Sitting of 4 November 2003

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

    Radiotherapy Services
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: What action he is taking to reduce the waiting time for radiotherapy treatment following cancer surgery. [135967]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): We are increasing the numbers of therapy radiographers in post and in training, making better use of existing staff, making unprecedented investment in new radiotherapy equipment, and streamlining the patient journey.
    Mrs. Campbell: May I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and take this opportunity to congratulate the Government on the 10 per cent. reduction in cancer mortality, which is very good news for all cancer patients? In January 2002, when I last asked a question about this issue, I was told that one way of coping with the shortage of radiographers was by using assistant practitioners who are not fully trained as proper radiographers, but can do some of the work. Can my hon. Friend give me any news on how that pilot scheme is going and on whether assistant practitioners will be in general use from now on?
    Miss Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her congratulations on the 10 per cent. reduction, which is in large measure the result not only of a lot of work by staff in the health service, but of the £570 million of extra investment that is going into cancer care.
    On assistant practitioners, my hon. Friend probably knows that her local hospital, Addenbrooke's, has two fully-qualified assistant radiography practitioners in post and three in training, and plans to take on four more next year. I am sure that she is aware that such good practice is being spread across the NHS through the cancer networks and cancer services collaboratives.
    Mr. Archie Norman: The Minister is of course right that the number of radiographers employed in the NHS has increased, but may I gently suggest that her response is a little complacent? The
    650
    three-month vacancy rate for radiographers has risen every single year since the data have been collected—now, at 10.7 per cent., it is the highest vacancy rate of any personnel category in the NHS. is the hon. Lady aware that, in west Kent, in my constituency, it is running at 19.6 per cent? Is not the reality that the growth in demand for technologically advanced radiographers is far outstripping the rate of increase in radiographers coming on supply, and that the result will inevitably be an increase in waiting lists?
    Miss Johnson: I think that the hon. Gentleman is drawing the wrong conclusion from the data that he advances. Since 1997, we have increased the number of radiographers in post by 10 per cent. from 1,407 to 1,542, and doubled the number of therapy radiographer training places. As a result, many more are coming to serve in the NHS, as I indicated in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken: what he is doing is drawing a conclusion about the vacancy levels that is partly based on the fact that there are now more posts and more equipment is coming on stream. We are not complacent, however, and he should understand that we are doing all that we can to ensure that all those posts are filled. Were his party to be in power, it would be extraordinarily difficult to make the investment that we are making, because there would be a 20 per cent. Cut—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Michael Clapham.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: The extra money that the Government have put into cancer treatment is bringing about great improvements, but there has been little improvement in one particular type of cancer—mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos. There are reports that treatments have been developed in Australia and America. Will my hon. Friend cause inquiries to be made into the kind of treatment that is being offered, with a view to drawing up a plan for mesothelioma sufferers here?
    Miss Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I know that he has taken a particular interest in this subject for many years, and I commend him for his persistence in pursuing the case with us on every occasion. I certainly undertake to look into the points that he raised and to write to him or meet him to discuss them further.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: May I urge the Minister to reconsider the so-called ambulatory model for radiotherapy that is being forced on the cancer centre in my constituency? Is she aware that that process has never been successfully used in this country in any cancer centre, and that it is vehemently opposed by all the clinicians in the Kent and Canterbury cancer centre? Is it not the case that that will to all intents and purposes amount to its closure as a true cancer centre, and that it will simply become a satellite working on an untested model?
    Miss Johnson: I will of course look into the points that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I must evince some scepticism about this. We have made a £570 million extra investment in cancer care, cut premature deaths by

    651
    10 per cent. and achieved a 30 per cent. increase in the number of cancer consultants in the service. That does not square with the suggestions that the hon. Gentleman is making.

    NHS Dentistry
    Mr. Paul Keetch: What plans he has to improve the provision of NHS dentistry in Herefordshire. [135969]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): In the past three years, more than £3 million of revenue and £288,000 of capital has been invested in the Hereford dental access centres. Herefordshire will benefit from the provisions of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, which will give new duties to primary care trusts to secure primary dental services, which will be financed by the £1.2 billion currently held centrally. It will also benefit from the £44 million that I announced last month to assist those primary care trusts in which it is hardest to find an NHS dentist.
    Mr. Keetch: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I pay tribute to the primary care trust access centre and to the local dentists. Does she realise, however, that a recent survey of 20,000 residents in south Herefordshire showed that, of those who were concerned about health care provision, 60 per cent. were particularly concerned about dentistry, compared with only 11 per cent. who were concerned about GP waiting times—next highest issue? A constituent of mine who came to see me at the weekend has still not found a dentist after two years and makes a 400-mile round trip to Essex to see his old dentist. I appreciate what the Government are doing, but will the Minister agree to talk again to the PCT, and to meet some of my constituents to discuss their very real concerns?
    Ms Winterton: GP waiting times are going down because we are getting quicker access to the GPs. With regard to dentistry, I certainly understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns. I will ask the NHS support team to work with the NHS locally in Herefordshire to see what assistance can be provided. After those meetings have taken place, I would be more than happy to discuss with the hon. Gentleman and his constituents the conclusions that have been reached.
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: The trouble is that we do not have enough beds in our hospitals in Herefordshire. We have had complacent answers time and again from the Government about how much money they have spent, yet when we get down on the ground, there is nothing happening. What is the Minister actually going to do for my constituents—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about dentistry. I call Mr. Burstow.
    Mr. Paul Burstow: Does the Minister accept that the position regarding dentistry in Herefordshire is mirrored nationally? In Herefordshire, almost half the population are not registered with a dentist; across the country as a whole, more than half
    652
    the population are not registered. Indeed, 25 million people are having to find their way to treatment centres that are miles away from their homes. Is this not an indictment of the Government's record on investing in the health service? Have they not failed to put this matter right, and have we as a country not failed, as a consequence, to ensure that we have a comprehensive dental health care service?
    Ms Winterton: We inherited a legacy of underinvestment from the Conservatives. Dentists were walking away from the NHS because of the way in which the Conservatives implemented the contract. However, we recognise that there are still problems. In the longer term, we are going to enable PCTs to work with dentists locally and to do the contracting there, so that they can deal with local problems. At the moment, money is returned to the centre if dentists no longer wish to undertake NHS work; that will now remain locally. However, in the mean time, to assist the NHS support team, we have allocated £43 million to help the areas with the biggest shortages. I believe that that will lead to better provision. I accept that we are not there at the moment, but we are working towards that.

    Mental Health Services
    Mr. Andrew Mackay: If he will make a statement on mental health services. [135970]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): Mental health services are being modernised in line with the standards set out in the national service framework and the commitments announced in the NHS plan. We are encouraged by the progress made, but we are also aware of the special challenges facing some services.
    Mr. Mackay: Does the Minister not realise that my constituents will see that answer as hopelessly complacent, against the background of the Berkshire Healthcare NHS trust, which looks after the mentally ill in Berkshire, having to make £8.1 million worth of cuts this year in services to the most vulnerable and dependent people in the community? How do I explain to my constituents that, while Ministers claim that more money is going into the NHS, those vulnerable people are going to suffer hugely in the forthcoming year?
    Ms Winterton: Berkshire Healthcare NHS trust has consistently met the key national service framework targets, particularly in the development of a 24-hour service such as crisis resolution. In Bracknell especially, there are gateway workers in place who are key to service improvement for patients. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman explain to his constituents how services would be provided after the 20 per cent. cut that his party would institute.
    Mr. David Hinchliffe: The Government deserve great credit for many of the improvements that are taking place in mental health services, particularly through the national service framework. One of the areas that remains a concern to many in mental health is the role of the special hospitals. In the light of the possibility of mental health legislation coming through

    653
    in the new Session or the one after that, will there be any chance of reforming the special hospitals and following the various recommendations of numerous reports initiated by the Government themselves and suggesting that we ought to move away from the current model of special hospitals?
    Ms Winterton: I know my hon. Friend has great expertise, particularly in the issue of mental health as well as in wider health issues. Of course, a number of changes in the way in which the special hospitals operate have been made in recent years. We are looking at the reports that have come forward, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we want to ensure that the special hospitals meet the needs of the 21st century. If that requires further changes to be made, of course we will do that.
    Tim Loughton: The Minister's answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) was exceedingly complacent; for "challenges" read "failure"—what the Government have failed to achieve so far. In 2000, the NHS plan gave a commitment to establish 335 crisis resolution teams by;2003, with 24-hour access by 2004. Our recent survey revealed that over 38 per cent. of mental health trusts do not have crisis resolution teams, over 50 per cent. do not offer 24-hour access and very few have anything like a full complement of staff in any case.
    Will the Minister give us an update on when that pledge will be met, or is it another empty promise that is to be shelved? Will she also tell us why there has been a loss of 4,000 mental health beds since her Government came to power?
    Ms Winterson: The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. There have been significant steps to support the delivery of national targets through the National Institute for Mental Health in England. There are now more than 100 crisis resolution teams and more than 200 assertive outreach teams in place. Progress is being made on the targets for early intervention schemes. We know that £262 million extra was spent on mental health services last year.
    I ask the hon. Gentleman to pledge that he will continue the investment that this Government have put in. We are improving mental health services; his party would cut them.
    Dr. Jack Cunningham: Will the Minister look very closely at any conclusions that emerge from the mental health and learning disability review consultation which has just concluded in north and west Cumbria? May I join the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), in welcoming the Government's determination to commit additional resources to mental health service provision—a decision that is long overdue and was never taken by the Conservative party in government? Is the Minister aware, and will she accept, that it is unacceptable in west Cumbria for crisis and acute bed provision to be removed and located in the
    654
    centres to which my hon. Friend referred earlier? That is a backward step. We need care and provision in the community, not centralisation of those services.
    Ms Winterton: I am aware that my right hon. Friend has expressed concern about that situation on behalf of his constituents and that he is meeting the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson). to discuss the proposed changes, the consultation and the real anxieties that he and his constituents have raised.
    Hywel Williams: Anti-oppressive practice is central to mental health services, and to the Mental Health Act 1983. It was, however, conspicuously absent from the Government's legislative proposals last year. Can the Minister assure us that in any future legislation linguistically appropriate practice will be given due regard, particularly in Wales?
    Ms Winterton: The 1983 Act does of course need to be updated to provide more safeguards for patients, and to take account of public safety issues. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are taking on board comments made during the consultation, and that we will publish a Bill when parliamentary time allows.

    Nutrition (Children)
    Helen Jones: What recent discussions he has held on the links between diet and health in children; and if he will make a statement. [135971]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): The impact of diet on health is recognised, and we are committed to improving children's dietary intakes. Ministers regularly meet other Government Departments and external organisations to achieve that. Discussion to develop the Department of Health led food and health action plan will enable further action to be taken by all stakeholders.
    Helen Jones: I congratulate the Government on what they have already done, but in view of increasing evidence of poor diet among children, the likely effects on their health and the consequent likely demands on the health service, will my hon. Friend liaise with the Department for Education and Skills to establish how we might improve both the standard and the take-up of school meals? We need to send children a consistent message, and—as well as launching welcome initiatives such as the welcome fruit in schools initiative—ensure that they are given a healthy meal at lunchtime.
    Dr. Ladyman: I thank my hon. Friend for her positive comments about the progress we have already made, especially with the fruit in schools programme. We do need to work closely with the Department for Education and Skills, and we are doing so. The food in schools programme, which is intended to provide healthy dietary options, is a joint initiative from that Department and the Department of Health. Ultimately, however, we must set ourselves a target. School meals must meet three criteria: they must be healthy, tasty and

    655
    affordable. We are the first to admit that we have not achieved those standards everywhere yet, but we shall certainly be working on it.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Is the Minister aware of alarming reports from the medical profession about an increase in rickets caused by vitamin D deficiency? What plans, strategies or programmes exist for investigation of this serious matter? Has the Minister, for instance, any plans to legislate for compulsory cod liver oil?
    Dr. Ladyman: I would welcome inclusion of that proposal in the next Liberal Democrat election manifesto. I suspect that it would win us a few more votes.
    The hon. Lady is right, and my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Melanie Johnson), the Under-Secretary of State for Health, who deals with this subject, is aware of the issues that she has raised. We are working on a number of initiatives, including the fruit in schools and food in schools programmes to ensure that all children have a healthy and balanced diet. The evidence mentioned by the hon. Lady will be fed into that process.
    Mr. Andy Reed: I recognise that many programmes and initiatives are emerging, especially in schools, but parents such as me and, I am sure, many other Members are concerned about the difficulty of ensuring that our children are not exposed to advertising and other means of forcing unhealthy foods down them. We try our hardest, but is there a possibility that a link with physical education and activity in schools would begin to make people understand we need to tackle problems of obesity now rather than later?
    Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend is right—we must take an holistic view. It is a question not just of diet but of exercise, education and making sure that our children know what foods are healthy and how to create a balanced diet for themselves. On exposing children to undue influences, evidence from Strathclyde university, commissioned by the Food Standards Agency, shows that children are influenced by negative messages from TV advertising, for example. We are considering that evidence and we have an open mind as to how we shall deal with it in the future; however, my hon. Friend can be assured that we are going to deal with it.
    Mr. Simon Burns: Is the Minister aware that 13 per cent. of eight-year-olds and 17 per cent. of 15-year-olds are clinically obese, and does he share my concern about the dramatic increase in type 2 diabetes among young children? I recognise that the message that people, including children, should eat more fruit and vegetables is welcome, but does the Minister not accept that exercise is a crucial part of the equation in reducing these trends? Will he suggest to his colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills that more should be done to encourage more exercise, particularly in our schools?
    Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman is right, but he obviously needs to wash his ears out because I just said exactly that. Exercise is vital and we must look at these issues holistically. On discussions with the Department for Education and Skills, the food and health action plan, which I mentioned in answering the first question from my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), is a cross-Departmental initiative that is working on all these issues and taking an holistic view of the health of our children.

    General Practice
    Simon Hughes: What assessment he has made of (a) the availability of and (b) access to general practitioner services in Greater London. [135973]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The number of GPs, and the number of GPs in training, in London are currently at the highest recorded levels, helping more patients to be seen more quickly. Primary care trusts in London are also committed to further increases in the number of GPs and primary care professionals, which will help further to improve access to, and availability of, primary care services. Primary care in London will also benefit from £350 million-worth of capital investment in the next two years.
    Simon Hughes: Is the Minister aware that a broad-ranging survey over the summer showed that more than one third of GP surgeries had closed their lists to new patients, and that more than half had closed their lists in the previous 12 months? As a result, thousands of people in London cannot get on to a GP list on a given day. What does the Minister propose to do to improve that situation substantially and quickly, and is there a target date—a number of days—by which somebody who wants to register on a GP's list can be sure that they will have a doctor to go to?
    Mr. Hutton: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, my understanding was that his party was against new targets of any kind for the national health service; perhaps he needs to talk to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) about that. I accept that his first point constitutes a serious and genuine concern, but I should point out that existing arrangements do permit a primary care trust, in some circumstances, to allocate a patient, or group of patients, to practices. Although everyone accepts that that is not ideal, it is possible to get an appointment with a GP through that route if it is the last one available. Secondly, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the general medical services contract that we have concluded with the British Medical Association provides a new mechanism for dealing with precisely such issues, which I hope will prevent some of the situations that he describes from arising as frequently in future. I accept that, clearly, there are capacity constraints, and measures are in hand to deal with that. The arrangements under the new GMS contract will provide a further strengthening of those measures.

    Maternity Services
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: What plans he has to increase choice in the provision of maternity services. [135974]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): My Department is conducting an extensive consultation on what patients want in terms of choice and involvement in, and flexibility of, their care and treatment. Maternity services are a key theme of this consultation.
    Dr. Naysmith: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and I hope that he has had a chance to look at the Health Committee's reports on maternity services, which were published earlier this year. One of our recommendations was that the ability should exist to be referred to midwifery services by a midwife, rather than through the GP services. I should be grateful if he would outline what the Department intends to do to encourage that.
    Dr. Reid: It is true that choice becomes substantial choice only if capacity is increased and investment to increase that capacity is made. That is the difference between our policy and the theoretical and cruelly deceptive choice that is offered by others to benefit only a tiny minority of people. We have therefore increased capacity through investment, resources and training in order to give women a real choice over maternity services. For instance, I understand that in my hon. Friend's area in Bristol, a number of midwives have proposed a midwife-led unit as an alternative to traditional hospital-based maternity services, and the primary care trust is now actively considering that option. We aim for the NHS to provide maternity services that offer women a variety of options through which they can receive care during their pregnancy and where they give birth.
    Dr. Richard Taylor: What plans does the Secretary of State have to deal with the shortage of midwives, which risks curtailing choice for patients and specifically curtailing the midwife-led birth centres that he mentioned? I would be grateful to know that he attaches a great deal of importance to such midwife-led centres and I hope that, because of the shortage of midwives, he will protect them from attacks by the consultant-led obstetrics units.
    Dr. Reid: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, it is crucial that we do not allow any vested interest to stand in the way of better-quality, quicker and better service and more choice for patients. When I say that, I mean any vested interests within the NHS or any vested interests from outside that want to undermine it. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I will make sure that we protect and help to prosper the midwife-led opportunities.
    On the first part of the question, we have an expectation that, from a baseline of the year 2000, more than 2,000 extra midwives will be working in the wards by 2006. As the hon. Gentleman may already know, in September last year, there were 870 more midwives working in the wards than when we took power in 1997. It is not easy. but we are putting in the investment to
    658
    attract people back. It would be a disaster if we had cuts in investment on the scale envisaged by the so-called Opposition.
    Mr. Ivan Henderson: May I tell my right hon. Friend that my constituents welcome the news that Harwich is going to get a new community hospital, which includes a new maternity unit? That will continue to give my constituents a choice about where to give birth in their local community. However, at the moment, the existing maternity unit is temporarily closed because of the shortage of midwives. To ensure that the new hospital and new maternity unit is a success, will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that we recruit, retain and encourage midwives back into the profession? We want the investment to make an improvement, which counters the suggestions of failure from Conservative Members—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Simon Burns: It's closed.
    Dr. Reid: Despite the baying from Conservative Front Benchers, that is a helpful question because it is important to have an honest appraisal of where we are with the health service. It is light years better than the health service that we inherited from the crowd on the Opposition Benches, but we still have a long way to go—[Interruption.] I can do no better than quote Professor Mike Salmon, chairman of the Essex Rivers Health Care NHS trust. When the Government gave the go-ahead in 2001 to the project mentioned by my hon. Friend, he said:
    "This is the best local health news since the creation of the NHS itself in 1948".
    It is certainly much better news than anything that appeared during the near 20-year reign of the crowd opposite. Nevertheless, we have a great deal more to do to attract more midwives. We are increasing the number of training places and there are now 470 more than in 1996–97—an increase of 28 per cent. We are also taking a range of further actions to help recruitment. All of that would be put in peril by the massive cuts in investment proposed by Conservative Members.
    Mr. James Gray: It is unfortunate that the Secretary of State allowed some party political banter to creep into what had until then been the helpful answer that he was determined to put women's interests first when deciding on maternity services. Will he bring his influence to bear on the Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire strategic health authority, which is currently consulting on closing down maternity services in Trowbridge, Devizes and Malmesbury?
    Dr. Reid: I do not understand the logic of the hon. Gentleman's question. My God, if in the context of the biggest annual increase in the NHS for the longest period in history, he is keen to point out to us where difficulties occur, what will he do when there is a 20 per cent. cut in that investment?
    Mr. Gray: That is no answer. What a disgrace. Get back to Scotland.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not say too much about Scotland. He knows where I come from and it is not so long ago that he lived in my constituency.

    General Practice
    Mr. Peter Pike: What additional funding his Department is making available for the improvement in the (a) premises and (b) facilities available at general practitioners' surgeries in England. [135975]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The Government are committed to investment of £1 billion by 2004 in improving primary care premises and facilities through NHS LIFT—local improvement finance trust—and other investment routes. The NHS LIFT scheme in east Lancashire, which I was able to visit last Friday, has reached financial close and work has now started on the first of several new developments, which will include my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. Pike: As my hon. Friend mentioned, he was in Bacup last week and he will know that many surgeries in my constituency do not meet the standards for primary care in GPs' surgeries that the Government want to deliver in 2003. Does he believe that the LIFT programme and what Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale primary care trust is doing will ensure that we have such facilities, and will they be value for money?
    Mr. Hutton: I do believe that. As my hon. Friend knows, the primary care trust has started with three developments initially, in Bacup, Nelson and Darwen. I understand that GPs in his constituency will be in the second tranche of development and I hope that that will proceed as soon as possible. I agree with him that it is desperately important that we improve the primary care estate in the NHS. It is where 90 per cent. of all patient journeys begin and end and, as GPs would themselves acknowledge, it is true that many surgeries are not up to scratch. They are not capable of delivering modern, 21st-century health care. That is why we are making a record investment in primary care, and there is no more pressing case than my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the Minister direct some of the additional funding for primary care to areas where GP lists are well above the national average, such as in my constituency, or will he continue to be a party to the fiddling of formulae that will continue the crisis in public service provision in the south-east of England?
    Mr. Hutton: No, we do not fiddle any formulae. Health spending is directed to the areas of greatest need. That is precisely the methodology we use to distribute money across the national health service. The hon. Gentleman has recently had something of a reputation for espousing the causes of the vulnerable. I imagine that that is why he is especially pleased to see what has happened to the right hon. Member for Chingford and
    660
    Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who must surely now be included on a list of the vulnerable. There are 42 LIFT schemes across the country and I am more than happy to send the hon. Gentleman details of them so that he can judge for himself whether the figures have been fiddled, as he alleges.
    Alan Simpson: There is overwhelming public support for the Government investment programme in the renewal of GP facilities, but will the Minister look carefully at the value-for-money aspect? The first of the LIFT proposals in my constituency includes plans for a £5 million health centre that will be rented back to the NHS at a cost of £25 million, an effective interest rate of more than 20 per cent. I asked some of the high street building societies what they would charge me for a mortgage to build it myself and discovered that it would cost £8 million. Can the Minister look carefully at the long-term costs and constraints imposed on LIFT companies to ensure that we get the modern facilities that we need but not at the Barclaycard interest rates that we do not?
    Mr. Hutton: NHS LIFT schemes do represent value for money. I understand that my hon. Friend has an ideological opposition to involving the private sector in the construction of NHS facilities. I respect that, but I profoundly disagree with him about the implications for NHS LIFT. All NHS LIFT schemes must pass a value-for-money test, and they do so. However, I can tell my hon. Friend and anyone else who is worried about the matter that the priority is to get the investment in place so that primary care facilities for NHS patients can be renewed. NHS LIFT represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make a significant and real difference to the improvement of primary care facilities in my hon. Friend's constituency, and in the constituencies of hon. Members of all parties. That should be our priority.

    Diagnostic Testing
    Mr. David Laws: What progress has been made in reducing the waiting times for diagnostic testing. [135976]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The NHS is committed to reducing the length of time that people wait before their treatment starts. The NHS plan has set targets for staged reductions in waiting times for first out-patient appointments and for in-patient treatment, which will help contribute towards reducing waiting times for diagnostic testing. By the end of 2005, patients with suspected cancer, for example, will be guaranteed that their treatment will start within two months of being urgently referred.
    Mr. Laws: Does not the Minister recognise that some of the longest waiting times in the NHS are not for inpatient and out-patient appointments, but for diagnostic tests? Is it satisfactory that the Government are not publishing information that would allow us to judge what is happening to those waiting times? Will the Minister take up the suggestion by the independent Statistics Commission that the Government should

    661
    publish the waiting times for diagnostic tests? That would allow us to see how long people wait for all aspects of NHS treatment.
    Mr. Hutton: We shall certainly look carefully at all the recommendations made to us. Of course we want to reduce the length of time that patients have to wait before their diagnostic tests start, and before they get the results. That is obvious. We have made an important start in relation to cancer, about which people have the greatest anxiety. That will help to reduce the length of time that people have to wait for diagnostic services. However, Liberal Democrat Members are the least able to lecture the Government about waiting times, as they are against any waiting times targets whatsoever.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although good progress is being made in relation to work with cancer in my NHS trust in Coventry, the difficulties posed by coronary problems are of similar dimensions? A surgeon in my area has been suspended for nearly two years, at a cost of some several hundred thousand pounds. Could not he be reinstated? Will my hon. Friend take a personal interest in this matter and ensure that a fair compromise proposal that would get the surgeon back to work and reduce waiting times is agreed, with both sides dropping charges and no blame being apportioned?
    Mr. Hutton: I am aware of that case, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), who is responsible for public health, answered an Adjournment debate on it only recently in this House. Such matters are for the local trust to resolve, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that they are dealt with as quickly as possible. He will be aware that the National Clinical Assessment Authority has recently been in touch with the trust, to see what further progress can be made in relation to that dispute. I very much hope that progress can be made as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Can the Minister confirm the story that appeared in this morning's press that No. 10 intervened to ensure that Dr. Lee Kuan Yew's wife had her diagnostic treatment speeded up? Is that a proper way for No. 10 to behave? If No. 10 is able to secure preferential treatment for the wife of a visiting dignitary, why can it not intervene to ensure that no one has to wait for life-threatening periods for vital scans?
    Mr. Hutton: No, I think that the position in relation to that case has been made clear already by a spokesperson for No. 10.

    General Practice
    Kali Mountford: How many general practitioners are in training; and if he will make a statement. [135977]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): There were 2,157 general practitioner trainees in June 2003. That is an increase of 814 since 1997, and the highest number ever in the history of this country. We promised more GPs, and we have kept that promise.
    Kali Mountford: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and for his efforts in ensuring that general practice is an attractive option for trainee doctors. In my constituency, however, one GP vacancy was advertised for 18 months before being filled. As we approach the winter months, everyone is more acutely aware than ever of the need for GPs. Will my right hon. Friend redouble his efforts with the royal colleges and the British Medical Association to improve capacity yet further?
    Dr. Reid: Yes, I shall certainly do as my hon. Friend suggests. The truth of the matter is that we have achieved our initial trainee target ahead of schedule; as I said, there were 2,157 GP trainees as of June this year—highest number ever recorded. However, there is no doubt in my mind that we need to achieve a great deal more than that, not least because of the underinvestment during the 20 years before the Government took office. To point that out is not to make a party-partisan point, because every one of the 1.3 million people in the NHS and the 60 million people of this country knows the truth: the NHS was starved of investment. That is why, in a paradoxical fashion, I can tell my hon. Friend that we have the highest number of doctors in history, yet the number is still insufficient, because we are making up for the lost decades under the Conservatives.
    Dr. Liam Fox: When the Prime Minister talks about public services, he says that it is about schools and hospitals. What message does that send to those who work in primary care, who deliver the majority of health care?
    Dr. Reid: First, may I congratulate the hon. Gentleman both on his incipient move and on actually asking me a question? Since I became Secretary of State, that is the first time—
    Mr. Simon Burns: Rubbish.
    Dr. Reid: It is the first time since I became Secretary of State that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has fulminated inside the Chamber rather than outside it.
    As for what we said we would do, we did not say only that we would build more schools and hospitals, although that is true. We said that we would create more doctors and that we would have more nurses and more midwives. We said that we would have shorter waiting times, that we would put in more money and more hospital equipment, and that we would build more hospitals and buildings than ever before in the NHS. I am glad to say that we have done each and every one of those things. There are 55,000 more nurses, ahead of target. We have 6,500 more consultants and thousands more doctors—more than ever—and the biggest building programme in the history of the NHS. We have the biggest sustained investment increase, at 7.4 per cent. in real terms, for the longest period in our history. We

    663
    made the promises and we kept the promises, yet every one of them would be destroyed by the Opposition and their plans to cut back on the national health service.
    Dr. Fox: That was an interesting answer, but not to the question that I asked. My question was about what Government soundbites tell us about their approach to the acute sector in relation to the community sector. There is poor morale in primary care, so let us see whether the Secretary of State can actually answer me in detail. One in six doctors currently in general practice graduated from a south Asian university; two thirds of them will retire by 2007. How many extra doctors will be required to fill those posts? A recent study by the British Medical Association found that 20 per cent. of all GP time is taken up by administration. How many doctors does that effectively take away from patient care? According to the Government's figures, the number of doctors per thousand patients has gone down since 1997, not up. When will the Secretary of State answer the real questions instead of giving us soundbites, statistics and complacency?
    Dr. Reid: Well, if ever I heard a soundbite it was "soundbites, statistics and complacency", which does not quite match "Veni, vidi, vici" in the resonance of historical sweep. When the hon. Gentleman asked his question, he implied that we had merely promised more "schools and hospitals". That was his first soundbite, so he did not like being told about more doctors, more nurses and more midwives. Of course—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I will, therefore, answer the questions. We have more doctors than ever in history. We have recruited some of them from overseas, not least because under the crowd on the Opposition Benches all the investment in doctor training was run down, unlike the situation under the Labour Government. In primary care, we have—[Interruption.] The Opposition can bay as much as they like; the truth is that we all know that all the increases in primary care, public health, secondary care, chronic care and care for the elderly would be destroyed by their reduction in investment and their criminal plans to charge our old folk up to £10,000 for their—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Ms Joan Walley: May I say that my constituents are not interested in the sound bites that come from the Opposition? What they are interested in is being able to see a GP when they need to. Although I applaud the extra 814 GPs that are in training, may I tell my right hon. Friend that there is a serious short-term problem? We have had too many GPs retiring, and we need to attract more into part-time work. We need to ensure that we can deal with the immediate emergency crisis that we have, certainly in Stoke-on-Trent. Will he look at that and consider how the Government can support what the Stoke-on-Trent, North PCT is doing at the moment?
    Dr. Reid: Yes, I will certainly look at that, and I do not for a moment underestimate the challenge, even with the record number of doctors that we have. I have already said that, because of expansion, retirement, past under-investment and other factors, there is a huge problem and we need to recruit even more. That is why,
    664
    although we are on course to deliver our target of 2,000 extra GPs, we need to do more. There has been an unprecedented expansion in medical school places in England: 2,150 more places were announced between 1999 and 2001, so that increase will contribute to the future number of GPs.
    In addition, we are expanding our health service at a rate that is unprecedented in the past three decades, and people's expectations and ambitions are becoming greater. People now expect to see a GP within two days; they do not want to wait. People expect to have their operations a lot more quickly than when the Conservatives contemplated, as they said, a maximum waiting time of two years. We now have virtually no one waiting more than one year, and, by next year, virtually no one will be waiting more than six months. That will still be too long. We need more doctors, more nurses and more facilities in the NHS, all of which needs more investment. That is precisely what we will do, compared with the Conservative party.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the improvement. How many of the university posts that have been opened actually spring from a decision taken many years previously? I discovered that universities that were supposed to be opening more places for medical training were not doing so. How many training posts have not been occupied by young people who want to become GPs? Such vacancies have been one of the standing failures of our medical training for many years.
    Dr. Reid: On the first question, frankly, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman the answer off the top of my head, but I will write to him about that. On the second point, if I understood the question, he was implying that the great demand for places at medical schools or universities was not being met because such places were not available. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that we have carried out the most rapid expansion in places. We have four new medical schools, for instance. I visited one of them only a couple of weeks ago, welcoming another 120 young people coming in to train as doctors. A greater problem than the lack of places is the fact that there are cyclical trends. Sometimes large numbers of people who train as doctors choose to go into general practice and, at other times, they do not choose to do so. We are attempting to attract more people into general practice, not least through the recent new contract, which gives opportunity and flexibility to GPs and was overwhelmingly accepted by the profession itself.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We have five minutes left, and we are only at Question 9 on the Order Paper. The next time that we have Health questions, I do not want the record to be full of what the Opposition did when they were in power. Questions should be answered briefly, and that is the end of it.

