owner of one such property will decide that he cannot afford to live on the site any longer. He then applies for planning permission and, since the land designation is residential, his five-acre site will accommodate 15 to 20 new houses—I have seen that for myself. The site will be developed right up to the hedge, but that does not matter. People move into the new house, having bought it knowing of the disadvantage of having a high hedge perhaps only 20 feet away. However, when subsequently those people sell the house, the next owner does not see the matter in that light. The new owner will seek to have the hedge removed, even though that hedge is protecting the rights of the person still enjoying the large site next door.
It was to deal with that kind of situation that I sought a little more assurance from the Government. One tends to think of hedges inappropriately planted and growing away as the problem, but there is no question that the circumstance I have described is also a problem: it is a fact that, in the south-east of England, houses sometimes grow up to hedges rather than the other way round. That is the situation to which I particularly want the Minister to respond. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, earlier this evening the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, referred to an element of this anti-social behaviour legislation as a bus that one could hop on to. I am not very good at hopping on to buses, but on this occasion I have managed to do so because so many people have helped me to catch the bus. We waited a long time for this bus, but eventually it came along.
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, responded to my first Private Member's Bill. Following that, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and I had a meeting with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who was briefly in charge of this area. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has asked me to say how sorry he is that he has been unable to stay tonight. He also reminded me that I must thank the Minister in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I am sure that is true, but I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who put forward some marvellous suggestions when we had our exchange at Question Time.
There are so many people to thank. I mention the noble Lords, Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lord Evans of Temple Guiting—which is a terribly difficult name to pronounce—who both dealt with the Bill earlier this year. I must also mention the late Lord Williams of Mostyn who suggested that I speak to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, about this matter. He was very supportive of my proposals. Indeed, many noble Lords from the Government and all sides of the House have offered their support. I thank in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, whose name is attached to my amendment. Without her brilliant suggestion for how to get the Public Bill Office to go along with this proposal, we might not have had the amendment before the House tonight. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for her help.
624
I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who is not with us this evening. The noble Lord sits on the Cross Benches and took a very active part in the Bill at an earlier stage. All noble Lords have supported this measure. Further, honourable Members from the other place, John Taylor and Stephen Pound, whose Bill is incorporated in the amendment before us, have been supportive. Stephen Pound and I agreed that, whichever Bill succeeded, one of us would steer it through the other House if we could.
Over the years, almost every aspect of this subject has been debated and appropriate amendments have been incorporated into what is the new clause before us. I thank also those in the ODPM who have worked so patiently and thoroughly on this subject and, more recently, staff in the Home Office and the Public Bill Office. I am sure that it is only because of those combined efforts that this amendment has been tabled.
The proposed new high hedges clause provides a way for hedge victims to seek fair treatment through this Bill. As there seems to be considerable misinformation on a particular point, one further comment is necessary. I must place on record that the amendment does not mean that all hedges throughout the country will be restricted to a height of two metres, as so many people who write in the papers believe. Only yesterday an article appeared stating that the Government are introducing legislation to reduce all hedges to two metres. People are quite ill informed on this subject and it is important for them to realise that that is not the situation. A complaint will be necessary to start the process. After that, each case will be considered individually, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, clearly explained. Cases will not be considered en masse but individually. I hope that cases such as those suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will also receive fair consideration.
I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is in his place. He, too, has encouraged me to press on with the amendment. I agreed that the one thing I would not do was hold up the bus when it arrived. I shall not say anything more except to thank the Government for bringing forward the amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am a bit player in this drama. I do not wish to repeat all the congratulations; perhaps they can be taken as read. For myself, the greatest joy was hearing those in the Public Bill Office say not "We have spoken to parliamentary counsel and he disagrees with you so go away" but "We have spoken to parliamentary counsel and he agrees with you". I do not suppose that will happen often in my parliamentary career.
Perhaps I may make a couple of points in regard to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I was rather confused by the way in which he introduced it. He spoke of growing houses rather than growing crops but his amendment refers to agriculture and horticulture. I do not know whether this is the beginning of a great cross-party alliance and he is trying to solve the ODPM's sustainable communities programme.

625
I am not sure whether his amendment is intended to apply only to commercial agriculture and horticulture or how high a hedge needs to be to afford shelter. It does not specify that it has to be for the purpose of providing shelter, nor does it refer to the crops which may require to be sheltered.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, may have answered my next query—probably in the negative—but I am not sure whether what he suggested goes in any way to the reasonableness of the enjoyment of domestic property of those on the other side of the hedge. I believe he said that this is not relevant to whether or not a complaint is reasonable.
I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, intends to press his amendment and so I shall not continue with my questions. I hope that he does not.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, it is highly satisfactory that there should be an agreed all-party solution to a very real problem. My only regret is that it takes 19 new clauses to achieve that solution. This absolutely illustrates the point so often made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, about the prolixity of modern drafting. Soon we shall be having Bills not in two volumes but in three. Having said that, I welcome the improvement.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I return to the Dispatch Box simply to say to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that the issue he raises is best dealt with through guidance. We are grateful to him for tabling the amendment in the spirit in which he did. He made an interesting case. I can remember similar cases from my own local government experience.
The official at the ODPM has spent a long time dealing with high hedges. When I spoke to her this morning, I was concerned that she may be done out of a job, but she said, "No, I'm sure they'll find me some more work". I am sure that she will put her mind to the issues which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, raises in his amendment. They will no doubt be dealt with in guidance, along with many others, where there are some difficulties and complexities.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, made a perfectly valid point. This is a problem which cries out for a simple solution, yet we need 19 clauses to get it absolutely right.
The Government are very pleased to have been able to find the opportunity to introduce the Pound Bill into the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. I think that we will do the public a great service and that there will be relief and acclamation all round. I have already read some in the press. I congratulate all those who have played a bit part, or a major part—however they wish to describe their activities—and I am most grateful to all for their support.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 119, as an amendment to Amendment No. 118, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 118 agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 120 to 138:
After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—
"HIGH HEDGES

(1) In this Part "high hedge" means so much of a barrier to light or access as—

(a) is formed wholly or predominantly by a line of two or more evergreens; and

(b) rises to a height of more than two metres above ground level.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) a line of evergreens is not to be regarded as forming a barrier to light or access if the existence of gaps significantly affects its overall effect as such a barrier at heights of more than two metres above ground level.

(3) In this section "evergreen" means an evergreen tree or shrub or a semi-evergreen tree or shrub."

After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—
"DOMESTIC PROPERTY

(1) In this Part "domestic property" means—

(a) a dwelling; or

(b) a garden or yard which is used and enjoyed wholly or mainly in connection with a dwelling.

(2) In subsection (1) "dwelling" means any building or part of a building occupied, or intended to be occupied, as a separate dwelling.

(3) A reference in this Part to a person's reasonable enjoyment of domestic property includes a reference to his reasonable enjoyment of a part of the property."

After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—
"PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH COMPLAINTS

(1) This section has effect where a complaint to which this Part applies—

(a) is made to the relevant authority; and

(b) is accompanied by such fee (if any) as the authority may determine.

(2) If the authority consider—

(a) that the complainant has not taken all reasonable steps to resolve the matters complained of without proceeding by way of such a complaint to the authority, or

(b) that the complaint is frivolous or vexatious,

the authority may decide that the complaint should not be proceeded with.

(3) If the authority do not so decide, they must decide—

(a) whether the height of the high hedge specified in the complaint is adversely affecting the complainant's reasonable enjoyment of the domestic property so specified; and

(b) if so, what action (if any) should be taken in relation to that hedge, in pursuance of a remedial notice under section (Remedial notices), with a view to remedying the adverse effect or preventing its recurrence.

(4) If the authority decide under subsection (3) that action should be taken as mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection, they must as soon as is reasonably practicable—

(a) issue a remedial notice under section (Remedial notices) implementing their decision;

627

(b) send a copy of that notice to the following persons, namely—

(i) every complainant; and

(ii) every owner and every occupier of the neighbouring land; and

(c) notify each of those persons of the reasons for their decision.

(5) If the authority—

(a) decide that the complaint should not be proceeded with, or

(b) decide either or both of the issues specified in subsection (3) otherwise than in the complainant's favour,

they must as soon as is reasonably practicable notify the appropriate person or persons of any such decision and of their reasons for it.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (5)—

(a) every complainant is an appropriate person in relation to a decision falling within paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection; and

(b) every owner and every occupier of the neighbouring land is an appropriate person in relation to a decision falling within paragraph (b) of that subsection.

(7) A fee determined under subsection (l)(b) must not exceed the amount prescribed in regulations made—

(a) in relation to complaints relating to hedges situated in England, by the Secretary of State; and

(b) in relation to complaints relating to hedges situated in Wales, by the National Assembly for Wales.

(8) A fee received by a local authority by virtue of subsection (1)(b) may be refunded by them in such circumstances and to such extent as they may determine."

After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—
"REMEDIAL NOTICES

(1) For the purposes of this Part a remedial notice is a notice—

(a) issued by the relevant authority in respect of a complaint to which this Part applies; and

(b) stating the matters mentioned in subsection (2).

(2) Those matters are—

(a) that a complaint has been made to the authority under this Part about a high hedge specified in the notice which is situated on land so specified;

(b) that the authority have decided that the height of that hedge is adversely affecting the complainant's reasonable enjoyment of the domestic property specified in the notice;

(c) the initial action that must be taken in relation to that hedge before the end of the compliance period;

(d) any preventative action that they consider must be taken in relation to that hedge at times following the end of that period while the hedge remains on the land; and

(e) the consequences under sections (Offences) and (Action by relevant authority) of a failure to comply with the notice.

(3) The action specified in a remedial notice is not to require or involve—

(a) a reduction in the height of the hedge to less than two metres above ground level; or

(b) the removal of the hedge

(4) A remedial notice shall take effect on its operative date.

(5) "The operative date" of a remedial notice is such date (falling at least 28 days after that on which the notice is issued) as is specified in the notice as the date on which it is to take effect.

628

(6) "The compliance period" in the case of a remedial notice is such reasonable period as is specified in the notice for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) as the period within which the action so specified is to be taken; and that period shall begin with the operative date of the notice.

(7) Subsections (4) to (6) have effect in relation to a remedial notice subject to—

(a) the exercise of any power of the relevant authority under section (Withdrawal or relaxation of requirements of remedial notices); and

(b) the operation of sections (Appeals against remedial notices and other decisions of relevant authorities) to (Determination or withdrawal of appeals) in relation to the notice.

(8) While a remedial notice has effect, the notice—

(a) shall be a local land charge; and

(b) shall be binding on every person who is for the time being an owner or occupier of the land specified in the notice as the land where the hedge in question is situated.

(9) In this Part—

"initial action" means remedial action or preventative action, or both;

"remedial action" means action to remedy the adverse effect of the height of the hedge on the complainant's reasonable enjoyment of the domestic property in respect of which the complaint was made; and

"preventative action" means action to prevent the recurrence of the adverse effect."

After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—
"WITHDRAWAL OR RELAXATION OF REQUIREMENTS OF REMEDIAL NOTICES

(1) The relevant authority may—

(a) withdraw a remedial notice issued by them; or

(b) waive or relax a requirement of a remedial notice so issued.

(2) The powers conferred by this section are exercisable both before and after a remedial notice has taken effect.

(3) Where the relevant authority exercise the powers conferred by this section, they must give notice of what they have done to—

(a) every complainant; and

(b) every owner and every occupier of the neighbouring land.

(4) The withdrawal of a remedial notice does not affect the power of the relevant authority to issue a further remedial notice in respect of the same hedge."

After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—
"Appeals against remedial notices and other decisions of relevant authorities

(1) Where the relevant authority—

(a) issue a remedial notice,

(b) withdraw such a notice, or

(c) waive or relax the requirements of such a notice,

each of the persons falling within subsection (2) may appeal to the appeal authority against the issue or withdrawal of the notice or (as the case may be) the waiver or relaxation of its requirements.

(2) Those persons are—

(a) every person who is a complainant in relation to the complaint by reference to which the notice was given; and

(b) every person who is an owner or occupier of the neighbouring land.

(3) Where the relevant authority decide either or both of the issues specified in section (Procedure for dealing with complaints) (3) otherwise than in the complainant's favour, the complainant may appeal to the appeal authority against the decision.

(4) An appeal under this section must be made before—

629

(a) the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the relevant date; or

(b) such later time as the appeal authority may allow.

(5) In subsection (4) "the relevant date"—

(a) in the case of an appeal against the issue of a remedial notice, means the date on which the notice was issued; and

(b) in the case of any other appeal under this section, means the date of the notification given by the relevant authority under section (Procedure for dealing with complaints) or (Withdrawal or relaxation of requirements of remedial notices) of the decision in question.

(6) Where an appeal is duly made under subsection (1), the notice or (as the case may be) withdrawal, waiver or relaxation in question shall not have effect pending the final determination or withdrawal of the appeal.

(7) In this Part "the appeal authority" means—

(a) in relation to appeals relating to hedges situated in England, the Secretary of State; and

(b) in relation to appeals relating to hedges situated in Wales, the National Assembly for Wales."

After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—
"APPEALS PROCEDURE

(1) The appeal authority may by regulations make provision with respect to—

(a) the procedure which is to be followed in connection with appeals to that authority under section (Appeals against remedial notices and other decisions of relevant authorities); and

(b) other matters consequential on or connected with such appeals.

(2) Regulations under this section may, in particular, make provision—

(a) specifying the grounds on which appeals may be made;

(b) prescribing the manner in which appeals are to be made;

(c) requiring persons making appeals to send copies of such documents as may be prescribed to such persons as may be prescribed;

(d) requiring local authorities against whose decisions appeals are made to send to the appeal authority such documents as may be prescribed;

(e) specifying, where a local authority are required by virtue of paragraph (d) to send the appeal authority a statement indicating the submissions which they propose to put forward on the appeal, the matters to be included in such a statement;

(f) prescribing the period within which a requirement imposed by the regulations is to be complied with;

(g) enabling such a period to be extended by the appeal authority;

(h) for a decision on an appeal to be binding on persons falling within section (Appeals against remedial notices and other decisions of relevant authorities) (2) in addition to the person by whom the appeal was made;

(i) for incidental or ancillary matters, including the awarding of costs.

(3) Where an appeal is made to the appeal authority under section (Appeals against remedial notices and other decisions of relevant authorities) the appeal authority may appoint a person to hear and determine the appeal on its behalf.

(4) The appeal authority may require such a person to exercise on its behalf any functions which—

(a) are conferred on the appeal authority in connection with such an appeal by section (Appeals against remedial notices and other decisions of relevant authorities) or (Determination or withdrawal of appeals) or by regulations under this section; and

630

(b) are specified in that person's appointment;

and references to the appeal authority in section (Appeals against remedial notices and other decisions of relevant authorities) or (Determination or withdrawal of appeals) or in any regulations under this section shall be construed accordingly.

(5) The appeal authority may pay a person appointed under subsection (3) such remuneration as it may determine.

(6) Regulations under this section may provide for any provision of Schedule 20 to the Environment Act 1995 (c. 25) (delegation of appellate functions) to apply in relation to a person appointed under subsection (3) with such modifications (if any) as may be prescribed.

(7) In this section, "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the appeal authority."

After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—
"DETERMINATION OR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEALS

(1) On an appeal under section (Appeals against remedial notices and other decisions of relevant authorities) the appeal authority may allow or dismiss the appeal, either in whole or in part.

(2) Where the appeal authority decides to allow such an appeal to any extent, it may do such of the following as it considers appropriate—

(a) quash a remedial notice or decision to which the appeal relates;

(b) vary the requirements of such a notice; or

(c) in a case where no remedial notice has been issued, issue on behalf of the relevant authority a remedial notice that could have been issued by the relevant authority on the complaint in question.

(3) On an appeal under section (Appeals against remedial notices and other decisions of relevant authorities) relating to a remedial notice, the appeal authority may also correct any defect, error or misdescription in the notice if it is satisfied that the correction will not cause injustice to any person falling within section (Appeals against remedial notices and other decisions of relevant authorities) (2).

(4) Once the appeal authority has made its decision on an appeal under section (Appeals against remedial notices and other decisions of relevant authorities), it must, as soon as is reasonably practicable—

(a) give a notification of the decision, and

(b) if the decision is to issue a remedial notice or to vary or correct the requirements of such a notice, send copies of the notice as issued, varied or corrected,

to every person falling within section (Appeals against remedial notices and other decisions of relevant authorities) (2) and to the relevant authority.

(5) Where, in consequence of the appeal authority's decision on an appeal, a remedial notice is upheld or varied or corrected, the operative date of the notice shall be—

(a) the date of the appeal authority's decision; or

(b)such later date as may be specified in its decision.

(6) Where the person making an appeal under section (Appeals against remedial notices and other decisions of relevant authorities) against a remedial notice withdraws his appeal, the operative date of the notice shall be the date on which the appeal is withdrawn.

(7) In any case falling within subsection (5) or (6), the compliance period for the notice shall accordingly run from the date which is its operative date by virtue of that subsection (and any period which may have started to run from a date preceding that on which the appeal was made shall accordingly be disregarded)."

After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—
"POWERS OF ENTRY FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS

(1) Where, under this Part, a complaint has been made or a remedial notice has been issued, a person authorised by the relevant authority may enter the neighbouring land in order to obtain information required by the relevant authority for the purpose of determining—

(a) whether this Part applies to the complaint;

(b) whether to issue or withdraw a remedial notice;

(c) whether to waive or relax a requirement of a remedial notice;

(d) whether a requirement of a remedial notice has been complied with.

(2) Where an appeal has been made under section (Appeals against remedial notices and other decisions of relevant authorities), a person authorised—

(a) by the appeal authority, or

(b) by a person appointed to determine appeals on its behalf,

may enter the neighbouring land in order to obtain information required by the appeal authority, or by the person so appointed, for the purpose of determining an appeal under this Part.

(3) A person shall not enter land in the exercise of a power conferred by this section unless at least 24 hours' notice of the intended entry has been given to every occupier of the land.

(4) A person authorised under this section to enter land—

(a) shall, if so required, produce evidence of his authority before entering; and

(b) shall produce such evidence if required to do so at any time while he remains on the land.

(5) A person who enters land in the exercise of a power conferred by this section may—

(a) take with him such other persons as may be necessary;

(b) take with him equipment and materials needed in order to obtain the information required;

(c) take samples of any trees or shrubs that appear to him to form part of a high hedge.

(6) If, in the exercise of a power conferred by this section, a person enters land which is unoccupied or from which all of the persons occupying the land are temporarily absent, he must on his departure leave it as effectively secured against unauthorised entry as he found it.

(7) A person who intentionally obstructs a person acting in the exercise of the powers under this section is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."

After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—
"OFFENCES

(1) Where—

(a) a remedial notice requires the taking of any action; and

(b) that action is not taken in accordance with that notice within the compliance period or (as the case may be) by the subsequent time by which it is required to be taken,

every person who, at a relevant time, is an owner or occupier of the neighbouring land is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(2) In subsection (1) "relevant time"—

(a) in relation to action required to be taken before the end of the compliance period, means a thro; after the end of that period and before the action is taken; and

(b) in relation to any preventative action which is required to be taken after the end of that period, means a time after that at which the action is required to be taken but before it is taken.

632

(3) In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (1) it shall be a defence for him to show that he did everything he could be expected to do to secure compliance with the notice.

(4) In any such proceedings against a person, it shall also be a defence for him to show, in a case in which he—

(a) is not a person to whom a copy of the remedial notice was sent in accordance with a provision of this Part, and

(b) is not assumed under subsection (5) to have had knowledge of the notice at the time of the alleged offence,

that he was not aware of the existence of the notice at that time.

(5) A person shall be assumed to have had knowledge of a remedial notice at any time if at that time—

(a) he was an owner of the neighbouring land; and

(b) the notice was at that time registered as a local land charge.

(6) Section 198 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (c. 20) (constructive notice) shall be disregarded for the purposes of this section.

(7) Where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1) and it appears to the court—

(a) that a failure to comply with the remedial notice is continuing, and

(b) that it is within that person's power to secure compliance with the notice,

the court may, in addition to or instead of imposing a punishment, order him to take the steps specified in the order for securing compliance with the notice.

(8) An order under subsection (7) must require those steps to be taken within such reasonable period as may be fixed by the order.

(9) Where a person fails without reasonable excuse to comply with an order under subsection (7) he is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(10) Where a person continues after conviction of an offence under subsection (9) (or of an offence under this subsection) to fail, without reasonable excuse, to take steps which he has been ordered to take under subsection (7), he is guilty of a further offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding one-twentieth of that level for each day on which the failure has so continued."

After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—
"POWER TO REQUIRE OCCUPIER TO PERMIT ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY OWNER
Section 289 of the Public Health Act 1936 (c. 49) (power of court to require occupier to permit work to be done by owner) shall apply with any necessary modifications for the purpose of giving an owner of land to which a remedial notice relates the right, as against all other persons interested in the land, to comply with the notice."
After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—
"ACTION BY RELEVANT AUTHORITY

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a remedial notice requires the taking of any action; and

(b) that action is not taken in accordance with that notice within the compliance period or (as the case may be) after the end of that period when it is required to be taken by the notice.

(2) Where this section applies—

(a) a person authorised by the relevant authority may enter the neighbouring land and take the required action; and

(b) the relevant authority may recover any expenses reasonably incurred by that person in doing so from any person who is an owner or occupier of the land.

633

(3) Expenses recoverable under this section shall be a local land charge and binding on successive owners of the land and on successive occupiers of it.

(4) Where expenses are recoverable under this section from two or more persons, those persons shall be jointly and severally liable for the expenses.

(5) A person shall not enter land in the exercise of a power conferred by this section unless at least 7 days' notice of the intended entry has been given to every occupier of the land.

(6) A person authorised under this section to enter land—

(a) shall, if so required, produce evidence of his authority before entering; and

(b) shall produce such evidence if required to do so at any time while he remains on the land.

(7) A person who enters land in the exercise of a power conferred by this section may—

(a) use a vehicle to enter the land;

(b) take with him such other persons as may be necessary;

(c) take with him equipment and materials needed for the purpose of taking the required action.

(8) If, in the exercise of a power conferred by this section, a person enters land which is unoccupied or from which all of the persons occupying the land are temporarily absent, he must on his departure leave it as effectively secured against unauthorised entry as he found it.

(9) A person who wilfully obstructs a person acting in the exercise of powers under this section to enter land and take action on that land is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."

After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—
"OFFENCES COMMITTED BY BODIES CORPORATE

(1) Where an offence under this Part committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of—

(a) a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or

(b) any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,

he, as well as the body corporate, shall be guilty of that offence and be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

(2) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (1) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate."

After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—
"SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS

(1) A notification or other document required to be given or sent to a person by virtue of this Part shall be taken to be duly given or sent to him if served in accordance with the following provisions of this section.

(2) Such a document may be served—

(a) by delivering it to the person in question;

(b) by leaving it at his proper address; or

(c)by sending it by post to him at that address.

(3) Such a document may—

(a) in the case of a body corporate, be served on the secretary or clerk of that body;

(b) in the case of a partnership, be served on a partner or a person having the control or management of the partnership business.

634

(4) For the purposes of this section and of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30) (service of documents by post) in its application to this section, a person's proper address shall be his last known address, except that—

(a) in the case of a body corporate or their secretary or clerk, it shall be the address of the registered or principal office of that body; and

(b) in the case of a partnership or person having the control or the management of the partnership business, it shall be the principal office of the partnership.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) the principal office of—

(a) a company registered outside the United Kingdom, or

(b) a partnership carrying on business outside the United Kingdom,

shall be their principal office within the United Kingdom.

(6) If a person has specified an address in the United Kingdom other than his proper address within the meaning of subsection (4) as the one at which he or someone on his behalf will accept documents of a particular description, that address shall also be treated for the purposes of this section and section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30) as his proper address in connection with the service on him of a document of that description.

(7) Where—

(a) by virtue of this Part a document is required to be given or sent to a person who is an owner or occupier of any land, and

(b) the name or address of that person cannot be ascertained after reasonable inquiry,

the document may be served either by leaving it in the hands of a person who is or appears to be resident or employed on the land or by leaving it conspicuously affixed to some building or object on the land."

After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—
"DOCUMENTS IN ELECTRONIC FORM

(1) A requirement of this Part—

(a) to send a copy of a remedial notice to a person, or

(b) to notify a person under section (Procedure for dealing with complaints)(4) of the reasons for the issue of a remedial notice,

is not capable of being satisfied by transmitting the copy or notification electronically or by making it available on a web-site.

(2) The delivery of any other document to a person (the "recipient") may be effected for the purposes of section (Service of documents) (2)(a)—

(a) by transmitting it electronically, or

(b) by making it available on a web-site,

but only if it is transmitted or made available in accordance with subsection (3) or (5).

(3) A document is transmitted electronically in accordance with this subsection if—

(a) the recipient has agreed that documents may be delivered to him by being transmitted to an electronic address and in an electronic form specified by him for that purpose; and

(b) the document is a document to which that agreement applies and is transmitted to that address in that form.

(4) A document which is transmitted in accordance with subsection (3) by means of an electronic communications network shall, unless the contrary is proved, be treated as having been delivered at 9 a.m. on the working day immediately following the day on which it is transmitted.

(5) A document is made available on a web-site in accordance with this subsection if—

(a) the recipient has agreed that documents may be delivered to him by being made available on a web-site;

635

(b) the document is a document to which that agreement applies and is made available on a web-site;

(c) the recipient is notified, in a manner agreed by him, of—

(i) the presence of the document on the web-site;

(ii) the address of the web-site; and

(iii) the place on the web-site where the document may be accessed.

(6) A document made available on a web-site in accordance with subsection (5) shall, unless the contrary is proved, be treated as having been delivered at 9 a.m. on the working day immediately following the day on which the recipient is notified in accordance with subsection (5)(c).

(7) In this section—

"electronic address" includes any number or address used for the purposes of receiving electronic communications;

"electronic communication" means an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Act 2000 (c. 7) the processing of which on receipt is intended to produce writing;

"electronic communications network" means an electronic communications network within the meaning of the Communications Act 2003 (c. 21);

"electronically" means in the form of an electronic communication;

"working day" means a day which is not a Saturday or a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a bank holiday in England and Wales under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 (c. 80)."

After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—
"POWER TO MAKE FURTHER PROVISION ABOUT DOCUMENTS IN ELECTRONIC FORM

(1) Regulations may amend section (Documents in electronic form) by modifying the circumstances in which, and the conditions subject to which, the delivery of a document for the purposes of section (Service of documents) (2)(a) may be effected by—

(a) transmitting the document electronically; or

(b) making the document available on a web-site.

(2) Regulations may also amend section (Documents in electronic form) by modifying the day on which and the time at which documents which are transmitted electronically or made available on a web-site in accordance with that section are to be treated as having been delivered.

(3) Regulations under this section may make such consequential amendments of this Part as the person making the regulations considers appropriate.

(4) The power to make such regulations shall be exercisable—

(a) in relation to documents relating to complaints about hedges situated in England, by the Secretary of State; and

(b) in relation to documents relating to complaints about hedges situated in Wales, by the National Assembly for Wales.

(5) In this section "electronically" has the meaning given in section (Documents in electronic form)."