    Premature Deaths
    Mr. George Foulkes: What his latest estimate is of the number of premature deaths in England in the last year for which figures are available; and what action he is taking to prevent them. [135978]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): In 1995, an estimated 98,800 people died from smoking in England. We have developed a comprehensive strategy, including legislation banning tobacco advertising, a mass media information campaign and a national network of NHS stop smoking services. Early figures, published by Cancer Research UK, indicate an encouraging drop in smoking prevalence, but we are awaiting publication of the latest general household survey data for confirmation.
    Mr. Foulkes: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on realising that I meant to refer to premature deaths from smoking in my question. Will she join me in congratulating the Secretary of State for Health on having given up smoking for 11 months? What are she and her colleagues doing to encourage other people to follow his example? Will the Government now consider introducing legislation to ban smoking in public places?
    Miss Johnson: Of course I join my right hon. Friend in congratulating the Secretary of State on his period of abstinence from tobacco. To share the progress that we are making on services to stop smoking, across England £138 million has now been allocated over the next three years to help reach the target of achieving 800,000 four-week quitters by 2006. The latest statistics show that we are on target, and around 124,000 people had given up smoking at the four-week follow-up quit stage. He mentioned the question of smoking in public places; he will know that we have considered the matter, but believe that substantial progress can be made through voluntary means
    Chris Grayling: The Minister talks about premature deaths. Is she aware, however, that people's lives are being put at risk today by the mounting crisis in emergency care? We have the unedifying sight of queues of ambulances outside accident and emergency departments unable to get patients admitted to hospitals, and the extraordinary situation in which ambulance trusts have contingency plans to erect tents outside accident and emergency departments for patients, because they cannot get them admitted to hospitals. When will Ministers do something to end this appalling situation?
    Miss Johnson: That is absolute poppycock; what is more, the hon. Gentleman knows that it is. The fact is that nine out of 10 patients are seen within four hours in A and E departments across England, and, to the best of our knowledge, tents have never been used and are unlikely to be needed other than for dealing with patients at the scene of a major incident such as the Selby rail incident or the decontamination of patients in the event of a chemical or biological attack. The Opposition are trying to get up a story that is 100 per cent. spin and zero percent. truth.

    Nurses (International Recruitment)
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: What proportion of nurses working in the NHS have been internationally recruited. [135979]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): As at September 2002, the number of nurses employed by the NHS was 367,520. In the years 1999 to 2002, 33,000 non-European Community nurses registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Council. However, not all of those nurses will currently be working in the NHS.
    Dr. Starkey: I welcome the fact that the NHS has a code of conduct about recruiting nurses from countries where recruitment would otherwise affect health services in those countries. The private sector in hospitals, nursing homes and care homes, however, does not exercise similar restraint. I ask the Minister to look carefully at ways in which the private sector can be made to adhere to the same code of conduct, and if necessary to have discussions with colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that the private sector in this country is not pillaging health services abroad in countries where those health staff are needed much more than here.
    Ms Winterton: My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, which we take very seriously, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had a number of discussions about it. There is a limit to the control that we can exert on the private sector, but we have made it absolutely clear that agencies that recruit nurses for the private sector contrary to the NHS code of conduct will not be allowed to recruit nurses for the national health service. That lever is available to us. In addition, some measures can be taken by the Department of Trade and Industry if, for example, agencies charge an exorbitant fee to nurses for recruitment. Our Departments are continuing to work closely on that matter.

    Hip Replacement Operations
    Siobhain McDonagh: What recent estimate he has made of the cost to the NHS of a hip replacement operation (a) in an NHS hospital and (b) in a private hospital. [135980]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): The most recent estimate of the cost to the NHS of a hip replacement in an NHS hospital is £4,356. BUPA currently advertises an inclusive care price for a hip replacement as being within the range £7,150 to £8,900.
    Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the way to tackle hip and knee replacement waiting lists is through exciting projects such as the south-west London hip and knee centre rather than by subsidising the private sector, as the Conservative party would do?
    Dr. Reid: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The south-west London NHS treatment centre for hips and knees in Epsom that will open in January will benefit her constituents and those of other hon. Members. It is planned that the centre will have the capacity to treat some 3,150 orthopaedic cases in the 12 months to the end of September. She is absolutely right, and I make it absolutely plain, that the Labour party, which is the only party for which I can speak, will never force old folks to be charged out of their savings to pay for their own operations.

Speaker's Statement
Mr. Speaker: As the House will know, next Tuesday is 11 November—Remembrance day. Although the House will not be sitting at 11 o'clock, right hon. and hon. Members, their staff and officials in the House will be attending to their duties.
I regard it as appropriate that we should join the nation in observing the two minutes' silence at that time so that we might remember those who gave their lives for their country to help to preserve our democratic freedom.
I should be grateful if those responsible for chairing Committees would make appropriate arrangements. Instructions will also be issued to heads of departments so that those members of staff who wish to observe the two minutes' silence should be enabled to do so.

Points of Order
12.32 pm
Mr. Henry Bellingham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful to receive your guidance on a matter than arose during Health questions today. I asked the Minister of State about an article in today's press concerning Dr. Lee Kuan Yew's wife receiving preferential treatment—it was a big story. He merely said that a Department of Health spokesman had issued a statement this morning. I did not hear that statement, and I do not believe that anyone else did. Surely he should have given me a proper answer. His answer was bland and arrogant.
Mr. Speaker: It is not for the Chair to be concerned with the quality of the answer; that is for the Minister.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a point of order. I do not want an extension of Question Time. I would far rather that we got down the Order Paper at Question Time rather than taking questions at points of order. Is the hon. Gentleman asking about Question Time?
Mr. Blunt: It is further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, because the Minister specifically said that the No. 10 press office had made an explanation—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I knew that it was not a proper point of order.
Miss Anne McIntosh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that I am not an infrequent questioner of various Departments in the House in both oral and written form. It was therefore disappointing that in the answer that I received to a written question to the Solicitor-General, not only was my name mis-spelt, but I was referred to as the hon. Member for Buckingham. Regular attendees of the Chamber and right hon. and hon. Members will know that there are clear differences between my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and myself. I wonder whether the record could be corrected.
Mr. Speaker: I can only say to the hon. Lady that I would never make that mistake.
Mr. John Bercow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although I am full of admiration for my hon. Friend's remarkable political talents, may I put it to you that I do not think that my constituents would make that mistake either? I would be very alarmed if Ministers thought that I was the Member of Parliament for the Vale of York.
Mr. Speaker: I say no more.

Children's Television (Advertising) (No. 2)
12.34 pm
Ms Debra Shipley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to ban the advertising of high fat, high sugar and high salt content food and drinks during pre-school children's television programmes and related scheduling.
Since I introduced my Bill to ban all food and drink advertising to pre-school children in May this year, I have been overwhelmed by massive public and professional support. Indeed, 95 per cent. of students from King Edward VI college in my constituency—some of whom are in the Gallery today—support me, so I have the support of young people as well.
Some 89 organisations now back my campaign. They include the National Heart Forum, the Food Commission, the National Union of Teachers, Diabetes UK, the Women's Institute, the National Consumer Council, the British Heart Foundation and the National Obesity Forum. Those well-respected organisations, which have a wide range of members, back my campaign because they recognise that we have a serious health problem, with increasing childhood diabetes and obesity, both of which can kill. The organisations backing my campaign to ban food and drink advertising to children recognise that the continuous advertising of high-fat, high-sugar and high-salt content food and drink to children has an impact on their health.
Early this year, I took my concerns to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, whose Department has the powers to prevent the products from being ruthlessly targeted at children via television. She asked me to give her more evidence. I gave her more evidence. She asked me to wait for the results of the findings of the Food Standards Agency. The FSA has published its report, "Does Food Promotion Influence Children? A Systematic Review of the Evidence". It reviewed 118 research papers and concluded that advertising to children does have an effect on their preferences, purchase behaviour and consumption.
To put it simply, children are subjected to repeated imagery and carefully constructed memorable jingles. The message is that the products are fun and make children happy. Children repeatedly see adverts in which happy children are being made happy by happy parents giving them food and drink products that are high in fat, high in salt and high in sugar. For example, 89 per cent. of cereals advertised during children's television programmes are very high in sugar.
The sugar content of Quaker Sugar Puffs is a massive 49 per cent. It is 39 per cent. in Kellogg's Cocoa Pops, 40 per cent. in Kellogg's Frosties and 40 per cent. in Nestlé Golden Nuggets. The FSA guidelines say that products that are 10 per cent. sugar are high in sugar. The World Health Organisation recently suggested that people should restrict sugar to 10 per cent. of their diet for the sake of their health, yet the powerful food and drink industry is allowed ruthlessly and cynically to target small children with products that contain an amount of sugar way above what is good for their health.
It is worth remembering that children are encouraged to eat cereals every day. The fast food industry also ruthlessly targets children with adverts that encourage
670
them to want to make multiple visits to a particular chain of fast food outlets to collect parts of a toy. Parents are not made aware of the fact that, for example, a birthday party meal, which is indisputably targeted at children, contains 60 per cent. of the maximum total recommended daily intake of saturated fat, nearly 80 per cent. more sugar than the maximum total recommended daily intake and more than one day's full recommended intake of salt. That is just in one meal.
The amount of salt a child should eat depends on the child's age. A two or three-year-old should take in about 2 g daily and a four, five or six-year-old about 3 g. It is therefore shocking that a product such as Golden Vale Cheese Company Attack-a-Snack Cheestring chicken wrap—yes, that is its name—which is repeatedly advertised on children's television, contains 4 g in a single portion, more than a child should have in a whole day.
I began by saying that I have received massive support for my proposals from teachers, health professionals, parents, colleagues and young people, yet the food and drink industry and the advertising industry continue to fail to recognise that there is a problem. They say that advertising high-fat, high-sugar and high-salt content products designed specifically for children has no detrimental effects on children's health, yet the overwhelming evidence suggests the contrary.
The advertising industry says that this is not its problem, that advertisers are just a convenient target for politicians such as myself. The industry says that obesity and childhood diabetes are due to children not taking enough exercise. I certainly agree that regular exercise is vital to children's health, but so too is what they put in their mouths. Far from being an easy target for politicians, the massively powerful, multinational food and drink industry is able to employ well placed and well paid lobbyists.
As a nation, however, we have to put our children's health first. There are many steps that need to be taken. Children need to take more exercise, and better education is needed for both parents and children. The Department of Health has taken good initiatives in its healthy eating campaign and by providing free fruit in schools. Those initiatives are, however, severely undermined by the spending power of the food and drink industry, which is able to spend up to 100 times more promoting its high-fat, high-sugar and high-salt products than the Government spend on their healthy eating campaigns.
Independent Television Commission guidance has failed to prevent the advertising industry from ruthlessly targeting children, and Ofcom's recent suggestion that the industry should be self-policing would demonstrably be ineffective. What is needed is legislation. We need to ban the advertising of high-fat, high-sugar and high-salt food and drink on children's television. My Bill would do exactly that. However, owing to the procedures of the House or a lack of parliamentary time, my Bill may fail to become law, and I call on the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to support the Department of Health initiatives and protect children's health by doing what public opinion is overwhelmingly calling for: banning the advertising of food and drink from children's television scheduling.
I commend my Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Debra Shipley, Linda Perham, Vera Baird, Ann Clwyd, Dr. Brian Iddon, Glenda Jackson, Brian White, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Geraint Davies, Andrew Mackinlay and Angela Eagle.

Children's Television (Advertising) (No. 2)
  CHILDREN'S TELEVISION (ADVERTISING) (No. 2)
  Ms Debra Shipley accordingly presented a Bill to ban the advertising of high-fat, high-sugar and high-salt content food and drinks during pre-school children's television programmes and related scheduling: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 November, and to be printed [Bill 171].

Quality of Life
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]
12.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper): I am pleased to open the debate on quality of life in local communities. The issues involved affect everyone in each of our constituencies. People open their front door. step out on to the street and care about the world around them and the issues that they face. Many of those issues have been ignored by politicians and policy makers because they were seen as being simply about the private realm—local matters for individuals to sort out for themselves.
We ignore those issues at our peril. They cut across many different communities, Departments and agencies, and they manifest themselves in different forms in different areas. MORI has done research in recent years into what makes somewhere a good place to live. It found that 56 per cent. of people were concerned about low-level crime; 39 per cent. pointed to health services as the most important factor; 37 per cent. referred to affordable, decent housing, and 28 per cent. said that shops were most important.
Interestingly, however, all those factors ranked higher than job prospects, local schools and facilities for children. People's impression of their quality of life is affected by their sense of belonging and pride in their area, not only their town, town centre or city but their own neighbourhood, their estate or the place where they live. MORI provided evidence that many people who thought that they lived in a fantastic, bubbling and buzzing city feared that they lived on a problem estate and were not proud of the street where they lived.
MORI also looked at issues affecting communities in different parts of the country. People surveyed in north Kensington said that the things that would most improve their quality of life were a reduction in crime and more activities for young people. In Southwark, the highest priorities were cleaner streets and the environment, followed by facilities for young people. In Dorset, the priority was housing, followed by buses. In Southend, people mentioned dog mess, followed by buses. In Seven Sisters, the priority was crime and litter, and in Hartlepool it was better play areas for children. People care strongly about the quality of their local environment and the strength of their local communities. That is about more than simply housing or their private circumstances—it is about the world and the community around them.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I was interested to hear what the Minister said about the different communities that contributed to the MORI poll. Does she agree that communities can be badly blighted by planning? She mentioned Dorset, where there is a lot of grief about proposals for wind farms, as indeed there is in my own constituency. Does she agree that local people need to have more say in key planning applications that will blight their communities and affect them in other ways?
Yvette Cooper: People often have strong views about planning. We are keen that the planning system should do two things. First, it should have a stronger sense of sustainable development in future instead of focusing on short-term planning issues. Secondly, it should involve local people from the very beginning of the planning process, rather than at a late stage, when a particular application comes up. We shall shortly publish the first draft planning policy statement—PPS1—which sets out the broad direction of planning, and will publish further statements on planning and renewable energy. I am happy to have further discussions with the hon. Gentleman about those issues.
Mr. Frank Field: I very much welcome today's debate. The Minister has cited MORI's findings, but has she not found from her own experience as a constituency Member of Parliament that one of the dominating issues for all of us is the continued rise of bad behaviour? While there are many positive aspects of Government policy involving job creation and so on, when we meet our constituents or have public meetings, the big issue that they want the Government to deal with is bad behaviour. We are now in a new era of the politics of behaviour.
Yvette Cooper.: My right hon. Friend is right that many people in our constituencies have concerns about antisocial behaviour. I shall discuss the issue shortly, so if he will allow me, I shall come back to his question then.
Another issue that we need to be aware of is the existence of considerable inequalities. The most deprived areas tend to have the fewest parks and well-maintained places in which children can play. They tend to have the greatest problems with graffiti, litter and antisocial behaviour. They also have the greatest design problems. I recently stood on a hillside with a fellow MP looking at the fantastic scenery in his constituency. The only thing that blighted the beautiful view was, he pointed out, a severe and stark set of buildings on an estate. They were grey and austere, and clearly had the greatest design problems in the constituency. When I pointed to the estate he said, "Yes, that estate also has the greatest problems in the constituency." Poor design, therefore, is often linked to the most disadvantaged areas.
Matthew Green: The Minister seems to be hinting that the most deprived areas are all urban. Will she confirm that some of the most rural areas are also some of the most deprived?
Yvette Cooper: In looking at the estate that I have mentioned, I was standing on the edge of a small community surrounded by beautiful hills. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that problems often arise in rural areas as well, where there will often be much smaller concentrations of deprivation. That is one of the reasons why the sure start programme seeks to deal with small concentrations of problems in rural areas and why we must often look at different approaches in such areas. We must recognise that problems in rural areas will be different from those in urban areas.
A considerable amount of work is under way, but there is more to do in many areas. People want to live in environments and communities that are clean, safe and
674
green. The latter means places that are beautiful and pleasant, as well as places to play and enjoy, places for leisure and places for children in particular. Many of those ideas were encapsulated in the Government's programme to build sustainable communities, which was set out in the sustainable communities plan earlier this year. The plan is not merely about bricks and mortar or quick fixes; it is about trying to build town centres, streets, estates, communities, parks and green spaces of which people can feel proud.
It is worth outlining the work that is under way in a series of areas and needs to be taken further in order to address people's concerns about their quality of life and provide opportunities to improve it. I shall deal first with investment in the public realm, including public and community infrastructure and facilities. We know that such investment declined over many years. When we think back to the Victorians, we think of their immense investment in town halls, urban parks and the important community facilities on which so many areas depended. For decades, those facilities declined, along with investment in them.
In the past six years, however, we have seen substantial investment in local public facilities and the local environment. In particular, £1.8 billion has been invested over three years in the poorest communities through the neighbourhood renewal programme, which involves local strategic partnerships funding improvements in their areas. Improvements have ranged from neighbourhood wardens to street improvements, adventure playgrounds and a wide range of facilities that will address problems in particular areas.
We have also seen considerable investment in sure start programmes throughout the country. Most of the programmes involve investing in facilities, often for the first time, for the very youngest children, who have often been left out when local communities and councils consider what facilities are needed and what their priorities should be. Local parks and drop-in centres are now being improved by sure start investment throughout the country. In considering what builds a community, we should never underestimate the role of parents of small children, who often have a strong and immediate interest in the quality of the local environment—where their children want to play—and a strong incentive to build links with other parents and members of the community. That is why the sure start programme is so important.
Lottery funding has supported sports facilities and healthy living centres. There has also been a substantial increase in investment in housing—especially social housing—to help areas to meet the decent homes standard. As part of the sustainable communities fund, there has been a programme involving the investment of more than £200 million to improve parks and open and urban spaces. New resources have been provided for the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, which is working on public and private buildings to improve design, and establishing CABE Space as a champion with the expertise to improve public spaces, including parks and green spaces.
We have increased the support given to the Groundwork initiatives. I know that many hon. Members will have had contact with Groundwork in their constituencies. My experience locally has been that

675
it is one of the most impressive organisations working with local communities, often including schoolchildren, to improve local facilities such as riverbanks, squares or parks. It has had a considerable impact on local communities. The increase in support means that it can back more than 4,500 projects each year.
Lynne Jones: When Groundwork projects occur, is not lack of capacity for future maintenance often a problem? Is that problem being addressed?
Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that the issue concerns not only physical infrastructure but what happens to facilities in the long term once they have been invested in. We often think in terms only of the capital investment that is needed to improve an area, but what can be done to sustain quality and involve the local community after that investment has been made can be far more important. Without such work, there will simply be investment in new facilities, after which all the same problems will arise, and the infrastructure will fall apart three or four years later. I certainly recognise that issue and I shall say a little more about it later.
There are two more significant programmes. The living spaces fund is asking for bids from local communities and groups that support community gardens, play areas, parks and so on, and the liveability fund supports local councils in improving their public areas. Such programmes add up to £200 million over three years—probably the most substantial investment in green spaces since the Victorian era. We are also building design into planning new communities such as the Thames gateway and the millennium villages.
As hon. Members have said, however, the issue concerns not only physical improvements but the communities themselves and the services that need to be delivered to maintain them and their facilities in future. The most beautiful street or space in the world can soon be spoiled if children have nowhere to go, if graffiti, litter or abandoned cars are left unchecked or if the neighbour is a nightmare. Many of our constituents see antisocial behaviour as one of the biggest threats to their quality of life. That is why the Government recently published the antisocial behaviour action plan. Hon. Members will have seen the plan, which builds on the work done in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill that is currently passing through Parliament. In particular, it deals with issues relating to environmental crimes, greater action against nuisance neighbours and swifter action on abandoned cars, graffiti and the other problems that can make so much difference if they are not tackled quickly.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: The improvements and schemes that my hon. Friend describes are to be applauded, but if people do not feel safe when they leave their homes, environmental improvements will not be of much help to them. In making a Sunday morning visit in one part of my constituency, I met several pensioners who told me that they were too afraid to leave their homes at night because of the extensive drug dealing in
676
their area, as well as prostitution. I hope that she will encourage her Home Office colleagues to continue the good work that they are doing in those important areas.
Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. She will know that Home Office Ministers feel strongly about those problems. It is one of the most basic building blocks of a community that people can feel safe to walk the streets and join in with what is happening in their communities, and do not feel isolated in their homes because of fear of crime. One of the programmes that has made the biggest impact on these issues in past few years has been the neighbourhood wardens programme. There are many examples throughout the country of extremely popular neighbourhood wardens programmes in which local wardens know the area where they work.
Siobhain McDonagh: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Lavender Fields ward of my borough, Merton, on one of our worst estates, Sadlers Close, the police had a 47 per cent. reduction in the number of calls that they received about antisocial behaviour as a direct result of the introduction of a fabulous community warden?
Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that there are many examples of neighbourhood wardens making a substantial impact on the work of the police by not only addressing crime and the fear of crime, but providing wide-ranging community support. For example, earlier today I heard a story about a vulnerable resident who suffered from considerable mental health and other problems, and whose family in Australia had become worried about her. They contacted the local neighbourhood wardens through the internet to ask them to keep an eye on her. The wardens made regular visits and were able to provide support, including making sure that she got the health care that she needed. Because neighbourhood wardens work very much as part of and with their local community, they are able to carry out a far wider range of roles than we ever envisaged when the programmes were first set up. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is supporting more than 245 schemes with more than 1,400 wardens. In addition, many councils, new deal for communities schemes and local street partnerships are setting up their own neighbourhood warden programmes because of their proven effectiveness.
Mr. Andrew Turner: I should like to draw attention to the effectiveness of the neighbourhood warden scheme in Ryde, in my constituency.
What does the hon. Lady think has broken down over the past 30 to 40 years that has led to the Government responding with such schemes? What has provoked the outbreak of crime, incivility and disorder on our streets and elsewhere that creates the symptoms that she reports?
Yvette Cooper: Many things have changed over many decades. All sorts of social changes have taken place. We have to recognise, too, that they have taken place in different ways and to varying degrees in different areas. For a long time, policymakers said that the public realm should not be invested in; that society does not exist; and

677
that communities are merely collections of individuals rather than being important in their own right. That attitude contributed to the situation, but we can all point to a wide range of social causes over a long period. We are not in a situation of inevitable decline: many communities have been successful in making significant improvements to the atmosphere in the local community and the local environment. Antisocial behaviour and other problems in local communities must be responded to quickly and appropriately. In the long term, we need to build on community strength and opportunities and people's pride in the place where they live.
Ian Lucas: I very much agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that antisocial behaviour is the central issue for our constituents. Although there are many good examples of neighbourhood warden schemes and response schemes, too many local authorities still have structures that deal with health, social services and education, but do not see responding to antisocial behaviour as their central concern. My constituents, as consumers of services from their local authorities, tell me that that is the approach that they want them to take.
Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that local authorities vary considerably in this respect. My impression is that they are increasingly enthusiastic about taking such action, not least because of pressure from their local communities. The Home Office's action plan on antisocial behaviour took the approach that local authorities, in partnership with their local police and other agencies, need to build expertise and capacity in order to address the problems of antisocial behaviour. Moreover, rather than ignoring the problem, they should learn from neighbouring authorities that are dealing with the problem much more effectively. At the same time, we must recognise that where communities themselves are involved in local improvement projects and changes to local facilities, the impact can be much greater and more long-lasting than if such projects are drawn up for the area by the local council or another agency.
Andrew Selous: I very much agree with the Minister's earlier remarks about the importance of young parents with regard to public spaces. Does she agree that the role of fathers is particularly vital in relation to young boys? Will she give the House a commitment that the Government will give all support and encouragement to ensuring that fathers—preferably as part of a couple, but even if not—are fully involved in bringing up their adolescent sons?
Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right that fathers play a crucial role, not only as role models, but in building relationships with their children as they grow up. In perpetuating the idea that sure start programmes are for mums with young children—indeed, they often use its drop-in centres—we tend to underestimate how much they are doing to involve fathers: for example, by having them on the board. They have recognised the importance of the hon. Gentleman's point; we as a Government are keen to support that.
The evidence from programmes such as sure start, Groundwork and neighbourhood management pathfinders shows that communities that are involved in
678
the design of the changes that are taking place have a sense of ownership of those changes, which, as a result, are not only more appropriate, but better protected and sustained in the long term.
Mr. Alan Meale: I appreciate what the Minister says about sure start, Groundwork and other programmes, but I want to return to her earlier answer about why such problems occur. We need to go back decades to when national Governments, particularly of the late 1970s, began to view local government less as a service provider and much more as a cost factor—"tax" and "charges" became dirty words. Since then, youth services and other community services that local authorities attempt to provide have been eroded.
Let me give an example. In Victorian times, when people fought to establish free local government services, the provision and maintenance of public toilets was openly on the agenda of every local authority. Now, in this new millennium, public toilets are being closed all over Britain because they are seen as a heavy cost burden on local authorities. We need to re-engage with local authorities to give them more power, strength and encouragement in re-establishing that approach and not shying away from the simple fact of having to raise, through taxes, the money to pay for such services.
Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Local authorities are critical to these issues. If we look at something as simple as spending on parks, we see that between 1991 and 1996, investment in parks and public spaces declined by between 10 and 20 per cent. throughout the country. In whatever area we choose, investment in those public facilities and public spaces, which are so important in enabling communities to operate, was in decline. That investment has now been substantially turned around, and we also want to build more investment into the future. My hon. Friend is right to say that local authorities have a critical role to play in these matters, and where they are successful it is often due to community leaders championing those facilities. They were discouraged from playing that role for many years, but there has been a change over the last few years.
Mr. Meale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene again. The debate is about quality of life in local communities. In any ordinary constituency, more than 50 per cent.—usually between 51 and 52 per cent.—of the population have to plan their day around whether they will have access to a public toilet when they leave their home. If most of Britain's public toilets are being closed, there will not be much quality of life for those people in our communities.
Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Local communities having a greater say in the provision of that kind of service is something that we need to promote. In my constituency and others, the provision of public toilets has become a particularly important issue. When councils have been able to respond to the local community or to local groups, progress has been made and the facilities that people need have been provided. It is important that local areas should be able to make their own decisions on these matters and be responsive. That is why local councils

679
have such a critical role to play, and why there is an increasing role for local community groups to play in regard to these issues. This is not simply about what the town hall does; it is also about what the local community can do at a much more local level, and what decisions can be taken at ward level, for example. A lot of councils are trying out all kinds of innovative ideas involving area forums and area panels, and trying to devolve some of the decision making to neighbourhood panels, parish councils and so on, so as to be even more responsive to local community issues.
We have a considerable programme of work under way, investing in the local environment and public facilities, as well as in the kind of community support and community capacity building that is critical if these changes are to be sustained. There is a considerable programme of action around antisocial behaviour as well.
Lady Hermon: I apologise for interrupting the Minister yet again; I appreciate her taking another intervention. Why has the antisocial behaviour legislation not been extended to Northern Ireland? The Minister will know, from her experience in her previous capacity in the then Lord Chancellor's Department, that criminal law, policing and justice are not devolved issues, so even when we have an Assembly, they are not devolved to it. Responsibility for policing, justice and antisocial behaviour remains here at Westminster, but that legislation does not apply to Northern Ireland. Antisocial behaviour is just as problematic in Bangor, County Down as it is in Bangor, Wales. Will the Minister please consult her colleagues in the Home Office to see whether, even at this late hour, that legislation could be applied to Northern Ireland?
Yvette Cooper: I would certainly be happy to raise that issue with my Home Office colleagues, although I suspect that the hon. Lady has done so herself on many occasions. We recognise that other areas have similar problems with antisocial behaviour, but we are very keen for devolution to work in practice and for as many as possible of those decisions to be taken at local level. I recognise the points that she made about crime, but she will also be aware that the Anti-social Behaviour Bill includes considerable provision related to housing, and to other areas in which we are keen for the devolved Administrations to make their own decisions.
I will certainly raise that matter with my colleagues in the Home Office, although I believe that we need to encourage local areas to take responsibility for these issues, whether at regional or local level. We cannot simply deal with them from Westminster. There are things that we can do to support local areas, but we cannot expect to solve all the problems that local communities face or to transform those communities' quality of life from this Parliament and this Chamber. There will be opportunities at neighbourhood level for people to have a stronger say in the management of many of the services that affect their lives, such as cleaning the streets or community safety, and in tackling some of the inequalities that exist.
I am conscious that other hon. Members want to contribute and that, with the leave of the House, I shall have the opportunity to wind up this debate later, but I
680
would like to make a final point. We have discussed improving the quality of life in local communities and the importance of improving the local environment, investing in the infrastructure, supporting local communities and tackling antisocial behaviour. We should never forget, however, just how fundamental it is simply for people to have the chance of a good job, and to have enough money in their pocket to buy the things that they need for their family. All those things are fundamental to people's quality of life in their local community, and that is about promoting full employment in every region. It is also about having steady and sustainable growth in every region, and about tackling the economic inequalities that areas face. Those factors can make a powerful difference to people's quality of life.
Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to me again. I cheer the statements that she has just made, but does she agree that one of the new factors that affect people's quality of life is the failure of some families to function properly or to teach their children the common decencies, such as having respect for other people? Of course we have responsibilities here in Westminster and through our local authorities, but we cannot have strong communities unless there are strong families. Somehow, the Government must carefully put back on to the agenda the fact that the malfunctioning of some families is the root cause of many of the issues that we are discussing today.
Yvette Cooper: I recognise the point that my right hon. Friend makes. No one could say that the Government were not keen to provide greater family support and to recognise the problems that families face. For example, we have produced a Green Paper on children at risk and introduced the sure start and antisocial behaviour programmes. Nevertheless, we must also address the underlying issues, especially for the long term, in relation to the local economy and local economic inequality and opportunity. Someone who is involved in a community programme said to me recently that we must beware of looking at different areas and figuring that rich areas get jobs and poor areas get community consultation. That cannot be a long-term, sustainable approach to providing support for every community and every family, wherever they live, and to ensuring that they do not face inequality of opportunity or unfair disadvantage.
People's quality of life depends on a wide range of factors. I have not touched on public services, not least because the MORI research referred to the local street environment and the issues related to that. In the long run, we all know that the things that make the greatest difference to families and to people in their communities are related to the quality of public services and the local economy. The title of our debate as shown on the Order Paper, "Quality of life in local communities", is potentially extremely wide-ranging, and I am sure that hon. Members will raise a wide range of issues today. I have chosen to highlight a few that are often neglected in our parliamentary debates, but I am sure that hon. Members will want to raise others, and I shall be happy to respond to them later.
We also need to recognise that the investment and the changes that are taking place are making a substantial difference to many communities. I see changes taking

681
place in my constituency of Pontefract and Castleford as well as local community groups, facilities and job opportunities that simply were not there five or six years ago. We are making considerable improvements, but we have to recognise also people's genuine concerns about quality of life in their communities.
We can all make more of a difference in this area, but only if we recognise that that cannot be done simply through Parliament. It has to be done by communities and agencies across the country working in partnership to improve the quality of life of our communities.
1.20 pm
Mr. Philip Hammond: I am glad to have the opportunity to debate what is, as the Minister said, an extraordinarily broad subject—the quality of life. It seems to me that the quality of life involves a range of things that she touched on in the last few moments of her speech. I feared at one stage that she was going to leave us with the impression that the local initiatives, important and valuable as they are, are what primarily determine the quality of life of our constituents in our local communities. Whether we would like that to be the case or not, the fact is that what central Government do is far more likely to impact on the overall quality of life of people, wherever they are in the country.
When I saw the title of the debate, I had thought that the Minister might attempt a comprehensive defence of Government policy across the board—economic, education, social, health and housing policy—but she chose to interpret it a little more narrowly. In thinking about how to stay in order, it seemed to me that there is almost no subject that could not be raised as relevant to the quality of life that people in our communities enjoy.
This matter involves material well-being—people having a roof over their heads, income in their pockets and public services that are accessible and user friendly—as well as the environment that we live in, which means liveable towns and cities with quality countryside surrounding them, and transport services that are accessible, reliable and affordable. It also involves a sense of security, which means physical security in our towns and cities and the freedom from crime and the fear of crime, as well as security of employment, financial security and security in old age: people knowing that the savings they have made in their lifetime will be there and can provide a decent living. People need confidence that the services that they have contributed to throughout their working lives will be delivered when they need them in old age.
The debate is about opportunity and empowerment, access to quality education, diversity of employment opportunities, health and choice in lifestyle and services. I am sorry to say to the Minister that it also involves things that are beyond the remit even of this Government, such as the freedom to practise one's beliefs. We take that very much for granted, but in other parts of the world people have to die for it. The debate is also about a sense of community, both local and national.
As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, we are discussing also the support of friends and family, which can be such a huge influence on the quality
682
of life that people enjoy. However, I shall try to focus on those areas for which the Government have responsibility.
Mr. Mark Francois: My hon. Friend mentioned accessibility to public services. In terms of promoting community spirit, does he agree that our post offices play a vital role in doing that in all our constituencies? There have been a number of post office closures in my constituency in recent years and last week I received notification of two more. Does he agree that this programme has gone on for quite a while and that the Post Office should think very carefully before recommending even more post offices for closure?
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an Adjournment debate on local government. We are going wide of the subject.
Mr. Hammond: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the debate is about the quality of life in local communities and I wrestled with its scope for some time.
Mr. Speaker: Order. My apologies.
Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) is right, and I am pleased that the Minister gave due recognition to the importance of community. I say to her that that refers not only to local communities, but to national communities and people having a sense of belonging and of place. My hon. Friend ably put his finger on an example of how Government policy has allowed the heart to be ripped out of many suburban and rural communities with the loss of the local post office, which is such an important part of the structure of those communities.
Mr. John Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that one phenomenon that is corrosive of precisely that sense of belonging that he rightly identifies as important is graffiti? Although the incidence of graffiti in local communities is not recorded separately from other crime statistics, but rather is incorporated within the category of criminal damage, does he agree that an attack on that phenomenon is crucial to the recovery of the self-respect on which the success of local communities will depend?
Mr. Hammond: I can readily agree with my hon. Friend, and we have already heard contributions identifying the fact that an attack on low-level crime and disorder is crucial to the quality of life of many of our constituents—people in local communities. Indeed, that is disproportionately so. If he will allow me, this is one of the issues that I will come to in due course.
The Minister mentioned income at the end of her remarks. I would have thought that income is pretty near the top of the list of things that determine people's quality of life. Of course people need an adequate after-tax income to enjoy a decent quality of life, but this Government, under a Prime Minister who pledged that we would face no tax increases at all, have increased taxes 60 times so that we pay 50 per cent. more tax than in 1997.
Across the country, people in communities face swingeing increases in council tax, which is a form of national taxation because of how the grant system