After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—
"INTERPRETATION
In this Part—
"the appeal authority" has the meaning given by section (Appeals against remedial notices and other decisions of relevant authorities) (7);
"complaint" shall be construed in accordance with section (Complaints to which this Part applies);
636
"complainant" has the meaning given by section (Complaints to which this Part applies) (5);
"the compliance period" has the meaning given by section (Remedial notices) (6);
"domestic property" has the meaning given by section (Domestic property);
"high hedge" has the meaning given by section (High hedges);
"local authority", in relation to England, means—

(a) a district council;

(b) a county council for a county in which there are no districts;

(c) a London borough council; or

(d) the Common Council of the City of London;

and, in relation to Wales, means a county council or a county borough council;

"the neighbouring land" has the meaning given by section (Complaints to which this Part applies) (5);

"occupier", in relation to any land, means a person entitled to possession of the land by virtue of an estate or interest in it;

"the operative date" shall be construed in accordance with sections (Remedial notices) (5) and (Determination or withdrawal of appeals) (5) and (6);

"owner", in relation to any land, means a person (other than a mortgagee not in possession) who, whether in his own right or as trustee for any person—

(a) is entitled to receive the rack rent of the land, or

(b) where the land is not let at a rack rent, would be so entitled if it were so let;

"preventative action" has the meaning given by section (Remedial notices) (9);

"the relevant authority" has the meaning given by section (Complaints to which this Part applies) (5);

"remedial notice" shall be construed in accordance with section (Remedial notices) (1);

"remedial action" has the meaning given by section (Remedial notices) (9)."

After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—
"POWER TO AMEND SECTIONS (COMPLAINTS TO WHICH THIS PART APPLIES) AND (HIGH HEDGES)

(1) Regulations may do one or both of the following—

(a) amend section (Complaints to which this Part applies) for the purpose of extending the scope of complaints relating to high hedges to which this Part applies; and

(b) amend section (High hedges) (definition of "high hedge").

(2) The power to make such regulations shall be exercisable—

(a) in relation to complaints about hedges situated in England, by the Secretary of State; and

(b) in relation to complaints about hedges situated in Wales, by the National Assembly for Wales.

(3) Regulations under this section may make such consequential amendments of this Part as the person making the regulations considers appropriate."

After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—
"CROWN APPLICATION

(1) This Part and any provision made under it bind the Crown.

(2) This section does not impose criminal liability on the Crown.

(3) Subsection (2) does not affect the criminal liability of persons in the service of the Crown."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 71 [Commencement]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 139 to 141:
Page 53, line 20, leave out "subsection (2)" and insert "subsections (2) and (3)"
Page 53, line 23, after "24(1)" insert "(Proceedings under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972: power of arrest attached to injunction)"
Page 53, line 27, at end insert—
"(3) Part 8A comes into force—

(a) in relation to complaints about hedges situated in England, in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order;

(b) in relation to complaints about hedges situated in Wales, in accordance with provision made by the National Assembly for Wales by order."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 72 [Orders and regulations]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 142 to 145:
Page 53, line 34, after "purposes" insert", different cases"
Page 53, line 37, after "provisions" insert "(including provisions applying, with or without modification, provision contained in an enactment)"
Page 54, line 3, after "than" insert—

"(a) regulations under section (Power to make further provision about documents in electronic form) or (Power to amend sections (Complaints to which this Part applies) and (High hedges)); or

(b)"

Page 54, line 3, at end insert—
"(5) No regulations shall be made by the Secretary of State under section (Power to make further provision about documents in electronic form) or (Power to amend sections (Complaints to which this Part applies) and (High hedges)) (whether alone or with other provisions) unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 74 [Extent]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 54, line 9, leave out ", 7 and 8" and insert "and 7 to 8A"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Demoted tenancies]:
Amendments Nos. 147 to 149 not moved.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure for 15 minutes.
We can begin consideration of the Third Reading of the Fire Services Bill in 15 minutes. I think I need to explain the situation to your Lordships and to apologise for the fact that this is not precisely as scheduled. This is because deliberations on the previous Bill went on rather longer than most of us had anticipated. My profuse apologies go to everyone in all parts of the House who have been inconvenienced by the way in which things have transpired, particularly those who were about to take part in an hour-long Unstarred Question on a very important subject. Urgent discussions will take place at a sensible time
638
tomorrow to find a satisfactory time when perhaps rather more time can be allocated to the Unstarred Question than would normally have been the case.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 9.23 until 9.38 p.m.]

Fire Services Bill
9.38 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Powers of the Secretary of State]:
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 3, at end insert "if requisite in the public interest of immediate implementation in a state of emergency"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 1, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 5.
At the outset, in a state of some frustration and anger, I want to make a moderate protest, so that this situation shall never, I hope, arise again. I have given notice to the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, to my own Chief Whip and the noble Lord, Lord Roper. It is idle to blame the usual channels because they are not interested in the nature of my protest, which is the entitlement to have a debate with a representative vote on a matter of great social and political interest not so long before the next election. We have been deprived of that. We have been deprived of it by sending this Bill to Grand Committee. We have been deprived of it by having Report stage in the middle of the night with no one here, a man and a dog. We are deprived of it again today.
Having given notice of this protest, I hope that it will not happen again. There is nothing that we can do. Here we are, the Government will have their Bill. There is no way we can stop it. There is no one here to stop it. It is the design of the Government, who have said throughout that they would never accept an amendment to this Bill. It is a simple outrage and I protest.
Having made my protest, I turn to the merits of the amendments. For what use it is, I simply do not know. Indeed, I have been tempted to say to your Lordships, "I am taking my name off all these amendments and going home in protest", but I was persuaded by the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms not to do so.
Amendment No. 5, which is to leave out Clause 1, is the obverse of the coin of rejection of Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. The idea is to save time and repetition and not to pre-empt noble Lords from speaking to each amendment when moved. I have given notice on day three of Report that I shall move Amendment No. 5 if my Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are rejected. Perhaps your Lordships will accept an apology on behalf of my noble friend Lord Northesk for his absence. He wished to speak but was unable to attend due to personal and private circumstances.
The object of Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 is to confine the exercise of powers of the Secretary of State under Clause 1 to a state of emergency either as defined by Clause 1 or as envisaged by the Secretary of State under Amendment No. 2. That amendment also makes mandatory provision where there is no state of emergency for consultation with fire authorities and local government before directions are given by the Secretary of State. It is respectfully suggested to your Lordships that definition of a state of emergency is appropriate as relevant to the due exercise of ministerial discretion.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 grasp the nettle of contention which has stalked this Bill on and ever since Second Reading: the imposition of conditions of service by decree at any time under the absolute discretion of the Secretary of State. Notwithstanding the three fretful days in Grand Committee, for which I do not complain against the Government, and on Report, and attendance by six noble Lords in Grand Committee—on a few occasions, eight—and a similar scant attendance on Report, no reasoned argument has ever been deployed on this Bill. Although the point was made at Second Reading, no reasoned argument has ever been deployed in opposition to the substance of these amendments. At all events some common ground would appear to have been found since Second Reading.
Not with standing the current dispute as to whether the agreed interim pay increase of 7 per cent subject to not less than 16 per cent with effect from June 2004 should be withheld pending the affirmation of the Audit Commission which no doubt car. be resolved— that is a rather curious dispute—the climate of relevant industrial relations has changed to such an extent as to enable the traditional process of collective bargaining to proceed without resort to imposition of conditions of service by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument. That is clear from the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on the second day of Report at cols. 1157–1158 and 1165–1166 of Hansard.
It is now the intention of Government only to have resort to this Bill with reluctance in a state of emergency in which it is accepted that the firemen would comply with imposed conditions of service by statutory instrument having instant effect—I refer to col. 416 of Hansard of the first day of Report, 10th September—albeit that the briefing paper of the FBU, sent with a letter from Mr Andy Gilchrist of the 16th October, rightly contends that where there is no such state of emergency this Bill—which incidentally bears kinship with policy aspects of the White Paper— is draconian and wholly unacceptable. There is no mention in this Bill of emergency, and no emergency exists today or has done so for some considerable time—such as is defined in Amendment No. 1—that is relevant to the instant requirement of fire and rescue services.
The object of these amendments is not to kill the Bill but to amend it to serve only as an immediate standby, as an essential safeguard in an emergency such as a terrorist attack, whether actual or threatened, and to impose conditions of service by decree, as proposed by
640
Amendment No. 2, as is the intention of the Government. The Bill is not concerned with amendment of trade union law or with extant bargaining and conciliation procedures and has no application to any other public service such as the Royal Mail.
The circumstances in which this Bill was debated in another place in March of this year are relevant to justify these amendments to Clause 1(1) to which I speak. The amendments define such state of emergency, and proscribe exercise of the powers of the Secretary of State to impose conditions of service by decree on members of fire brigades other than in a state of emergency. When there is no state of emergency, they require consultation with fire authorities before giving directions, to avoid confusion with the Local Government Act. On that matter, my noble friend Lady Hanham shall speak; she has vast experience in such matters and I have none.
The circumstances cannot justify provision to impose or threaten to impose conditions of service, at any time by statutory instrument, to draw a line as a "longstop" to any dispute which cannot be challenged. I quote the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, which I seldom do, but that is crucial. He has made that plain throughout, and I agree with his construction of the Bill. That power would act as a longstop on collective bargaining. That is the agreed construction between the noble Lord and myself, summarising an amicable exchange of ideas. It can be found in cols. 1157–58 and 1165-66 of Hansard of day two of our proceedings on Report.
When the Bill was introduced, the Government were simply obliged to act in the public interest after the breakdown of negotiations, to safeguard retention of the availability of the fire services. I think and hope that that was common ground; certainly I asserted so in this House. The Bill was intended to serve as a threat to impose such conditions unless and until the FBU returned to the negotiating table.
Due to the good offices of a noble Lord from the Government Front Bench who is not present—I hope that I need not identify him, but he is very experienced in such matters—and those of the TUC, the threat under the Bill was effective. Today, it is common ground that there is a satisfactory working relationship with the FBU. As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has said, timetables for the implementation of agreements have been agreed. The ghost of the withdrawal of services at all events in an emergency has been laid.
Since the introduction of the Bill, circumstances have totally changed, and resort to statutory instrument is no longer requisite or acceptable. The Government now intend to resort to the Bill with reluctance and only in an emergency. There being no reference to emergency in the Bill—unless it is amended in some way—as proposed it is otiose, as the original intention no longer exists. It is now common ground that the Secretary of State should exercise power to govern by statutory instrument only in an emergency situation.
The drafting of Clause 1(1), which enabled operation of the Bill when there was no state of emergency, opened the door to a series of amendments tabled by noble Lords on the Back Benches opposite. The first of these amendments, spoken to on the first day of Report, was to insert before Clause 1 a clause to limit the Bill to defined emergency situations in which the remit of the exercise of discretion of the Secretary of State is also defined. On this, we make common cause on a matter of principle which is consistent with the amendments to which I speak, notwithstanding other forms of definition in procedure.
It is not relevant to this debate to entertain reservations about other amendments in the series as recorded already in the Official Report. We are concerned with principle which, if it should commend itself, would be subject to drafting amendments introduced by another place, no doubt acceptable to your Lordships. Indeed, it would appear from the Official Report of 20th March of another place, heralding the introduction of this Bill, read with care, and on the passage of this Bill, that another place would wish to consider for the very first time this question of principle.
Assuredly, this is no exercise in confrontation. According to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, in Paper 118, there is a significant risk of violation of Article 6 of the European Social Charter and Article 8 of the ILO Convention No. 151 if the Bill were to remain as drafted. If these amendments were to commend themselves, this risk of violation would be removed.
These amendments affirm excellent bargaining and conciliation procedures, save in a state of emergency in which they could not possibly apply. If not amended either by Amendment No. 1 or Amendment No. 2, the Bill would be harmful, divisive and wholly unacceptable. It would serve as an unprecedented threat against the freedom of the traditional process of collective bargaining. It would provoke a wider divisive effect on industrial relations in the public services. Is it not apparent from the FBU brief that it would invoke further disruptions of the fire services?
If these amendments were not to commend themselves to your Lordships, is not the Motion to leave out Clause 1 justified in any event? I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment No. 5 and I want to speak to that now. Throughout the passage of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Campbell has been assiduous in seeking to help the Government to amend it to limit its use to a time of a state of emergency. As he has pointed out clearly today, that situation does not pertain at present. The amendments he has tabled today properly draw attention to the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister is not the only player in this scenario; that the local authorities and the fire authorities, as those with the mandate to pick up any result of his actions, have a right to be involved in any decision made or forced upon the workforce for which they have prime
642
responsibility. They must be involved, for it is council tax payers who largely foot the Bill for the fire service and it is their elected representatives who sit on the fire authorities.
It is, of course, an absurdity that my noble friend should have to attempt to define and limit the Bill in this way, but no other attempt has been made to do so. As the Minister made clear, the legislation is being introduced for one purpose and one purpose only: to give the Secretary of State power to bring an end to the dispute which erupted earlier this year.
Brought in as a hastily constructed measure, the Bill has ground its weary way through the long, hot days of summer and through the colourful days of autumn to tonight with extensive debate from the Opposition parties—I beg noble Lords' pardon—not from the Opposition parties (I had better get the punch line right) which early on declared their concerns about, and opposition to, the Bill and thought that the debate would come thus swiftly to an end. That extensive debate came from three noble Lords on the Government's own side, who, between them, maintained the impetus of dissent for months. Truly, this has been a surreal experience.
It has always been hard to see how the Bill would be effective. Nothing within it would prevent an antagonistic workforce refusing to accept the Secretary of State's legal attempt to enforce a financial settlement; nothing would stop them all coming out on strike again against his determination; no attempt has been made to introduce a no-strike directive for the fire service, which might at least have enabled the legislation to have teeth; and nothing indicates how, even if required by law to do so, equipment would be handed over in a future strike. That would then mean the courts having to be invoked, which could of course have been done at the initial stages of the strike if the Attorney-General had used the powers available to him.
10 p.m.
Lord Wedderbum of Charlton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness explain what those powers are?
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the power of injunction, which he could have used. Nothing in the Bill explains the type of situation which might prompt use of this legislation, except that the Deputy Prime Minister was miffed at being unable single-handedly to bring to an end an ill-timed—in terms of the Iraq war—and serious dispute. Indeed, if this legislation had been in place at an early stage in the dispute, it is doubtful whether it would have had any effect at all.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway alluded to a very strange situation. Clause 119 of the Local Government Bill has repealed Section 19 of the Fire Services Act and handed those powers to the local authority. I thought that that clause might have been delayed in its implementation. I understand that it has not and that it has been implemented. Therefore, the Deputy Prime Minister has passed over to the local authorities the powers determining the number of fire-fighters and the closure of fire stations. However, under the legislation before us today, those are both matters

643
which the Deputy Prime Minister would reserve for himself to decide. We cannot have it both ways. Someone must be in charge of this matter and someone must have the final say. But, as things stand at present, half the powers are with the local authority and, if this legislation goes through, half will be with the Deputy Prime Minister. That seems to me to be a great inconsistency and a huge muddle.
It is my intention to support the amendments of my noble friend Lord Campbell if only to amend this legislation if it cannot be stopped. I would rather have the insurance policy of my noble friend's amendments than nothing at all. But, notwithstanding whether he presses his Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to a vote and the outcome of that vote, at the appropriate time I or he will move Amendment No. 5 seeking to leave out Clause 1.
This debate would probably have had more effect if it had taken place when the House was full or when we could have been assured that the House was full. But, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway pointed out, we have had no opportunities at all during the course of the Bill to call a Division. The hours have almost never been appropriate and when they were we were in Grand Committee. We have not had an opportunity to bring amendments forward on which there could be votes. The rest of the time has been taken up with amendments that we could not possibly have supported and to which we did not feel it was appropriate to speak. Therefore, I make it clear that on this side of the House we do not support the Bill and we shall seek to remove Clause 1.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, this morning I heard the Deputy Prime Minister on the radio say—I wrote it down immediately—
"There is a crisis; you have to talk it through; that is what you do in these cases".
He was talking about a current industrial dispute. I am sure that we would all agree with that but I would not have gone on to the heavy-handed approach of this Bill. I do not want to take the time of the House by repeating the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
During the course of the Bill the Government have created an unlikely alliance. It is a puzzle to me that they have so set their face against including in the Bill matters that they have acknowledged apply. The more that they have resisted those inclusions, the more important the proponents of those points regard them. On these Benches not only have we always had a distaste for the Bill but we have also opposed it. If it does not disappear, we feel that tonight the Government should agree that the Bill states what the Government say the wording means.
I have not been involved in the negotiations that are continuing so perhaps it is not for me to suggest how to negotiate. However, the Government have not been the major party to those negotiations either, so I feel free to comment on their approach to the psychology of negotiation. Those on these Benches who are left will
644
support the first two amendments should they be put. My name is to Amendment No. 5 that Clause 1 do not stand part and our votes will be where my name is.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for his opposition to the Bill. I do not like the Bill any more than he does, but we gave an undertaking—I believe it was the right undertaking to give—that we would not attempt to wreck the Bill. Taking the amendments as a group, they leave out Clause 1, and they seem to us to be wrecking amendments. The amendments would take out a major clause in the Bill from which everything else follows. In those circumstances I do not believe that we could support it.
Throughout the discussions on the Bill we have attempted to introduce a series of amendments designed to protect the rights of employees in the Fire Service that we thought were under threat under certain provisions of the Bill. We have tried very hard to do that, but so far we have not managed to get any acceptance of that point of view from our Front Bench. We have other amendments before the House on similar lines and I invite the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, to support them. They do not have the effect of wrecking the Bill which, as we have been told repeatedly, has been endorsed by the other place and, therefore, it is not right to attempt to wreck the Bill entirely. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, would have the effect of wrecking the Bill if taken together.
On a number of occasions, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, rightly said, we sought to introduce the element of emergency, but we took great pains to define what we meant by emergency and to state the circumstances in which we believe an emergency would apply. I regret to say that those amendments were not accepted by our Front Bench. There is no attempt to define "emergency" in the amendments before the House this evening. I think that in that respect the amendments anyhow are flawed. So, unfortunately, despite the fact that I commend the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for his commitment to the whole idea of collective bargaining and to trade union rights, I nevertheless feel that I am not able to support the amendments.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I agree and pay tribute to the consistency of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. From day one he has raised this central issue. I feel as though I have answered it on more than one occasion. I shall do so substantively again tonight. Certainly, the noble Lord has followed a dogged path on the issue of tying the Bill to a state of emergency. But, as I have explained before and as I hope to explain now, basically that would negate the purpose for which we have the Bill and stop it being used. I suspect that that is probably the intention anyway. My noble friend Lady Turner said that they do not want to wreck the Bill, but certainly they do not want it. Therefore, one must look at the issue in that context.

645
I shall deal with Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 5 in this group. Amendment No. 1 would restrict the use of the powers in the Fire Services Bill to a state of emergency. I accept that, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said, the issue was debated both in Grand Committee and on Report. Therefore, I do not have much to say that is new. To restrict the powers to a state of emergency would in effect prevent them from being used in the manner in which they were intended. I shall give examples as I go.
I have repeatedly made clear that the Bill has been introduced to deal with a specific set of circumstances; that is, the Fire Services pay dispute and the ongoing negotiations. These are at a delicate stage. However, if the negotiations were to fail—and we hope they do not—that would not constitute a state of emergency, as currently defined in legislation or as currently understood.
If the fire-fighters were to call for further strikes, that too would not be seen as a state of emergency. If there was a large fire while the firefighters were on strike, it would be an emergency situation but it would not constitute a state of emergency.
During the firefighters strikes the Attorney-General did not see fit to declare a state of emergency. For the avoidance of any doubt, I have had no discussions whatever with the Attorney-General on this matter. So, if we restrict the powers of the Bill to a state of emergency, we would not be able to use them to direct the fire and rescue authorities to allow emergency fire cover—for example, the military—access to their equipment. That could put people's lives in danger and put property at risk, which we are not prepared to do.
I accept that the noble Lord tabled Amendment No. 2 to complement Amendment No. 1 on the implementation of orders which were made when there was not a state of emergency. That would seek to draw a distinction between making an order in a state of emergency when any requirement to consult would be inappropriate, and making an order when there was no such state of emergency.
However, I have been advised—I realise that me being advised is nonsense to certain Members; and they can cough all they like, but that is a fact—that if Amendment No. 1 restricts the right to make orders in Clause l(l)(a) and (b) to cases of a state of emergency there is no power to make orders outside a state of emergency. I make that absolutely clear. Therefore, Amendment No. 2 could not work. In any case, if Amendment No. 2 were taken on its own, ignoring the potential effect of Amendment No. 1, it only adds to the consultation provisions already in the Bill in Clause 1(3) and (4). We believe these are proportionate and right in the circumstances, allowing relevant bodies to comment but not to impede the proper use of the powers in the Bill.
I think it is generally accepted that Amendment No. 5 removes not just Clause 1 but the Bill. Clause 1 is the Bill. We can argue the toss about this—I know that we added a clause in Committee—but Clause 1 is the Bill, so removing it is the end of the Bill. Put
646
politely, that amendment would wreck the Bill; it would be meaningless. I do not think that I must rehearse the arguments why we would oppose that.
I repeat: if the provision were tied purely to a state of emergency, as the amendments are drafted, the powers could not be used outside a state of emergency. As I said, Amendment No. 2 could not work and, in any case, only adds to the consultation requirements that are already in the Bill. That is not a criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, but it is clear in the Bill that there are requirements on the Secretary of State to consult. So that is not an issue. Let us consult but not allow the operation to be impeded. That means that we must listen and take account of the consultation; we cannot operate on a hunch.
With all that in mind—and knowing the deeply professional manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has dealt with the Bill from day one, being wholly consistent in his approach—and given the drafting of the amendments, I sincerely request him not to press them. Obviously, it is up to him what he does, but if he were to do so, I should advise my noble friends to oppose them.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down—I am sorry to have had a cough in the middle of his speech, but I understood that that was allowed in your Lordships' House—does he agree with the Deputy Prime Minister's statement on this morning's "Today" programme on the BBC that the negotiations that he mentioned, being in a delicate state, are not a crisis and are not likely to be a crisis, but have just hit a little local difficulty?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, let us get this absolutely clear: I shall say this once and only once to my noble friend and anyone else. Many years ago I joined the course on industrial relations and labour law at Warwick University under the tutelage of Allan Flanders and Hugh Clegg two days after I had been selected as a parliamentary candidate. They discovered that and said, "We hope you are not going to Parliament to try to solve industrial relations disputes on the Floor of the House of Commons". It can be taken as axiomatic that I am not discussing anything relating to current negotiations on the Floor of this House now or later.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I heartily endorse what has just been said. I have never discussed the merits of any industrial dispute on the Floor of the House. Having listened to what has been said today, one must be realistic. One must realise the hour—the time—and the likelihood of any Division taking a successful route in view of what has been said tonight. I have no support. It would therefore be ridiculous and a waste of your Lordships' time for me to do other than to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, I do not like the Bill. I opposed it at Second Reading as unamendable. I sought to amend it because when I came here I was taught if possible not to oppose a

647
government Bill but to seek to amend it. I have failed. I fear that I shall move Amendment No. 5 to oppose it. If I go down, I go down. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert—

"(7A) For the avoidance of doubt it is declared that an act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute which is otherwise not actionable in tort by reason of Part V of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52), shall not be actionable in tort on the ground only—

(a) that it constitutes a contravention of, or non-compliance with, a statutory duty imposed by an order made under this Act, or

(b) that it constitutes an inducement to commit, or agreement or combination to commit, or threatens to commit or induce, any such contravention or non- compliance.