683
works, as local authorities struggle to deal with central Government's redetermination of priorities. That leaves them with no choice but to raise council taxes or cut local services.
Matthew Green: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman's intervention is entirely predictable.
Matthew Green: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the council tax is a fair tax on pensioners? If not, does he think that there should be a measure based on ability to pay?
Mr. Hammond: I think that the Liberals' proposal, as currently formulated for a local income tax, would be a disaster for local communities that led to higher tax bills for ordinary, hard-working families across the country—another blow to the quality of life in our local communities.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that in low-income areas such as the Isle of Wight a higher rate of local income tax would be required to raise the same amount of money as, for example, in his own constituency? In that respect, the Liberal Democrat proposals would severely damage my working constituents.
Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point and puts his finger on one of the weaknesses of the Liberal Democrat proposals. There would not be a local income tax in any genuine sense because there would have to be a redistribution mechanism, which would break the crucial link between local ability to pay and the tax raised locally.
We all appreciate that the flip side of taxation is public service spending. We all want to enjoy high-quality public services, so have we seen improvements in those public services, which make up another component of people's quality of life, as our taxes have soared by 50 per cent. since 1997? The answer, of course, is that we have not.
The problem is that the switch of resources to public services was not preceded, as the Government originally promised, by an improvement in delivery productivity. So we see a business on the scale of the national health service accounting for 8 per cent. of United Kingdom gross domestic product. It achieved a 21 per cent. increase in funding over two years, but delivered just a 2 per cent. increase in output growth. That represents a negative growth in productivity that would result in bankruptcy in the private sector. It contributes to the halving of the productivity growth rate in the economy overall that has taken place since this Government took over from the last Conservative Administration. That is not a dry point: productivity growth fuels the increases in personal consumption, public services and public investment that underpin so much of our quality of life.
The truth is that the Government have had a lucky run—initially, with considerable prudence, building on the legacy of their predecessor and more recently, with
684
alarming profligacy, proceeding blindly down the alley on which they have embarked. They have brought the economy to tipping point. The Chancellor is playing a game of brinkmanship with the prosperity and quality of life of millions of people as he gambles on the appearance of a new driver for the economy before his inevitable puncturing of the balloon of private and public borrowing that is the only thing keeping the economy afloat.
The Government have not spent the money they have raised from hardworking families—eroding their disposable incomes and their ability to exercise choice—on improving our public services. They have squandered it on bureaucratic, underdelivering services that they have neither the political will nor the courage to reform. Where else in the world could we find a health service which, while enjoying a 20 per cent. increase in funding, can deliver only marginal improvements in health care? A million people are still waiting for NHS treatment. Last year alone, 300,000 people without health care insurance had to dig into their savings and pay for their own medical treatment, while 70,000 patients had their operations cancelled within 24 hours of the time when they were due despite a Government drive to reduce the number of such cases. All those things have had a serious impact on the quality of life in local communities.
Then there are the inequalities in health care that persist despite the Government's constant reassertion of their determination to wipe them out. Three years into a crusade against cancer, two thirds of the number of women with breast cancer who could benefit from the drug Herceptin are not receiving it. That figure masks a huge range of prescription levels—for instance, the discrepancy between levels in the west midlands and the south-east. Those inequalities—the postcode lotteries that persist despite the Government's rhetoric—undermine the quality of life throughout the country.
The Government railed against managers in the NHS before coming to power. but there are now 45 per cent. more managers than there were in 1997. There are more managers than beds. As for education—funded by central Government, but delivered by local authorities under the close and watchful eye of Whitehall—one in three 11-year-olds leaves school unable to read, write or count properly, and this year more than 33,000 16-year-olds left without a single GCSE at any grade. Discipline in schools is collapsing: somewhere in England or Wales, there is an attack on a school teacher every seven minutes during the school day. There is also a rising tide of truancy. All those things contribute to the sense of insecurity, and undermine the quality of life in local communities.
The Government's response is to increase the torrent of central guidance for schools, rather than freeing headmasters and teachers to create the environment that parents want for their local communities—be it a more disciplined or a less disciplined environment. The Government insist on central directives and on inflating school costs through headline deals which they then spectacularly fail to fund, leaving local authorities and schools to wrestle with overstretched budgets rather than focusing on the delivery of quality education and an appropriate environment to the children whom they serve.

685
Meanwhile, more and more parents—including, apparently, Labour MPs—give up on the state altogether. Hundreds of thousands have been forced to do just what others have been forced to do in relation to NHS waiting lists, and raid their savings to buy privately something for which they have already paid through taxation. That is an affront to their right as citizens to enjoy good quality public services wherever they live.
What of the environment in which we live—our transport infrastructure, and our towns and cities? Perhaps this has more to do with what the Minister talked about. None of us would deny that a roof over one's head is a pretty fundamental requirement for a decent quality of life, and to many millions of people in Britain owning that roof represents a huge step up. We are talking about a roof over people's heads, and a chance to get on to the housing ownership ladder. Labour has failed on both counts.
Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for 15 minutes. He has produced a catalogue of Government failings, and I agree with much of what he has said. But can he reassure us that at some point he may offer a solution rather than just listing problems?
Mr. Hammond: I shall deal with our policy agenda shortly. The point I am making now is that this Government, who are long on rhetoric, have taken large amounts of money from the pockets of ordinary hardworking families to invest in public services that have spectacularly failed to improve those people's quality of life. The Minister devoted a large part of her rather longer speech to worthy and worthwhile local initiatives, without addressing much bigger issues of Government policy that crucially undermine the quality of life of individuals throughout the country.
Ian Lucas: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that the issues raised by the Minister are the issues raised in my surgeries every week, and that they directly affect my constituents' quality of life? I should be delighted to hear the Opposition's proposals in that regard.
Mr. Hammond: Even the Minister recognised in the closing moments of her speech that the bigger issues such as health, taxation, education and social services affect the quality of life crucially—that they provide the backdrop. Perhaps as crucial as anything in all local communities is the provision of housing. The number of homeless families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has increased threefold since 1997, and priority homelessness has increased by 26 per cent. That failure in particular underlines the Government's failure to live up to their rhetoric about caring for the most vulnerable in society, and improving quality of life for those most in need.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the importance of a roof over one's head and of housebuilding programmes. Can he explain why members of his party throughout the country have opposed plans for the building of new and, in particular, affordable housing in areas where the issues that he raises could he dealt with?
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is not being terribly specific. I do not doubt for a moment that
686
various members of my party in various places may have opposed specific proposals. In a moment I shall say something about the Government's communities plan, which is the main way in which they hope to address these issues.
The number of social housing completions has fallen by a third since 1997. If we had maintained the 1997 rate, we would now have 35,000 more social homes—enough to house the families who are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation three times over. What I consider even more pernicious, however, is that across large areas even people in full-time work find it impossible to gain access to home ownership. What we used to call social housing, which most of us used to regard as a way to provide housing for those who were unable to participate fully in the economy, now needs to be provided for people who have full-time jobs, often in the public sector. I find that intolerable; it does not serve our communities or those who work in our public services.
The Government's answer is the communities plan, consisting of four growth areas in the south-east and a proposal to demolish many homes in the north. The communities plan will do nothing for the quality of life of the hundreds of thousands of workers across the south-east in the public and private sectors who aspire to owning their own homes in the communities that they serve. Instead, they will be condemned either to key worker, rented housing, or to long-distance commuting to the area in which they work from a home in a growth area selected by the Government. If they do choose to commute, they will get a chance to assess the success of the Government's 10-year plan for transport, which has been rubbished by virtually everyone—from the Commission for Integrated Transport to the Select Committee and the social exclusion unit.
If those people go by train, they will have plenty of time to ponder on the longer journey times and decreased reliability of a railway that is soaking up ever-larger volumes of taxpayer's money. And they will perhaps have a chance to consider the Government's extraordinary feat in turning a poorly performing element of our infrastructure—our national railway—into a worse performing one, which now seems to need to double as a bottomless pit for public finance, if we are to avoid its imploding completely. If they go by car, they will be able to contemplate the £45 billion in taxes that Government impose on motorists, while considering that Britain's spends the lowest proportion of motoring taxes on transport of any country in the western world.
Either way, as those people commute they will get a chance to see something of the countryside that the Government talk about protecting, but for which they display nothing but contempt. The failure to support rural communities as agriculture has lurched from crisis to crisis has eroded the quality of life of those who live in, and depend on, the countryside. The countryside is not a mausoleum, so that failure will erode its ability to benefit those who live in our towns and cities.
In an earlier intervention, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead pointed out that the key issue that emerges on the doorstep when one asks people about quality of life is having a sense of security. In part, that means future financial security, such as pensions; critically, it also means basic physical security, which we might hope

687
to be able to take for granted today, but cannot. Crime and the fear of crime blight lives in our communities as much as, if not more than, material poverty. Britain under Labour has become the crime capital of the western world. Violent crime recorded by the police has increased by 70 per cent. since 1999, while clear-up is down by one quarter. Gun crime has doubled under Labour. People in England and Wales are now more likely to be victims of crime than those in Europe or north America.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, however, that almost as worrying is the growth in low-level crime and antisocial behaviour. A senior police officer described it to me the other day as a social malaise that has soared under Labour. It makes life a misery for people in our local communities. It makes them feel vulnerable and disempowered, and I suggest to the Government that it is a symptom of a lack of balance between rights and responsibilities in our communities.
The solution to detrimental low-level crime and disorder is neighbourhood policing that is accountable to the community, so that the community's priorities are reflected in the police's responses. Too often in too many areas, what the police consider low-level crime does not get the response that the community believes it deserves. The next Conservative Government have pledged to increase the number of police officers on the streets through the savings that we will make by sorting out the shambolic asylum system; and to reduce police bureaucracy, so that those additional officers deliver real reassurance on the streets of our towns and cities, throughout the country.
I want to touch on another issue relating to physical security that is germane to the debate on local communities. It is not only our police forces that protect us from the threats around us; so do our fire and rescue services. During the long fire dispute, the Government pledged that the modernisation of fire services would result in a reduction in fire deaths. So how many people will sleep safer in their beds and see their quality of life improved, thanks to Government's recent reduction of their target in respect of deliberate fires? Their target figure of a 30 per cent. reduction by 2009 has been amended to a mere 10 per cent. reduction by 2010. And how will people's sense of security be enhanced by the Government's reducing their target of a 20 per cent. reduction in the number of accidental fire deaths from 2004—a date that is a bit close to judgment day? Suddenly, that date has been pushed out to 2010.
Such examples underline the nature of this Government's use of targets. Targets grab headlines when they are announced, but when they become difficult to meet they get pushed back. Indeed, during a Standing Committee debate the other day, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) was very honest about the accidental deaths target. He said:
"We have extended that to March 2010 because … the previous target was not attainable."—[Official Report, First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 21 October 2003; c. 4.]
At least he was honest, but what is the point of setting targets if, every time we get close to judgment day, the Government simply push them back to a date beyond the next general election?
688
As the Minister knows, there are many areas that I have not even touched on that contribute considerably to the sense of an undermining of the quality of life in our local communities. Indeed, I hope to mention some points that relate specifically to my local community, and to discover some things ahead of the expected announcement from the Chancellor. We confidently predict that we will hear of yet higher taxes, yet more burdens on hard-working families and yet higher council tax levels. On the local government settlement, we expect to hear more from the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) about the Government's redistribution of resources around the country, which will undermine the quality of life of people in communities not favoured with this Government's largesse.
The Government can best contribute to the quality of life in our local communities by giving them back their freedom: the freedom for local authorities to address the needs of the community, not the targets of government; the freedom for accountable police authorities to address community priorities, thus enhancing the population's sense of safety and security; the freedom for our doctors, nurses and teachers to treat and to teach; and the freedom for patients and parents to exercise the choice that empowers individuals. We need a Government who live within their means; taxation that does not squeeze the lifeblood out of our economy; public services that are reformed to deliver efficiently, without waste and bureaucracy, through the exercise of citizen choice; funding distribution based on the need to protect the vulnerable everywhere—not just in areas favoured by government—while still promoting economic growth and allowing the economy to grow by attracting investment to the areas in which inward investment wants to locate.
In short, we need a fair deal for everyone—the south as well as the north, the countryside as well as our cities. That is the way for the Government to contribute to a rise in the quality of life for all our local communities.
1.49 pm
Ms Joan Walley: I contribute to this debate as the chair of the all-party group on regeneration, which has had many discussions on the quality of life. Indeed, I want to record my thanks to the Minister for recently attending a meeting of the group. Such a debate is important, and the speeches made so far have made it clear just how important this issue is for MPs and their constituencies. If the phone calls, visits, letters and e-mails to my constituency office are anything to go by, this issue tops all the others in terms of what matters to people. It is intrinsically linked to people feeling that they can have faith in their MP, faith in their Government and faith in their local authority to deliver the things that matter to them.
Our debate on this subject is important and necessary. As was mentioned in an earlier intervention, we seem to have lost a sense of place, a sense of belonging and a sense of trust in a community identity whereby people know who is responsible for what, who to go to when something needs to be done and what can be done to put things right when they go wrong. We know that some people will be proactive in getting such things done.

689
What we need to convey from today's debate, which also reflects the debates in the all-party regeneration group, is the fact that we support the Minister because we realise that she has a cross-cutting role inside the Government to deal with issues such as community safety, policing, education and so forth. Ultimately, the Treasury is involved in respect of the finances available for dealing with those issues. We want to give more power to the Minister's elbow to fight that corner for us. That is why our debate is important.
The debate is also timely. It is being held not only before the Queen's Speech but before the next spending round, which will determine the allocation of moneys. We must issue the plea that every Cabinet Minister should take the quality of life seriously, and we also need a strategy for delivery. I am often reminded of the phrase, "vision without action is just a dream; action without vision is just a waste of time". Only when we can combine vision with action will we change the world. Our constituents want their MPs to help to change the world for the better in the local community.
Today's debate highlights quality of life indicators, which are welcome, and I greatly commend the Government for introducing them. We can monitor the quality of life indicators to establish how things are changing and improving. We need to use such tools to add weight to the importance of delivery at the local level.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady's speech and I know that she wants to deliver at the local level, so how does she square that with her Government's removal of housing and planning to the regional level? Does that not amount to taking such decisions away from local people, making services far more remote and less accessible?
Ms Walley: A great deal of consideration should be given to the new planning guidance. as well as to the current guidance. People want some input into the planning decisions that affect their local areas. As the Minister said in her introduction, we must examine our economic well-being at the regional level. It is important to plan in order to avoid huge out-of-town developments, which have done so much to undermine a local sense of well-being and belonging.
I remember that, as a child, I knew everybody. I knew who people were before they were married; I knew their names; I knew all about them. My point about the planning system is that we need to take account of issues as a whole—at a regional level as well as at the local level—and I believe that the Government are getting the balance right.
We must examine the role of local authorities. Following on from this debate, I would like us to reflect on how to get local democracy right. We should examine how local councillors can play a part in the regeneration policies that we want. There is a danger of having too many local partnerships of one sort or another, bringing about more bureaucracy rather than allowing locally elected people at the ward level any real opportunities to design, deliver and implement what is needed.
Andrew Selous: It is right to talk about getting local democracy right, so what would the hon. Lady say to
690
local councillors in my area, where the biggest local issue for about 50 years—the doubling of the number of houses in the constituency—has been taken entirely out of their hands? It is being decided at regional level and through an urban development corporation with the approval of only a minority of elected councillors. What happens to local democracy in those circumstances?
Ms Walley: Anyone who knows my record will be aware that I am a proud defender of the rights of local democracies and, indeed, of local councillors. It is important that planning is conducted within a national as well as a regional framework. It is important that we get the balance right.
We have had many reports—the Rogers report, for example—various consultation documents, and other reports from the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but the time for talk is now effectively over. It is now time for delivery. I cannot therefore stress enough the importance of the Minister's ability to cross Departments. Various recommendations have resulted from the work of the various taskforces and the many people across the country who have given freely of their time to influence what should be done: now is the time to put them into action. That is crucial.
Neighbourhoods are also an important issue. I come from an area that has a very strong sense of neighbourhood. People place high value on the public realm and their local communities, whether it be in respect of parks, play spaces or local services such as rubbish collection or the maintenance of shared areas. It is a matter of concern when national surveys have revealed that 40 per cent. of people would like to move from poorer areas because they feel that the neighbourhood conditions are not right. That is why I greatly welcome the housing renewal programme, which the Government have introduced. It will apply in north Staffordshire and I urge the Minister to ensure that we get it in place as quickly as possible and link it to regional planning and economic development issues.
I was struck by Members' comments about antisocial behaviour. I have been involved in many research studies, and in my experience it is the issue that matters more than any other to many people. I noticed my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan), who has successfully piloted the Fireworks Bill through the House, in his place earlier. Some antisocial behaviour could result from not yet having dealt with the previous Government's abolition of controls on the importation of fireworks. Antisocial behaviour often makes people move from inner-city areas to greener places where we should not be building, so we must ensure that we build sustainable communities in urban areas.
It is often only a small minority of people who cause much antisocial behaviour. Whether it results from insufficient drug rehabilitation places, insufficient parenting skills, a continuing cycle of deprivation or whatever, we must deal with the problem, because feeling safe in the community is more important than anything else.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the role that street lighting can play in tackling antisocial behaviour. The Home Office has tended to invest large

691
sums in closed circuit television cameras on the grounds that they can play a large role in reducing antisocial behaviour. I have to say that the contribution that CCTV cameras can make depends on monitoring within the local authority. Research undertaken by the all-party lighting group showed that more effective street lighting could play a bigger role. Such lighting need not be polluting, which might make it unwelcome in some rural countryside areas. New technology exists to get round that problem. I firmly believe that effective street lighting could make a huge difference.
Mr. Edward Davey: To back up the hon. Lady's point, CCTV was introduced on the Cambridge road estate in the Norbiton ward in my constituency. The high-tech CCTV was in place, but parts of the estate were not sufficiently lit. That shows that there was no joint thinking, which would have ensured that the lighting was adequate. We need a dual approach with both cameras and proper lighting.
Ms Walley: I am glad to have the opportunity to commend the work that the hon. Gentleman has done for the all-party street lighting group. If a local authority cannot afford to employ sufficient people to monitor its cameras, or if blind spots are caused by insufficient street lighting or overgrown trees in summer, CCTV will make no difference to antisocial behaviour and may merely displace it from one area to another. That shows the need for proper communication between the Government and local authorities to ensure sufficient assessment of street lighting, where it is failing and where it needs to be replaced. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to remind the Treasury that funding must also be available—I am happy to say that we have private finance initiative funding for the whole of Stoke-on-Trent to be relit—throughout the whole country.
Mr. Andrew Turner: The problem is that CCTV is merely treating the symptom. I understand why people want the symptom to be treated, but we need to treat the disease. Will the hon. Lady explain, if she can, on behalf of Ministers who have not yet explained it, how we can treat the disease of antisocial behaviour, rather than merely the symptoms?
Ms Walley: We were promised at the outset that this would be a far-ranging debate and that is what it has turned into. We need to consider the whole issue of how we address antisocial behaviour. One good news story in Stoke-on-Trent is the sure start programme, which has reached out to young people. It gives both men and women parenting skills and provides toy libraries, and advice on proper nutrition and on proper parental behaviour. It links with nursery provision in the area and it helps young children. However, it is older children who contribute so much to the senseless yobbish behaviour that undermines our communities. Drug addiction is one problem, and we need to combat nationally the increasing amount of drugs entering the country and the hopelessness they bring. At the weekend, I drove through parts of the country that I do not know very well—former coalfield areas outside north Staffordshire—where traditional jobs have been
692
taken away and have not yet been fully replaced, and that is why I support what the Minister said about economic security. We need to work with regional development agencies to provide the investment that we need on the ground to create new jobs. People in my constituency have lost their jobs in the ceramic industry because their jobs have been outsourced. We need to address those issues quickly, but in a way that is well thought out and works across the board.
Play issues are also important. Twenty years ago, local authorities had clear responsibilities to provide parks, but investment over the years has not been what it should have been. I pay tribute to the Government for setting up the working party on play, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I am proud to say that the working party's report was launched at a conference held by the Landscape Institute at Vale Park conference centre in my constituency. It is very important that we provide good play areas for children and proper areas for young people.
Stoke-on-Trent city council advises me of a major problem, in that the majority of funding for play comes from external funding sources, including the neighbourhood renewal fund, the children's fund, the new opportunities better play programme, positive action for young people, community cohesion or learning and skills councils. Local authorities have a real problem deciding which source to apply to for what purpose. The Government also need to ensure security of funding so that it does not dry up after a scheme has been running for three years. We also need the chance to follow up pilot projects with mainstream projects. It is no good setting up neighbourhood management teams with neighbourhood renewal funds if, three years later, the funds are not available to continue that work. It makes recruitment difficult if people are uncertain about how long their jobs will last.
Mr. Meale: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to pay tribute to local authorities of all political persuasions for their work on biodiversity? Some 5,000 local authorities throughout Europe have participated fully in Agenda 21, at a local level in their communities and through education programmes.
Ms Walley: Last Wednesday, I was invited to launch a conference entitled "Sustainable Staffordshire", held to celebrate the 10th anniversary of a group, which included people from businesses, local authorities and other organisations, set up to carry out the work of Agenda 21. I had helped to set up the group and it invited me back to celebrate its anniversary. At the conference, I was able to report back from the Johannesburg world summit. As the Environmental Audit Committee has done many times, we were able to examine how the issue of environmental sustainability should be part and parcel of the process of regeneration. Every regeneration proposal must have regard to biodiversity and the real issues raised by the action plan from the Johannesburg world summit, which built on the progress achieved after the Rio earth summit some 10 years ago. For example, the Government have announced today a review of English Nature and we need to ensure that what is put in its place pays proper regard to issues of sustainability. That will also require the Government to work with local authorities.

693
The citizenship scheme that the Government have introduced in schools can play an important part in ensuring that our young people understand our agenda. Huge gains can be made by providing proper funding for sport. I note the concerns that the full amount of funding from the Treasury has not reached the Football Foundation, which provides partnership funding for sport at a local level, together with the premiership and other funding sources, such as the lottery. I urge the Minister to check with her colleagues at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that promised funding is allocated in its entirety.
I supported the post office network reinvention programme, because I know how important post offices are to so many urban and rural areas. I would be grateful if the Minister worked closely with the Post Office on the implementation of that programme, which I understood would look strategically at where post offices were needed to ensure access for local communities, in a similar way to the process that provided extra money for rural post offices. My area still has many urban villages—former mining communities—and the Post Office has taken the easy way out. For example, it has closed the post office in Ball Green, despite huge opposition and before strategic consideration of what is needed. I do not think that the Post Office is abiding by the letter of what was agreed. Visiting the post office means that one meets people and feels part of the community. The sense of belonging is really important.
I am conscious of the time, so I will raise only two more issues. The first has to do with back alleys. In the 21st century, it is not right that so many people in terraced properties should find themselves ankle deep in mud when they go out of their back door because the alley has not been adopted. I have spent eight years campaigning on this matter. I have gone to the local government office, to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and to the regional development agencies and the local authorities, but with no success, as there is no dedicated funding for adopted alleys. I am sure that many of my constituents would welcome designated funding to adopt all the unadopted alleys—for instance, as part of the housing renewal programme.
Finally, I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister when she said that the most deprived communities are often the ones with the largest needs. I want to end with a plea. Stoke-on-Trent city council has applied for a share of the £200 million liveability fund. I pay great tribute to the work done by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment in helping local authorities draw up proposals, but only three of the 28 applicants for the liveability fund in the west midlands will be successful.
Stoke-on-Trent has suffered huge job losses and urban deprivation. Genuine desire for improvement was expressed at the conference launched by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, and a plea was made that my local authority's application should be successful. I met Mr. Phillip Harper, the director of urban management recently appointed by the council manager for Stoke-on-Trent city council. I understand that two weeks ago Mr. Harper had a special meeting with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and other departmental Ministers to talk about the wonderful work that had been done in
694
Middlesbrough. It is clear that Mr. Harper could administer any money received as a result of a successful liveability fund application. I know that the Government are to make an announcement early this month. I cannot stress how important a winning application would be to my constituents.
2.12 pm
Matthew Green: I am pleased that the Government have arranged this wide-ranging debate. Like the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), I want to be as positive as possible when it comes to proposing solutions to some of the problems that exist. I do not want to copy the style of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), who spent 27 minutes talking about problems, and one minute skating over a few solutions.
A regular feature of the contributions so far has been the issue of antisocial behaviour and low-level crime. The Minister was right to touch on the roots of those problems. In particular, the 1980s were a period when the sense of community broke down. It was replaced with a much more individualistic approach, when belonging to a community became much less important.
Cultivating a sense of community is one of the most effective ways to reduce antisocial behaviour. I speak with some knowledge, as there is practically no such behaviour in my constituency. I served on the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, but I think that I have received only two letters on the subject since I became a Member of Parliament. I realise that that is not a common experience among hon. Members, but why should that be?
In my constituency, there is a very strong sense of local community. That is partly because the communities involved are small and widely dispersed, and we do not suffer from the problems that have emerged elsewhere. Conservative Members need to address the fact that the breakdown in the sense of community is one of the main reasons why antisocial behaviour is such a large problem. Many of the Government's solutions are sticking plasters applied in an attempt to paper over the damage. We must try to rebuild that sense of community.
It has rightly been said that the problem of graffiti is a blight on many communities. Graffiti wears down people's sense of well being in their community, and probably encourage crime. Liberal Democrat Members supported the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill's provision on graffiti, but councils have been able to act effectively even before those provisions have been introduced. No one has all the solutions, and we need to look at best practices.
Milton Keynes council decided that graffiti was one of the most serious problems in the area, and residents wanted the matter dealt with. The council set up graffiti-busting teams, and there are now about 2,000 fewer tags or problems with graffiti than was the case two years ago. The teams act very promptly, and deal with a problem as soon as it is identified. They have tackled the existing problem with graffiti, and the number of incidents involving graffiti in the future is likely to be lower. Councils in general could learn from that.
Kingston council, in the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), has adopted a holistic approach. It has worked

695
with magistrates and police to produce joined-up initiatives, and a dramatic reduction in graffiti has been achieved.
I have presented two examples of positive action by local councils, but I am sure that other hon. Members know of others. They would be doing the House a service if they described them.
Dealing with crime sometimes requires more than a big stick. The design of local communities is also very important. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North spoke about back alleys. In Liverpool, locks and gates have been placed on back alleys, and residents have been given the keys. As a result. they have control over the alleys, and the policy has had a dramatic effect in cutting crime. Sometimes, the simplest solutions are the most effective. The one that I have just described is also very cheap, but it has worked very well.
Ian Lucas: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the biggest difficulties when it comes to dealing with antisocial behaviour, or what has been called learnable crime, is that agencies such as the police, local authorities, community councils do not talk to each other? Straightforward solutions are missed as a result.
Matthew Green: My immediate response is that, if those agencies are not speaking to each other, it must be the role of the local MP to ensure that they begin to do so. Perhaps matters are different in the hon. Gentleman's area. If local agencies in my area were not in touch with each other, I would make sure that they got together and spoke to each other. I would not let them get away with not doing so. It is possible for MPs to have an influence in that way.
One difficulty with antisocial behaviour is that the Government's approach has been to vilify young people. In effect, the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill says that young people are the problem and that a solution can be achieved by hitting them harder with a stick. Some elements of the Bill are necessary and welcome, but the proposal in respect of the dispersal of groups is unacceptable. At its worst, the Bill will punish innocent people for the misbehaviour of others, as those innocent people will be the ones to be dispersed from an area when problems are caused by outsiders. That approach will cause young people to have less regard and respect for their communities and for the forces of law and order. It is not an approach that the Government should be following.
Mr. Edward Davey: On the Sunray estate in Tolworth in my constituency, we have the problem of youth gangs committing antisocial behaviour and terrorising some of the residents. Last week, I held a meeting with local police who told me that they did not want to criminalise young people but to find diversion tactics—other ways to reach out to them and to find other things for them to do—as well as empower the residents so that they could link up and build the sort of community that is the only sure foundation for stopping such antisocial behaviour.
Matthew Green: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Perhaps the saving grace of the Anti-Social
696
Behaviour Bill is that the Association of Chief Police Officers has made it fairly clear that it thinks the police will never use the dispersal powers. Once again, we have a piece of legislation that will probably never be used.
Ian Lucas: May I share with the hon. Gentleman details of a case from my own constituency? A letter arrived on my desk yesterday morning from a lady who described how, due to the behaviour of between 25 and 30 young people in her area, she needed protection from the police. They asked her to contact me to make it clear that they wanted dispersal powers to deal with those incidents. Today, I shall write to her to let her know that the Liberal Democrats do not support such powers.
Matthew Green: We certainly do not support the dispersal powers that are currently set out. I am happy to defend that position.
Housing has been mentioned. The right to a roof over one's head is key to people's quality of life. I want to consider three aspects. The first is affordable housing to rent. As we have heard, there has been a decline—especially since 1997, as it happens—in the amount of new social housing that has been built, although that decline started as long ago as 1990. The number of new houses registered to social landlords has been in decline since then.
The situation is exacerbated by the continued existence of the right to buy, especially in areas of high housing demand. Local councils should be given the power to decide both whether right to buy should apply in their area and on the scale of the discount to be offered. That would stop the erosion of housing stock in high-demand areas.
Mr. Hammond: Selling a house under right to buy does not cause that house to be lost from the housing stock; it causes it to be occupied by exactly the same person who occupied it on the day before it was bought and who would have continued to occupy it on the day after it was bought even if it had not been bought.
Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman is clearly unaware of the number of cases of abuse of the right-to-buy system. People are encouraged to take up that right, but after a couple of years a company acquires the house. There is huge profiteering by people who are not the original tenants.
Richard Younger-Ross: My hon. Friend may be aware that in rural constituencies, former council houses in small villages have a high value. They can be sold on after four, five, six or 10 years at a large profit and are then lost to the social market.
Matthew Green: My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. My constituency is a rural one and affordable housing is the No. 1 issue. People want more homes to rent. The reason that there are fewer such homes is that too many of them were sold under the right to buy.
Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his objection is to abuse of the right to buy scheme and

697
not to the scheme per se? Earlier, he appeared to be saying that local authorities should be able to opt out of the right to buy.
Matthew Green: I said that by removing the discount local authorities would be able, in effect, to opt out. That is giving local choice to local communities, something to which I thought the Conservatives had converted themselves over recent months—to the shock of many of us: local solutions for local problems.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Another aspect of local choice for local communities is that of who should be on their housing list. My constituents complain furiously that people come from the mainland and are housed in my constituency. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Liberal Democrats support the right of local authorities to determine who should be on their housing list?
Matthew Green: I have to point out that Tory asylum policy is to find an island, as yet unspecified, on which to stick all asylum seekers. With that in mind, the hon. Gentleman should be wary of talking about housing and incomers.
We need more registered social landlord properties, and they can be delivered through the planning system. Several local authorities, including one in my area, have adopted a policy requirement of 50 per cent. affordable homes on sites of two or more houses. That is much higher than the Government's recommendation of 30 per cent. affordable homes on sites of 19 or more. In areas of high demand, especially around London and in the south-east, I encourage the Government to push the figure up to 50 per cent. on sites of two or more houses. In that way, the market can deliver extra rented homes.
We also need affordable houses to buy. The rampant growth in house prices means that in large parts of the country few people can afford to get on to the housing ladder. In London and the south-east, the problem affects key workers. In rural areas such as mine, where wages are low but house prices have risen due to people retiring to the area, local working families can no longer afford to get on to the ladder.
I offer a positive solution. It was dreamed up by South Shropshire district council and has already been adopted in the Dartmoor national park: the use of the golden share scheme, under arrangements set out in section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to ensure that when a property is built it is bought, at a reduced amount, by people who qualify as local and who need to live in the area because they have local links or work there. However, when they sell the property it cannot go on to the open market; there are restraints under section 106 so that it remains affordable in perpetuity. The system was introduced in south Shropshire in January.
The Minister may not know about the scheme in detail, so I shall not ask her for an instant response, but I urge to look into it. It offers a way to create a middle tier of affordable housing whereby people can own 100 per cent. of their property with no shared equity. Such houses remain affordable for local families.
Houses should also be affordable to live in. The Government could do much more to improve building regulations to ensure that energy use is reduced, through
698
measures such as the incorporation of natural light and heating in the design of houses. If they were serious about the introduction of micro combined heat and power plants to serve all properties with a gas supply—about 70 per cent. of UK houses—they could replace nuclear power within the next 15 years, as long as they allow net metering. That would produce a dramatic effect; cheaper heat and light will make homes more affordable to live in. There is much that the Government can do about that and I hope to hear positive things from the Minister.
We have already discussed post offices, but pharmacies are also under threat. The quality of life in local communities depends on local post offices and local pharmacies. We cannot do without them. The Government must find a way of reversing their course on post offices. We want more post offices to open and to protect the ones that we have already, not the continual decline first of rural and then of urban post offices. Before it is too late, the Government must stop taking the same route in relation to pharmacies. We must protect small, local pharmacies.
Much can be done to encourage small shops; for example, by changes to the uniform business rate. The car parks of large out-of-town supermarkets are, in effect, untaxed, because the business rate is levied only on the building and not the car park. If we changed the taxation system so that it took account of land value rather than rateable value, supermarkets could be taxed on their extremely profitable large car parks and small shops in towns would pay lower taxes—[Interruption.] It is, in fact, Liberal policy.
We have heard about facilities for children. Sure start is a success, which we need to build on, and the Government ought to be making announcements about increasing the extent of that initiative. We also need a coherent policy about play areas and green areas. After all, under Conservative Governments, playing fields were sold off. We need to protect playing fields and local councils need to register them.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Matthew Green: I will not because I am going on—not yet for quite so long as the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge.
I also want to touch on rural areas, as hon. Members might imagine given my constituency. The Government have introduced the term, "rural-proofing". I welcome it, but they need to show what it means. I shall give an example from my constituency. We have a community—Bishop's Castle—that hit the highest level on all the Countryside Agency's sheets of the most deprived areas. The people there have been trying to get together a sports and arts facility, which is much needed because anyone in Bishop's Castle has to make a 20-mile round trip to get to one of those facilities. The Government have so far failed to find any route to help to fund that facility. Bishop's Castle is in a rural regeneration zone and has objective 2 status, but such facilities do not meet any of the necessary funding criteria, although, quite frankly, people are deprived by not having them.