(7B) In subsection (7A) "an act" includes a deliberate failure to act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is the fate of this Bill, with its sunset clause, always to come on in your Lordships' House well after sunset. The amateurish and deliberate arrangement of business tonight has meant that this poorly attended but excited House must consider the rights of 50,000 workers as the hour goes on, from 10 o'clock until whenever we end. I have great sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that whoever is responsible for this and wherever they are—we call them "the usual channels"—will understand that they have made this House a laughing stock. That is especially so when they react in such a bellicose manner to any cough or a hesitation by anyone around the House to believe that they could not possibly be wrong. I refer to the arrogance of the Government in their presentation of the Bill. I have never said that about Ministers in the past, as most are neither arrogant nor bellicose. This Bill has been made an exception.
In the light of the new developments that have occurred since Report, it is necessary that I move the amendment, without any repetition in detail of what has gone before on the Bill, in a proper manner. I shall come to the new developments later.
I appreciate that it is a very good principle not to try to comment on the details of ongoing industrial negotiations. Indeed, I was teaching the subject when the noble Lord, who referred to other experts on the subject, was in his student days. However, those who refer in justification of their position to the delicate state of negotiations have no locus standi to rave about the inability to say anything further. When the Secretary of State makes a considered statement on the radio, I take it very seriously.
We wonder why the authorities brought the Bill forward by a week to be debated tonight. With those remarks, I beg to move Amendment No. 3. I still hope that it will be acceptable to the Government, as it
648
stands for the avoidance of a doubt that we have established. If it were accepted, we would not move Amendment No. 4. This is the last moment when the right to strike of fire-fighters can be dealt with by this House and preserved by clear words in the Bill to cure the manifest doubt that has arisen in the mind of everybody other than the Government and their advisers—to whom I shall come—who has considered the law on the subject.
The Government must discharge the burden of proof that there is no doubt whatever. The reason for that is very clear: if you apply to the High Court and prove an arguable case, the doubt operates against the defendant. An arguable case is enough to secure a labour injunction.
There is no doubt about the Official Opposition's position. I do not blame the noble Baroness for making it clear that they are in the process of working out their policies. She made it clear on Report and in Grand Committee that the Opposition's policy is to take away from fire-fighters the right to strike, or, as I put it in a previous debate, that fire-fighters should be militarised.
Our Government say that that is not their intention, and we have never challenged that statement. Our challenge has been that their Bill leaves that intention in doubt on the statute book. Indeed, it is in tatters, because the Bill does not effectuate that intention. It will not be difficult for those who object to industrial action to obtain injunctions from the courts, because the burden that they have to discharge is to present an arguable case—after the decision in your Lordships Appellate Committee in American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC 396. Lord Diplock made that perfectly clear:
"The claimants must show … a serious issue to be tried",
and then the court will consider the balance of convenience.
If we did not take this opportunity, my noble friends and I who tabled this amendment would not uphold the integrity of our arguments in previous debates in which we have been quite consistent on this matter. We have pressed the Government at all stages of this unhappy Bill that we must have clarity on the face of the Bill—not merely in terms of the intentions of Ministers, but in the law that we are making, that the normal rules of industrial action apply to firefighters. For the Armed Forces and the police, international law under the ILO conventions, the European Social Charter and sundry other instruments permit an abrogation. That law does not permit the abrogation of the rights of firefighters unless we militarise them, which has been done in some European countries.
Reasonable persons outside this House are asking, "Why is there any doubt? Why not cure it by some simple words, if that is what you intend?". I say clearly to noble Lords that it is now well known—indeed, it has been in the press and I vouch for this—that the TUC has joined in asking for an amendment from the Government to remove the possible threat to the right to strike in this Bill. What will the Government say to the TUC?
It is all very simple, even at this stage of a darkening night. Persons with an arguable case who suffer damage can obtain injunctions against industrial action unless it is protected. Even if there has been a ballot or a trade dispute, if it falls outside protection, they can get the injunction. The essential point is this— and I will say this very slowly—a breach induced by union action with a ballot in the trade dispute is a breach of a contractual duty, including one created by the Bill or an order under the Bill and the right to strike is retained. If the union—with a ballot in a trade dispute—induces a breach of statutory duty, such as imposed by an order under this Bill, the right to strike is not protected. Of course, in a particular case when an injunction is issued on balance of convenience, that has to be taken into account, but that is the essential crux of the case. Everybody seems to have understood that except the Government. Indeed, after certain articles in the Guardian, I understand that they talk of little else in Barnsley than that essential distinction. It is known to workers and to firefighters, and if the Government want to throw the embers of a bomb into negotiations, they will pass this Bill without amendment. Everybody knows that it is a possible legal threat. Everybody knows that it can be cured by 50 words. Why not accept that?
This is not my law: this is the law pronounced in the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Meade v Haringey Council [1979]. Noble Lords who have followed the debates will have seen the case discussed at previous stages. They will know that, in that case, a local authority closed schools, in breach of its statutory duties, at the demand of a union in an industrial dispute about wages. On the position of the union, Lord Justice Eveleigh said, at page 508 of the Industrial Cases Reports, that the union,
"may, in proper circumstances, induce others to break a contract in furtherance of a trade dispute, but they are not entitled with impunity to order or solicit a breach of statutory duty".
On page 505, Lord Denning also gave that as his view. He said that the law gave the union,
"immunity if they induce a person to break a contract. It gives them no immunity if they induce a local authority to break a statutory duty".
He went on to say that to do so, in agreement with the union, would involve "an actionable conspiracy".
I said that there had been new developments. Your Lordships should know of them; indeed, we should have had a full debate on them. There has been a remarkable development. On Friday afternoon, in the middle of the postal strike, I was sent a fax by my right honourable friend Nick Raynsford, who had invited me and my noble friends Lord McCarthy and Lady Turner of Camden to a meeting that was somewhat frustrating, as we did not get near the central point of the problem. He sent me a fax of 10 pages of legal advice. We had been asking for it for four months. Since June, we have asked for a reasoned legal case showing what was wrong with saying, "Meade's case applies. It's Court of Appeal. Why can't you say that that doesn't operate here?"
I read the 10 pages. They were new, and I thought that they would be placed in the Library. I was told that it would be sent to a wider audience and would, therefore, say things that I knew about but which had to be explained to a wider audience. Perhaps, some noble Lords have had it. I thought, "I had better get down to this", and, to my wife's consternation, I spent most of the weekend trying to see what I thought of it and putting it down on paper. I have placed a copy in the Library. I almost feel like saying what my former right honourable friend Michael Foot once said in the middle of a debate in which he referred to a document: "Hands up who has read it. Hands up who thinks there's something wrong with it. If so, what is it?"
I found that the note of legal argument was defective. I could give your Lordships 11 examples of its defective legal character. I am sorry to say that. Something about legal advice seemed to bother the Minister; I am not sure what it was. I shall give one example from the 11 cases of legal error. I do not usually say this. In an academic article, I would be much kinder; I would say that it was possible to disagree and give the reasons. But then, an academic readership would read it carefully.
I must speak bluntly. I shall take one example: the note tells Ministers that they need take little heed of the Meade judgment in 1979. The first reason that it gives is that only Lord Denning expressed the point of view that I cited. Those who prepared the note could not even read on three pages and see that Lord Justice Eveleigh agreed and that other judges had supported it anyway. So, that is wrong. It then says that Lord Denning had expressed it—if I dare repeat their legal Latin in the presence of the Minister—as an obiter dictum, meaning that it was just a throwaway remark. But it was central to his reasoning. Thirdly, it says that the finding was criticised by a Law Lord in 1995. It was not. The passage in the judgment of 1995 to which it refers—I am happy to read it out, if your Lordships want it—was a criticism of a different passage, not of that passage.
If that is the legal basis on which Ministers are going to say, "We don't have to bother with Meade's case. We don't have to bother with the distinction between inducing a breach of contract and inducing a breach of statutory duty", your Lordships are entitled as a legislature to look at the matter de novo and ask what is going on. In all fairness, I ask any noble Lord who is going to rely on the legal memorandum sent by my right honourable friend Mr Raynsford to look before doing so at my memorandum in the Library and not vote before comparing the two.
All we are seeking is a clear statement in the Bill— there is no such statement at present—saying that it does what Ministers say they want to do. For example, if a ministerial order under Clause 1(1)(A), which states,
"modify the conditions of service",
was interpreted as modification of a contractual term—industrial action—opposing that change in response to such an order would be protected. But the Bill does not state that such an order operates in that

651
way. If Ministers wish me to summarise, I would be happy to read out passages from previous debates. I know that some noble Lords cannot bear the length of argument on the matter, but this is dealing with the rights of workers.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend would give way. It is not that we do not want to hear the arguments, but some of them go over our heads. That is why I was shaking my head.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I shall try to make the arguments clearer. I deeply apologise to my noble friend that she does not understand. Perhaps I may try to explain again. Let us suppose that the Bill allows the Secretary of State to make an order imposing contractual terms of employment and that the firefighters say, "We're not going to have it". My noble friend Lady Gibson and I know how that can happen. They may say, "We're going to ask our union to back us"—backing which the postal workers failed to obtain at some points—and the union may say, "Yes, we'll have a ballot" and on that they take action. If that is inducing workers to break their contracts because of the way the order applies, that is protected as a trade dispute. But if the order applies a duty directly from the statute without going through the contract of employment, that is not protected. It is as simple as that. I do not know how to make it any simpler, but if the noble Baroness wishes me to 1 shall try.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, perhaps I may just complete the sentence. We want the Government to make clear that no statutory duty arising from such an order displaces the normal protections of trade union law. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I think that the noble Baroness shares the same difficulty with me. I did not quite understand what the noble Lord was saying. Surely, it depends on how one looks at the matter—from which end of the telescope. The amendment states,
"shall not be actionable in tort on the ground only—
(a) that it constitutes a contravention of, or non-compliance with, a statutory duty imposed by an order made under this Act".
But, on looking at it the other way around, which I do and I think the noble Baroness does, if one has contravention or non-compliance with a statutory duty imposed, it is unlawful. The difficulty is that it is not, as the noble Lord said, quite as simple as that.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, the noble Lord has made my next point very well. If there were no trade union legislation, inducing a breach of contract would be unlawful and thus all strikes would be unlawful. We say that that should apply here. Let us not make new illegalities—rightly pointed out by the
652
noble Lord opposite—arise from the Bill by imposing statutory duties. Inducing such duties prohibits the right to strike.
The same is true under Clause 1(1)(b). It is important that noble Lords should understand this. Let us take the case where an order made under Clause 1 (1)(b) gives directions for the fire stations in rural area A to be closed and all the equipment moved to another area. Perhaps I may summarise the view of my noble friend Lord Rooker in debates in Grand Committee and on Report. He accepted that, although the main thrust of the direction was the disposal or use of property in a transfer from one place to another, it would incidentally affect the working conditions of the firemen. Nothing can affect working conditions more than having the place of work moved away; anyone knows that. Therefore a statutory duty under Clause 1(9) imposed by the Bill on a fire authority to carry out the order would impose that statutory duty. If the operation of such an order were opposed by the firefighters, on a ballot in a trade dispute, who then took industrial action on the matter, that action would be illegal. At the moment, industrial action taken against the closure of a station is lawful.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, would the noble Lord be kind enough to give way? Two or three days ago, the Government Front Bench complained that my noble friend Lord Mancroft went on for 29 minutes in Committee on the Hunting Bill. It was said that that was too long. The noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, is nodding his head in agreement. Surely 22 minutes on an amendment at Third Reading of a Bill is, with respect, a gross abuse of the procedures of this House.
Is this a private fight or can anyone join in? However, while I do not normally come to the rescue of the present Government, on this occasion it appears that the noble Lord has been banging on for far too long.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl would like to listen and appreciate that the rights of firefighters are a matter of intense concern to some. When we reach the last stage of legislation and it is based on legal error, you have an obligation to say something. It may not be within the noble Earl's ancestral conventions, but with the greatest respect, some of us feel that a legislature is for making good law. I want the Government to save the normal industrial rights of firefighters.
I come to my last point. This marks a parallel with 1906 when, by an amendment moved by Sir Charles Dilke, the protection for inducing breach of contract in trade disputes was put into the Bill of the great Liberal government of the day. I hope that those who sit on the Benches which claim descent from that government will do the right thing in remembering that tonight.
This is a matter of human rights. It may amuse people to think that human rights include trade union rights; it may bore some people to think that human rights include trade union rights, but it does not bore most of the workers outside this House. If we want the

653
procedures of this House to contribute to their abolition, noble Lords will smile, visit the bar and then troop through the Lobbies on a matter as important as this.
It is a matter of conscience and not, I think, a party matter. I genuinely put forward that view. Many parties have voted for industrial rights and the Lords of England who are now abed or in the bar will think themselves accursed that they are not here to listen to the reasoning on this matter, because this day will be remembered as the day when Parliament, at the last gasp of this Bill, deprived a group of honourable workers—the last dispute showed that; I am not concerned with the union's position—of their liberties. This group of workers does not deserve to have its liberties infringed by a Bill that does not encapsulate clearly, on its face, Ministers' subjective intentions.
Ministers' subjective intentions are not what are interpreted by the courts. The courts interpret what is on the face of an enactment. All we are asking is that the Government come up to scratch in respect of their own intention and accept an amendment of the kind we are suggesting to put the Bill into a proper state. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I have not participated in the debate during the passage of the Bill and I was certainly very critical of the dispute that provoked its introduction. But I have a real and deep-rooted concern about one element of the Bill. My experience in the field of industrial relations is not academic and it certainly is not legal, but it goes back to 1963, some 40 years ago. I know all about In Place of Strife, Ted Heath's Industrial Relations Act 1971 and the draconian legislation introduced under Margaret Thatcher.
I am not interested in the legalities, in the technicalities or in an academic argument. I am interested in safeguarding the interests of working people. That is precisely the position from which I am arguing. If workers decide to go on strike, they take industrial action which is legally permissible by way of an industrial ballot. Although they breach their contract of employment, they are protected under the legislation. However, my understanding is that if a statutory instrument, a regulation, is introduced, they will not necessarily have the same safeguards as those who breach their contracts of employment.
If my noble friend the Minister can assure me that, under the terms of the Bill as proposed by the Government, that protection is copper bottomed and there is no possibility whatever of a statutory instrument being introduced which jeopardises their employment rights and safeguards against dismissal, I will support him. But the assurance has to be copper bottomed. I do not want to be left in a situation where it is not likely to happen; it may never come; the Titanic will not sink. We do not need to put enough lifeboats on the ship because that will never happen. But the Titanic did sink, and I do not want to be in a
654
situation whereby that possibility is likely to occur even though it probably will not occur. If my noble friend the Minister can assure me of that, I will support him. If he cannot, I shall support the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, how can the proposal be copper bottomed? If there is an actual or threatened terrorist attack you have to have immediate directions, with instant effect, which cannot be challenged and which are not part of ordinary trade union law. We are talking about a statutory instrument direction. You cannot copper bottom that and say it does not exist because there is another law. That is nonsense.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, my clear understanding is that the movers of the amendment believe that the Government cannot produce a guarantee of protection for workers if a statutory instrument is introduced. That is why the amendment has been tabled. If the amendment will provide a belt and braces situation, I am bound to support it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend. We are now at Third Reading; we have put down amendments at every stage of the Bill through the House. It is clear that we do not like the Bill, but we have always accepted that since it had been approved by the Commons, we should not attempt to wreck it, and we have not tried to do so. We have sought, by amendment, to improve it, and to protect the hard-won rights of the trade unionists to whom it applies. I say to my noble friend Lord Davies that that is what this amendment is all about.
We have accepted the statements made on behalf of the Government by my noble friends that the Bill is to be of short duration, that it is to be used in emergencies only and that there is no intention to interfere in any way with the trade union rights currently enjoyed under existing legislation and provided for in ILO conventions. Our problem throughout our discussions has been that the good intentions are not contained in the Bill itself. It gives the Secretary of State absolutely overriding powers to do virtually what he likes so far as terms and conditions of fire service employees are concerned. The key clause is Clause 1, under which the Secretary of State may, by order—may, by statutory instrument—fix or modify the conditions of service of fire brigade members.
As has repeatedly been said by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn, the point about an order made by statutory instrument is important. We did not support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, since it involved leaving out Clause 1, which is the key clause. However, despite the Government's repeated assurance that the powers are required only for use in an emergency, this is not stated in the Bill and, as it stands, it is open to the Secretary of State to use the powers as he thinks fit.
Our attempts to define circumstances in which the powers could be used have been rejected by the Government. However, we have repeatedly been told