699
In rural areas, social exclusion for the young and elderly is very much dictated by the complete lack of transport provision. Many parts of my constituency have no bus service, and some of them have a bus service that comes once a week. That shows the level of the problem. How can people enjoy a coherent lifestyle if they are reliant on that?
I want to finish by considering what the Government need to do to improve the quality of life for local communities. As I have said before, local problems need local solutions, so the Government need to devolve as much power as possible to local communities. They need to take power from Westminster to the regions and local councils. That decentralisation will empower local communities and allow them to make the choices and decisions that work in their areas. None of us has a magic one-size-fits-all solution, and if people pretend that they have, they are, quite frankly, barking mad.
We also need to revitalise local democracy. Proportional representation for local elections—we hope that it will be introduced in Scotland shortly—would have a major impact, by ending the monopoly one-party states that we see in local government, and that can be said of all parties.
Siobhain McDonagh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Matthew Green: I will not give way because I have taken some time and I am now winding up.
The Government also need to enable the provision of first tier councils—community councils—where they are wanted, even in urban areas. If people decide, perhaps in a local referendum, that they want a low-level council, let them have one. My constituency is entirely parished—there are first-tier councils throughout my constituency—but other hon. Members will have none in theirs. Very often, such councils can be the most effective way to deliver local solutions.
Finally—this has been touched on—what will really make a difference to the quality of life of many people in our local communities, particularly pensioners, is giving them extra income in their hands. Scrapping the unfair council tax and replacing it with a tax based on ability to pay would give those on low incomes more money. The Conservatives introduced the council tax in 1991, and the fact that their spokesman has said nothing about it confirms that they still support the council tax. They obviously still think that it is a fair tax. Council tax is no longer sustainable, and we have heard the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire say that that it is approaching the level of unsustainability.
The Government are now considering local income tax as part of the balance of funding review, but the day after that was announced by the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire, the Prime Minister announced in his monthly press conference that the Government will never introduce local income tax. The Deputy Prime Minister and all the Ministers under him are clearly open-minded about local income tax, but they have already been overruled by No. 10, saying that they cannot do it. I would very much welcome the Minister clarifying in her winding-up
700
speech whether the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister would be able to persuade No. 10 that local income tax should be introduced if the balance of funding review recommends it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Limited time is available to the debate, which covers a broad canvas, as has been acknowledged. I hope that not all hon. Members whom I call will wish to cover its entire breadth.
2.35 pm
Dr. Alan Whitehead: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was indeed going to commence my remarks with the observation that the title of the debate could be treated not as a subject but as a coat hanger on which various coats could be placed, so as long as hon. Members put at the end of each metaphorical coat the words "the quality of life for local communities". In that respect, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) did not disappoint. Indeed, he covered a huge area on that basis.
I should like to talk not just about the quality of life in local communities, but about the role of Government in enhancing it. Of course, as the hon. Gentlemen reflected, that is a huge subject, encompassing the health of our environment, the planning and organisation of our cities, the investment that we might make in sport and culture, the way that we deal with the housing needs of our population and the way that people can transport themselves around to get to those amenities, and so on.
I very much welcome the debate, broad ranging though it may be, because it signifies the coming together of joined-up government. Addressing the quality of life in local communities is, frankly, something that, historically, Governments have not done, and it is still fair to say that it is regarded as something of a fluffy issue; it is not really the stuff of high politics. Governments of the right traditionally have not addressed the issue. They have agreed that the market will sort it out and that the role of the Government is to maintain basic order, to hold the ring or, to extend the metaphor slightly using Roy Hattersley's telling phrase,
"to hold the ring while the biggest and best trained boxers beat the smaller and less trained boxers to a pulp."
However, even where Governments of the left have considered that holding the ring was not enough and that one needed to intervene positively through governance to change the conditions in which people lived because the market itself would not do so, the intervention was, historically, essentially restricted to bricks and mortar.
As we have heard this afternoon, bricks and mortar are very important. Whether we have a roof over our head counts rather a lot in our quality of life. If we have a roof over our head, whether we can have locally available to us a doctor's surgery, a post office, amenities for entertainment, shops and so on also count. Even if we have all those, whether we can get to them matters too—for example, people may not have cars.
Mr. Hammond: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that perhaps quality of life is a better indicator

701
of how Government should distribute funding than some of the cruder underlying indices? For example, that measure that would recognise explicitly that people living in materially more affluent areas of the country might also suffer some downsides from living in those high-pressure, economic growth areas. That seems to be something positive that we can reach for in the debate.
Dr. Whitehead: If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, he might be pleasantly surprised. Rather than responding to that point in particular, I hope to develop my argument a little.
The design of our communities is very important, but other intangible factors are at work, governing the quality of life in our communities. For example, the health of our communities depends not only on the important building blocks of the physical arrangement of the environment, but on the less tangible world of the provision of public goods. I refer to goods in the sense that they are goods, instead of bads. That is often a fragile raft. Sometimes communities with relatively poor physical provision of amenities can thrive, whereas others with better provision can occasionally flounder, and who can be said to have the better quality of life thereby?
Communities that flourish will, for example, be those with a high degree of what we might call social capital—the glue that binds people together; the richness of community associations; the web of sports clubs, allotment societies, mother and toddler groups; or even more informal social contacts that enhance mutual support and improve the quality of life in those communities.
I recently met groups of semi-randomly invited constituents to discuss quality of life. Among many other topics in the discussion, I asked them one central question, which could be considered as a positive or a negative: what one thing would most improve the quality of their life if they consider that they have a good quality of life; or what one aspect of their life that they might lose would most damage that quality of life? Those who consider that their quality of life might improve tend to mention specific things that might help: for example, accessibility of services. Those answering the negative questions, however, say that the biggest single thing that would reduce their quality of life would be to be suddenly deprived of their friends, neighbours and community.
Where do Governments come into this? It seems to me that they come into it in a number of ways on which I believe our Government are beginning to gain traction. First, there is the question of bricks and mortar, which is a contentious issue in itself. It is not enough simply to provide: we need to think publicly about how to provide and in what way we provide. My mind was cast back to an interesting statement made in 1929 by the architect Le Corbusier:
"We must never … lose sight of the perfect human 'Cell', the cell which corresponds most perfectly to our physiological and sentimental needs. We must arrive at the 'house-machine', which must be both practical and emotionally satisfying and designed for a succession of tenants. The idea of the 'old home' disappearing and with it local architecture, etc., for labour will shift about as needed, and must be ready to move, bag and baggage."
That essentially describes the layout of many of our towns and cities today. We still have the legacy of Le Corbusier with us in terms of high-rise blocks, the
702
soulless centres of our cities, and the way in which that design of our cities has removed community rather than enhanced it. It is therefore not without significance that the Government's plan for a radical increase in house building in the south-east of England is called not a plan to build houses but the communities plan. That plan appreciates in a way that Le Corbusier and his disciples signally failed to do that communities must be sustained and must work, and that a key role of Governments is to provide the wherewithal to make that happen.
It is interesting to look at a number of research projects into how communities can be seen to work in terms of how urban areas are designed. A study in San Francisco made a clear correlation between the location of particular houses, the number of friends and social contacts that inhabitants of those houses had and the extent to which those houses could be involved or less involved in their communities. Houses that were, for example, on the edge of dual carriageways or in the middle of busy intersections had less social contacts, whereas houses that were designed in areas where community interaction was possible had much higher levels of social contact and interaction.
That brings me to an apparently ephemeral although important issue, certainly in terms of the debate on antisocial behaviour: trust in communities. It is interesting that the Government's strategy unit document on social capital considered, perhaps curiously, that measuring the degree to which people trust strangers in communities might be a good index of the extent to which communities work. It is interesting to make international comparisons of responses to the question, "Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted, or that you cannot be too careful when dealing with people?" As a nation, we come badly down the list—31 per cent. of us answer positively to that question, whereas in countries such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Canada, more than 50 per cent. of people answer positively to that question. There are also substantial differences within the United Kingdom in terms of who answers positively to those questions.
In that context, work on ensuring that people feel safe in their environment and are able to trust people and use amenities in their communities without being in fear of their personal safety or being afflicted by neighbours from hell, is important. It seems to me that the underlying idea of much work on antisocial behaviour is not simply to stop antisocial behaviour but to build a more positive aim: to ensure that there is trust within communities and that people are able to go about their business and make use of their communities, therefore enhancing publicly the quality of life in communities, because people are not too afraid to use community facilities in the first place.
It is interesting to consider in that context the Palo Alto experiment, which took place a little while ago in America. A number of researchers left a number of cars with the bonnet up—or, as they would say in America, the hood—in different parts of America. They then observed how long it took before the car was taken to pieces. In some of the six different locations, the car was taken to pieces within two hours. In Palo Alto, however, not only was the car not taken to pieces but, after two days, when the researchers got thoroughly fed up with hiding behind a bush watching the car and came out and drove it away, the researchers were reported to the local

703
police on the grounds that they were acting suspiciously. That sort of index of how communities work, whether they work well and whether there is trust and safety in communities, is vital in relation to discussions of how Governments can make a change in the quality of life in communities.
Of course, the role that Governments have under those circumstances is different from the traditional one of doing things and making things happen. Instead, the role is one of capacity building, providing opportunities for communities to work, supporting communities when they do work, making sure that measures are available for communities to build and sustain themselves, and making sure that those work. It is also about ensuring that the needs of the environment and the people are held in balance. When we debate the question of building more houses, is the issue simply that we should not build any more houses in certain places because the quality of life of particular people will be degraded? Alternatively, if we are trying to build communities as well as housing estates, does such a public good require a public discussion about how it works?
The rewards in terms of better public health, community cohesion and less crime, which underpin and support the capacity building of communities in terms of their social capital, are considerable. They are not easily measurable by traditional means, however, and certainly not by numerical targets, which some have attempted to use. Such projects and programmes are perhaps also unattractive to Governments because the results do not turn up in six months, they do not give good headlines, and they take many years to turn around and change communities. I commend the Government, in relation to their communities programme and other proposals, on resisting the temptation to opt for short-term gain and on investing in the long-term future in making these changes to how communities work and how they do so effectively.
It is essential that Governments go down this route, because unless we find ways of supporting and building capacity in our communities, and of joining up government to do it, the inevitable consequence is the Le Corbusian vision of the isolated worker and individual—in their community but not of their community—simply going about their business and not doing anything else with their lives. It seems to me that communities are the heart and the stuff of life of our country, and supporting them, thereby enhancing the quality of life of those communities, is an essential role for Government to undertake.
2.48 pm
Mr. Andrew Turner: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead). I do not propose to compete with him in thoughtfulness, but his was a thoughtful speech which I will read again with care after this debate is over.
My constituency has a wonderful quality of life—let there be no doubt about that. Consequently, my constituents do not, in the words of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), who is no longer in her place, want a Member of Parliament who wants to
704
change the world, even for the better. They want a Member of Parliament, a local authority, and most particularly in this context, a Government, who will not get in the way of their enjoyment of their quality of life and will not diminish the quality of life that they enjoy. Many of them subscribe to the view that I have outlined several times, which I shall repeat once more, that no problem in the world is so great that Governments, of any colour, cannot make it worse.
The key factor that determines people's quality of life is how well and comfortable they feel in their communities, and I shall examine several of the points made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test with that in mind. He did not identify why communities in Norway, Sweden and Denmark were so trusting—perhaps he did not know. He did not identify which communities in this country are more trusting than others. I do not have any evidence to identify those communities either because I did not know that he was going to mention them, but I shall hazard a guess. The communities that are most trusting are those that are the smallest and most stable. There is confidence in Norway, Denmark and Sweden, which is not shared in all parts of this country—I cannot speak for Canada at all—since there is more community cohesion in those countries because of cultural homogeneity and for reasons of stability.
We must carefully address the extent to which our communities are changing and the speed at which that is happening. I have a lot of information about that because many people choose to move to my constituency from London, other metropolitan areas and parts of the country that would have been regarded as pleasant suburban areas until quite recently. Many people no longer feel happy in such places, so they have moved to my constituency and other parts of the south of England, especially. They move not only for the wonderful weather that we enjoy but because they are dissatisfied with the areas that they counted as home before they moved. When such people arrive in my constituency and enjoy the quality of life there, they become worried about the well-being of their friends, daughters and sons who remain in metropolitan areas.
There are two key problems in metropolitan areas about which we must be clear: the cost of housing and the quality of public services. The Government are right to try to address those, although they have chosen the wrong route in some instances. Conservative Members are right to identify the problems as key issues, too. The factors that drive people out of metropolitan areas to areas such as mine are the quality of public services, schools and hospitals, the cleanliness of streets, the amount of graffiti present and the fear of crime.
A further problem is overcrowding, and part of that problem is associated with migration and alienation. People are becoming alienated from the communities in which they have often lived all their lives. If areas change rapidly, as change they do, people start to feel insecure and choose to move. There is large pressure on London and south-east England owing to migration. The Government accept that there are 100,000 migrants a year, while organisations such as Migration Watch UK suggest that there are 200,000, so a new town the size of Slough is required in the already overcrowded southeast every one or two years. Given that, I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, appreciate why people move

705
from such areas and why they worry about overcrowding. We must address the stability of communities.
We must consider the quality and calibre of local government and its ability not to interfere or intervene, but to set the right priorities. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) talked about where money to fund local government should come from. It is easy to propose a different taxation system—we did that twice when we were in government—but the taxation system does not make a difference to overall demands on the local public purse. The quality of decisions taken by local councillors makes the difference because they have to balance the amount that they take from the public and are given by the Government with the amount that they choose to spend on providing what are hopefully good quality public services.
Irrespective of whether local income tax, the rates system, the community charge or the council tax is used, there must be a means of redistribution to areas with greater need or fewer resources from areas with less need or greater resources, as my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said in reply to my intervention. It is not wholly honest to suggest changing the system unless the method of distributing resources among local authorities is also considered. I am glad that the hon. Member for Ludlow is now listening to me. Perhaps he would like to tell us how the system of distributing money among local authorities could be reformed, because it is that system that matters, not the means of taxation.
Matthew Green: However a local government finance system is created, there will have to be some money redistributed from the centre to balance it out. Irrespective of whether houses or local income are used as the basis of the tax, a redistribution system will be needed. The details of such a system have managed to mess up Ministers with responsibility for local government throughout history, so I would not dream of outlining them during a mere intervention.
Mr. Hammond rose—
Mr. Turner: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ludlow for his honesty. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will help him further.
Mr. Hammond: I would not dream of trying to help the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green). Does my hon. Friend agree that given the hon. Gentleman's admission that the so-called local income tax would have to be redistributed nationally, it would be nothing more than a Liberal Democrat stealth increase in the basic income tax?
Mr. Turner: Indeed, it would be. I think that the Liberal Democrats admit that their proposal would lead to a 25 per cent. increase in income tax for most people in this country.
Richard Younger-Ross: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The system would effectively move money away from the national income tax pot toward the local
706
income tax. Most people would therefore experience no difference. The system would lead to savings because of lower collection costs.
Mr. Turner: If the only advantage of the local income tax that the hon. Gentleman can put forward is that it would change collection costs and that a lot of jobs would be lost in many local authorities—perhaps that would be justifiable, however—he is not getting us very far. A local income tax capped at 5 per cent., which I believe to be the Liberal Democrats' proposal, would represent a 20 per cent. increase in income tax for everyone throughout the country on average. What matters is not the way in which the tax is collected but how the Government distribute money between rich local authorities, such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, and poor local authorities such as mine. It is no good for the Liberal Democrats to propose a local income tax as if it is a magic wand, because the distribution method of the revenue support grant must be right if a difference is to be made.
Richard Younger-Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Turner: I shall not, if I may.
It makes good sense to spend locally—that is an equally important consideration. If a local authority such as mine were advised by the county treasurer that it needed an 11 per cent. council tax increase to meet the effects of last year's Government redistribution, it could say, "But we're not getting enough money from the Government". I could then say that I would lead a delegation to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the relevant Minister could generously give us an additional £1 million—as he did—with more to come in future years. If those who run my local authority then said, as they did, "Well, that's wonderful. Now we'll put the tax up by 14 per cent.", they would not be exercising careful control on their expenditure.
Dr. Whitehead: Bearing in mind the hon. Gentleman's strictures about good sense when it comes to spending in local communities, and his view that a local income tax is a bad idea, would his party approve of returning the setting of the business rate to the discretion of the local community?
Mr. Turner: I suspect that my party would not approve of that, for the good reason that some local authorities drove businesses out of their areas before the nationalisation of the business rate. I am sorry that that solution had to be adopted, but business could not afford the taxation placed on it. That had a detrimental effect in the long run on the economy and jobs in local communities.
If local authorities are to set the level of local tax, and I believe they should, that brings with it the responsibility of applying common sense to the taxes they set. To do that, they must identify priorities, which sometimes involves making difficult decisions. Sometimes the priority is to keep public lavatories open, as the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) reminded us. At other times, it is to provide a bus shelter, as on the Pan estate in my constituency, which

707
my local authority told me it did not have enough money to do, or to provide litter bins on the seafront at Sandown, something else that my local authority told me it did not have enough money to do. It could involve not providing a cycle track that costs £600,000 or a pop concert that costs £400,000, two of the things that my local authority, which does not have enough money for litter bins, bus shelters and public lavatories, has provided.
Making such decisions requires sense among local politicians and that requires effective accountability. When they stand for election, they must set out what they intend to do and be held accountable for that. If they do that and are accountable at the end of those four years, we will have a much better quality of life and of local government.
3.2 pm
Siobhain McDonagh: I do not feel as challenged as some to discover a definition of quality of life. My constituents are clear about what affects their quality of life. I accept that it is the view of suburban south-west London, but what reduces their quality of life, whether they are owner-occupiers, council tenants, private tenants or people who have bought under the right to buy, is the antisocial behaviour of other people in their area. People tell me that graffiti, abandoned cars, noise nuisance and the state of the parks affect their quality of life.
Such problems are often laughed at. Every time the Government attempt to have a crackdown on chewing gum on pavements or litter in the streets, a national newspaper laughs at them, presumably because the journalists do not suffer from the same problems, but any Back Bencher from any party would agree that those are significant issues for their constituents. From their connection with their communities, MPs know that those things seriously affect people's lives.
I congratulate the Government on being brave enough to take on some of those problems, for saying that something needs to be done and to consider changing the law. Although changing the law in itself does not resolve the problem, it might help to bring about a different climate that clearly states what is and is not acceptable behaviour. Perhaps those requirements were not necessary before because we all agreed on what was the right thing to do. Years ago, we all accepted that sticking a mattress or three-piece suite out on the street and expecting the council to collect it was not right. Unfortunately, today, we have to say those things clearly and boldly.
Shifting people's opinions will not happen this year or next year. We need a long-term effort to make all of us respect the quality of life of others. The invisible pendulum between the individual and the community has swung too far in favour of us the individual rather than us the community. That goes for people no matter what their housing tenure or whether they are wealthy or not. One of the most insulting things I often hear, although people do not mean it to be, is the suggestion
708
that antisocial behaviour exists only on council estates. For me, it exists everywhere, irrespective of income, perhaps to lesser or greater degrees.
Mr. Hammond: Does the hon. Lady see the breakdown of respect in communities as one issue that affects antisocial behaviour? I was struck by something said earlier about people engaging within their communities. Surely the problem is that people are reluctant to engage when they see antisocial behaviour because they have no real sanction to apply and cannot expect to receive respect for the position they take.
Siobhain McDonagh: That brings me back to the idea that things have swung so far in the interests of the individual that we find it difficult to say absolutely and clearly what is right and wrong, and we expect a backlash if we try to do something about such behaviour. The hon. Gentleman is right that people are fearful of checking others because they worry that the authorities will not do anything to help. That is why I congratulate the Government on introducing legislation to deal with what are often seen as small issues. It is right that policing priorities include such problems and that authorities have to take them seriously. One local police inspector told me, "The calls I get are about antisocial behaviour. My chief inspector never calls me in to discuss antisocial behaviour. He wants to talk about robberies and burglary. If only I could deal with some of the small things, I am sure we would find that we could tackle the larger ones."
I carried out a survey of my constituents to discover their views on the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill. I wanted to ensure that I was getting it right and representing their views. I was also highly disturbed by Liberal Democrat comments on how it was wrong to move on gangs of youths on street corners. I tested my approach by writing to 2,000 constituents. I set out the Bill's major themes and asked them for their views. The response to that consultation was larger than any I had received before. Indeed, so many questionnaires were returned that one morning I could not open the door to the office.
The results were telling. More than 90 per cent. of respondents supported the toughest measures, including the banning of spray paints to under-18s, giving the police powers to move on intimidating gangs of young people, and imposing fixed-penalty fines for graffiti on anyone aged 10 and above. The support existed across the constituency from people in all tenures of housing and from all income groups.
Richard Younger-Ross: The problem with the dispersal laws is that young people have become an object of fear to older people, whether they are a threat or not. The proposals are in danger of alienating law-abiding young people from doing what young people like to do, which is sitting around talking and having a yak. The police were called out a few years ago in my constituency to a serious drug incident on the seafront at Teignmouth because an elderly person had seen young people snorting coke. When the police investigated, they discovered that they had lemon sherbets.
Siobhain McDonagh: I think that it was right that the police attended the call, and when they saw what was happening they were not going to move anybody on or

709
cause any problems. The Bill does not say that people can be moved on if they gather in one place or that gathering is prohibited; it applies only to cases in which antisocial behaviour is occurring.
It is a mistake to believe that antisocial behaviour is an issue for older people. Young people are more likely to be hurt or intimidated in the street. What would the hon. Gentleman say to the young man in Pollard's Hill in my constituency who is in his late teens and so fearful of the gangs who gather on his street corner that he feels that if he does not behave like them he will be attacked? He finds himself involved in behaviour that he wants no part of, but he feels that he needs to take part to protect himself.
Mr. Andrew Turner: I have every sympathy for that young man, and I do not disagree with some of the Bill's contents, but does not the hon. Lady accept that the Bill deals with the symptoms? How does she propose to deal with the causes?
Siobhain McDonagh: I do not agree. We are introducing a legal framework for what is, and is not, publicly acceptable, so we will see a change in behaviour. There is a law requiring people to wear a seatbelt, and most of us are law-abiding citizens, so we comply. There is a role for such legislation in a society where the forces of social control are changing.
Returning to prosaic matters, I want to thank the Government for taking up my idea about removing graffiti from street furniture owned by statutory undertakers—people who can dig up the roads. One thing that irritates me as an MP is receiving large, glossy brochures about social responsibility from big corporations that are not prepared to maintain their own street furniture. That failure leads to a reduction in the quality of life of my constituents.
When the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill completes its passage through the other place, I hope that it will say that such companies, which include the water boards, the Strategic Rail Authority, London Transport, Telewest and BT, have a responsibility to look after their street furniture, and that if they do not do so the council will step in and recharge them. I am excited that that will happen, and I am pleased that Merton will be one of the 12 pilot areas from 1 April. We will see how effective the measure can be. It is not about punishing those companies, but if we, as individuals, have responsibility, companies have a responsibility to look after their street furniture.
I am also delighted that the Government are tackling these issues through "alleygator" schemes. We all have experience of those highly successful schemes, whereby back alleys are blocked off, preventing fly tipping, stopping people gathering behind other people's homes and making the environment much safer. In one ward in my constituency that has an "alleygator" scheme, we saw a 65 per cent. reduction in domestic burglary. The schemes are a simple solution, and, if we can get the community together to talk about them, they have a tremendous knock-on effect in that people get to know their neighbours. It is right that people contribute to "alleygator" schemes. Our experience in Pollard's Hill is that people are more than happy to pay some of the cost of putting up the gates.
710
I know that, to some people, these issues are minor, but to our constituents they are not. Abandoned cars, which start out being an eyesore in the street and end up acting as torches when they are set alight, frighten everyone, so I am glad that the Government are to introduce a target for London next October that, after being reported, abandoned cars have to be removed in 72 hours.
The fact that we are debating these matters is a fantastic step forward and it shows that people's issues are taken seriously by this place. I urge the Minister and her right hon. and hon. Friends to ensure that their policies will be effective. The Government has provided enormous funds for youth services, Connexions services and the children's fund, and I am not convinced that the money is always spent wisely or properly. Sometimes, the basics are lacking; we get grand schemes when what young people want is a place to gather. We get services that are available from nine to five, when what communities want are evening and weekend facilities. We need to bear down on the organisations involved to ensure that they deliver for the people who pay for them to exist.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If those hon. Members who remain to speak in the debate confine their remarks to about seven minutes, it should be possible to accommodate them all.
3.15 pm
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: I commend the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for her remarks. She said that Government funds are not always being spent in the most effective way. I agree. Indeed, it is often the case that when the Government or other public bodies spend money, nationally or locally, those funds are used inappropriately and squandered.
That is why I believe that the best way forward for local communities is to have low taxes, including council tax, and more power for individuals and organisations to make their own decisions, as free from local government as possible. I served as a local councillor for 12 years prior to becoming a Member of Parliament. I also spent four years as a community area forum chairman. During my years on the London borough of Havering, I learned one thing very clearly—local democracy must be truly local. I am afraid to say that our current system does not help us.
I should like to focus on the meaning of what we are talking about when we discuss communities. I heard the Minister refer to neighbourhoods, communities, wards and parishes, and others have spoken of districts. What do we mean by all those different units? We have not defined a true local community. One of the basic problems is that we have not looked at boundaries. For local government and Parliament, the boundary commissions often create anomalies. In my constituency we have communities that are completely divided between boroughs and wards, just to make up numbers. Such anomalies create divisions in communities by splitting up natural neighbourhoods. I say to the Minister that we have to get right the boundaries before

711
we can get down to restoring pride to communities. I could give many examples from my own borough in which anomalies give rise to difficulties that could be avoided.
We need to encourage people to take pride in their communities. That means involving not only local councils and those of us who are elected to serve but people who are truly engaged at a local level. That means involving churches, local sports organisations, schools and a range of other groups. I visit such groups every week, and since becoming an MP I have visited between 300 and 400 local community organisations that cover a multitude of interests. They have a genuine interest in what goes on locally, and we should involve and support them.
I have always objected to the fact that in my constituency, on the outskirts of Greater London, we pay so much for services, yet the money is drained towards central London. We contribute an enormous amount towards the costs of the Greater London Assembly, we pay for all kinds of quangos and central London organisations, and we do not benefit from that. If we are to improve communities, we need to ensure that the funding, and its organisation, is directed to where it is needed. That means ending the current mess in local government finance. It also means ending the explosion of partnerships, agencies, working parties, forums, taskforces, committees, boards, panels and a multitude of other quangos that constantly justify their existence by producing a stream of paper, including reports, strategies, consultation documents and so on. I am fed up with receiving those things in the post and hearing what all those bodies are supposed to be doing. I agree with the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden that those Government bodies and institutions are not spending our money or our constituents' money in the most effective way.
We must therefore oppose more government, which is why my party and I oppose regional government. The sooner that we can have a referendum to get rid of the London Assembly the better. The sooner that we can restore power to local communities by getting rid of the power that we have foolishly handed over to institutions such as the European Union the better. Those bodies affect what goes on in local communities, because all kinds of rules and directives are flooding in. Local government is hamstrung in its goal of serving its communities and instead must bow to Government and EU directives. All those documents must be put on a huge bonfire, and I do not doubt that a future Conservative Government would have the courage to do so.
I am not going to talk for much longer because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. However, housing is vital—we must restore the right to buy and give local housing association tenants the right to purchase their home. We must ensure that the police are given the respect that they deserve and power to do their job, which is important to local communities. The police have lost confidence in their ability to do their job—a job that, as we know, needs to be done. We need to restore discipline in schools and society in general. We
712
need to support local shops, libraries and other community facilities, as has been mentioned, as well as post offices and pharmacies, all of which are vital.
Ten years ago, I was among those Conservatives who were sceptical of the policy of ending the tradition of keeping Sunday as a special day; a policy that has led to many local community shops having to close, particularly in rural towns and villages. I supported the Keep Sunday Special campaign because, although I believe strongly that we should have as much freedom and choice as possible, a balance has to be struck. It is important that Members from all parties learn such lessons. We must ensure that parks are places where families and children can feel safe and happy, because that is not the case in many parts of the country. We must support the youth service in local authorities, which has been underfunded for too long. We must clamp down on antisocial behaviour, including graffiti, vandalism and the yob culture. We must also tackle general decay. I hope that the Minister will take note of many things that have been raised today, and that that will translate into positive action. It is very well for us to talk about these things, but our constituents want action that will result in genuine progress and make our communities better for everyone. I hope that the Government will take all those points on board.
3.23 pm
Ian Lucas: I should like to thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) for reminding me of the reason why he is a Conservative and I am a socialist. He believes that government can do bad things, but I believe that it can do good things. Government, both nationally and locally, can achieve great things in our communities. Our role as Members of Parliament is to become involved and facilitate achievement and progress in our local communities.
I accept, however, that Governments can do bad things, and some of the things that they did in the past 20 to 30 years have led to long-term problems, with which we are still dealing, caused by the breakdown of communities. For example, in my constituency in 1983, one in five of the adult population was unemployed. That figure has fallen to 3 per cent, but the fact that 20 per cent. of people were unemployed in 1983 is still having consequences today. I heard the litany of complaint from the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), but I have a litany of complaint about the Government who ran the country between 1979 and 1997, as what happened then has had a profound effect on my community, and on society.
The present Government are trying to confront and deal with those problems, but we must accept that they are profound and long-term and that there are no instant solutions. There has been much praise from Members on both sides of the House for the sure start scheme, which we all support. That scheme is designed for the long term—we are only beginning to see its good effects—and in 10 years' time, we will see its beneficial consequences and those of similar schemes. Similarly, people who lost out at school are coming into education through lifelong learning programmes. Their lives are being changed, so they form stronger bonds within their families and create the type of family unit and small community that leads to co-operation rather than

713
conflict. Consequently, in such cases, we no longer have to deal with the antisocial behaviour that we have heard so much about.
Although tackling the problems is a long-term project, their consequences are immediate. It may not be true in Ludlow but it is certainly true in Wrexham that instability in a small number of families and communities has resulted in a lack of discipline and respect, and is having a disproportionate effect on the lives of others in the community. The structures of local government do not reflect the demands and wishes of the people whom I represent. Local government is still geared towards the departmental provision of services such as schools and social services, and has not woken up to the fact that the main demand is for security and stability. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was a tremendous piece of legislation, but local government has still not fully taken it on board. I learned from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) about the good things that are being done in her local community, but in Wrexham we have a lot to learn and a lot of progress to make in achieving co-operation between different agencies in the town and ensuring that the security that my constituents want is delivered.
The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) referred to the danger of too many organisations dealing with similar issues. The all-party regeneration group recently discussed the problem of various organisations in a small geographical area pursuing similar agendas and applying for money from similar sources. That leads to a situation in which groups effectively compete with each other. People in such groups often attend the same meetings to discuss similar topics, but end up making similar funding applications to the same organisations. There is a sense of meeting and organisation exhaustion among such people.
Richard Younger-Ross: In Teignbridge, we have very good inter-service agencies that try to avoid that problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said, local Members of Parliament should talk to their agencies to ensure that such groups work.
Ian Lucas: I am frustrated and disappointed by the patronising approach that the Liberal Democrats seem to be taking. I am well capable of representing my constituents and seeking co-ordination, but despite my efforts—I assure the hon. Gentleman that they have been strenuous—the number of organisations involved and the influence that I have had have been somewhat limited. I am not alone in voicing that complaint; a number of colleagues have done the same. I call on the Minister to recognise that that is a problem and to consider ways of avoiding it. The current structures mean that too many organisations are pursuing similar aims.
The other important issue is the relationship between those structures and local government. Currently, they do not fit into the local government structure, which has a serious long-term effect on local government. Why should someone become a councillor if they will have a limited influence on money that is awarded to organisations that are often unelected quangos rather than elected bodies? While I support the idea that money
714
should be dealt with at the lowest level, the reality is that we need to ensure that local government, which is, after all, elected, is involved in the process. I ask the Minister to look closely at the structures that are dealing with antisocial behaviour and to press upon local authorities the need to put in place proper structures to deal with that overriding concern and the multiplicity of agencies that are developing in our communities.
3.31 pm
Andrew Selous: It is a pleasure to take part in this thoughtful and heartfelt debate. I am especially pleased to see that the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), will respond to the debate, as she has the power to take decisions on two particular issues that severely affect my local communities.
My constituency finds itself in the middle of the Milton Keynes and south midlands sub-regional strategy, which plans to double the number of houses located in it. My area is one of high housing need and my district council already has plans to build some 6,000 to 8,000 additional houses, many of which will be affordable houses. to provide the housing that local people need. I fully support that plan. The Government's plans, however, are of a wholly different magnitude. They seek literally to double the number of households in my constituency.
I can tell the Under-Secretary that surveys organised by my local authorities show that 95 per cent. plus of local residents have grave concerns about those plans. They have concerns that there will not be sufficient local jobs, as there is no way in which we can provide employment for such a number of people. That will mean an increase in commuting on roads and railways that are already very crowded. The building will occur across wide stretches of the green belt, which has always been protected—we have been given no good reason as to why that land should go—and the environment of local people will be very adversely affected.
A better watchword for the Under-Secretary's housing proposals for London and the south-east—I should be grateful if she focused on this point, as it is of great interest to my constituents—would be local housing for local people across London and the southeast. My constituents object very strongly to the location of London overspill housing in our constituency and three other areas around London. We want local housing for local people across London and the south-east. That is better for local communities. I do not believe that the Government's proposals to build huge out-of-town housing estates will secure the proper community spirit to which so many hon. Members have referred. The history of post-war housing from the Easterhouse estates on the edge of Glasgow onwards has shown that large housing estates can be built on the edge of towns, but they do not have the community spirit and voluntary groups that are a feature of existing communities. I have huge worries about that, as do many local people.
There is also a big worry about infrastructure catch-up. In Leighton Buzzard, a town that always used to have more doctors per head of population than

715
anywhere else in the country, we are already two to three GPs short, and there are extreme concerns among local people that the proposed housing expansion will not come with proper medical facilities and all the other local services that we need.
This is a heartfelt plea to the Minister. In speech after speech, hon. Members talked about the importance of local people deciding on local issues. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (M s Walley) mentioned local councillors. What upsets me most is that, pretty much universally, my local councillors, of whatever party, object strongly to the plans—so what price our local democracy? When my constituents say to me, "Why should we bother to vote in local elections when we cannot influence locally the biggest decision to affect our area for 50 years?", I cannot give a good answer. I have grave worries about the fact that the proposed development corporation will have a minority of elected councillors.
Antisocial behaviour is a huge problem in my constituency, as in those of other hon. Members. Let me propose a couple of ideas that would assist in that. Many of my constituents who are initially hopeful that the police will be able to impose antisocial behaviour orders find that when the police go round to try to get the necessary evidence, local people are too terrified for their own safety to come forward with it. I suggest a huge increase in the number of independent witnesses who can, unbeknown to the perpetrators of the crimes—for that is what they are—provide evidence of what has been going on without fearing for their safety. I commend that idea to the Government: it would make a big difference and allow more antisocial behaviour orders to be made.
Many of my constituents feel trapped and imprisoned in their homes as a result of the legislation by which a person selling their home has to say whether they have an antisocial behaviour problem with their immediate neighbours or in their immediate environment. Many council tenants who have bought their houses say, "We are desperate to sell our property back to the council or to a registered social landlord, because we are effectively trapped here." That is because the council housing allocation policy has put close to them people who are causing antisocial behaviour. Owner-occupiers can be similarly affected. That is wrong. I commend to the Minister the idea that former council houses can be sold back at a fair and agreed price.
In my constituency, there are seven unauthorised gypsy developments. I have nothing against gypsies: people are free to choose to lead their lives as they please. In planning law, however, it is the law-abiding majority—the settled community—who are severely discriminated against, because gypsy communities are able to buy arable land, wholly against the planning system, and turn it into large encampments sub-divided into different plots. That is causing enormous problems.
Fly tipping is a huge problem in my constituency. I suggest that fines be made much more severe to encourage those who believe that they are cheaper than the proper disposal costs to think again. The issue should be made much more of a priority for the police.
716
Small builders and businesses should be able to use tidy tips: only very large commercial companies should be prohibited from doing so.
I hope that the Minister finds those ideas helpful.
3.38 pm
Yvette Cooper: With the leave of the House, I shall try to respond in the short time available to a thoughtful and wide-ranging debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) gave a thoughtful account of the impact that design and infrastructure can have on the way in which communities behave. He also talked about trust and the role of friends and families.
The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) raised concerns about the geographical definition of the word "community". We can sometimes be over-simplistic in envisaging that all community groups are good, whereas some are unfair, oppressive or discriminatory, whether to their members or to outsiders. We are right to talk about the importance of sustainable and inclusive communities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) raised the important issue of voluntary groups in his constituency, and I should be happy to look into that further. Many local strategic partnerships are engaging effectively with local community groups. The hon. Members for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), for Ludlow (Matthew Green) and for Romford all talked about different forms of local government finance. I guess that we can look forward to an increasing amount of debate on the interesting alternatives being offered by Opposition Members, especially given the rise to prominence on the Conservative Benches of someone with such expertise in local government finance, the architect of the poll tax himself. I look forward to Conservative Members following their leader on that one.
Several hon. Members raised the issue of housing. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) mentioned housing market renewal, and I agree that it is important that housing and economic regeneration should go closely hand in hand. The hon. Member for Ludlow talked about the need for a greater amount of affordable housing, particularly in the southeast, and mentioned the section 106 arrangements. We are looking at those provisions, because we need better to address the issue of getting more affordable housing into new developments. That is something that we are extremely interested in.
The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) raised concerns about various issues in his constituency, of which I am well aware. I would say to hon. Members that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot complain about the pressures on house prices and the lack of supply of affordable housing while at the same time complaining about the programme for additional house building across the south-east, which, frankly, we need. Hon. Members have also talked about antisocial behaviour. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) described her constituents' concerns, and the importance of alley-gating. Sometimes these things are so obvious. She was right to say that this issue is critically important to many of our constituents.

717
This has been a debate about the quality of life of our constituents. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said that an important factor in people's quality of life relates to income, and I agree. Income issues are extremely significant, and that is why I would ask him what the impact on people's quality of life was when interest rates were at 15 per cent. and people could not afford to repay their mortgages. What impact did it have when unemployment hit 3 million? My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham was right to say that the impact of that was felt for many years. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said that we were building on the legacy of the previous Conservative Government's economic policy. Frankly, we have been dealing with the effects of that policy for decades, and that is why so many problems relating to the quality of life in the most deprived communities have been so severe, and why we have had to address them now.
People in this country know very well the impact on their quality of life of steady economic growth and job growth year after year, of having low inflation year after year, and of having investment in their local communities, public services and quality of life at local level. They do not want to turn the clock back to a time of boom and bust, insecurity and greater inequality. Finally, may I say—
It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to Order [30 October].

African Development Strategies
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Paul Clark.]
3.43 pm
The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): I am delighted that the House has the opportunity to discuss Africa and its development, and to seek to answer the question of what progress we are making towards reducing poverty for the people of Africa. This is a critical time for the continent—a time
of opportunity as well as challenge. I say that because some of the most intractable conflicts in the region are showing signs of being resolved, and many countries are beginning to show signs of progress towards democracy and good governance, while at the same time, many countries in the north are beginning to recognise that a partnership with the countries of Africa, based on a commitment on both sides to do better, can bring real benefits in the long term.
When we think about Africa, we tend to dwell on famine, war, poverty, disease and civil unrest. Africa has all of those and more, and I shall return to those problems later. Africa is not only about the images we see on the television, however. It is also about real progress, although we need to do much more. The number of major conflicts in Africa fell between 1990 and 2000 from 19 to two. That includes Sudan, where there is an emerging peace process. There is a national transitional Government in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where an estimated 3 million people lost their lives during the fighting in what has been described as Africa's hidden first world war. Tanzania, though one of the poorest countries in Africa, has enjoyed a large degree of stability, and despite being geographically part of a volatile region it has remained largely outside the recent conflicts.
Economic growth in Mozambique has been significant in recent years. Malawi has begun to implement an International Monetary Fund programme of sound policies and structural reforms, while Uganda has seen a substantial decline in HIV prevalence, from 20 per cent. in 1991 to 6.5 per cent. in 2001. The House would agree that that is a testament to the power of the political leadership that has been given in that country.
Rwanda and Kenya have made the transition to democracy. The peaceful handover in Kenya following the election last December is a good example of what can be achieved, because the election of President Kibaki and the new National Rainbow Coalition, or NARC, Government were found by all observers to be freer and fairer than what had gone before. The defeated Kenya African National Union Administration, who we should not forget had ruled since Kenya's independence 40 years earlier, handed over power quietly and in accordance with the will of the people.
Rwanda has made extraordinary progress since 1994 and the unimaginable nightmare of the genocide in' that country. It is now at peace. The economy is stable and growing—real gross domestic product growth averaged almost 10 per cent. a year from 1995 to 2000—and the Government have made progress towards establishing a democratic and inclusive state in a country with no history of democracy whatever, although we would like to see more.

719
Those countries and many others in Africa still face considerable challenges. After all, the continent's share of world trade has halved in a generation. For example, 315 million people in the region live on less than $1 a day and 500 million live on less than $2 a day; maternal and child mortality are increasing; a woman has a one in 13 chance of dying in pregnancy or childbirth; HIV/AIDS has contributed to an increase in child mortality—75 per cent. of the world's sufferers live in sub-Saharan Africa; and 23 million girls in the region do not go to school. This is unacceptable in an increasingly interdependent world.
If sub-Saharan Africa's performance does not improve, 23 countries will fail to meet the millennium development goals—the targets that we, together, in the
international community have set ourselves to measure the progress we are making, or are not making, in lifting the people of the world, including of Africa, out of poverty.
What are the major challenges that face sub-Saharan Africa? The first thing we have to acknowledge is that Africa's problems are complex and interrelated. The impact of one worsens that of the other; so, for example, civil war exacerbates HIV, which in turn increases poverty, which in turn has a bad effect on infant health and maternal mortality.
In the same way, making progress will involve action on a number of fronts, and there are four main underlying problems that I want to highlight. The first is that nothing can be achieved without growth. Countries such as Mozambique and Rwanda have improved governance and their commitment to reform. They have performed well. Generally, the most dramatic growth rates in Africa have been in those countries that are rich in natural resources, particularly oil and minerals.
Mr. Tom Clarke: On the issue that my right hon. Friend has now raised, has he had the opportunity to consult our colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry on their excellent energy White Paper? In visiting various African countries, it has struck me that many of them are very rich in energy resources—Nigeria and Angola, for example, in oil—although those have to be developed and there has to be investment. However, that will be helpful to us as, I understand, a net importer of those important products.
Hilary Benn: My right hon. Friend makes a good point about the significance of those natural resources to the countries of Africa that benefit from them—it is important that they be used, although they must also be used effectively.
My right hon. Friend mentioned Nigeria and Angola, which are good examples of countries in which, in the past, wealth has not been used, as it might have been to maximise the impact of poverty reduction. That is one of the big issues for the continent.
Mr. Win Griffiths: My right hon. Friend speaks of maximising resources. Might it not be a good idea for many African countries to study what has happened in Botswana, where the Government have
720
made significant and purposeful efforts to ensure that resources reach the people through, for instance, education and health projects?
Hilary Benn: Botswana is indeed a useful example. I believe that it has experienced some of the highest growth rates in Africa over recent years, although, as my hon. Friend will know, it has also experienced a substantial problem with HIV/AIDS. I shall say more about that shortly.
Another obstacle to growth is conflict. Since 1997, the least developed countries in Africa have achieved half the growth rates of those in Asia. More foreign direct investment is needed. Sub-Saharan Africa still attracts less than 1 per cent. of global foreign direct investment, despite more optimistic forecasts.
As globalisation has affected Africa, its terms of trade have deteriorated and commodity prices have declined. Insufficient jobs and incomes are being created for the poor, and too few resources are being generated for health and education. Progress on trade policy will be essential if Africa is to become competitive, but most countries lack the capacity for trade policy analysis, negotiation and implementation, and the capacity to ensure that trade reform leads to poverty reduction.
As I think the whole House will agree, the current system simply does not work for the least developed countries. Africa's share of world trade halved between 1980 and 1999, and is now less than 1 per cent. That is one reason for our belief that trade rules must be improved to benefit the world's poor, and that is why getting Doha back on track is so important. The challenge for us to meet together is ensuring that the Doha round delivers benefits for African countries and their poorest citizens.
Whatever the reasons for the failure of the talks in Cancun—there was a debate about it not long ago in Westminster Hall—I believe that failure to make
progress from now on would be the most damaging development for the world's poorest countries. Africa stands to get a better deal through multilateral negotiations in the World Trade Organisation, where developing countries constitute two thirds of membership. The one good thing that came out of Cancun was the fact that the voice of such countries was heard more loudly and clearly than it had been heard during any of the previous negotiations, and I for one welcome that unreservedly. Multilateral agreement, however, is infinitely preferable to regional and bilateral agreements with bigger economies.
We also need freer and fairer trade rules if developing countries are to benefit. The United Kingdom Government are determined to do all that they can, working with the European Commission and other European Union member states, to make progress on the development round towards fulfilling the commitments that we made at Doha. We are committed to trying to secure progress, because it is critical for African countries. I am thinking in particular of agricultural market access, a reduction in trade-distorting subsidies, and special and differential treatment for poorer countries.
The second fundamental problem faced by Africa is conflict, which kills development as well as people. It has affected 200 million people in sub-Saharan Africa. That

721
is why supporting African efforts to resolve armed conflicts is so important. The United Kingdom has tried to do that in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, Burundi, Angola and West Africa, especially Sierra Leone. Some of those countries are now on the road to peace. In some, better progress is being made; in others, the situation is still fragile. But countries need the assurance of long-term support, and one of the challenges from now on will be to provide assistance so that the countries and regional organisations of Africa can be involved more effectively in trying to prevent or resolve violent conflicts on their continent, and to undertake peace support operations.
Andrew Selous: The Secretary of State mentions conflict, but in one state in southern Africa—Zimbabwe—there is the most horrendous internal conflict. As a result, some 6 million people are close to starvation, and there is horrendous discrimination against many of the black population and, according to some of my constituents, many of the Asian population. Given that, for whatever reasons, the regional power—South Africa—does not seem willing to take a lead on this issue, is the Secretary of State prepared to urge his colleagues in the Foreign Office to raise this issue very seriously indeed within the United Nations, and to put the sort of effort into Zimbabwe that they put into Iraq earlier this year?
Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman's description of the terrible situation in Zimbabwe is absolutely right. An indication of that is that this year, the international community will be responsible for two thirds of the provision of food—a reverse of last year's proportion. Frankly, if this debate had taken place 25 or 30 years ago and someone had said that Zimbabwe would have to import very large amounts of food, people simply would not have believed it. Zimbabwe was seen as the breadbasket of Africa—that was the phrase that tripped off everybody's tongue.
There has been, and is, no lack of effort to try to resolve the situation, such as the measures that are in place and the decisions that the Commonwealth has rightly taken. If we do not indicate clearly that there are principles of good governance that we adhere to—a point to which I shall return—the people of Zimbabwe will not get the better future that they deserve. I accept the point that the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) makes about the need for international attention, but that needs to be combined with a political process that is capable of resolving the problem internally. We very much hope that that will eventually occur.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I do not disagree with what the Secretary of State says about Zimbabwe, but 1 should point out that according to a meeting that I attended last week, food aid is being used as a tool by ZANU-PF, which is directing the deliverers of such aid—non-governmental organisations—through the World Food Programme, to areas generally consisting of ZANU-PF supporters. And where food aid is distributed to non-ZANU-PF supporters, the police, paramilitaries and so-called war veterans are taking it from them—we are talking about aid that is provided by
722
our taxpayers and EU taxpayers—and delivering it to whomsoever they wish. Would the Secretary of State like to comment on that?
Hilary Benn: This is a matter of concern, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the statement made by the Zimbabwe Government earlier this year on food distribution. Following that statement, the donors got together with the World Food Programme and agreed a memorandum of understanding. Such problems have occurred, but the systems are in place to try to ensure that, if they are brought to the attention of the WFP and the international community, they are resolved. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to draw any such instances to my attention, I undertake readily to look into them. We are very clear about one thing: we will not accept the use of the international food aid that we provide, together with other donors in the WFP, in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes. I undertake to investigate any such cases because I am as anxious as he is to resolve them.
Returning to support for conflict resolution, a peace plan for training and operational support has been developed between the G8 and African countries. We support in principle the EU's plan for a peace support operations facility for Africa, which Paul Nielson referred to when he attended the African Union summit in Maputo at the beginning of July. We also need to support African efforts to eliminate the flow of illicit weapons in the continent, which fuels much of the fighting. The G8 has made progress in developing and implementing common standards in arms export controls, and the UK has pledged more than £20 million to combat the global proliferation of small arms. That includes the development of regional programmes in east Africa, the great lakes and southern Africa.
Mr. David Drew: I apologise for missing my right hon. Friend's earlier remarks. Does he accept that resources and conflict resolution are interrelated? In the case of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, we cannot solve the problem of mineral exploitation unless we get all the surrounding countries to support non-exploitation; however, the same point is also true of the Nile, for example. Several countries could be seen to gain through conflict in other parts of the region, so we must surely encourage a degree of regional support. I hope that the Government will do everything that they can to get those countries to recognise that.
Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have seen the complex inter-relationship between the exploitation of resources and the fuelling of conflict in Sierra Leone, with its diamonds, and in the Democratic Republic of Congo with its variety of resources. The peace process is now emerging in the DRC and the transitional national Government are in place. A great deal of time, effort and support has been invested to make that happen. My hon. Friend is right to say that, without the backing of neighbouring countries, it is much more difficult to find a long-term and lasting resolution of problems.
The third constraint is governance, which has already been touched on in some of our exchanges. Effective institutions and accountable government are, frankly, essential if we are to have a chance of reducing poverty,

723
encouraging growth and securing private sector investment. We need to collect revenue, which includes taxes and customs revenue, to administer the law, to rebuild roads, to teach children and to deliver services. It is precisely because more Governments need more institutional capacity—a major issue—that we support the work of the Department for International Development in strengthening capacity-building programmes. That means working with country organisations that focus on economic and corporate governance in Africa.
Africans have the same right as others to transparent and accountable government, so we are providing anticorruption assistance in Malawi, Uganda, and Nigeria. We are providing support for the Eastern and Southern Africa Anti-Money Laundering Group, which brings together 14 Commonwealth countries and includes peer evaluation. We are also encouraging the work of the intergovernmental action group against money laundering in west Africa, a similar group under the umbrella of the Economic Community of West African States. Finally, we are taking a lead on the extractive industries transparency initiative, which touches on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). It is about encouraging countries that are dependent on oil, gas and mining to pilot this new approach to transparency—reporting what is paid and what is received. That is the best way to bring everything out into the open.
I think that the fourth major challenge is HIV/AIDS, because 29 million Africans are infected with the HIV virus. The equivalent of twice the population of London has now died of the disease. The impact of the pandemic, both nationally and in communities and individual households, is truly shocking. It is hard for the House to understand, because in this country, for example, one would have to go back to the period of the black death in order to understand the scale of the disease's impact.
The World Bank has warned that several African economies are facing collapse and that family incomes are being decimated. In some countries almost all the gain in life expectancy over the past 30 years is being wiped out, and the shortage of food in southern Africa is making the situation worse. There are growing numbers of orphans and vulnerable children: more than 11 million children in Africa have lost one or both parents to HIV/AIDS—and projections suggest that that may double by 2010.
The epidemic has the potential to both overload and devastate capacity, with health services overstretched and education systems collapsing. In a country where teachers are dying of HIV/AIDS faster than they can be trained, it is hard to ensure that all children have a primary school education. Economic growth is reduced, poverty deepens and social cohesion can disintegrate under the pressure of that sort of assault.
The UK is committed to working to try to combat the pandemic. We are, according to UNAIDS, the second largest donor of HIV/AIDS assistance in the world. Our HIV/AIDS assistance in Africa supports what African countries are already doing, and we strongly urge the international community to join us and other donors in working through AIDS programmes that are nationally based, nationally owned and nationally directed. The
724
challenge is to harness all the effort and interest of the international community while ensuring that what we do on the ground works to make a difference.
Mr. David Marshall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government on what they are doing to combat the problem of HIV/ AIDS. However, would he agree that more could and should be done to combat the problems of longstanding diseases such as sleeping sickness, leprosy and the Bilharzia snail, which, until recently, was hardly mentioned at all? Does the Minister have any specific plans to tackle those sorts of diseases?
Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend raises an important point and, of course, the global fund addresses the questions of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria as well as the other diseases to which he refers. The Department has a longstanding interest in those diseases and we have research programmes, in collaboration with medical researchers and others, to try to make greater progress. The diseases of the affluent world receive much investment of time, energy and resources to discover means of treatment, and the benefit of that work in relation to HIV/AIDS is beginning to be available to developing countries, as the price of antiretroviral drugs comes down, but my hon. Friend rightly draws attention to those other diseases.
Mr. David Borrow: My right hon. Friend mentioned the global fund. The UK position on the global fund has been much criticised. I recognise that we make substantial donations to combating HIV/ AIDS, but I often receive documents criticising the UK position on the global fund and contrasting it with other countries, including the United States and European countries, which make larger contributions to the global fund.
Hilary Benn: The UK Government's spending on tackling HIV/AIDS has risen from £38 million in 1997 to £270 million. That is a substantial increase. We have put our money where our policy commitment is to be found. We are a strong supporter of the global fund and our commitment is now for $280 million up to 2008. That includes an additional $80 million that Baroness Amos announced in July when she attended a conference on the subject. It is a significant commitment of money and, as I mentioned earlier, we are the second largest donor on HIV/AIDS in the world, according to UNAIDS. However, everybody needs to do more and I accept the point that my hon. Friend makes.
Enabling Africans to have access to effective HIV/ AIDS treatment should be an international priority, but we need to acknowledge that the best response will involve a combination of prevention of infection and the care and treatment of infected people. It is not a question of a conflict between basic health care systems and trying to make treatments for HIV/AIDS available, as the price comes down, because developing countries are already beginning to think about what they can do, as they tackle the pandemic, to use antiretroviral treatment to help to keep people alive.
Strong leadership will also be necessary to remove the stigma of HIV/AIDS. That is why I mentioned the progress that has been made in Uganda, because its president provided strong political leadership, which has led to real progress. It shows what can be done.

725
The last few years have seen a major shift in African effort in seeking to address the continent's problems that I have described. Without doubt, the most important has been the New Partnership for Africa's Development, or NEPAD. It aims to tackle HIV/AIDS, to reduce poverty and to sustain long-term economic growth. It is committed to improving governance, building African peacekeeping capacity—about which I have spoken—and creating the right environment for investment in Africa. The most important aspect of NEPAD is, in the jargon of development, the emphasis on mutual accountability. In essence, it says that the international community has obligations to the people and countries of Africa to provide support, aid and progress on trade reform, but in return the African Governments and leaders recognise some responsibility for the state of their countries. The truth is that we have to work together to improve the contribution that we each make to solving the problems.
The NEPAD arrangements have some radical features. For example, the African peer review mechanism, to examine the performance of African countries in economic, social and political governance, will begin in Ghana this year. We support that unreservedly. It is about sharing experience, which allows countries to learn from each other and better understand what they need to do to make progress. The UK is committed to supporting NEPAD, and development in sub-Saharan Africa. The best evidence of that is that our development assistance for Africa will rise to £1 billion a year by 2005–06. That is an increase of more than 50 per cent. in three years. We are committed to ensuring that 50 per cent. of all new overseas development assistance commitments made by donors since Monterrey will go to sub-Saharan Africa. In that way, we can provide some of the predictability that those countries need if the resources are to be best used.
Tony Baldry: Is it not disappointing that there has not been more mutual accountability required of Zimbabwe from South Africa and other countries? President Taylor of Liberia was indicted by the UN-authorised war crimes tribunal in Sierra Leone, but the Government of Nigeria have given him asylum. Is not that even more disappointing? Nigeria and South Africa are two of the leading African nations, but they are not helping to contribute to mutual accountability.
Hilary Benn: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the need to acknowledge that mutual accountability cuts both ways and applies to everyone. I responded earlier about Zimbabwe—I think before the hon. Gentleman entered the Chamber—but in respect of Liberia, I would say only that I think that people would acknowledge that the decision to get Mr. Taylor out of the country was an essential precondition to making some progress there, and to allowing the ECOWAS force to go in with the support of the Americans. Now that that has happened, the position in Liberia is more stable than previously, but that does not detract from the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the importance of following through on commitments to mutual accountability.
Mr. Win Griffiths: I recognise the difficulties in connection with dealing with Charles Taylor, but has
726
my right hon. Friend thought about giving Nigeria some financial aid, either from British or UN funds? Nigeria is not an immensely wealthy country, but it has devoted very considerable resources to peacekeeping in west Africa.
Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend knows that Britain has a substantial programme in Nigeria, but the way to make progress is by means of the EU's proposal for the peace support facility. We support that proposal in principle, although there are details to be worked through in connection with how the European development fund could be used to make it possible. If we can get it right, I think that that facility would meet the real need identified by my hon. Friend. The greater willingness that now exists to take on the sort of responsibility that he described is often blocked by lack of money.
That is also a factor when it comes to meeting the millennium development goals. Last week, I attended the high-level dialogue on financing for development in New York. The clear consensus that emerged was that we need to do more En respect of finding more resources so that we can meet those goals, and DFID is working with the Treasury to explore with other partners how best to achieve that. It is also why the proposal from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in respect of the international finance facility—which would enable us to raise more money now for development—is so important.
The amount of money is not the only thing that matters, however. The quality of aid is also important. That is why, in all this work, we must continue to align what we do with what other donors are doing. We must also harmonise the way in which we work: it is no good having loads of donors queueing up if they all want their own programmes, reporting arrangements and face-to-face meetings with representatives of developing country Governments. The impact on the capacity of recipient countries to cope with such demands is enormous, and aid is not used most effectively as a result.
It is not good enough merely to nod when people talk about harmonisation. All of us in the international community are all more or less guilty of doing that. We must do more to harmonise our actions, because that harmonisation is an expression of the multilateralism to which we are committed.
I know that several hon. Members want to contribute to the debate so I shall bring my remarks to a close. Africa is a major test for the world. We know why it matters and we understand better than we did in the past how a combination of things will really make the difference: more aid and debt relief will provide the finance to get children to school or to treat them for preventable diseases; opening up trade will enable countries to earn their way out of poverty; dealing with conflict and ensuring good governance will maximise the chances that people will want to invest in a country, thereby creating the jobs, employment and economic growth that will improve people's lives; and tackling HIV/AIDS will sustain human capacity in the face of the epidemic.
We understand better that all those things need to happen if we are really to make progress in helping the people of Africa to build a better life for themselves and

727
their families. After all, that is all we seek for our own children; it is what the parents of Africa seek for their children, too. It is the responsibility of us all to ensure that we help them now to succeed in realising that goal.
4.15 pm
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I wrote to Mr. Speaker and to the Secretary of State to explain that, unfortunately, owing to a long-standing constituency engagement I shall not be in the Chamber for the winding-up speeches, so I apologise to the House for that.
At the outset of the debate, I want to put down a marker. As the Government has winkled some time out of the Whips to spend on the subject of international development, we are disappointed that the Secretary of State did not choose to discuss Iraq. We tabled two urgent questions, because although there have been two written ministerial statements on funding for the reconstruction of Iraq there has been no opportunity to question Ministers. The House, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may think that that has nothing to do with Africa, but it does, as unfortunately the Secretary of State has been unable to persuade the Chancellor that there should be extra money for restructuring, so instead it will have to come from DFID's core funding. As a result, we do not know which projects will be cut, and in which developing countries. We have no guarantee that the countries will not be in Africa, so we are concerned that we have missed an opportunity to clear up that matter.
The challenge of Africa remains vast, as the Secretary of State eloquently outlined. The continent is home to 34 of the world's 48 least-developed countries, and the gap between Africa and the rest of the world is growing. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) described Africa as a failing continent. Her phrase has the power to shock, but I instinctively recoil from the judgment implied in it. It sounds as though new Labour is writing off Africa, which I am sure is not what the Government intend.
No one can deny that Africa has particular problems, but what is wrong with the statement is that it masks the real progress that is being made—the kind of progress to which the Secretary of State referred. What is also wrong is that it contains no flicker of recognition of where we have made matters worse. The effect is to exonerate ourselves from blame and to remove the moral obligation to help. Nowhere is that more true than in Zimbabwe.
Conflict, corruption and terrible sickness hold back many African countries, and, together, they contribute to the whole of sub-Saharan Africa being hopelessly off-target to meet the millennium development goals. Is a whole continent to stand condemned for having failed to meet some internationally agreed benchmark of improvement? Should we blame developing countries for not meeting those targets when we could have done more?
By far and away the biggest problem facing Africa is the HIV/AIDS pandemic. I am sorry that it was only fourth in the Secretary of State's list; for me, it comes first. The proportions of the pandemic defy imagination,
728
but that does not mean that we should be beaten by it. We should fight it. Seventy per cent. of the world's HIV/ AIDS sufferers live in southern, sub-Saharan Africa. In Kenya, one person dies from AIDS every minute.
In Malawi, I had the privilege of meeting a man who cares personally for 78 orphans and the same number of widows. I thought that community orphanages were local institutions to house orphans, until I visited the country and found out that they amount only to occasional visits to children who still live in the huts where their parents died.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, however, there are examples of real progress, and Botswana's network of AIDS clinics is surely an example of best practice. AIDS is not just a health issue; it is a development issue. The disease is wiping out the most economically active people. It is attacking the very roots of society. Africa is becoming a continent of grandparents raising their grandchildren, or orphans fighting for survival.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I am glad that the hon. Lady has mentioned AIDS orphans so early in her speech. Does she agree that, even if we manage to control the growth in the number of AIDS cases anywhere in Africa, the fact that there are already 6 million AIDS orphans in sub-Saharan Africa is a huge problem for the future? Does she ever speculate on what will become of those children? Will they become child soldiers? Will they become involved in civil war? Will they go into prostitution? Does she think that we, as an international community, should put much more emphasis on the needs of those children?
Mrs. Spelman: I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. We stand united on the question of raising the salience of AIDS orphans, and I do speculate about the issue. I sometimes think that the solution will be on a scale that no one has thought of hitherto. To put things into proportion, I was speculating that it would almost take something like every family in this country adopting an AIDS orphan to arrive at the scale of support that those children need. We do not provide that scale of support currently.
Sadly, the global health fund cannot successfully simultaneously tackle AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis with its limited resources. I wonder whether the Secretary of State agrees that something practical could be done if the fund's limited resources were targeted to provide free antiretrovirals for at least the pregnant women who are HIV-positive. The continent might then stand some chance of raising a generation free of that terrible disease. I feel that the Government has allowed AIDS to slip down the agenda. There is public complacency about AIDS in this country, and it is very difficult to get our countrymen and women to comprehend the scale of the problem when they hear that they can get the necessary life-prolonging drugs on the NHS. The Government must do much more to get this subject back up the agenda. If Africa is failing, it is doing so because it is dying, and we have the resources, if not to cure people, at least to sustain life.
Conflict, as the Secretary of State said, is another reason why Africa is failing to meet the millennium development goals. Many states are still involved in