655
by my noble friends on the Front Bench that it is absolutely not the intention to use the powers to interfere with the right, already contained in existing legislation, collectively to withdraw labour. The right to strike, we have been told, is not at risk in the Bill. Under the 1992 Act, a trade union following the provisions set out regarding balloting of members, and so on, secures immunity from legal action if it calls an industrial dispute involving the withdrawal of labour if it follows correctly all the procedures set out in the legislation. However, as we have repeatedly pointed out at various stages in the Bill's proceedings, the Secretary of State may make an order, if this Bill becomes law, and he does so by means of a statutory instrument. In other words, a statutory duty is then imposed on fire service employees.
We have consistently explained that industrial action in breach of a statutory requirement does not have protection. It thus seems to us that despite the Government's good intention, the right to withdraw labour is, in fact, under threat.
At various stages in the Bill's proceedings, and again this evening, my noble friend Lord Wedderburn has drawn attention to a number of cases in which it has been held that the breach of a statutory duty is quite different from a breach of contract of employment. In the latter case there is protection; in the former there is not. This is an important issue, not only for the Fire Brigades Union, with whom we have been in contact, but with other unions generally. I understand that the TUC has recently expressed concern about it and believes that the Bill should be amended to make sure that the Government's intentions are clearer in the Bill. That is what our amendment seeks to do. It does so with great clarity and, in view of the Government's previous assurances, we have set out in the amendment the declaration that it is for the avoidance of doubt— that is very important.
As my noble friend Lord Wedderburn has said, we understand that legal advice has been given to the Government. My noble friend has produced a very comprehensive document, which I have in my hand. It attempts to deal with the legal advice under which I believe the Government maintain that they have guaranteed the right to strike. We do not believe that they have effectively done that.
My noble friend Lord Bassam, dealing with this issue on Report, claimed at col. 123 on 6th October that the amendment we were seeking to make on that occasion would have caused confusion. I think the opposite is the case. If the Bill remains unamended but trade unionists take heart from the Government's repeated assurance that it is not their intention to offer less protection than the law currently provides, situations may arise in which, even after following the procedures specified in existing legislation, trade unions and their members will find themselves without the protection they thought they had. Surely that is a recipe for confusion.
656
As my noble friend Lord McCarthy pointed out on Report, it would mean that workers could be dismissed, and the dismissals would be regarded as fair because there had been a breach of statutory duty rather than of contract of employment.
This is a final attempt to put right what we believe has not been properly understood by my noble friends on the Front Bench. We believe that the amendment is necessary for the avoidance of doubt, and we commend it to your Lordships.
11 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I shall try to do four things. First, I want to explain to those who have come to the debate without being concerned with previous debates how we have got where we are. Secondly, I want to focus on what Ministers have said so far, and quote from what they have said, because that is critical to the debate. Thirdly, I want to refer, as my noble friend Lord Wedderburn has, to what the legal advisers have said. We have got that advice only at the last minute, which is a great pity. Let us not criticise them, however, because in my view what the legal advisers are saying is not what the Ministers are saying. If anything, the legal advisers are on our side.
Finally, I want to try to make the House cringe a bit, and particularly to make the Government cringe a bit, in considering what would happen if the Secretary of State was ever foolish enough to use the provisions of the Bill. He tells us that he does not want to—and he is right not to want to.
How have we got here? The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, said at some stage that someone—I believe that he was talking about the Government— should ask themselves in "the bowels of Christ" whether they might conceivably be wrong. I believe that the reference is to Cromwell. That reference applies to us as well.
I was responsible for suggesting that we should leave the legislation for six months, which is in a way why we are here. One might say that we went over the top— and I am sure that the Government believed that we went over the top—when we said that we needed to take six months off to see whether we could improve the Bill. The main reason why I wanted to do that was because the Government were pretending that arbitration would come in, in an independent way, and decide the dispute in the Fire Service. That is nonsense. They pretended it was arbitration, although they knew that it was not arbitration. They were going to impose their own will by law, and I believed that that was wrong, unless they allowed independent assessment before they proposed what they wanted to impose on the Fire Service. That is how I got involved, and that is how we came up with the six-month proposal. It seemed to me that, without six months, the Government could not sort out the mess that they had created by rushing into that unthought-out position.
Maybe we were wrong, because from that point on the Government stopped listening. They believed that what we were suggesting was radical and ridiculous— nobody ever stops Bills for six months. Of course, if we

657
had had six months, there would not have been any disputes and, by now, we would have had a much better Bill. Never mind—maybe we should not have gone in in that frontal way. But that is why we are here and, if we went over the top, I apologise. I always apologise if I believe that it will help.
So we come to what the Ministers said. We debated the Bill in Committee and on Report, and here we are again—we have debated it for days and days. What the Ministers said was really very simple. They kept on saying that there was not a problem; they were so sure that there was not a problem. In Grand Committee, with total certainty, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said:
"they are seeking to provide for something that already exists".— [Official Report, 14/7/03; col. 178.]
Later, he said:
"We have said repeatedly"—
that is to say in the Commons as well as in the Lords—
"I have not brought chapter and verse with me"—
which is a bit of a pity, but never mind—
"that the Bill does not touch on the ability of firefighters to take …action".—[Official Report, 14/7/03; col. 180.]
There was total certainty, no equivocation. The Bill does not touch or brush on the ability of firefighters to take action. Later, in case your Lordships might not have got it, he said:
"If people do not like what the Secretary of State does and have a ballot … there is no problem".—[Official Report, 14/7/03; col. 181.]
So the Minister told us three times that there was not a possible doubt. In case you think that that was only the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, confirmed it. He said:
"if a dispute arises about something dealt with in an order made under this Bill, the ordinary operation of the trades union law will offer … protection".—[Official Report, 6/10/03; col. 131.]
So what the Minister said was very clear, very precise and very complete.
I am sure that noble Lords will accept that that was rare. After all, it is rare in politics—though not in trade union law—for people to be that certain about the state of the law. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn always threatens the House, "If you question me, I will give you the cases". I will not do that. However, in 1871, 1875, 1906, 1965 and 1974—five times—similar assurances were made by similar governments about how things could not conceivably, possibly happen, but by God almighty they did. That is what it is like in trade union law.
Ministers, if I may put it like this, are gondoliers. They are friends of the gondoliers. The House will remember that Don Alhambra, the Duke and Duchess and Casilda said:
"Search in and out and round about
And you'll discover never
A tale so free from every doubt—
All probable, possible shadow of doubt—
All possible doubt whatever!"
That is what they are; they come from Gilbert and Sullivan.
658
So in that context I turn to what their legal advisers said. It is quite remarkable that we got their legal advice. We got it by accident. We got it because the Minister, Mr Raynsford, said he would like to see us. We did not ask to see him. We went to see him and we talked to him and put our case. He had his legal adviser with him. His legal adviser said certain things and we said, "Is that so?", and he promised to write to us. Subsequently he wrote to us. The remarkable thing is that I do not think that he agreed with the Minister. I shall just give a few quotes at the end. If anyone challenges me I will give some more.
Our assertion was that if the order were frustrated by action on the part of the worker, for example, it would be outside the protection of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act. The Minister's adviser said that it was "highly unlikely"—not impossible, but he could not conceive it. We said that our fear was that the breach of a statutory order was not the same thing as a breach of contract and would create additional liability. You might have expected him to say, "Nonsense". That was what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said. Reviewing the cases, he said that our position was "difficult to see". That was hardly decisive. I could go on and on. We said that the possibility of action under Clause 1(1)(a) was quite strong and that we thought that it would succeed. He said that in his view it would not succeed. He said that action under Clause 1(1)(b) was more likely to succeed, if only because it would be difficult, although not impossible, to prove.
I know that lawyers have to be careful and that they cannot be as dogmatic as politicians, but I put it to the House that these are not the certainties of Prescott, Raynsford, Rooker and Bassam. The only disagreement we have with the advisers is over likelihood and odds. Sometimes we say that it is odds on, but they tend to say that it is odds off. With the exception of the Ministers on the Front Bench, who are talking to each other and not listening to me, no one has a closed mind. Only those Ministers have closed minds. Everyone else has an open mind.
All we have to prove to satisfy the House and my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity is that there is a doubt. I suggest that the Minister's advisers think that there is a doubt. I suggest that any sensible man who is not stuck with something he said before that he cannot get rid of would say that there was a doubt.
I pass to my final point. I hope that I have more of the attention of my noble friends on the Front Bench. What happens if the Secretary of State, who is a canny man, is daft enough to use this ludicrous Bill? If we think about it, it is very similar to the position that we almost had—thank God that we did not—in relation to the postal service. It is very likely that there will be doubts about whether the firemen and firewomen have completed what they need to do to get the second 3½ per cent. That is the way productivity arrangements work. It is very likely that some will get it and some will not. It is very likely that those who do not will be very cross.
Although I hope that it will not be the case—I am quite certain that the union will not support this—it is quite likely that there may be some industrial action or

659
some non-co-operation. Some lads and lasses somewhere in the more militant parts of the United Kingdom will refuse to co-operate. They will say what they always say—"It is impossible. You are asking us to do things that cannot be done and because we cannot do these impossible things they will not give us the money". Some stupid employer somewhere will sack someone, because they always do, or they will threaten to sack someone. Just as occurred in the postal service, a lot of people will come out on strike because they have been threatened. They will go to a tribunal.
I asked my friends in the tribunal service about this matter. If I am wrong, I should like to be corrected. I said, "Surely when this is over, the Government will write to the employment tribunals and tell them not to take any notice of anyone who tells them that the measure is illegal". However, my friends told me that that would not happen and that the matter would be left to tribunal chairmen. We know what will happen. Some tribunal chairmen will say that the measure is illegal. They may even say that Wedderburn and McCarthy are right and that the measure is illegal. However, others will quote the Minister saying that the measure is legal. Some tribunals will say one thing and some will say another. It will not matter to the boys and girls because they will have had the sack. That is why they are appearing before the tribunal. Even if they were told that they had not got the sack, the employers would appeal and say something different. Eventually some employer or some third party will bring an action and it will be all the Government's fault.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, this has been a serious abuse of the procedures of the House. The Standing Orders say that the debate should be a tidying-up of provisions that have been amended by the Government. We should come to an agreement now rather than listening to hours and hours of Second Reading, Third Reading, First Reading, Committee and Report speeches all jumbled into one. I therefore move that the Question be now put.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Simon): My Lords, I am instructed by order of the House to say that the Motion that the Question be now put is considered to be most exceptional procedure, and that the House will not accept it save in circumstances where it is felt to be the only means of ensuring the proper conduct of the Business of the House. Further, if a noble Lord persists in his attention to move it, the practice of the House is that the Question on the Motion is put without debate.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, my noble friend has been quite helpful. If the noble Lord could conclude his arguments, we could get on with deciding on this amendment and move on to the next one.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I shall end my speech. It is not my amendment, but my noble friend has a right to reply and no doubt the Minister will want to say
660
something. I just want to speak on the position of the Government. They may have heard this story; it is an old story. The position of the Government is like that of Lord Pirrie, who was the chairman of Harland and Wolff. As he stepped aboard the liner in Southampton he said, "I can't see why we want any lifeboats cluttering up the decks at all. After all, this is the 'Titanic'".
Lord Rooker: My Lords, to start with I shall share with the House some of the conclusions that I shall come to after I answer the debate; some things you need to put on record up front rather than wait for the end. I want to repeat to all noble Lords who have spoken that, on the best legal advice that the Government have received, we accept and believe that the Bill does not jeopardise or alter the protection of the firefighters or their union from immunity under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act. We have heard from no modern lawyers externally specialising in industrial relations, academic or not, giving a contrary view. In that respect, we take extra comfort from our own legal advisers.
Amendment No. 3 is a very technical legal amendment about trade union law. We have sought extensive legal advice on the matter, and are convinced that there is no need for the amendment. Like many noble Lords here today, I am not a lawyer—I am constantly reminded of that—and nor is the debate a legal seminar. However, I will try to explain my objections to the amendment in lay terms rather than legal terms, and I hope the lawyers among us will bear with me while I speak in plain English rather than academic legal jargon.
One central issue that has come from my noble friends relates to the advisers and their notes. I do not intend to quote extensively from them. If they are not in the Library now, they certainly will be tomorrow. Noble Lords could have read out the legal adviser's conclusion. After a balanced discussion of the issues, our legal adviser concluded:
"It follows, we would argue, that the effect of a direction, whether under section 1(1)(a) or (b), could not be to reduce or remove the protection that would otherwise be available to a firefighter or to the FBU under the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act".
That could have been read out, and it is worth putting on record.
In layman's language, let us say that the Secretary of State directs a fire authority to make equipment available to a neighbouring authority. I think that I used part of the example on Report or in Committee. The union does not like the direction and calls for industrial action. The firefighters work for the fire authority and have a contract with the fire authority. So if they take industrial action, they are breaking their contractual duties. But so long as the procedural rules about balloting have been followed and the matter is a trade dispute, the union and firefighters will be protected by action by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, just like any other workers.

661
However, what the union would be trying to achieve through the industrial action is a breach of the fire authority's statutory duty under the direction. So, as my noble friend Lord Wedderburn would say, following Meade v Haringey London Borough Council, a member of the public will be able to obtain an injunction against the union (one cannot obtain an injunction against the firefighters) preventing it from calling a strike because by doing so it will be inducing a breach of statutory duty. I must also note as an aside that the case was decided by Lord Denning in 1979 and the main issue was in fact whether the Education Act gave rise to statutory duties, an issue on which the Meade case has subsequently been criticised by the case of the X, the unidentified party, v Bedfordshire County Council in 1995.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, as to the—
Lord Rooker: My Lords, can I just finish? I would like to be able to make a considered response and I promise that before I sit down I will give way. If I am going to be subjected to constant interruptions, I shall not be able to give a considered response to a technical legal argument. I insist, frankly, on my right to put the case.
First, one must remember that this Bill of itself does not create new statutory duties; it simply gives powers to the Secretary of State to make directions. We have repeated on numerous occasions the circumstances when the Secretary of State may do so and those powers are time limited by the sunset clause to two years.
Might any directions, if made, create statutory duties? For a Meade-type claim to succeed, one would have to show that there was a statutory duty which was actionable for damages at private law. This is not the same as the authority having a public law duty to carry out the Secretary of State's directions. A public law duty would allow a person with sufficient interest judicially to review the fire authority in the administrative courts if it had failed to carry out those directions.
But to bring an action, to obtain an injunction against a union, an individual would need to show that if the fire authority did not carry out the directions, a member of the public could sue the authority for damages. I ask the House to note that not even the fire authority's primary duty on fire fighting under Section 1 of the Fire Services Act 1947 gives rise to such a claim. There I refer to the case of Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire County Council in 1997. If a homeowner cannot make such a claim where no directions have been made under a Bill, it would seem odd that he should be able to do so if a direction is made under this Bill.
Ordinarily, a breach of statutory duty does not give rise to private law claims. Directions under the Bill will essentially be about the fire authority's administrative or operational functions for the benefit of the public at large and are therefore not amenable to family and
662
private law claims. Furthermore, there would also be numerous other difficulties with such a claim; for example, how would a homeowner be able to show that the damage caused by fire to his home was directly attributable to the failure on the part of the fire authority to carry out the Secretary of State's directions? We believe that any action would therefore fall at the first fence.
Even if it were the case, a strike may not necessarily cause the authority to be in breach. It may still be able to carry out the order whether or not the workforce is available; for example, it can hand equipment to a third party without firefighters necessarily being available. But even if the cause of action does arise, that does not put firefighters in a position different from any other employees whose employer may have statutory duties placed on him. Indeed, if the amendment were accepted for the avoidance of doubt, it could in fact create doubt. It could lead one to question the position of other groups of workers who carry out functions governed by legislation and whose working conditions may change as a result of legislative changes.
Therefore, we see no reason to accept an amendment that would litter the Bill with unnecessary "for the avoidance of doubt" clauses. I say that because, clearly, the amendment accepted in Grand Committee was an "avoidance of doubt" clause. If the amendment were accepted, it would serve only to cast doubt on any other legislation that was silent on the issue.
My noble friends have said repeatedly, with the best of intentions, that they want to protect the right to strike for firefighters. We claim, according to our best legal advice—I repeat: that advice is not contradicted by any outside independent bodies—that that right is not under threat as a result of the Bill. The Bill does not jeopardise or alter the firefighters' or their union's protection from immunity under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act. Therefore, I respectfully ask my noble friends to withdraw the amendment.
Because my noble friend has been kind enough to allow me to put on the record the Government's view, I want to stick to what I said earlier. I shall be happy to give way and shall seek to answer any questions that he wishes to put to me; if I sit down, I shall conclude the debate.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, am I entitled to ask a question at this point? I still have a little difficulty. Like me, the Minister is not a lawyer. He said that the amendment could create doubt in other areas of legislation. I am not sure that I follow that point. However, if it did, perhaps other elements of legislation should be corrected so as to avoid the occurrence of doubt. I have not heard a legitimate objection to the amendment, which seeks only to reinforce what the Government said they wanted to do—that is, to protect firefighters.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the right of firefighters to strike is not under threat or jeopardised as a result of

663
the Bill. I cannot answer for other Bills or for the knock-on effect of the legislation. I freely admit that our legal advice is under challenge, although not from outside Parliament. Every day of the week plenty of people come forward with legal advice which has not been asked for by government, ut it is all read and considered.
However, I also say to my noble friends that during the course of the Grand Committee and, indeed, even during the Report stage I went back to my right honourable friend Nick Raynsford and to the legal advisers and asked them to go through all the amendments again. I asked whether we could accept any one of them which would improve the Bill without adding any possible unintended unfortunate consequences. The matter has not been dismissed; the amendments tabled on Report and in Grand Committee have been gone over repeatedly. The matter has been genuinely considered.
We also have to ensure that we do not repeat things in legislation. I have been told by parliamentary counsel—it is something that I have learnt to accept as a Minister—"Don't put the same thing in a Bill twice or you're asking for trouble". That is absolutely fundamental. When something is put in twice, my learned friends often end up in court stuffing their pockets and no one knows what will happen.
Therefore, having gone over the amendments tabled in Grand Committee and on Report, we have genuinely asked, "Can we toss them a bone? They seem sincerely concerned." I do not question anyone's sincerity. We have asked, "Is there anything that we could usefully add or accept from the amendments that would not cause a problem in the operation of the Bill, if enacted?" One has to remember that because, by and large, it is never mentioned.
We do not want to operate the Bill as an Act. It has a limited life of only two years. It will be operated only in the most extreme circumstances—for the Secretary of State to take powers to give workers a pay rise. The dispute that has flared up stops them getting a pay rise. I made it clear in Grand Committee that we were not contemplating pay reductions. Such a power is unusual, to say the least, but it is the kind of power that would be operated. We do not want to use the Bill or Act. It is being introduced as a longstop on the basis of what has taken place not over the past six weeks or six months but over the past 12 months.
I shall not go into the current situation because it would be barmy to do so, but what my right honourable friends the Deputy Prime Minister and Nick Raynsford said when the Bill was in the other place is as valid today as it was then. They have reluctantly brought forward the legislation. They do not want to use it, but they feel that in the public interest it is absolutely necessary and we have gone over it with a fine-tooth comb. As I have said repeatedly at every stage and between the stages—we have had a long time in which to do it—our best judgment, with the best advice that we could have, is that the Bill does not jeopardise or alter the firefighters' or their union's protection from immunity
664
under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act. If no one else has any other question I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I have a question that follows on from the previous one. I well understand the point made by the Minister that we should be careful in any legislation not to affect what may be in existing legislation. Leaving aside whether the amendment is necessary, in answer to the question on what damage the amendment would do, the Minister appeared to refer to prospective legislation. Perhaps he has some examples of existing legislation that he can give to the House. Are there current illustrations that he can give? Perhaps I should talk for a moment or two longer so that he can receive help on that, although he may have some examples in his brief.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not have examples that would relate to the way in which the noble Baroness has asked her question; for example, in relation to other current disputes or anything that is in the offing. I did not imply that there are doubts about other legislation or that people's working conditions have changed as a result of legislative changes. In itself that is sometimes unusual, but in relation to prospective legislation I want to make it clear— although it has been raised only in passing—that there is no direct connection between this legislation and what will presumably come in the Queen's Speech on the reorganisation of the fire and rescue services based on the White Paper. I have no doubt that these issues will be deployed in that respect again, but there is no hidden agenda to connect one with the other.
I have one example. Teachers' pay and conditions are settled under a statutory order. I do not make a great play of that, but I make the point that there are examples of other workers whose pay and conditions are settled by legislation, which may create a doubt. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, I do not believe that that is a doubt which means that one has to go back and search other legislation. With the best will in the world and the best advice that we can have—I repeat that on behalf of the Government—we are not playing games. We do not have a hidden agenda to take away the right to strike from firefighters and I reject that as an outrageous point if anyone makes it. It is not part of our agenda, explicit or implicit. Our view is that this legislation does not do that.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am certainly not playing games. I am deadly serious. The Government do not want this Bill, but they are prepared to push it through in the face of quite legitimate, reasoned opposition, as a stopgap. Our amendment is a belt and braces. It is not a matter of whether the Government want to operate the Bill. That is not the question of law on which my noble friend Lord Rooker gave us a great disposition in legal terms. Lord Asquith once described a Bill and

665
someone objected to his description so he said, "I know; I am talking English not law". My noble friend Lord Rooker did not know that he was talking law rather than English. He gave us a lot of law. He spoke as a lawyer, and so he should because your Lordships are to make law in this Bill.
There has been talk about lawyers who stuff their pockets—Government Ministers are fond of saying that. I have not made a buck out of this Bill and I do not suppose I shall be instructed upon it, but I am concerned about what the Bill says. Either Front Bench can have all the intentions, all the agendas and all the subjective states of mind it likes, and that does not count for a peanut in a court. The court is concerned with the Bill and the Act when it is passed, in its background and in its context, and what it says. We are asking the Government to put their intentions in the Bill. They will not.
The Minister says that they consulted their legal advisers back in early June. In Grand Committee, we begged them to let us have a full description of the legal grounds on which they were resisting our amendments. They would not do that. Noble Lords can read the speeches. I hesitate to read out anything more, but this legislature is for challenging what Ministers put on the record. In the records of Grand Committee and Report there is no legal argument. I got it last Friday afternoon, in a fax. That is what the Minister relies upon tonight and noble Lords cannot even see it. He says that it is not in the Library of the House. I was told that it was going to be widely distributed. My memorandum is in the Library. Anyone who has not read it should go and read it because it deals with every one of the points that my noble friend Lord Rooker made.
First, my noble friend said that the Meades case was decided by Lord Denning. That is what the note from the right honourable Mr Raynsford said. That is not accurate. It is not accurate because it was decided by the Court of Appeal. My noble friend Lord Rooker appears never to have heard of Lord Justice Eveleigh. Of course he had not; it is not in his legal advice. Lord Justice Eveleigh laid down the same principle. Then my noble friend says that the statutory duty is not open to an injunction if it is not actionable for damages. If he looks at the Court of Appeal decision in Associated British Ports v The Transport and General Workers Union, which was the case where the employers got an injunction against the dock strike, he will find that the Court of Appeal says that that is not necessarily so. Has he read or received advice on that case? I doubt it, because the legal note does not mention the Court of Appeal judgments; it only mentions the House of Lords Appellate Committee, where the case went off on totally different grounds.
So my noble friend's lawyers do not appear to have heard of that. He repeats this statement in the House. He tells your Lordships to make law on that basis, which is inaccurate. He also says that an individual of the public would not be able to claim. I have never argued that he would. I argue what was said by Lord Fraser of Tullybelton in a leading case, that a member
666
of the public who suffers special damage in his interests would be able to bring an action for an injunction for breach,
"of his private right because of the interference with the public right which inflicts special damage on him".
If a company owns a factory, and it is in an area where fire stations are being shut, it will have a special interest. It needs to show that its interests could be damaged when it applies for an injunction. That is the rule of law. When my noble friend Lord Rooker pronounces a rule of law that every member of the public cannot bring an action for an injunction, he is tilting at windmills.
Furthermore, my noble friend says the leading case of Capital and Counties, in 1997, shows that I am wrong on all this. If he looks at my memorandum, which I do not think he has read, he will find that I deal with that case. I am half inclined to read the true account of that case. It deals with something quite different. If noble Lords look at my memorandum they will find it in there. I have said that this is not a basis on which the Government's argument is right. My noble friend then said that all these things had to be proved. When he said that—adding up his arguments—he ignored the basic fact. I am not surprised, because the legal advisers' note ignores the central legal point—namely, that in an injunction case, you have to prove only that something is arguable; not a full case beyond reasonable doubt or on the balance of probabilities. That is why trade unions are anxious about labour injunctions; that is why inducement to breach statutory duty produces an arguable case.
Lastly—the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity naturally took up this point—the Minister argued that that was all very worrying, because inducing a breach of statutory duty might be actionable after all, that that might arise under other Acts and that the amendment should not be carried because it would do something special under the Bill. What are those other Acts? Is that part of a new policy to enforce statutes that affect workers to prevent them having a right to strike in trade disputes, even if they have held a ballot? If so, that is very worrying.
The Minister was then asked for an example. At first, he could not give one, but after receiving a little prompting, he mentioned the teachers. A number of decided cases in the courts deal with the teachers; I deal with them in my paper. I had better not mention them, or else the Minister, having propounded a lot of law, will tell me that I am being legalistic. But he will find in my paper, especially in the footnotes, reference to various decisions of your Lordships' Appellate Committee in which it has been pointed out—notably by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann—that there may well be a worrying conflict between the statutes governing teachers' conditions and what the House has recently held to be their right to strike.
In fact, it is much easier to spell out the right to strike from the education legislation than from the Bill. If the Government were to introduce into the Bill the

667
safeguards that we can find to make it arguable that teachers have the right to strike, they might have made a step forward.
New statutory duties are created by the Bill. Firefighters would be picked out in a discriminatory fashion for new limitations on their right—after a ballot in a trade dispute—to take industrial action that induced any non-compliance with such statutory duties. The amendment does no more than preserve the application of existing law for firefighters.
I notice that my noble friend did not deal with closures of stations. Noble Lords will notice that the example of their having a right to strike now with regard to impending closure of stations but their losing that right under the Bill as it stands was never answered. It never has been answered; it was not answered in the legal advice—which perhaps one day your Lordships will see.
I invite the Government to publish every document on the matter. I defy them to deny that most lawyers see perfectly well what is the trouble. I have consulted many scholars and practitioners in the field. I have spent 50 years with the subject. Noble Lords can study the record: I have never taken a point against my Government that has not had a basis in case and statute law. I have spent two days assembling this case, and I want to conclude—
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the noble Lord has given us a virtuoso performance—one that I could not possibly match—but perhaps he could tell the House what he is going to do with his amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, noble Lords on the Labour Benches will notice that the Opposition do not really like this debate at all and want to use every procedural device they can think of to get it out of the way because it is embarrassing to them. I shall now come to a conclusion.
For anyone to suggest that the Bill as drafted does not produce a serious risk of extra liability to the firefighters' union is false. I rarely say that a proposition of law is false, but that one is false.
Let us remember that the issue was never discussed in the Commons. People who want to shut up the debate do not care that it was never discussed there. They do not think much about the House of Commons, but perhaps that is a good thing given its present state. For any Labour Member of either House to vote against such an amendment as a belt-and-braces operation would be a betrayal. For any Peer of any party to vote against it would be to support the policy of militarising the fire service. It would be a provocation, given the present delicate balance of our negotiations, which we watch with anxiety.
As the lower House has not been able to debate the matter, I hope that noble Lords will see that what happens to the liberties of firefighters is in their hands. It is because of that that I am obliged to press the amendment to see at least what those who remain in the building have to say about it.
11.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 8; Not-Contents, 69.

Division No.5

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McCarthy, L. [Teller]

Davies of Coity, L.

Roper, L.

Hamwee, B.

Turner of Camden, B. [Teller]

Hoyle, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Andrews, B.

Hanham, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Attlee, E.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Bach, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Billingham, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Brennan, L.

Jones, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Burlison, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Byford, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Carter, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Chandos, V.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Colwyn, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Montrose, D.

Crawley, B.[Teller]

Morgan, L.

Desai, L.

Onslow, E.

Dixon, L.

Pendry, L.

Dubs, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Elder, L.

Radice, L.

Richard, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Rooker, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Simon, V.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Filkin, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Fookes, B.