729
active conflict; others are dealing with the aftermath; and many remain volatile. I have asked the Secretary of State before what is the Department's model for working with a failed or failing state, but the Department does not seem to have an answer. Conflict prevention also seems to have slipped down the agenda. I feel that we do not learn from the examples of failed states and apply those lessons to new scenarios. We as a country continue to give aid to countries that knowingly perpetuate conflict.
I find it extremely frustrating that the United Kingdom is one of Rwanda's major donors, yet there is clear evidence of Rwandan involvement in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The departmental report for this year says that the amount of aid that our country gives to Rwanda will increase. I should like the Secretary of State to explain to the House how he can feel comfortable about giving much more to a nation that is making life so difficult for its neighbour. We supported putting an end to tied aid, but the Government have somehow failed to make aid effective in the promotion of good governance. Surely the Government have the power to threaten to remove some of that aid if that involvement in the Congo continues.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Some hon. Members were in the Democratic Republic of the Congo a few weeks ago, where we met the President and others. He did not take the somewhat negative view that the hon. Lady is taking about Rwanda; nor did he suggest that we should punish the poor in Rwanda because we are trying to find a solution in the Congo. Does she agree that the dialogue begun by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short)—I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is continuing it—with Rwanda, Uganda and the DRC is extremely important if we are to find a genuine solution to that conflict?
Mrs. Spelman: The right hon. Gentleman has long and respected experience of international development. The dialogue is not working, however—it is not stopping rebels going from the Rwandan and Ugandan border to perpetuate the conflict in the eastern Congo. I am simply looking for a tool—clearly not to penalise the poor in that country, as no one in this House would wish to do that—with which to bring the message to the Governments of Rwanda and Uganda that perpetuating the conflict in the Congo must stop.
Hugh Bayley: May I tell the hon. Lady that during that visit, my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), I and other Members had an interesting discussion with members of the new interim power-sharing parliament? They took the view that what was needed to get the so-called negative forces—the Rwandan irregular forces—out of the eastern Congo and back to Rwanda was aid to Rwanda so that those forces would have a livelihood if they went back to their own country. The aid that our country gives to Rwanda is part of the solution to getting the irregular Rwandan rebels out of the eastern Congo and back across the border to their own country, where they can prosper if a rural livelihoods programme is provided through our aid and assistance.
Mrs. Spelman: Again, I respect the hon. Gentleman's long-standing interest in and knowledge of international
730
development. I lack confidence in his theory, however, because current amounts of aid to Rwanda are not stopping the incursions by those rebels. Why should we therefore put more money in the same direction? I do not find the argument compelling. I want to find a tool that will work to pull the rebels out. The most recent report on my desk—I am not sure when right hon. And hon. Members visited the Congo—shows a deteriorating rather than an improving situation. All Members must face up to the fact that what is happening in Kinshasa is very different from what is happening in Ituri.
On the wider subject, I feel that all too often the Department turns a blind eye to examples of poor governance. Tanzania, for example, when given $3 billion of debt relief to be spent on health and education, bought instead a new air defence system. Uganda, too, has been rewarded with aid for very good things, such as reducing AIDS infection, increasing primary education and access to water, all of which are laudable. Meanwhile, a terrible civil war rages in northern Uganda, and in 2002 there were 4,500 child abductions alone. Therein lies my concern: the Government's policy of writing what amount to blank cheques to Governments means that the aid does not necessarily get to the people who need it. When we cannot rely on Governments, surely we must get aid to the people who need it in other ways: through non-governmental organisations, faith-based organisations and even the private sector. We must find those other ways.
As the Secretary of State said, one of the mechanisms that should help good governance is the New Partnership for Africa's Development. We had high hopes for NEPAD, but it has fallen at the first fence with Zimbabwe and has led even the African press to be sceptical. The Kenyan Daily Nation newspaper calls NEPAD "wishful thinking" and Botswana's Mmegi newspaper commented:
"History shows that African leaders see no evil and hear no evil when dealing with errant leaders."
I was very struck by the views of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who said that after her recent visit to Zimbabwe she gained
"an abiding impression t hat expectation of Zimbabweans from all backgrounds is that the British Government should be able to do something to help".
Although the behaviour of African leaders towards Zimbabwe is seriously wanting, our own Government are not without blame. It is wholly unacceptable for the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe to deteriorate while our country seems to be a passive bystander. I am continually contacted by Zimbabweans who are crying out for someone to help. More than half the Zimbabwean population face food shortages. The regional hospital in Shangani, which served 12,500 families, has closed because it has insufficient food to feed its patients. The water supply in Harare was turned off. Elderly people commit suicide because they cannot afford to stay alive and people bury their loved ones but have to keep guard by the graves because people are stealing coffins. How long does that have to continue before we do something? [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] Let me come on to that.

731
I welcome the Government's recent announcement of food aid because such aid is vital, but it is like putting a plaster over a bleeding wound, especially if the aid is diverted to those who should not be the first priority. When will the Government take a lead in the international community and tackle the root cause of the problem? What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that Zimbabwe is at the top of the agenda during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in December? I was asked what we should do. The people of Zimbabwe really need free, fair and democratic elections that are overseen by international election monitors so that they can secure the future that they want without the fear of violence and intimidation.
To the man-made disasters of Africa are added the natural disasters of erratic rainfall and attendant famine. In the southern African region as a whole last year, 14 million people faced starvation. The Department for International Development made the mistake of minimising the scale of the famine by initially describing it as "localised shortages". In addition to that, 13 million people in Ethiopia need food aid this year. Do the Government accept that they were far too slow to react to the warnings of famine, and will the Secretary of State tell the House what they have done to improve their response this year?
Tony Baldry: Before my hon. Friend moves from NEPAD, may I say that the problem is not only Zimbabwe? There is absolutely no reason why the Government of Nigeria should not put Charles Taylor on a plane back to Freetown tonight. He has been indicted by a United Nations war crimes tribunal. I cannot understand why on earth Nigeria, which is a leading member of the Commonwealth and the most prominent Commonwealth country in west Africa, is giving him political asylum—there is no justification for that. He was indicted for war crimes in Sierra Leone by a UN tribunal, so he should go back. Unless that happens, it is difficult to understand how NEPAD can work.
Mrs. Spelman: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, who makes the point better than me. For the sheer credibility of NEPAD, it must be seen to tackle the situation in countries such as Liberia and to be making peer review work; otherwise, the scepticism that I mentioned will grow.
Mr. Borrow: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Spelman: I shall press on because many hon. Members want to speak in the debate.
Turning to the way in which our nation has made matters worse for Africa, does the Secretary of State accept that our continuing agricultural protectionism is one of the worst offenders? I am sure that the whole House will agree that the failure of the trade talks in Cancun was a disaster, but what confidence does the Secretary of State have that the deal that was in the air at Cancun can be resurrected? Our protectionism, our failure to open our markets and our failure to reform seriously the common agricultural policy all stand as a
732
barrier to the development of poor African nations. That is of special importance for Africa because such a high proportion of people are employed on the land, and often its countries' only exports are agricultural. Does the Government accept that they have botched the privatisation of the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which used to provide the seed-corn capital for agricultural investment but has now switched its strategy to investing in mobile phone companies and shopping malls? It has also shut several offices in Africa.
Related to international trade is the issue of debt relief. A paper published by the International Monetary Fund last week stated that the initiative for heavily indebted poor nations is not relieving some of Africa's poorest nations of their debt burden and is unlikely to produce a sustainable economic situation. At the Labour party conference, the Government said that 23 of the world's most indebted countries have qualified for debt relief, but qualifying and receiving are not the same thing. Only eight countries have completed the debt relief process. The Government must not paint it better than it is. Will the Secretary of State concede that the debt relief process is failing and in need of serious reform? Does he accept that the process needs to be quicker, simpler and more transparent? Without proper sustainable debt relief, many African countries will remain completely incapable of moving forward.
Hilary Benn: On debt relief, will the hon. Lady acknowledge that countries receive the benefit of no longer having to service the debt at decision point, so the benefit comes at that stage even if proceeding to completion takes a bit of time? It is the number of countries at decision point that matters, because that is when they get the benefit by spending less money on servicing the debt, as she knows, and more on health, education and other things.
Mrs. Spelman: I am listening carefully to the Secretary of State, but what worries me about the process is that we are taking a series of snapshots and that countries that we thought had completed the process or were on the way to completing it have become unsustainable again. That is an important argument. We should not be complacent and console ourselves with the thought that those countries are out of the woods and safe once and for all, because often they are not. The process does not cater for that and we should not give ourselves a pat on the back ahead of time.
I feel passionately that the Government pay lip service to the people of Africa and its problems. [Interruption.] Let me remind Labour Members that the Prime Minister said he would like to heal the scars of Africa, but his rhetoric makes not one jot of difference to the Zimbabwean people crying out for help, to the AIDS orphans in Malawi hoping someone will notice them alone in their huts, to the women of the eastern Congo scared to leave their houses for fear of being attacked by the soldiers, or to Zambia, which was promised debt relief back in 2000 and is still up to its ears in debt. It might do the Prime Minister good to look at the number of times the Government have picked at the scar and made it bleed again. Africa does not need any more of the Prime Minister and this Government's rhetoric. It needs effective solutions to tackle the problems that constantly undermine its healing process. Only then can Africa move forward.
4.38 pm
Ann McKechin: I welcome a debate on Africa in the main Chamber. I wish there were more of them. I declare my interest as chair of the all-party group on heavily indebted poor countries. I want to concentrate on the importance of debt relief for African development, in particular the policies instigated by the World Bank and IMF as conditions for that relief.
The good news is that debt relief has been shown to work and is a vital component of allowing African countries to meet the millennium development goals. For those countries that have received assistance, there has been a substantial increase in health and education spending. Several countries have been able to abolish primary school fees, although they in turn have had to cope with huge surges of pupil numbers, with classes of 100-plus not unknown in Kenya and Uganda. However, only 19 per cent. of the poorest countries' debt has been cancelled and only five of the 42 eligible nations have consistently met the conditions and achieve uninterrupted debt relief.
The bad news is that the HIPC initiative does not go far enough and helps too few countries. Even the IMF and World Bank accept that many HIPC nations will not have sustainable levels of debt when they reach completion point. The formula, which is based on a very optimistic prediction of export growth rate that has not come to pass, will not work for many nations and needs to be urgently revised if we are to achieve significant poverty reduction. I know that the Government are working on that problem.
No one would argue about the need to impose conditions on adherence to democratic processes, or to impose financial controls to prevent fraud or misuse of funds and to ensure that they are used for basic services such as health, education and, as we heard this afternoon, the prevention of HIV/AIDS. However, there is increasing disquiet about the continuing practice of the IMF and the World Bank of insisting on conditions that are not directly relevant to debt relief, such as trade liberalisation and privatisation.
The all-party group hosted a meeting last month that was addressed by Demba Dembele of the Forum for African Alternatives from Senegal. He spoke about his country's history, which parallels many of the experiences of sub-Saharan Africa. In the 1960s and '70s, Senegal achieved significant economic results through its agriculture and the strength of its exports. However, by the mid-1970s, a succession of droughts, combined with a series of external shocks and the oil crisis, led to an economic downturn, and the Government were forced to turn to the IMF and World Bank for assistance.
Those institutions in turn applied structural adjustment programmes—the well known SAPs—broadly according to a "one size fits all" philosophy based on cuts in public spending, tight monetary and fiscal policies, export-led growth, liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation of state-owned enterprises. Far from rescuing Senegal from its debt problems, the implementation of those policies since the early 1980s has aggravated the debt burden and undermined the goal of poverty eradication. Low or stagnant economic growth, deterioration in several
734
social sectors and only modest improvement in others has characterised this period of structural adjustment throughout the continent.
In Senegal, debt ratios exploded, and by 2002 the external debt accounted for 70 per cent. of its GDP. In addition, over 70 per cent. of the bilateral debts was composed of arrears. At the same time, the percentage of the population classified as malnourished has increased over the past 10 years, and nearly 80 per cent. are trying to survive on less than $2 a day. The IMF-World Bank SAP policies forced substantial trade liberalisation along with the dismantling of the country's public sector, while at the same time cheap, subsidised imports from the developed world severely affected the agriculture sector, which employs more than 70 per cent. of the population.
The IMF appears to ignore the history of economic growth in most advanced industrial nations, including our own, which relied heavily in their earlier years on selective trade protection policies. Between 1996 and 2000, four of the top five fastest growing developing countries—Guinea, China, Mozambique and the Dominican Republic—were classified as having trade-restrictive policies. Similarly, during the 1990s the IMF ranked Mauritius, which left the SAP in 1988, as one of the most protected economies in the world. But between 1975 and 1999, that country achieved annual per capital growth of 4.2 per cent., a substantial amount, and a reduction in inequality.
After years of denying that debt was a problem. the IMF and the World Bank finally agreed, thanks in large part to the efforts of our Government, to tackle the crisis with the HIPC initiative. The much-derided SAPs have been replaced with plans drawn up by developing countries themselves. That is welcome, but there is increasing evidence that the poverty reduction strategy papers have retained the dominant influence, and veto, of IMF and World Bank officials. Typically, PRSPs require privatisation of public utilities, deregulation and removal of subsidies, and promotion of exports and foreign investment.
I am not arguing that policies such as liberalisation and privatisation are wrong in themselves, but I am sure that the Minister accepts that if such policies are to work, they must be implemented at an appropriate stage in a country's development, with effective Government regulation that is capable of being enforced and with public and democratic support. Sadly, there is no evidence that the IMF and the World Bank are capable of dealing with such subtleties. Surely, if we truly believe in democracy, these decisions are best left to those who live and work in the countries concerned.
In Senegal, one of the conditions of debt relief was the privatisation of its state-owned electricity utility, Senelec, but in industries such as water and energy, there is only a small number of transnational companies that are realistically able to bid for such operations. As a result, Governments are increasingly forced to offer sweeteners to attract the few foreign investors available to take on the contracts. Typical of the energy sector are long-term contractual arrangements that enable companies to be the sole supplier of a service. Frankly, a one-off invitation for tenders from five or six companies that are well known to each other, followed by a 25 to 30-year monopoly before retendering does not deliver much competition or efficiency. For Senegal, instead of

735
the predicted efficiency gains, the transfer of control of its electricity provider into the hands of a French-Canadian company resulted in profit outflows, no new investment and increased power outages, which contributed to a 1.5 per cent. decline in its gross domestic product.
By contrast, there is no sound evidence to suggest that public sector involvement in, or control of, public services is necessarily less efficient or effective for poorer nations. There is growing evidence to suggest that both the public sector and alternative service suppliers such as not-for-profit companies can achieve levels of efficiency equal to or even greater than those achieved by standard privatisation programmes. However, the rigid approach followed by officials of the IMF and the World Bank has done little to encourage the search for alternatives that better suit individual economies. Our own solution of a national rail authority would not accord with IMF criteria.
The IMF and the World Bank believe that PRSPs should allow the involvement of civic society only if that facilitates a debate on issues such as the social impact of policy measures and the pace and sequencing of reforms, and that poverty reduction strategy papers should not consider whether reforms involving liberalisation and privatisation are appropriate in the first place. Despite their attempts to achieve greater democracy and transparency, decisions made by democratic representatives have been ignored. In December last year, the Zambian Parliament voted for a motion urging the Government to rescind their decision to privatise the national bank as part of their debt relief programme. That decision was accepted by the President, but almost immediately there were reports that the IMF was threatening to withdraw debt relief. After talks with the IMF, the Government admitted by the start of April that they were privatising the bank after all. Until now, the IMF and the World Bank have viewed such opposition to their policies as simply the murmuring of vested interests, but there have been repeated incidents of such opposition throughout the developing world, particularly in Africa, in both national parliaments and civic society, as well as many reports of unrest caused directly by IMF policies. Not all of those incidents can be easily dismissed and they should not be used as an excuse to bypass the democratic processes of poorer countries.
I very much welcome our Government's efforts to press for "topping-up" for countries above the debt threshold once they reach completion point, as well as the Government's acceptance of the need to reconsider the methodology, as I have said, to ensure that we obtain genuine debt sustainability once countries have reached that point. As the Secretary of State will be aware, the global economic outlook, falling commodity prices and the HIV/AIDS epidemic will put an especially severe strain on the poorest countries in the next few years. The failure of the recent WTO summit in Cancun, as we discussed in a debate in Westminster Hall on Thursday, will result in yet more barriers to economic growth for the world's poor, particularly in Africa. In that climate, I hope that my right hon. Friend agrees that there is an urgent need to cancel even more debt to allow HIPC countries to meet their millennium
736
development goals and build their way out of poverty. Although G7 countries are committed to reducing the bilateral debt—our own Government have made a generous contribution to that reduction—by 65 per cent., the IMF is committed to a reduction of just 29 per cent. and the World Bank of 33 per cent. Does my right hon. Friend agree that both those institutions need to consider a contingency financing facility to assist HIPC countries and work towards a much higher level of debt cancellation?
In the light of mounting evidence of the failure of IMF-World Bank economic policies to alleviate poverty, particularly in Africa, does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be an immediate explicit commitment to ensure that the provision of both debt relief and new loans from the World Bank and the IMF is not made conditional on privatisation, deregulation or trade liberalisation? Finally, I hope that he agrees that it is now time to give poorer countries much greater control over their own economic policy and allow them to pursue their own routes to development.
4.49 pm
John Barrett: There is a problem with the title of this debate, as the problem with "strategies" is that what is often required is not more of them, but a single one. In the field of development, especially in respect of Africa, a huge number of individuals, groups, organisations, non-governmental organisations, Governments and international organisations are making significant contributions to deal with the many issues of which we are all aware. The way forward is to develop a strategy to maximise the effectiveness of that effort and to reduce duplication and waste. That should include a listening strategy, because the experts on poverty are the poor. One might supply water to help a village, but when too many wells are being sunk by different groups without an overall strategy, the water table can drop, leaving no water for anyone. That simple lesson shows why, while acting with the best of intentions, we can be on the road to hell.
I shall not raise the following issues in any particular order, and this is not a case of discussing Africa at the expense of Iraq. There are a number of issues and they are complex and interlinked. They include poverty, hunger and food production, which the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) mentioned. Obesity is a problem here in the west while people are starving in Africa, which shows that a worldwide food strategy is required. Health has been mentioned, and we must consider AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and polio, which I shall mention later. Trade is another key factor in this complicated and difficult jigsaw. New alliances have been formed after Cancun. Following relatively disastrous discussions, I hope that this can be the start of a new era in which those new alliances can work together to put their issues at the top of the agenda.
Basic things that we do every day, such as turning on the tap, are major everyday problems throughout much of Africa. Conflict, whether in Sudan, Ethiopia or elsewhere, has been mentioned. The debt process and the position on heavily indebted poor countries were well covered by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin). Other issues include religious divides between Christians and Muslims, the matter of orphans, which has been mentioned, security and terrorism,

737
corruption in a number of countries, including Malawi and Nigeria, wealth distribution, resources and natural mineral resources. Some countries have ongoing problems of the sort that we know a lot about with regard to Ethiopia, as well as Zimbabwe, which has also been mentioned.
Those are some of the issues that hon. Members will wish to deal with, and I shall try to avoid those that have already been raised and well covered. In the past few months, we have had several debates, mostly in Westminster Hall, about specific African countries, including Ethiopia, Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan and, of course, Zimbabwe. All those discussions have served to educate and advance the debate and to put before Ministers the detailed issues that need to be addressed in each of those countries. I hope that this debate will serve the same purpose. At a time when the world's attention is understandably focused on Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan, such debates allow us to return to the part of the globe that the Prime Minister—the hon. Member for Meriden also mentioned this comment—has described as a scar on the conscience of the world. He also said that we could heal that scar or it could become deeper and angrier.
I do not question the integrity of those in the Chamber and a number of the groups and organisations that we deal with. I am sure that people are working towards the same goal—improving the lot of many people in Africa with whom we would fear to exchange positions. As the Minister and the hon. Member for Meriden have mentioned, Africa has great problems and needs. Of course, progress has been made in some areas, and it is important to recognise that that is the case. Nevertheless, from the troubled peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea to the food requirements of Angola, the HIV problems of Zimbabwe and Botswana and ongoing problems in Liberia, there is a lot to be done, and I appreciate that there are many more issues to discuss than we can possibly mention this afternoon.
The Government must be given credit for the money that they have given and the role that they have played in trying to improve the lives of people in Africa. The Department for International Development is widely recognised as having taken a leading role in international development in the region, and the simple existence of a Department focused on development has allowed greater priority to be placed on these issues. I shall not forget the first-hand stories that I have heard about how DFID's interventions have changed lives—many from people who otherwise might not be alive today.
At the same time, though, increasing performance leads to increasing expectations. That is no bad thing: we should constantly aim for better performance, greater results and higher goals. Internationally, many of those targets have already been set through the millennium development goals, several of which have deadlines that are only 10 or 12 years away. It goes without saying that those targets are very challenging, especially in Africa. Figures from the World Bank show the enormous differences between African nations and developing countries in other parts of the world. In terms of progress towards the millennium development goals, for example, only 13 per cent. of countries in sub-Saharan Africa are expected to meet the goal of halting and reversing the spread of HIV-AIDS, compared with
738
63 per cent. of countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. On child mortality, only 18 per cent. of sub-Saharan African countries are expected to meet the goal of reducing the child mortality rate by two thirds, compared with 76 per cent. of countries in south Asia. On perhaps the most important indicator of all—reducing poverty and cutting by half the numbers living on less than a dollar a day—Africa is the only region that is projected by the World Bank's sustained growth forecasts not to meet that goal. It is clear from those statistics that Africa, more than any other region of the world, remains the greatest challenge to the international community.
So where do we go from here? What can we do to try to turn the situation around? Of course, overseas aid remains one of the most straightforward instruments for achieving change. During our inquiry into financing for development, the Select Committee on International Development was informed by the African Development Bank that an extra $20 billion to $25 billion would be needed every year to enable those African countries that can use aid effectively to meet the millennium development goals. Indeed, the United Nations Development Programme and UNICEF predict that development targets will not be met in Africa unless those additional substantial resources are provided.
As I said, the Government have a good record on overseas aid, but the Secretary of State will expect to hear me say that there is still room for improvement. I accept that increasing UK development aid to the UN target of 0.7 per cent. would involve a substantial increase in spending, but I want to pursue this point: if he cannot, for whatever reason, increase our aid to that 0.7 per cent. figure, will he at least set a timetable for reaching it, as called for by non-governmental organisations? In response to a parliamentary question, I was told that such matters extending beyond 2006 are matters for future Parliaments and future Governments. That is a cop-out. I cannot understand why the Government can set a 10-year transport target, but not targets for international aid: it just does not make sense.
Of course, it is not just about the volume or the quantity of aid, but about using it efficiently and effectively for the greatest impact. That is why the European Union can come in for some strong criticism, because, although about 70 per cent. of UK aid is given to low-income countries such as those in Africa, only 40 per cent. of the aid that is distributed by the EU is poverty-focused. Worse still, over the past 10 years the percentage of EU aid given to the lowest-income countries has decreased from 70 per cent. Half our overseas aid is distributed by the EU, and the Secretary of State clearly has a role to play in improving those figures. The EU spends an enormous amount of money on our behalf—money that could undoubtedly be used a lot better. Every step should be taken to improve the efficiency of that aid so that countries and people in Africa can benefit.
But aid alone will not be enough to help Africa and its people out of poverty. One of the greatest gifts that we can give to the region is to allow Africa and its people the necessary tools to help them. Last week in Westminster Hall, we had a useful debate on the International Development Committee's report on issues from Cancun. I do not want to rehearse those

739
arguments, but it is clear that reform of international trade rules would massively benefit Africa's development. The oft-repeated statistic is that if Africa increased its exports by just 1 per cent., it would generate five times what the region receives in aid. That should continually remind us of the prizes that are there to be won if we have the perseverance to fight for them.
As was said during last week's debate, Cancun was a major setback in the campaign for fairer trade rules, but the determination and momentum for change remain. Africa as a region would be one of the greatest beneficiaries of such a change. When I visited Ethiopia—a country in the stranglehold of the international coffee crisis—with Oxfam this year, I was struck by the real potential that exists there, if only the rules of the international stage were such that it could play its proper part.
The issue of AIDS is important, but reforming trade rules, tackling the billions of pounds of domestic support that African nations simply cannot match, stopping the dumping that prices African farmers out of their own markets, and ending the tariffs and quotas that stop African exports would all make an enormous contribution to ending the poverty and to improving the economic development of the region. I appreciate that getting those reforms is not solely in the hands of the Secretary of State or the UK Government, but they have an important role to play as the champion of the poor, standing up for countries that, for whatever reason, cannot help themselves. We should have fair trade, not just free trade.
One of the greatest challenges facing Africa is the spread of HIV and AIDS. Thirty million people are now infected in sub-Saharan Africa, with a new infection occurring every nine seconds. Someone dies every 13 seconds. From the moment the Secretary of State opened this debate to the moment that you close our proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker, an estimated 1,200 people will have contracted HIV in sub-Saharan Africa, and 830 people will have died. The HIV prevalence rate in some countries now exceeds 30 per cent., with almost 40 per cent. of the people in Botswana infected. One of the tragic aspects of this is that the relatively speedy development of Botswana could be linked to the increasing spread of HIV, through increased affluence, mobility and access to alcohol, and the knock-on effects that those factors can have.
The AIDS virus is now ripping apart the society of many African countries, leaving millions of orphans, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) has mentioned. Agricultural knowledge is simply not being passed on from parent to child, and when it is, the children are too young, and their parents too sick, to work the land. HIV is far from being a poor man's illness. Teachers, nurses and other professionals are also dying, damaging the few already fragile mechanisms in place for basic health care and education. It is a real problem to have discussions with a group of key decision makers whose priority is to think in the long term, if those people might not be there in the long term. Christian Aid has predicted that if more is not done, 15 million people will die of HIV by 2007. Many of those deaths can be prevented, however.
740
The recent agreement on the reform of trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights by the US, India, South Africa and others is a major step forward in terms of providing medicines in Africa, but drug availability is not the answer in itself. More must be done to build the infrastructure and delivery mechanisms there, so that more people can be given better treatment. More education is required, along with the very best of preventive health care, to teach people about HIV and its dangers.
Better use can surely be made of the global health fund. I am well aware of the extra resources that the Government have pledged towards the fund, but it is still one of the greatest underused mechanisms for the co-ordination and execution of our war against this disease. I would also praise the work of the company Diageo for the work that it has done in providing free antiretroviral drugs to those in its work force who require it. That has set a valuable example for other companies to follow.
While HIV and AIDS kill during war and peacetime, conflict between nations only adds to the barriers to poverty reduction and economic development. When more money is spent on guns than schoolbooks, and when there are more soldiers than doctors, we can never hope to achieve our goals in Africa. That is why conflict prevention and conflict resolution are so important. The recent progress made in Sudan, with the signing of a security framework, is a major step forward. The news yesterday that United Nations peacekeepers are to fly back to Liberia following evidence of renewed fighting only confirms that work remains to be done there.
In Somalia, 10 years after the failed US intervention, there remains no central Government in a country of warring factions that is, as the US ambassador warned, a potential seedbed for terrorism. In Ethiopia and Eritrea, all steps must be taken to encourage the respective authorities to sign up to the proposed new border to avoid further conflict. Without stability, we will never be able to attract the investment—especially private investment—that Africa desperately needs. Without good governance, in which the international community has its part to play, there will be little confidence in financing projects. For Africa, the New Partnership for Africa's Development will play an important part in that. We must encourage African nations to police each other effectively; at the same time, we must be there as a friend to the region to offer assistance if and when it is required.
One of the most critical aspects of development is not only looking to the future, but learning from the past, as mistakes are not pointless if lessons really are learned. During the food crisis that threatened southern Africa last year, the early warning systems failed. We must learn from what happened—the detail of how the UK and other donor nations responded has been debated at great length in the House—but, as the hon. Member for Meriden pointed out, there is clear evidence coming forward of warnings being given, especially by those working on the ground, that we are facing other potential crises in southern and eastern Africa.
I have also received information suggesting that countries such as Lesotho, which suffered badly last year, are also facing food shortages because of adverse

741
weather. I note that the simple problem with shipping in Angola recently had a major impact on food aid availability and distribution.
Those events present us with short-term and longterm challenges. Naturally, in the short term the UK Government have a responsibility to respond to the crisis that is developing, assisting in the provision of food and water aid while encouraging others to follow suit. However, in the long term we must ensure that the potential for such crises occurring in the first place is diminished. We cannot go through the same sequence of events every year, where erratic rainfall leads to a poor harvest, which leads to a food crisis.
With global warming and more unpredictable weather conditions, the frequency of those external shocks will surely increase. We have to ensure that the damage that they can inflict is minimised, although I appreciate that that is not easy to achieve. However, diversification of agriculture, or even reducing the dependence on agriculture, as well as use of drought-resistant crops and ensuring that better infrastructure is in place can all be carried forward.
As I said at the beginning of my contribution, the Government are to be commended for the action that they have taken in Africa—undoubtedly, they have played one of the leading roles—but further action can be taken and further progress made. Africa's development should concern us all. We should not tolerate such poverty. We would not tolerate it in our own country and we must not tolerate it in Africa either. We must never forget that Africa will not make it alone.
5.7 pm
Mr. Tony Colman: I think I am the first inner-London Member of Parliament to contribute to the debate. May I do so especially by saying that the issue of African development arises on the doorsteps of Putney because people are concerned as to what is going wrong? However, I speak not in particular for the trade justice groups and the Churches, as Putney is the location of the headquarters of Voluntary Service Overseas, which I commend to the House.
I also have in my constituency the world centre of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association, which has not only just opened the largest mosque in Europe, but which finances the largest non-governmental organisation, Humanity First. It provides schools and health care throughout Africa. Vegpro, a large vegetable processing company that imports from east and central Africa, is also based in my constituency, as is Nando's retail chain, whose world headquarters are in Putney and in South Africa.
It is perhaps as important and intriguing to note that there are some 25,000 South Africans in Putney. Clearly, when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House came here as an asylum seeker—a refugee—in the 1970s, others followed. I am pleased to pay tribute to the work being done by the Reverend Stephen Melhuish at, to pick out one church, St. Michael's in Southfields, which has some 500 South African members and is twinned with a number of parishes in South Africa. It works with those parishes on issues to do with HIV/AIDS, and in particular works with HIV/AIDS orphans.
742
This issue very much affects me at my surgeries and on the doorsteps of Putney, and I want to take a different approach to it from others who spoke before me. I do not mean that they are wrong; I simply think that an alternative voice needs to be put forward.
I want to talk about trade, taxation, education and health care.
I do not want to repeat what was said in Thursday's excellent Westminster Hall debate, but I want to refer to the 2002 African trade report produced by the African Export-Import bank, based in Egypt. It demonstrates that Africa may not be the basket case that many consider it to be. It is in fact a vibrant continent with many great successes and enormous potential, some of which has already been fulfilled. In 2002 it achieved a trade surplus of US$4.2 billion—a fall from the 2001 figure of US$5.59 billion, but that is partly due to the growth in imports. As the Secretary of State said, there was a 3.5 per cent. increase in trade in 2002, as against a 1 per cent. contraction in 2001.
According to this reference book—apparently the
only one available from African sources—Africa's share of world trade in 2002 was 1.93 per cent. That was a slight increase on the previous year's figure; of course, world trade increased. The value of intra-African trade grew by 6 per cent. during that year. It is interesting to see the list of countries that are rapidly increasing the percentages of their total trade that represent trade with the rest of Africa. Uganda's percentage is 43, Niger's 39, Mali's 38, Burkina Faso's 37 and Mozambique's 36. One important subject that we did not discuss on Thursday is the World Bank figures, which show that if Africa traded more with Africa across state boundaries there would be a significant improvement, and greater employment possibilities. I commend the work of COMESA, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, based in Lusaka, and that of SADC—the Southern African Development Community—which I think is based in Gabarone. I am glad that those bodies are working jointly, and that there is potential for an Africa-wide free trade area.
Let me now say something about tax. The Secretary of State said that he had attended the United Nations General Assembly special session on finance for development—last week, I think. Perhaps in the winding-up speech we could hear a comment on the suggestion by Jose Antonio Ocampo, the United Nations Under-Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs, that the UN should be the forum for global dialogue on tax matters. As trade increased and the multinationals became increasingly involved, the UN should consider the issues involved—not necessarily tariff issues, which are a matter for the World Trade Organisation, but the taxing of exports and the corporation tax profits of companies trading in Africa.
It is important for they're to be a UN approach rather than, as it were, a race to the bottom. Many people have criticised the UN global compact: the state voices seem to have been muted, and the multinationals are making the running. Perhaps, given his attendance at UNGASS, the Secretary of State will say something about that.
Rev. Martin Smyth: How far does the international body seek to influence, for example, Chad,