Turnberg, L.

Gale, B.

Warner, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Whitaker, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Whitty, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Goudie, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.51p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 29, at end insert—

"(10) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall take effect in respect of statutory rights and obligations imposed or created by it—

(a) when made under subsection (l)(a), as imposing contractual rights and duties binding between the relevant fire brigade members and their employers; and

(b) when made under subsection (l)(b), as imposing duties on fire authorities owed to the Secretary of State, enforceable by him and not by or against any other person."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is now 10 minutes to midnight. The Government and Opposition Front Benches have had their way. It is strange to see a Labour Front Bench voting with the Tories. It does not happen all that often. Now, they have an amendment that, I thought, they might agree to, even if they cannot accept the first one.
I shall say one general thing. I do not understand why noble Lords, many of whom have spent some time in the Labour and trade union movement and have read quite a lot, find it all so difficult. There is some inhibition on their understanding of what is going on. They seem not to ask themselves the sort of questions that they would ask about things generally. I shall try to deal with the amendment in four minutes—very slowly.
The debate tonight has—I must tell your Lordships—reminded me of my German friends, who used to tell a story about their chancellor, Herr Kohl. He lost his official car and had to take a taxi. Gazing at him through the mist, the taxi driver said, "It's a long journey. I will tell you a story. It's about Herr Kohl, the chancellor". The other said, "I am Chancellor Kohl". "Ah", said the taxi driver, "I shall tell it to you very, very slowly". Tonight, I feel as though I must almost come to a grinding halt in my explanation to get people to understand something that trade union students whom I have been in seminars with for 40 years understand at the drop of a hat. They have not forgotten their experience in the workplace.
The amendment says, first, that, if a statutory instrument is made under the clause dealing with conditions of service, it shall operate as a contractual matter. I know that the Government say that that is their intention and that they think that that is how it will work, but they seem totally blind to the ability of lawyers—including the judiciary—to take a different view. All this does is say, "That's your intention. That's what we want. We'll put it in the Bill". If they do not accept that, they must have some other reason. No one in their right mind would think that it is totally impossible for it to be treated as a statutory duty and not a contractual duty.
The simple reason is that when a statute wants an obligation arising from it, or an order made under it, to operate through the contract, it says so. That great Act introduced by my friend Barbara Castle—the Equal Pay Act—states that the obligation to have an equal pay term is in the contract of employment. It was made clear. The Government did not rest on some vague notion as to what the courts might say.
Therefore, the first part of the amendment is common ground. The matter should be made clear in the Bill. We know what is in the Government's mind, which is the minds of all honourable men. But why not say it on paper? The second part of the amendment is more difficult now. I was going to say that orders made
670
under Clause l(l)(b) of the Bill—or the Act as it will be—also should be seen as imposing special duties that very probably would not infringe the right of strike. I say, "very probably", because that is my view, but at least it would be something. It states that an order, such as an order closing fire stations or an order transferring equipment from one district to another— an example taken by the Minister—shall operate as a duty owed to the Secretary of State. What is wrong with that? He is the person who makes it; he is the person looking after what the Minister has called the public safety. So it is a duty to the Secretary of State. The person to enforce the duty is him. That cuts out— or, arguably, almost certainly cuts out, which is the correct way of putting it—actions by anyone else.
What is wrong with that? Do the Government want actions for injunctions brought by other fire authorities and by persons with private proprietary interests? Is that what they want to enforce their orders under Clause l(l)(b)? I did not think so. Do the Government want to introduce the new regime of orders being enforced by all kinds of people on public sector workers? We do not want that. Public sector workers are entitled to their rights under the ILO Convention 151.
Therefore, as regards orders to fire authorities, the fire authority must obey the Secretary of State as is the rule of law. If it does not and if any legal action is to be brought, let it be brought by the Secretary of State. We trust him to bring the action where the public interest is involved. He will not bring actions which simply protect or aim to protect some small proprietary interest. He will look after those proprietary interests in his discretion. In fact, we all know that this is theoretical—it is the only theoretical part that I have advanced—because he would simply telephone the fire authority and say, "What are you doing? You put my order into effect. If you don't, I could get a court order".
Therefore, I hope that our second amendment is acceptable to the Government. The first part, under Clause l(l)(a), would be contractual. The second part, under Clause 1(1)(b), would be enforcement by the Secretary of State. That would cure the doubt, which, although it has not reached the ears of some Ministers, has reached others and will increasingly reach those who look at the Bill in its present deplorable state. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, as my noble friend says, Amendment No. 4 seeks to do two things. First, it provides that the orders under Clause 1(1)(a) shall take effect as imposing binding contractual rights between the firefighter and the fire authority. Secondly, it provides that the order under Clause 1(1)(b) will take effect by imposing duties on the fire authorities which are owed to the Secretary of State and enforceable only by him. We

671
have been around this course before. I have stated previously that, in our view, the amendments would have the effect that I have just outlined and are therefore unnecessary and inappropriate.
First, any order made under Clause 1(1)(a) will already fix or modify the firefighters' conditions of service. That is the whole purpose of the function. Firefighters' contracts of employment will be changed by operation of the law imposing binding contractual rights on both parties. For example, a firefighter would be able to bring a claim against his employing authority if it failed to pay him the additional pay set out in the order. We could get into a posit ion where the Secretary of State is forced, in the circumstances I explained earlier that we do not want to see arise, to ensure that firefighters get the pay rise that the dispute then taking place prevents them getting. If they do not like it, they would still be able to bring a claim against the employing authority if it failed to pay the additional money set out in the order. So the amendment is absolutely unnecessary because the Bill already provides for this and I do not think that the position can be contradicted.
Similarly, Clause 1(9) already provides that a fire authority shall have a duty to comply with directions contained in orders made under the Bill. It is made explicit on the face of the Bill that the fire authority shall have that duty. However, I accept that the amendment goes further, as it did in Grand Committee and probably on Report. It provides that only the Secretary of State can enforce such a duty. We do not think it right to restrict the Bill in this way. I shall repeat an example which I believe I gave in Committee.
If the Secretary of State is minded to make an order requiring one fire authority to use certain facilities provided by a second fire authority, that second authority might well make arrangements or incur expenditure in anticipation of the move taking place. Where the first authority refuses to comply with the Secretary of State's direction, it ought and should be possible for the second authority, if it wishes, to seek an order by way of judicial review requiring the compliance of the first authority. I cannot see anything wrong with that; we are talking here about fire authorities.
As I have said, I accept that behind the amendment lies exactly the same issue, although my noble friend did not make much of it in the short time he allowed himself to speak to it. It is the exactly same issue that has been repeated several times in your Lordships' House; that is, the accusation that the Bill will create statutory duties which may allow injunctions to be obtained in the event of industrial action by firefighters. I repeat: Nick Raynsford and I corresponded with my noble friend. My noble friend has met the Minister. I think that we have responded to the points made in Amendment No. 3 and I shall not repeat them.
672
We have given very careful consideration to this issue. It has been raised before and it is covered by the point I made earlier: I have asked officials whether there was a possibility that we could absorb any of the amendments to satisfy noble Lords, but without causing problems for the Bill or the way that it is intended to operate. However, for the reasons I have set out before noble Lords and in correspondence, we continue to believe that the amendments are not required. Their key bones are already included in the Bill and therefore I respectfully ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Midnight
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, one has to put some points on the record. I have not had any correspondence with the Minister on this, and I have not had much correspondence with my right honourable friend Mr Raynsford. I had a letter from him sent by fax saying that it was such a pity that we could not have further meetings and correspondence, but the Bill had been brought forward by a week. Everything had to stop for what I thought was going to be a prolonged negotiation about the legal position. I did not even have a chance to put anything on paper until this Saturday and Sunday.
I say this to the Minister: I ask the Government to publish the exchange of memoranda on this matter, because they deal with this issue as well. I did not refer to it in my speech, but this matter is dealt with at length.
I turn now to the two points made by my noble friend. He said that it is unnecessary to put in the Bill the point that orders on conditions of service operate as contractual obligations. Why is that unnecessary? My noble friend responded by saying that such an order would modify the conditions of service. That does not necessarily make it contractual. There are dozens of regulations which affect conditions of service and which create statutory duties; the right to redress for unfair dismissal is created by a statutory right and duty. It does not become part of the contract of service, but on my noble friend's argument, it should do so.
Health and safety regulations confer rights and duties on workers—it should not be forgotten that duties on workers are created by safety regulations. In some systems of law, they operate through the contract of service. The French regard it as bizarre, but that is not the case in our system. But in our system they operate as statutory duties. If what the Minister said were right, there would be huge new chapters in the contract books, but they are not there. We are asking him to do what Barbara Castle did with the Equal Pay Act and make it clear that this falls under contract, not statutory duty.

673
The Minister then referred to the duties imposed under Clause 1(9) as statutory duties on the fire authority to obey directions from the Deputy Prime Minister. He always gives the example of a pay rise. If we are considering theoretical cases, it is not really very likely that industrial action would be organised against an order imposing a pay rise—but that is what we are talking about.
We are discussing directions which order fire authorities to do things with their property, with their arrangements, with their control rooms, with all kinds of arrangements for the fire service which are at the centre of current negotiations—I go no further than that, but it is a worrying feature—and to close fire stations. That is what this is about.
The Minister said that if they do not close stations when they are told to do so, another authority could apply for judicial review. Does he not know the difference—he obviously does not because it is not in the legal advice—between judicial review in public law and an action for an injunction under the text books on all the regulations and law applying to private law? They overlap these days, but judicial review has got nothing to do with it.
Yes, there is a statutory duty under Clause 1 (9) for the fire authority to comply with directions, but if you have ever been anywhere near a court in such a case you will realise that that is the beginning of the case, not the end. The court will ask, "To whom is this duty owed?" "By whom is it enforceable?" And, "If it is enforceable by that plaintiff or that claimant, by what remedies?" There is not a word about any of that because the legal advice is faulty.
Noble Lords on the Front Bench can shake their heads. No doubt they are great experts on whether the legal advice could not possibly be faulty, but what silly nonsense. Any advice can be faulty. I have given advice that I have recognised afterwards had a fault in it. But they do not believe they can possibly be wrong.
As my noble friend Lord McCarthy said, anyone with any knowledge of the subject—and many noble Lords on this side do have knowledge of the subject, as much as they pretend not to understand—will know that similar things were said in the 1870s. In 1875 the TUC nearly wound up its parliamentary committee because it received assurances such as those advanced today that the Government were right; that the legislation left no threat to trade unions. In 1900 there was the Taff Vale case and similar cases in subsequent years.
All this has been said before; we have heard it all before. The Government are making the same mistake as before and the amendment would save them. But they will go down in history as a government who did not care enough to think that they might be wrong. If there is a doubt as to whether they are wrong, injunctions will lie under the Bill as it stands.
674
However, it is now ten minutes past twelve. We have had a jolly debate. The firefighters will suffer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 5:
Leave out Clause 1.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to the amendment already. No noble Lord who has been present throughout the debate has spoken in favour of the Bill, other than the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. It is a bad Bill in its construction.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, does the noble Lord intend to divide the House or not? He has already spoken to the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is a bad Bill. As a matter of construction, it no longer reflects the true intentions of the Government. Not only is it a blunder, it will exacerbate further strife. The amendment would remove Clause 1, which goes to the heart of the Bill. I beg to move.
12.10 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 10; Not-Contents, 60.

Division No.6

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Fookes, B.

Attlee, E.

Hamwee, B.

Byford, B. [Teller]

Hanham, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L. [Teller]

Roper, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gale,B.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Andrews, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Bach, L.

Goudie, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Billingham, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Brennan, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Burlison, L.

Hoyle, L.

Carter, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Chandos, V.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Crawley, B. [Teller]

Jay of Paddington, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Jones, L.

Desai, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Dixon, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Dubs, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Elder, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Morgan, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Pendry, L.

Filkin, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

675

Radice, L.

Turnberg, L.

Richard, L.

Warner, L.

Rooker, L.

Whitaker, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Whitty, L.

Simon, V.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past midnight.

  Government Bills: Committee Stages in each House
  Government Bills: Committee Stages in each House
  Afghanistan: UK Expenditure
  Afghanistan: UK Expenditure
  Guantanamo Bay: Judicial Procedures
  Guantanamo Bay: Judicial Procedures
  Afghanistan: Opium Poppy Crop Survey
  Afghanistan: Opium Poppy Crop Survey
  Iraq: Costs of UK Involvement
  Iraq: Costs of UK Involvement
  Zimbabwe: Removal of Failed Asylum Seekers
  Zimbabwe: Removal of Failed Asylum Seekers
  Eurodac Database
  Eurodac Database
  Anti-social Behaviour
  Anti-social Behaviour
  Criminal Records Bureau
  Criminal Records Bureau
  Gulf War 1990–91: Vaccines
  Gulf War 1990–91: Vaccines
  Bail Refusals: Breastfeeding Mothers
  Bail Refusals: Breastfeeding Mothers
  Local and European Parliamentary Elections: Franchise and Membership
  Local and European Parliamentary Elections: Franchise and Membership
  State Pension: Cost of Uprating
  State Pension: Cost of Uprating
  EU Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council
  EU Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council
  National Insurance: Employers' Contributions
  National Insurance: Employers' Contributions
  Tax Compliance
  Tax Compliance
  Civil Service
  Civil Service
  Elected Regional Assemblies
  Elected Regional Assemblies
  Renewables Obligation Buy-out Fund
  Renewables Obligation Buy-out Fund
  Haemophilia Patients: vCJD Blood Donors
  Haemophilia Patients: vCJD Blood Donors
  Smoking near Children
  Smoking near Children
  Income Contingent Student Loan Scheme
  Income Contingent Student Loan Scheme
  SchlumbergerSema
  SchlumbergerSema
  Speed Cameras
  Speed Cameras