743
which is one of the poorest countries? Will any of the oil that is being produced get back to Chad, so that it can build up its own economic prosperity?
Mr. Colman: The World Bank, through the International Finance Corporation, has laid down strict rules—for the first time, I believe—whereby the taxes paid by the oil companies must be spent on such things as education and health. I understand that that is being overseen by the World Bank. I read in the newspapers that there was something of a slip-up in the first few days, and that the purchasing of some arms was allowed. But the overall view is that this is the way forward to ensure that, if a new form of finance is available, the first call must be on health and education. However, it is for each sovereign African state to take its own decisions. As many of our International Development Committee reports have said, the important thing is for each country to have the policy space to take its own decisions on trade, tax, health care and education.
Returning to tax, I think it important that, as Members who are interested in international development, we do not allow the wealthy in developing countries to get off the hook. I am saddened by the fact that very little tax is paid by the wealthy in many African countries. According to any interpretation of policy space, taxation policy and how to raise taxes should be matters on which the country in question decides, although it may wish to seek outside advice. I was interested to meet a constituent of mine who is working for Crown Agents, advising on public accounting standards and taxation in Mozambique. He asked, "Are you surprised that I consider this an important area?" I said, "No—it is important to build a local tax base." Unless people feel that they have a stake in the schools and clinics that they have contributed to—the sums contributed from their pockets may be small, but they constitute a large proportion of their income—they will not regard such facilities as their own. In Pakistan, there is a virtual resurgence of local health care and education, because local government legislation allows local councils to levy local taxes. Because taxes are levied locally, local constituents make sure that the teachers and nurses are there. That has not happened before.
On schooling, everyone in this House would support the Dakar declaration of 2000, which ensures that schooling is carried through. My concern is that in doing so, we make sure that account is taken of what is happening on the ground. There is an element of private education in virtually every African country, and in that regard an interesting exchange of letters between Professor James Tooley and Oxfam's Kevin Watkins took place in today's Financial Times. The latter said that he is not against the provision of private education, but he also said that the main provision should be through the state. As a Labour MP, I strongly support that view.
We should however consider private finance initiatives and public-private partnerships, which the Department for International Development has yet to do, as an alternative way forward. We are building schools all over Britain on the basis of PFI and PPP; could similar arrangements be made available if the
744
country concerned wished to have them? The same is true of health care. We were all galvanised into action at the Labour party conference when the Chancellor of the Exchequer talked about the international financing facility's providing a health service for Africa. It is important to point out that hospitals all over Africa are empty and in decline because they have been built in the wrong places, and the doctors and nurses cannot be afforded. There is a need to ensure wrap-around health care. I ask whether there is a way forward by adapting for Africa the public-private partnerships that are getting hospitals built here. That could be done within a 30 or 25-year time frame, which would ensure that doctors and nurses got paid and that the hospitals were of a suitable quality for local people.
I pay tribute to AAR Health Services, which is chaired by Lord Enniskillen. It is the main private health provider in east Africa. Its founder was Bengt Beckman, whom I have met. His widow, Mrs. Beckman, took me to see the clinics—they are partly financed by the Department for International Development—around Nairobi. There were four clinics there, a further two in Tanzania and one will soon open in Kampala. This is an attempt to provide good quality health care on an affordable basis for the poorest people in east Africa. It is an interesting initiative and I praise DFID for working on this public-private partnership, albeit one that has not seen much light of day.
To conclude, it is not just a matter of trade: it is also a matter of aid. When I used to meet the noble Lord Bauer, who has since died, back in the 1960s, I used to fight him continually—almost physically—on his view that aid would corrupt the African continent and lead to 30 or 40 years of slow development. In his view, trade was the only way forward. I now believe that he was half right, but that I was half right, too. We need both. Africa needs the policy space to decide how best to go forward, but the idea in my speech should be taken into account. Progress can be made in the form of a partnership and through properly taxing business, but that will not deliver the whole answer for health care and education—only part of it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next Member to speak, I have observed that many hon. Members are still seeking to catch my eye, so unless contributions are reasonably short, many of them will be disappointed.
5.22 pm
Tony Baldry: There are times when I think that the divisions in the Chamber are pretty stupid, because it is clear that on a subject such as this most of us are agreed. I have listened to the speeches of the Secretary of State, of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) and of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), and I suspect that we are all in agreement. I see in their place six hon. Members who serve on the International Development Committee. So far, our Committee has produced about 12 reports during this Parliament, which must amount to about 1,000 recommendations, all of which have been unanimous. There are so many issues on which we all agree that we sometimes need to think about how the House could express its collective view more effectively.

745
I want to ask the Secretary of State about the New Partnership for Africa's Development. We in the House are all passionate supporters of that new partnership, but it is a deal and a two-way deal, and many feel uncomfortable about countries such as Zimbabwe, Liberia and others. We are all Commonwealth parliamentarians in the House—all members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—but what has been happening in Zimbabwe is wholly unacceptable.
It is frustrating for all of us that President Mbeki of South Africa and others have not been more effective on that issue. He and I were students together at Sussex University. In fact, there are more Sussex university graduates in the South African Parliament than in the House, although there is quite a number in both. South Africa has tried the soft approach to Zimbabwe and it has not worked. To be honest, we should express our concern that more needs to be said about Zimbabwe. It is undergoing complete collapse, with huge rates of inflation that we can barely understand and many newspapers being closed down. That is wholly unacceptable.
On Sierra Leone, I am at a loss to understand the position of President Obasanjo of Nigeria over Charles Taylor. I understand that, from a realpolitik view, it was sensible to get Taylor out of Liberia, but he has been indicted by a UN war crimes tribunal. Indeed, we did much to set up that tribunal, and the deputy prosecutor in Sierra Leone is a United Kingdom Queen's Counsel. It was set up because the United States and United Kingdom Governments were concerned that al-Qaeda had been financed through blood diamonds from Sierra Leone.
One of the reasons for the UN treaty with Sierra Leone was the anticipation that sufficient prima facie evidence would be found to indict Charles Taylor for war crimes. He and his forces had the greatest responsibility for war crimes in Sierra Leone. We should remember that the war crimes in Sierra Leone involved people being asked whether they wanted to be left handed or right handed and a machete being taken to the other hand or arm. They were serious crimes, but Charles Taylor has been given political asylum in Nigeria. I genuinely do not understand that.
The House—not just the Government—needs to make it clear to our parliamentary colleagues in Nigeria and South Africa that we will do our bit in terms of development aid for Africa, but we expect them to do their bit in terms of governance. We are not asking a huge amount. All we are asking them to do is to exercise some influence on parliamentary colleagues in Nigeria and Zimbabwe and elsewhere. We are entitled to ask that collectively, as the House of Commons, and to look to the Government to say to President Mbeki and President Obasanjo that we expect them to do their bit.
We had an excellent debate in Westminster Hall last week on targets, so I shall say only that the litmus test for the Doha development round will be cotton. The Under-Secretary will have taken that on board and we will see what we manage to achieve.
Nor shall I say much about conflict, because we will have a debate on Thursday on the Quadripartite Committee's reports, which will give us the opportunity to talk about arms exports. I hope that one of the
746
millennium development goals will be to reduce substantially the number of children in Africa running around with AK47s. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and others have worked hard on such issues as they affect the great lakes area. One of the real tragedies of northern Uganda and Sierra Leone has been the number of young people involved in perpetrating the conflict.
Ms Oona King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance to mention the golden opportunity facing the great lakes region at present. Very positive things are happening in Burundi, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and this is a wonderful opportunity for the House to show that we will support their transition to democracy along the lines of good governance, and how they can be full partners in NEPAD.
Tony Baldry: Everyone in the House would rejoice if we could achieve that, as they would if we could make advances in Sudan—it looks as if that might happen—and in Somalia, although that may be more difficult. That would be fantastic news, but there are far too many small arms swilling around in Africa. I hope that we can debate that issue on Thursday.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill was right to remind us, with her long list of important statistics, that we have not yet achieved as much as many of us hoped we would on the HIPC programme and debt relief. We must not forget the issue. The tendency is to remember the Jubilee debt relief campaign and think that we have ticked that box, but work remains to be done.
I want to raise two matters with the Secretary of State. First, DFID's policy for many years has been about sustainable livelihoods. There is a real concern in Africa that sustainable livelihoods have tended to become subsistence livelihoods. A friend of mine is a parliamentarian in one of the west African states, and he said that Africa's was a "chickenfeed" economy.
Last year, the Select Committee on International Development reported on the humanitarian crisis in southern Africa. Many of our conclusions concentrated on ways of enhancing agriculture in Africa. I appreciate that these things go through cycles, and that concern about agriculture extension may look a bit passé, but we must enhance agricultural production in Africa, and enterprise. Understandably, much of DFID's work is devoted to health, education and good governance, but where are the new jobs to come from? Unemployment in the townships outside Johannesburg or Pretoria is about 60 or 70 per cent. How is that sustainable? How are we going to create new enterprise and new jobs in Africa, and attract foreign direct investment?
Secondly, the House displays enormous unity when it comes to wanting to enhance the position in Africa, but some uncomfortable truths remain. For many, the litmus test of whether we can address those truths is whether we can confront some of our parliamentary colleagues—in Zimbabwe, Liberia, Sierra Leone and some other countries—and tell them that what they are doing is unacceptable.
If we cannot do that, and be honest in our relationship with Africa, there is a real danger that we will continue merely to make great, Panglossian

747
speeches about HIV/AIDS and other matters that require real political leadership. We have a shared responsibility to say that the standards of behaviour acceptable in Africa must be as high as those that are expected elsewhere in the world. We will do our bit—and more than our bit—with NEPAD and other initiatives, but the compact must be mutual. Others must do their bit in the deal: if they do not, Africa will always be going backwards; if they do, Africa might be able to move forwards.
5.32 pm
Hugh Bayley: I agree with the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) about the need for political leadership in Africa, but we also have to provide technical assistance. People can lead effectively only when they know where they are going.
I want to speak about HIV/AIDS in Africa. The Department has funded collaboration between researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in London, at Johns Hopkins University in the US, and at Kintampo in Ghana. The research has identified an extremely cheap treatment that involves giving vitamin A supplements to children from birth to five years of age. The treatment dramatically reduces infection rates for tuberculosis, malaria and even mother-to-child transmission of HIV/AIDS.
That work has been done in Africa, in collaboration with—and funded by—our Government. We need to provide that sort of technical information and assistance, to enable their leaders to lead. The treatment has been shown to be effective, and the hon. Member for Banbury is right to say that we should expect our Government to provide funding to roll it out across the continent—and that we should expect leaders in Africa to show that vitamin A is an important part of Africa's defence against opportunist infections.
Before we get too locked into gloom and doom about the enormous challenges faced by Africa, we should note that parts of Africa are developing and moving closer to the millennium goals. Between 1990 and 2000, according to the latest human development report from the United Nations Development Programme, the percentage of children completing five years of primary education in Namibia increased from 62 per cent. to 92 per cent. Over the same period, infant mortality in Uganda fell from 100 deaths per thousand live births to 79 deaths per thousand live births. In Ghana, the number of under-nourished adults and children fell from 35 per cent. to 12 per cent. of the population. With political leadership and development assistance, real progress can be made.
In many parts of the continent, however, things are moving backwards. Development is being undermined by bad governance, conflict, environmental degradation and the three great health pandemics of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. As has already been pointed out, 10 per cent. of the world's population live in Africa, but 70 per cent. of those who are HIV-positive live in that continent. AIDS has surpassed malaria as the most common cause of death in Africa and kills many, many more Africans each year than all the conflicts in that conflict-riven continent. By 2005, AIDS will kill more Africans than all other causes of death put together.
748
Life expectancy has fallen dramatically in many African countries. In Zimbabwe, average life expectancy has fallen from 59 to 43 years; in Botswana, it has fallen from 62 to 36 years. The population of South Africa—a developing country—is falling in absolute terms. It is almost unbelievable, but the population is being reduced due to the AIDS death toll. However, in other parts of Africa, such as Madagascar or Senegal, life expectancy is rising, because the prevalence of HIV/AIDS is much lower.
It is difficult to understand the scale of the crisis. In Botswana, for example, 39 per cent. of adults are HIV-positive. The figure is 34 per cent. in Zimbabwe, 20 per cent. in South Africa and 15 per cent. in both Malawi and Kenya. That means that 40 per cent. of the adults in Botswana will die over the next few years; one in three Zimbabwean adults with children will die, and one in five South Africans will die.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State so rightly pointed out, our continent has not faced a health catastrophe of that kind since the black death, which halved the population of our country. It took 400 years for our population to recover. That is a measure of the economic consequence of such a large-scale health crisis.
There is another parallel that we should use—hard though it is. About 20 million Africans have already died from AIDS. UNAIDS estimates that another 55 million could die by 2020. From 1500 until the end of the 19th century, the slave trade transported about 18 million Africans out of the continent and it probably killed about 50 million Africans, many of whom died before they left the coasts of Africa. However, the economic impact of the AIDS pandemic could be as great or greater than that of the slave trade, even though that trade may have been the reason that Africa fell behind other developing regions of the world.
The epidemic has social, political, economic and security implications. Several hon. Members have referred to the numbers of AIDS orphans. I have read that there are already 11 million AIDS orphans in Africa. Even if we could wave a magic wand to stop HIV infection instantly and completely, the number of orphans would continue to rise as those who are already infected die.
In 1995, there were virtually no AIDS orphans in South Africa. This year, there are about 500,000. By 2006, the number is likely to rise to 1 million; by 2008, to 1.5 million; and, by 2010, to something like 2 million children. If our children's services in the United Kingdom had to cope with that number of children, they would be utterly overwhelmed, and South Africa does not start with state children's services of the type that we have in this country.
By the time that parents die from AIDS, their families will already be in dire straits. A five-year retrospective study of AIDS-affected families in Zambia found that the average monthly disposable income for families with AIDS fell by 80 per cent. compared with non-infected families. So when they are orphaned the children are already malnourished and, more likely than not, they are already out of school and over-worked caring for siblings and trying to till the land to create an income for the family. The families are likely to have sold their possessions. When the parents die, their children often lose their homes as well.

749
When some AIDS specialists spoke to the all-party Africa group about AIDS in Africa recently, one of the researchers told us about meeting three children walking along a road in South Africa 20 miles from town. All three were stark naked and under the age of 10. When he talked to them, they said that their second parent had died that morning, but they had heard that their mother had a sister whom they had never met living in the town, and they were walking to town to try to find someone to care for them.
The social and economic consequences are enormous. In our report on the famine in southern Africa, the International Development Committee identified the HIV epidemic as a very important component of the crisis. We also identified that, first, the initial defence against HIV is food. Secondly, food shortages arise to a great extent because of the inability of so many families weakened by HIV to till the land and grow food. So technical work needs to be done in this country and in Africa, supported by our money, to find new crops that need less weeding, less watering and shallower ploughing. We can make a real contribution, so that the leadership in Africa can deliver some results.
We clearly saw the impact caused by the loss of specialists—the relatively few nurses and teachers and the very few economists and trade negotiators in developing countries. In a meeting with the Malawian agriculture department, we sat round a table with a dozen top officials. I forget exactly how many of them were HIV-positive—we were told after the meeting—but I think that it was four or five. In other words, a third of the top officials of the department of agriculture would be taken away from the Malawian Government, and they have no way to replace them.
The situation is absolutely dreadful, but it is not so dreadful that nothing can be done about it. The Secretary of State mentioned the positive policies that the Ugandan Government have pursued to combat problems there.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way on that point and I agree with everything that he has said. Does he agree that the House should also pay tribute to those grandparents and others who are seeking to help those orphaned children and to those involved in education who are seeking to change the thought processes of political leaders and others in Africa so that they are more positive in dealing with the problem?
Hugh Bayley: I am conscious that I must make progress, but I wish to say that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The number of orphans will rise dramatically over the next 10 or 15 years, so we must use that time to find ways to provide care and support through the extended family, the state and the education system for children who lose their parents; otherwise, some of those countries will become failed states and descend into anarchy, with an uneducated population who are unable to contribute to the development of their country.
Helen Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that if we do as he suggests on education, we will start to create a win-win situation? One of the issues at the root of HIV/AIDS and poverty
750
is the poor access of all children, particularly girls, to primary and secondary education. Does he therefore agree that almost nothing represents better value for money when dealing with some of issues he has identified than an emphasis on education?
Hugh Bayley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The message is that this crisis is so severe that we can only tackle it by mainstreaming AIDS policy in every area of our development assistance policy, and by Governments in Africa mainstreaming it in every area of their policy. If that does not happen, we will not have a significant enough effect on reducing infection, on mitigating the effects of the disease on the victims or their orphans, or on treating the disease. AIDS policy therefore needs to become part of mainstream development strategies.
One area where I saw that happening was in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. To declare an interest, as a member of the all-party great lakes region group, I visited the country three weeks ago, funded by the Congolese Government. There, we met members of MONUC, the UN mission, whose soldiers provide security so that the fragile interim administration can maintain peace and work towards elections in 20 months' time. MONUC requires all soldiers who join its mission, from any country, to undergo an AIDS training programme before they arrive. They must come with AIDS public health information packs and AIDS treatment and testing packs, and must carry out at least one project with the community and the country to deal with the AIDS crisis. AIDS action therefore needs to be woven into every part of its work, and that must also apply to every part of the Department for International Development's operations, whether in health, education or rural development.
MONUC has a responsibility for disarming the irregular forces—the so-called negative forces—in the eastern Congo and for aiding their repatriation to their countries of origin. Uganda and Rwanda. It finds it extremely difficult to persuade people to give up arms because it can provide no incentive for doing so. In Sierra Leone, the U N could provide cash in return for weapons, and it would like to be in a position to do the same in the DRC. I hope that our Department will consider that option. Perhaps it should not offer cash but initiate a "work for weapons" programme to build roads, as one of the difficulties facing the UN is that there are no roads to get those disarmed soldiers out of the country. We might therefore be able to create a win-win situation.
The interim administration is a huge step forward for the DRC after six years of civil war. It is, however, extremely fragile. If it achieves the task of running a free and fair election in 20 months' time it will be the first time that the country has held such an election for more than 40 years, and I hope that the UK will look at how to support the institution-building process and the election preparations so that that election can go forward safely.
The UK has provided a lot of money for AIDS. As the Secretary of State said, the budget when we came into office in 1997 was £38 million a year and it was £270 million last year. However, when I examined the policy information marker system to find out where the money went, I noticed that £54 million went to Africa last year, while £80 million went to Asia and £163 million was

751
provided through non-regional-specific allocations. I hope that the Secretary of State will examine the allocation of resources for Africa, which is where 70 per cent. of the HIV-positive population lives, relative to other parts of the world. I am suggesting not that he takes away money from other parts of the world but that he ensures that Africa receives sufficient resources.
5.50 pm
Alistair Burt: I am delighted to follow a succession of speeches by members of the Select Committee on International Development, each of whom is more distinguished than I. Their insights gave an indication of why it is such a pleasure to serve on that Committee. I noted that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman). who has just left the Chamber, said that he had been galvanised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech at the party conference in Bournemouth. I am the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the leader of the Conservative party for the next 48 hours, so hon. Members might like to tell the hon. Gentleman that I have developed a sixth sense for comments that might be a veiled attack on a leader. However, he can be reassured that his comments will remain confidential between us.
I also beg the House's forgiveness. I have the honour of being the Member of Parliament for the constituency in which the headquarters of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds resides. I am sponsoring a reception for the RSPB and it would like me to introduce a Minister at half-past six, so I would be most grateful if I could be excused from the winding-up speeches.
It is easy during such debates to be either too wide ranging or to create the impression of being overwhelmed by the multiplicity of issues that affect African development and stand in the way of Africa's progress. Africa will triumph and we should not deny for a moment the extraordinary hope and aspirations of its people that will break through. I would like to concentrate on one or two narrower aspects of development issues—I do not wish to suggest that I am neglecting other things about which hon. Members have spoken—because otherwise where would I start? Should one start by talking about trade and justice or AIDS, as the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) did so movingly and passionately, if I may say so? I had the honour of being in the audience when Nelson Mandela spoke to the International Red Cross in London in July. Among other things, he said:
"AIDS represents a tragedy of unprecedented proportion … claiming",
in Africa,
"more lives that the sum total of all wars, famines and floods and the ravages of such deadly diseases as malaria."
The hon. Gentleman was not wrong to devote his speech to the problem of HIV/AIDS.
We cannot forget the age-old problems of famine, conflict and debt, but I want to direct my attention away from such matters and reflect a little, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), on the importance of governance to the future of Africa and the role that that must play in its future development. My interest in Africa, and especially South Africa, is
752
coupled with that of two other hon. Members—the hon. Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). They are two Christian friends with whom I have shared many journeys to that country. Our visits and interest date back to 1986 when we visited South Africa in the teeth of the apartheid regime and our visits have continued up until Whitsuntide this year when the three of us made what was our fifth or sixth visit—either singly or together—since that time. We have seen the extraordinary changes that have taken place in South Africa and have been privileged to share contacts with people in government and business, and churches and township communities. The hand of friendship has been extended to us by all races in all parts of the country. The three of us are touched by South Africa and our friendship is marked and defined by our experiences there. We shall always support its people.
I believe that the development of Africa will increasingly become of mainstream political importance for people in the UK and Europe. European history is bound up with Africa and we retain the connections of the centuries that neither time nor contemporary politics can change or deny in any way. We are as much a part of Africa's future as it was of our past.
It is argued that Africa will become of greater importance to us in the future. The nature of global politics is changing and Africa's importance will be fully realised in due course, for in the long term events are moving in a direction that is changing the geopolitical balance. Two examples illustrate that. First, we are beginning to recognise that a world of major power blocs put together is breaking down. Blocs based on former security issues or older established trading patterns are no longer as rigid or certain as they were. The old context of security and ideological issues that defined European, western and world politics for so long is becoming redundant. Terrorism is taking some of the place of conventional warfare. Trade and development is arising as the longer-term alternative to colonialism. Secondly, the new politics of the world will be based on different matters and issues than those of the past. Sustainable development, environmental concern, trade justice, migration and world population issues are intimately bound up with developing nations and have significant economic consequences for the rest of the world. Africa is the eloquent symbol of the crossroads at a moment of history.
Hon. Members are aware that it is not a question of whether Africa will arise from its difficulties alone or by way of outside assistance. It is not going to be that sort of world. We all have a vested interest in working with each other to overcome common problems. There will be two crucial aspects to that. One will concern the way in which the outside world works in harmony with African nations. Concordats, such as NEPAD or millennium development goals, will be the key to that. Of growing importance, however, will be the changing nature of the demands of developing countries themselves and their growing confidence in advocating them.
The recent collapse of the World Trade Organisation talks in Cancun was a graphic example of that. I have my doubts about whether the collapse is the good news it was celebrated to be at the time. The euphoria that greets such a result is often assessed differently in the

753
cold light of the following weeks, but the new-found expression of confidence among developing nations must be recognised and applauded. If such a demonstration of the change in the world order is to be of lasting significance, however, those countries that are assuming a greater and more powerful role on the world stage must have the political infrastructure to sustain such a position. That brings me back to South Africa.
Over the years, my hon. Friends and I have witnessed the remarkable transfer of power in that country from the apartheid regime to the new democratic Government. The decade or so since the effective transfer of power provides a reasonable time scale for looking at markers of real development to signal the progress of an emerging democracy. I recognise the Government's extraordinary achievements, but I post a warning that I trust in years to come will prove unnecessary.
Our recent visit to South Africa included an opportunity to meet Members of Parliament from the African National Congress and a variety of Opposition parties. We spent time with Magosuthu Buthelezi, the Minister for Home Affairs and the leader of the Inkatha Freedom party. We visited the Mpumalanga provincial Parliament and spoke to a wide range of friends and contacts. It is impossible to avoid or ignore the uneasy sense that an already immensely powerful Government are becoming increasingly strong in South Africa. The ANC dominates the national Parliament and is in full control of the vast majority of provincial legislatures as well. In light of the ANC's background, it is entirely understandable that it is puzzled and uncertain of opposition and believes that its future security, and that of its country, is bound up with it being in even greater control than it is now. A BBC press release from the summer entitled "ANC tightens grip on power" describes the process of Members crossing the Floor of the House under a law that allowed them to do that within a time scale without losing their seats. It enabled the ANC to gain new members and alter the balance of power in different legislatures.
There are other concerns. Helen Suzman, a campaigner for freedom from apartheid and known as a beacon of liberalism and freedom to virtually everyone in the Chamber for a significant part of our political lives, recently wrote of her sadness at feeling marginalized in the new South Africa. The part played by her and others in history is not quite given the prominence it was in 1994 and should continue to receive.
In September 2003, the Helen Suzman Foundation published an article by a reporter, Sarah Crowe, entitled "Local Media Freedom is Not Set in Stone", which was introduced with the statement:
"Vigorous white journalists are liable to be accused of racism, while their black confreres risk condemnation for lack of patriotism."
The article said:
"Never before has the South African media been so free, so diverse and so large. But ironically there are now probably more self-imposed limitations on the media than in the past.
Today the media finds itself choking on the sweet air of new freedoms, trapped in a racial purgatory characterised by patriotic praise singing or thinly-veiled bigotry. There is a great need now for a more astute and nuanced response from editors and journalists.
754
Under the administration of Thabo Mbeki, it is a truism that if you're black and critical of the government you're either unpatriotic or, worse still, dominated by or thinking like whites, while if you're white and critical you're a racist."
Helen Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is giving an interesting exposition of the potential failings of the ANC in government in South Africa, but does he recognise the great leadership that the ANC has shown in insisting that there is good representation of women at every level of power from the smallest local council to the Parliament, the Cabinet and Ministries? It is the only party in Africa that I know of that has set out to achieve the goal of 33 per cent. representation for women, and it has managed in 10 years to achieve something that we still struggle with in our democracy.
Alistair Burt: The hon. Lady is entitled to make her point, and it is a perfectly fair one. However, I am not making a point about individual components of the ANC—far from it—and I am not denying the successes of the past 10 years or the years before that. If she will stay with me for a moment, I will get to my point.
The article that I was quoting goes on to say:
"Although these divisions may have been latent in the society anyway, they have become manifest under Mbeki. The discord is—to quote Anton Harber, professor at the Caxton School of Journalism at the University of the Witwatersrand—`terribly destructive' for the media."
The article does not stand alone, and other quotes can be found that express similar concerns.
I raise this issue because I believe profoundly that democracy constitutes a set of absolute propositions. There can be no allowance, simply because a regime has emerged from an authoritarian past, for breaches of democratic principle. Unless the same rigour is applied worldwide, abuses of democracy and, in consequence, human rights abuses inevitably follow. South Africa must become not only Africa's leader but, perhaps, the dominant force among developing nations throughout the world. The good will associated with its transition is almost unique in our political experience, and that is why our expectations are so huge and important. That is why we care so much about the nation's governance and its pluralism.
I commend the work of the Department for International Development and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy in supporting the projects designed to encourage democratic growth in South Africa. Colleagues may be interested to learn that the foundation has supported 62 projects since 1998. All the major political parties have been involved, and colleagues may like to know that the Liberal Democrats ran a regional workshop for skills in local election campaigning. I suspect that most of us who have been involved in by-elections could probably tell people more about the Liberal Democrats than they themselves could do.
Labour colleagues ran a very good seminar entitled "Follow-up fund-raising training", so look out grand prix entrepreneurs and people in the media, because you are going to be tapped. With some trepidation, I tell the House that the Conservative party ran a seminar on message development urgency, about which we might also claim to know quite a bit.

755
To conclude with a serious point, it is important that those who want a pluralist society to continue in South Africa take the most careful note of current developments to forestall the sort of problem that we have seen on its northern border. I visited Harare in 1986, when there were worries that Zimbabwe might be moving towards greater intolerance and that the removal of guaranteed seats for whites in the Zimbabwean Parliament was the top of a slippery slope. There was also some anxiety about press freedom. However, a blind eye was effectively turned—there were surely all sorts of good reasons for Robert Mugabe's regime taking a little longer to accept the pluralist traditions that were common in other parts of the world. The consequence of the blind eye is the hunger, terrorism and destruction of human rights for many people in Zimbabwe and the cruel loss of the dignity that, ironically, Robert Mugabe had symbolised when he freed his people.
We are a long way from that in South Africa, but the warnings of South Africans who fear the return of a chill wind of intolerance should be heard and respected. The international community was not a critical friend to Zimbabwe at a time when it most needed it. We must therefore—this point is addressed directly to the hon. Lady—be a critical friend to South Africa now because so much is expected of it. Its people, resources and aspirations are second to none. I described the love that my hon. Friends and I have for South Africa because of our visits there, our friendships and relationships. If it can become a beacon for pluralist democracy in southern African and an unimpeachable model for others, if it is prepared to work with other African nations to solve local tyrannies, the prospects for African development proceeding in a manner that will benefit not only its own people but the world must be strong, and the world itself will be stronger as a result.
6.6 pm
Tony Worthington: May I thank the Secretary of State for remaining in the Chamber throughout our debate? Not many people do so—it sends a welcome message to Back Benchers, for which I express appreciation. I hope that such behaviour will help me in future as well.
In our debate on African development strategies, I wish to raise a single issue—the fact that the discovery of natural resources in Africa has led not to wealth but to poverty for its people. Although there have been enormous riches for a corrupt elite and riches for western companies, that has been at the expense of many people in southern Africa, which is now the poorest part of the world. The amount that we have given in aid is minute compared with the capital taken from Africa by Africans. The Abacha family alone took literally billions out of Nigeria's oil fields.
I shall focus on oil, but what I shall say applies equally to diamonds, gold and timber. An initiative to tackle the theft of oil wealth could be conducted that would not require money but simply political commitment by the wealthy of the world, including our own country. Other Members have referred to the fact that we are hearing more and more about the robbery of the Congo's riches
756
by the powerful in surrounding countries, with funds then transferred to western companies. The United Nations is about to consider a report on the plundering of resources such as minerals in the Congo, and 18 international companies are to be named which, I hope, will alert us to the consequences of western companies feeding off conflict in developing countries.
Ms Oona King: Will the Minister give an undertaking that the British Government's response to that report, which is out but not yet fully available, will be made public?
Tony Worthington: That is an interesting intervention. I hope that I can manipulate the Minister to act as my ventriloquist's dummy and give my hon. Friend the right answer.
Countries such as Nigeria discovered oil, and then made a dire descent into abject poverty. Angola discovered oil, and used it to fund one side in a horrible war, while the other side used diamonds. It should be central to our development strategy in Africa that we stop this gross robbery by corrupt Africans and their partners in crime—some of the big oil companies whose business practices aid and abet the robbers.
We can go a long way towards solving the problem if African countries and western oil companies simply publish their accounts as they are obliged to do in this country, America and France. If they simply said what they paid to the Governments of those countries and those Governments said what they received, the emerging democracies and politicians in those countries would have something to bite into. African Governments say many words about that issue, but with few exceptions—diamonds in Botswana have been mentioned—there is no transparency. The facts about oil and other resources are regarded as state secrets, and the term "state" means the politician who is control. In a recent report, the Catholic bishops of central Africa said:
"Central Africa wallows in Misery despite the growing discoveries of oil".
They also denounced the complicity of the oil companies and ruling politicians.
Nothing would do more to improve governance in such countries than transparency of accounting. The fact is that politics in some African countries is a struggle to get into the food chain and feed at the trough. People go into politics to get rich by gaining access to a country's resources. A couple of years ago, a campaign was established—it was headed by George Soros and a wonderful London-based campaigning NGO, Global Witness, as well as 60 other NGOs from around the world—to end the cloak for corruption that is a feature of the failure to publish accounts. To their great credit, our own oil companies, Shell and BP, said that they would take up the approach. Of course, they needed the security of knowing that their rivals will play the game as well, or they would have been cut out of those markets. Indeed, I think that BP was threatened with that possibility in Angola.
That campaign is called "Publish What You Pay". The Prime Minister, to his enormous credit, threw his weight behind it and launched a forum at Lancaster house in June. Among his duties, the present Secretary

757
of State has inherited the responsibility of chairing the group that takes forward the policy—the extractive industries transparency initiative is hardly a catchy title, but I think that we know what it means. The proposal was taken to the G8 and there was general approval, but it then ran into the buffers of the American oil giants, which said that any agreement should be voluntary. That is nonsense; if it is voluntary, it is a dead duck. The chairman of Exxon's international operations stressed the importance of contractual obligations coming before disclosure. Chevron said that the process must remain voluntary and that disclosure would put it at a disadvantage to Government-owned corporations. The matter is dead simple: if the same rules apply to everybody and the World Bank and regulators in developed countries lay down rules of transparency, the approach can work. It is the crook who wants secrecy; the honest company has nothing to fear if everybody else has to be transparent.
President Bush has said some promising words about helping Africa, but they will be hypocrisy if he allows American oil companies to act in partnership with political criminals to strip Africa of its natural resources. These companies are hugely powerful. Exxon has recently been negotiating with Chad, and its 2001 revenues were $191 billion, while Chad's gross domestic product was $1.4 billion. That is the difference in power.
At one time, America had little interest in Africa, but increasing amounts of oil are coming from it. We are in a new version of the great game in which the powers are struggling for resources. The Americans are trying to get out of reliance on Saudi Arabia and West Africa is in the middle of an oil boom. I was astonished by the figures: 7 billion of an estimated 8 billion barrels of oil discovered last year were found off the west coast of Africa. West Africa now sends almost as much oil to the United States as Saudi Arabia. With that change comes military interest as well, but I do not have time to speak about that.
Nigeria is the worst case of a country discovering oil and experiencing misery. Following the discovery of huge oilfields, per capita income fell by 23 per cent. since 1975. I watched with interest when democracy took over in Nigeria, but I have seen no further signs of transparency. When we went to Nigeria, it was hard for politicians to find out what was going on. In Angola, more than $1 billion—about a third of state income—disappears each year and cannot be accounted for.
My favourite example of the relationship between the United States, its oil companies and African states is that of Equatorial Guinea. It is a tiny country of about 500,000 people—about a third the size of Northern Ireland—but it sits on oil. In Washington, almost within sight of the White House, there is a place called Dupont circle. There one will find Riggs bank, in which, it is alleged by the Los Angeles Times and corroborated by Global Witness, there is a bank account holding between $300 million and $500 million in the name of the President of Equatorial Guinea. That amount of money can only have come from Equatorial Guinea's oil resources, because oil represents 90 per cent. of its income. The dominant oil companies are Exxon and Chevron—American companies that reveal no information about their payments to that country. If they did, we would know about the route that the money followed. The President of Equatorial Guinea is
758
therefore accused of huge money laundering in President Bush's neighbourhood bank, but there has been no sign of any attempt to find out whether that is the origin of the money.
The magazine, New Internationalist, ranks the world's regimes from one star to five star. Five star is "excellent"; one star is "appalling". It gives Equatorial Guinea one star, saying that all power rests in the presidency and that the president has no political vision beyond self-enrichment, self-aggrandisement and ruthless repression. No one in this place would achieve that record. We used to treat Equatorial Guinea as a pariah state. It is said that around one third of its people have fled. When it had elections last year, the leaders of the three opposition parties were locked up in jail and President Obiang got 99 per cent. of the vote. That gives us a clue that something is wrong. Even the US Department of Energy reports strong evidence of Government misappropriation of the oil funds that represent 90 per cent. of the country's income.
This is just a matter of willpower. It is not about finding resources, but about the G8, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund saying, "When you are a powerful western country, you cannot have relationships with the developing world that are not transparent." If the payments that were made by the big oil companies—whether ours, American or French—were made transparent, we could say where the money was going. I remember going to Nigeria with the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). By that time, we should have been able to ask, "As there is now democracy, where are the schools and the health centres?"—but did we find anything? No. It is crucial that the resources of a country go to the people of that country: that is a simple principle on which people could unite. I know that the Minister will not have time to reply to these points in detail, but I hope that we can have a letter or a written statement on what progress is being made on the publish-what-you-pay initiative, because I think that we should hang on to this issue, and push it and push it.
6.20 pm
Mr. Paul Marsden: This has been an excellent debate; it has been very measured and progressive. The only person with whom I would take issue is the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who seemed to flatter me by saying that those who cross the Floor of the House carry great power and influence when they do so. I cannot, however, take credit for the fact that the Liberal Democrats' ratings have gone up by some 10 points since I joined them.
Africa is a vast continent, with a rich tapestry of sights and sounds in many cultures and societies. I want to focus my remarks on Malawi, a small country of some 10.7 million people. It is a Commonwealth member and a democracy. It is not perfect, but no democracy is. It is a wonderful country in terms of its geography and landscape, and it contains the fantastic Lake Malawi, the third largest lake in Africa. It also has the potential to be able to feed its own population, owing to the rich resources of natural water.
The sad reality, however, is that Malawi comes 163rd out of 173 countries around the globe in terms of poverty. Two thirds of its people live below the

759
commonly defined poverty line. Life expectancy is a mere 38 years, and the average income is some US$200 a year. Only about half the people have access to clean water, and about one in 10 youngsters under the age of five die because of the lack of clean water, medicines, and food in their bellies. Twenty-five per cent. of Malawi's children are malnourished, and 40 per cent. are illiterate.
We have seen some improvements in Malawi over the past 18 months, as the effects of the famine that took thousands of lives have at last begun to be curtailed. I would be the first to congratulate the Government on giving an extra £37 million to Malawi in the past two years, which has helped to alleviate much of the poverty there. I give great credit to the Secretary of State and the Minister for their dedication and commitment to Malawi and to Africa generally—credit where credit is due.
I hope, however, that the Minister will be able to address my concern that the annual report of the Department for International Development showed that, over and above the emergency funding, the basic balance for the aid budget to Malawi fell from £56 million to £42 million between 2001 and 2002. The estimated outturn for 2003 is back up to £52 million, but it is anticipated that for the next three years it will hold at only about £47 million. A country in such desperate straits needs a greater commitment and more help, and I hope that the Minister will genuinely take on board my views and look long and hard at that investment for aid.
When President Mbeki gave an address on the New Partnership for Africa's Development on 31 October 2001, he set out the vision for Africa, saying:
"The work has started to give meaning to a bold vision whose realisation will for us, at last, turn into reality the concept that all people are born equal and that all of us inhabit a global village."
We need to ensure that we help him with that vision for Africa, but it is a long way off. I heard the far-sighted speech of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), but I think that it is about 100 years too soon to start talking about collecting taxes. Each day, some 20,000 children in Africa die because of the lack of clean water and basic medicines. We should give credit, as there are many Africans who contribute not through taxes, but with their bare hands. They build maternity units, schools and hospitals. They own the village right down to every brick that is laid.
I visited Malawi in August 2002 and I saw for myself the energy, ingenuity and adaptability of those people—a fantastic people and, I have to say, a happy people who were laughing in the face of death, as famine was sweeping across their country. Hand in hand with the spectre of HIV/AIDS, which was taking some 250 people a day, although I think the number has increased, the famine formed a recipe for disaster. While the Government have done so much, a lot of my frustration, if not my anger, is focused on the European Union and, in particular, on America.
America will spend $800 billion each year on arming itself and going to war, but it barely lifts a finger in many respects in terms of long-term aid. I will at least enter a caveat by congratulating President George Bush—credit where it is due—on committing some $9 billion
760
for the next five years to combating AIDS. That is more than any other US President has committed, but it is the tip of the iceberg.
I record my thanks to World Vision, the charity that helped to put together the tour round Malawi just over a year ago. I want to mention in particular John Mandere, Angela Falinya and Baldwin Chiyamwaka, who helped me to visit the regions of Mzuzu and Kayezi. There is so much doom and gloom, but I saw for myself the success stories, including farmers who were given a little help with seedlings and who could then double their crops on their farms so that they would not just be feeding themselves and their families, but expanding the farms, taking on labourers and selling their crops.
I saw for myself women building maternity units. Previously, women had to give birth in a one-room mud hut—their front room—with nothing more than a rubber sheet and no pain killers. I saw for myself bore holes that were drilled down 30 m in just two or three days and which gave water to 2,000 people in one village. I saw for myself proud people who had built a pharmacy and who were distributing basic drugs for the first time ever.
I saw for myself the yield improvements for many crops, which were achieved simply by taking together goat dung, straw and a little water, digging a hole and creating enough fertilizer for a field of crops to make a huge difference in terms of how many mouths could be fed.
Towards the end of that week's trip, I went to Kanyopola in the charity's four-wheel drive jeep. That remote little village is some 40 or 50 km from Lilongwe, the capital. As we approached, about four or five children were playing outside the huts. When we disembarked, 150 people came out of the bush and sat in front of us. They were happy, because they had only ever seen jeeps arrive with food. Naturally, they assumed that we were turning up with sacks of maize. We were not.
I had 150 people in front of me. I gave a speech, but I could offer them nothing except warm words. They were so desperate that they had sold their farming tools, their pots and pans and the clothes off their backs. They had nothing because of the drought and the famine. They were simply sitting and waiting to die, yet they were incredibly proud—I have to say that in honour of them.
I turned to John, one of the charity workers, and said, "Why on earth are they here? In the west, we would be marching off to the towns and cities to find jobs and attempt to feed our families. They are just sitting here waiting to die." He said, "Yes, but their heritage and culture are here, Paul. If they go to Lilongwe, they will probably be raped or mugged. They will almost certainly die. They sit here in the hope that they can hold their families together and that food will eventually arrive."
That village touched my heart. Babies were sitting on my knees, and I was surrounded by 40 or 50 more babies and toddlers. They were covered in scabies, they had pot bellies the size of footballs, and the cacophony as they all cried and screamed will stay with me for the rest of my life. It was simply unbearable.

761
When I started to film the children with my camcorder, I turned round the LCD screen so that they could see themselves. The older ones, aged about 12, were smiling and waving as best they could because they could see themselves, but the younger ones were not. When I asked the charity worker why that was—most people wave at a camera—he said, "They do not recognise themselves, Paul. There has been no water for most of their lives, and it is in water that they see their reflections. They have no idea whose pictures these are." It was desperately, desperately sad, and that is why we must do so much more than we have so far.
I went to see the British high commissioner. When I asked him where the food airlift was, he said "We are trying to build a railway line across Mozambique". I pay tribute to the DFID officials in Malawi, who have done a fantastic job, but it is frustrating to look in vain for the international collective willpower needed to break the cycle of poverty, deprivation and death that stalks the lands of Africa. We have the means, in the 21st century, and we could do it. We just need the political will. I say that particularly to the richest-ever nation on earth, America, but I also say it to the European Union. So much more has to be done.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett), I should like the Government to produce a timetable for the dedication of the magic figure of 0.7 per cent. of gross national income to aid. That is not an end in itself, but it demonstrates a long-term commitment; and a large proportion of that aid must go to Africa.
I welcome the International Monetary Fund's announcement in the past week of an extra $6.6 million for Malawi, but the fact that only last year Malawi had to repay debt of $89 million shows how pitiful progress has been in what could be a prosperous nation. It is rich in natural minerals, and it has the potential to deliver important agricultural products. It is an energetic people, it is a democracy, and it deserves more support.
I do not want us to have debates like this year after year, in which we must again acknowledge the death and destruction that afflict the great continent of Africa. We could make a difference now. I hope that in the next few years we begin to see a massive turnaround, and a hugely increased sense of urgency in respect of the need to tackle Africa's problems once and for all.
6.33 pm
Mr. David Chaytor: I welcome the opportunity to speak, however briefly. I shall make two points that build on what was said by two earlier speakers. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) spoke of the importance of oil in west Africa, and the increasing volumes of oil coming from it. I want to draw attention to the dangers that that will bring, in terms of geopolitical stability.
Let me refer to a country that has not been mentioned so far today—an increasingly oil-rich country. I do not think that Cameroon has ever been the subject of debate, or has even been referred to during a debate, in my time in Parliament—or, I suspect, before that. The construction of the Chad-Cameroon pipeline and Cameroon's successful offshore oil claim against its much larger neighbour, Nigeria, focuses our attention
762
on the pressures building up in west Africa. I want to bring to the House's and the Secretary of State's notice the dangers in that part of the world. In recent months, we have witnessed the events in Liberia, in Cote d'Ivoire and further round the coast in Sierra Leone; moreover, we know of the tensions in Nigeria. It is entirely conceivable that Cameroon will be the next flashpoint in that part of west central Africa, because of the pressure on natural resources—the pressure to extract oil—and on Cameroon's almost unique rain forest, which is one of the most precious virgin rain forests in the world.
We must also consider the importance of good governance in any development strategy, an issue which the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) raised. I want to draw the Secretary of State's attention to a report published by FIDH—the Paris-based, international human rights non-governmental organization—on torture in Cameroon and the absence of basic standards of criminal justice. The combination of the pressure to extract natural resources, the lack of acceptable standards of governance, the oppression of minorities, and the systematic use of torture against ordinary criminals and political prisoners, is building up into a flashpoint that we ignore at our peril. In recent years, the international community has found it easy to ignore the warning signs in small countries in strategically important areas. Today provides an opportunity to look at these warning signs and to ensure that we avoid the mistakes that have been made before.
I draw particular attention to the FIDH report on torture that was published just a few weeks ago. I accept that this issue is not primarily the responsibility of the Secretary of State for International Development, but I ask him to consider it and to discuss it with the Foreign Secretary. My understanding is that the United Nations committee against torture will convene in November, so here is an opportunity for the UK to play an important role in improving human rights in Cameroon by making representations about the complete lack of acceptability of torture as an instrument of the criminal justice system. It is also an opportunity to bring to the international stage the wider conflicts in Cameroon between the many different ethnic minorities, which speak many different languages, between the Muslims and the Christians, between those in the desert north and those in the tropical south, and in particular between the English-speaking minority and the French-speaking majority. Of course, Cameroon is one of very few countries with a French-speaking majority that happens to be a member of the Commonwealth, so the United Kingdom has—or ought to have—a particular interest in it. There is a sense among its English-speaking minority that the United Kingdom has not taken on that responsibility, or shown the level of care and interest that it might reasonably have been expected to show over a number of years.
I want to tie together the relentless exploitation of natural resources and the dangers of the absence of good governance in Cameroon, and to draw to the House's attention the fact that Cameroon may prove, if not a new Côte d'Ivoire or Sierra Leone, a potential flashpoint that could destabilise the wider region. I should be very grateful if the Secretary of State would discuss Cameroon and look at his Department's role, alongside that of the Foreign Secretary, in strengthening human rights in that country.
6.39 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: One of the difficulties of speaking at the end of a debate is that we have already heard many sensible speeches across the Chamber. I shall try not to repeat points that have already been made. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) rightly said, this is not a partisan issue, and we have heard from members of the International Development Committee on both sides of the Chamber.
I will briefly repeat what the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) said about welcoming the fact that the Secretary of State has been in his place throughout the debate, which encourages us all. I also want to welcome the Secretary of State on the occasion of his first debate in the House as Secretary of State for International Development. I found what he had to say upbeat, optimistic and uplifting. I did not agree with everything that he said, but he would not expect that. It was good to hear his optimism about the Sudan peace process and I hope that he is right. I do not, however, really share his optimism about the Congo.
I visited the Congo two years ago with the all-party group, including the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King). President Kabila told us then that he expected elections to take place within two years, but those two years have come and gone. I read Conrad's "Heart of Darkness", which many people have read, while I was there. It was written a century ago. I was greatly saddened to read Saturday's The Daily Telegraph, which described cannibalism in Ituri province. I recalled Kurtz's dying words, "The horror, the horror." We are now living in the 21st century, yet British and other journalists are living in an area where people are indulging in cannibalism.
I base my speech largely on the three issues mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)—AIDS, conflict and corruption. They are connected. Indeed, as the Secretary of State said, they are all, albeit not directly, development issues.
We heard a great deal about AIDS from the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), and I agreed with almost everything that he said. The first time that I referred, as did the Secretary of State, to the Black Death, I was interrupted by Liberal Members for being racist. However, it is like the Black Death. In leaving schools without teachers and hospitals without doctors, it is exactly the same as the scourge that swept across Europe in medieval times. It is destroying all the development progress made over the past 40 years. As the hon. Member for City of York rightly pointed out, it is vastly reducing life expectancy. The worst prediction that I have heard from UNAIDS is that life expectancy in Botswana will be 27—younger than any hon. Member who has taken part in this debate—by 2010. I hope that the prediction is wrong.
Antiretroviral treatment is terribly important, but the lesson to be learned from Uganda is that educational and behavioural change is the key to improving the situation. Having visited Botswana last year, I want to say that the way in which the Botswana Government behaved is magnificent. It is probably the richest country in southern Africa—certainly the richest per capita—and it is the best-governed country in southern Africa. As a result, it is giving antiretroviral treatment to anyone who wants and needs it.
764
On the subject of conflict, reflecting on the heart of Africa says it all. As I said, I do not share all the Secretary of State's optimism. Many of the problems are interlinked. The Sudanese believe that the Ugandan Government have supported the Sudanese People's Liberation Army, so they have supported the Lord's Resistance Army, which is fighting in northern Uganda. It is abducting children—a ghastly business. The Ugandans, of course, invaded Rwanda to help Kagami to put out the last regime. The Rwandans and Ugandans then invaded the Congo to get rid of the Mobutu regime: they are still in the Congo, looting natural resources. The Zimbabweans are doing the same—making a fortune out of the natural resources of the Congo. It is all deeply interlinked, and deeply depressing.
I shall not go through others on the list: one could go on through Liberia, Sierra Leone, Eritrea and Ethiopia. I have to say that money spent on arms and destruction should be spent on construction and development. What horrified me most on a visit to Angola in May this year was hearing from UNITA what the conflict in Angola was for. That conflict has gone on for about 26 years and millions of people have been killed in terrible destruction. What was it for? The people in UNITA said that they did not have any real ideological differences with the MPLA. They said that it was really about personalities and who had their noses in the trough. I find that deeply worrying and very cynical.
Mr. Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman has only just taken his place and I have very little time, so I will not give way to him, even though we went to Angola together.
Talking of Angola leads me to the subject of corruption, or what is euphemistically termed good governance. In Angola, former Marxists who seized power in 1975 are now making fortunes from the oil revenues from their country. Some $1 billion is unaccounted for, which is some 20 to 25 per cent. of the total oil revenue. Allegedly, it is going into the president's private bank account. Who knows? When BP tried to be transparent about the money it was paying, it was threatened with being kicked out of the country. It is a beautiful, fertile and rich country that is not overpopulated, but people are starving.
We heard much about Nigeria from the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie. Nearly a quarter of black Africans live in Nigeria and two thirds of them live on less than $1 a day, in a country that has oil revenues of $18 billion. Where is it all going? We must all ask that question. A few years ago, a finance Minister in Kenya said to me—I remember his exact words—
"Don't give us more money: ask us what we have done with the money you already gave us."
We should all bear that in mind.
Zimbabwe has an AIDS infection rate of between 25 and 33 per cent. Who knows? People are murdered daily by the regime and the corruption is self-evident. However, I remind the Secretary of State that last year our aid to Zimbabwe doubled to £29 million. As I said in my intervention in his speech, humanitarian aid is all very well, but it is being used as a tool of repression by

765
the Zimbabwean Government. I urge him, as he kindly said he would in his reply to my intervention, to ensure that we monitor exactly what happens to our aid.
My final points concern the great hope for the future—NEPAD—of which we have heard much today. The Prime Minister speaks warmly of NEPAD, but President Obasanjo of Nigeria, a former military dictator, is one of its leaders. Nigeria is the second most corrupt country in the world, according to Transparency International. What hope does that give us? We are told that NEPAD will include peer review. Well, the International Parliamentary Union was going to meet here at Westminster in March, but the Government—to their credit—refused to give visas to Zimbabweans, so African countries have pressured the IPU to move the meeting outside the United Kingdom. That is deeply depressing.
We heard about South Africa from my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). It refuses to press Mugabe to resign or to reverse his policies. However, NEPAD relies on peer review and leadership by those people. How much confidence does that give us? Is NEPAD wishful thinking, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden suggested? Do African leaders see no evil and hear no evil? I hope that the Minister addresses that issue when he winds up.
The Prime Minister called NEPAD
"a real signal of hope for the future."—[Official Report, 1 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 23.]
He applauded the presence of South Africa and Nigeria, but what evidence have we seen since of genuine desire to reform? Has Mbeki used his influence in Zimbabwe? Has Obasanjo prosecuted General Babangida, the former military dictator who lives off his looted wealth in great ostentation just outside Abuja? Are they the reforming African partners to whom the Prime Minister referred? I do not doubt the good faith of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, the Minister or the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), of whom I saw a great deal. However, we must ask whether British money is being well spent. Are our development policies working in Africa? Are the taxes of Mrs. Jones in Blaby and Mrs. Smith in Leeds being spent well and to good effect? I have seen much of the Department's work and my answer would be, "Yes, to a certain extent, and no, to a certain extent."
Tony Worthington: Just like a Liberal.
Mr. Robathan: Yes, I am sitting on the fence like a Liberal. Excellent people work for the Department and they work with excellent people in NGOs, both national and international. However, African leaders and people must address the development challenges, and the crises that have been described, through NEPAD or by other means. We can help, and we have a moral imperative to do so. We are helping, but I hope that the debate will stimulate the Government to do even more.
6.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): Like the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), I too believe that this has been an excellent debate. It will be
766
difficult to do justice to the powerful contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin), for Putney (Mr. Colman), for City of York (Hugh Bayley), for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) and for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). Thoughtful and interesting contributions were also made by the hon. Members for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett), for Banbury (Tony Baldry)—the Chairman of the Select Committee—for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), and for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden). I recognise that, as a result, I shall have to write to a number of hon. Members in order to respond to the specific questions that they raised.
As just about all hon. Members noted, Africa faces a huge challenge in meeting the millennium development goals. That challenge is not insurmountable, but it requires that African nations commit themselves to reform, through NEPAD and the other processes of the African Union. At the same time, the developed world must alter fundamentally its relationship with Africa, and not just in terms of levels of aid. It must also tackle the range of policy constraints affecting Africa's development.
There are major challenges to be faced. They include preventing conflict and achieving more effective post-conflict reconstruction, reversing the spread of HIV/ AIDS—on which a number of hon. Members concentrated in their contributions—responding to globalisation, and achieving faster economic growth. We must also continue to improve the quality and effectiveness of governance.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: My hon. Friend has touched on the issue of conflict and the need for western countries and aid donors to change their ways. Is he aware of the letter from Dr. Mohamed Ibn Chambas, the general secretary of ECOWAS, which was sent to his Department? In the letter, he writes:
"Where guns dominate, development suffers."
He urges the Government to go further with extraterritorial controls than is currently proposed.
Mr. Thomas: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall come to issues of conflict and the points that he raises in a moment.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out in his opening speech, there are some powerful examples of good progress in Africa, but there are also too many example of countries where much more needs to be done. The lead has to be taken by African countries, but with the support of the international community.
In 2000, there were 13 major conflicts in progress in Africa. That number has come down to just two at present. That does not mean that violent conflict is at an end, and many of the settlements in place are very fragile, but there is a real chance to build on the political processes generated by peace settlements in countries such as Angola, Liberia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Key partner countries such as Nigeria and Uganda still face significant internal problems that result in violence and death. It is clear, therefore, that we have more to do.
In particular, we must take advantage of the new options presented by the African Union's new peace and security architecture. The union is now leading the first

767
African mission in Burundi, with Ethiopian, South African and Mozambican troops taking part. Already, the union has also tabled plans for an African standby peacekeeping force.
Clearly, it will be important that the member countries of the African Union ratify the peace and Security Council, so that the union has a clear mandate to build African capacity in order to prevent conflict in the region. We are spending a total of £110 million specifically on conflict management and prevention activities. Much of that amount is spent on UN operations, such as those that took place in the Congo. However, we are also working on security sector reform, reducing the prevalence of small arms and carrying out peace-building work. We shall consider the letter mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) in that light.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of York, among other hon. Members, highlighted the horror of the HIV/ AIDS epidemic. In seven countries, all in southern Africa, 20 per cent. or more of the population has HIV/ AIDS. The hon. Member for Blaby mentioned Botswana, where 38 per cent. of the population has the disease. About 29 million Africans are living with HIV/AIDS.
The human impact of the disease is most powerfully illustrated by the fact that 11 million children under the age of 15 have lost one or both parents to HIV/AIDS. In that context, the contribution of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham was especially interesting. The epidemic certainly affects both rich and poor, but the poor are much more vulnerable to infection and much less able to cope with the disease.
We are supporting African Governments so that they can deliver their commitments to improve health care and tackle HIV/AIDS. Our planned bilateral spending on HIV/AIDS programmes has risen from £38 million in 1997 to more than £270 million in this financial year, putting us second in international spending on the disease.
The epidemic has fuelled the spread of tuberculosis and exacerbated the impact of malaria. As well as supporting country-level initiatives to control tuberculosis and malaria, we are working through international efforts such as "Stop TB" and "Roll Back Malaria" and, of course, the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria. However, if we are to tackle all three diseases, as well as a whole range of other health issues, such as ensuring that the poor have greater accessibility to drugs, it is vital that health systems more generally be strengthened in Africa. Since 1997, we have committed more than £1.5 billion to help countries build and strengthen their health care systems.
The hon. Members for Edinburgh, West and for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) highlighted the fact that Cancun was a huge disappointment—as did the Chairman of the Select Committee. As I indicated in Westminster Hall last week, we are committed to trying to get the Doha development round back on track, to help African countries to enjoy the huge benefits that are on offer if we can secure fair trade rules.
The hon. Member for Banbury gave an especially powerful example of the current unfairness of world trade rules—the level of cotton subsidies. World prices
768
are depressed by at least 20 per cent., which costs west African cotton producers an estimated $250 million to $300 million each year. We are helping to support those west African nations in their campaign at the World Trade Organisation by giving about €50,000, with other nations. That will help their advocates to make their case; it is a small example from the £160 million that we have given to build trade capacity across the developing world. We are arguing in Europe for further, deeper reforms of EU cotton subsidies both to give a signal about Europe's commitment to Africa and to get the Doha development round back on track.
Those are examples of real progress towards democracy and good governance in Africa, but as all hon. Members recognise, major challenges remain. When there are difficulties in particular countries, that is not the time for the international community to walk away; it is time to engage even more closely to support African-led solutions. That is why the Government are committed to ensuring that £1 billion of our aid goes to Africa by 2006. That is why we are working to promote the international finance facility to double world aid levels.
Sadly, that is in stark contrast to the record and current agenda on the Conservative Front Bench. The Conservatives halved the percentage of gross national product allocated to overseas aid during their 18 years in power.
Mr. Robathan: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Thomas: I am afraid that I cannot give way at this point.
Who could not fail to worry about the UK's response to Africa's challenge from a probable hard-right Conservative leader who is committed to public expenditure cuts of 20 per cent. across Government? Where would that leave this country's commitment to tackle the HIV/AIDS epidemic? How would that help our Government's commitment to ensuring that every child has a primary school place? How would that help us in building the capacity of African countries to resist terrorist attacks?
On international development, I am afraid that there will be clear red water between our two parties at the next election. However, while we are in government we shall remain committed to ensuring that the millennium goals will be implemented.
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to Order [30 October].

African Development Strategies
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. I 18 (6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
    That the Local Government Finance Special Grant Report (No. 128) on Dealing with Disadvantage Grant, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th October, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    DENTISTS
    That the draft Dental Auxiliaries (Amendment) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 15th October, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
    Question agreed to.

  BROADCASTING
  Ordered,
  That Mr James Gray be discharged from the Broadcasting Committee and Gregory Barker be added.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

  SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
  Ordered,
  That, on Thursday 20th November, there shall be no sitting in Westminster Hall.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

PETITIONS

  Palestine Solidarity Campaign
  7.1 pm
  Hugh Bayley: Having just returned from the International Development Committee's visit to Palestine and Israel, I am acutely aware not only of the desperate plight of the Palestinian people, but of the fact that there is no monopoly of right or wrong on either side and that both sides must stop the violence before a peace settlement can be found.
  Tonight, I present to the House the petition of the York group of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. The group opposes the Israeli Government's use of military
  770
  action against Palestinian civilians, notes that 2,500 Palestinians have been killed since September 2000, and calls for the indictment of the Prime Minister of Israel.
  The petition, which is signed by Monica Wusteman of York and 575 supporters of the York Palestine Solidarity Campaign, states:
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons take steps to ensure that there is an end to the British government's arms trade with Israel and that trade sanctions are imposed until Israel ends its illegal occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and abides by international law and UN resolutions including the removal of illegal settlements, and implementation of the right to return of Palestinian refugees.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Television Services
  7.2 pm
  Mr. Peter Duncan: I take great pleasure in presenting to the House a petition of several hundred of my constituents who expressed concern about the limited availability of analogue television services in my constituency and the failure to expand the availability of digital television services.
  The petition states:
  The petition of residents of Dumfries and Galloway declares that access to the licence fee funded Freeview service is virtually non-existent in the region, and that terrestrial television transmission provides a restricted choice of channels.
  The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to take the necessary action to ensure that DTV Service upgrades transmitters throughout the region in order to facilitate reception of all available terrestrial channels and digital services on Freeview.
  To lie upon the Table.

Western Circuit
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
7.3 pm
Jim Knight: I am very pleased to have secured this debate, although the situation has moved on considerably since I applied for it, as I shall explain as my speech unfolds.
The debate is about access to justice, particularly for my constituents in Dorset. In the foreword to the access to justice White Paper, Lord Irvine of Lairg, the then Lord Chancellor, said:
"The justice system should serve everyone, regardless of their means. People should be able to find effective solutions to their legal problems. Justice must not be restricted to the very wealthy, who can well afford high legal fees, or the very poor, who may qualify for legal aid."
Those words apply as much now as they did then. We are talking about equal access regardless of wealth, but that also means equal access regardless of geography, which is why the reorganisation of our courts system is so important. We must ensure that witnesses called to appear in court, jurors serving the court and, equally, defendants appearing in court have access to local justice.
I was pleased that, earlier this year, I was able to meet the Minister's predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), to discuss my concerns about the reorganisation of magistrates courts in Dorset. We discussed the effects on our rural county of closing little-used courts in towns such as Wareham. If that proposal goes ahead, my constituents in Swanage will have to travel to Poole or Bournemouth to access magistrates. For defendants without private transport, that means an hour-long bus journey to either place that costs £5.75 for a return fare. It is not relevant to re-rehearse that discussion now, but it serves to show that when we discuss access to justice, geography and rurality is relevant. People in a town such as Swanage, which is poorly served by a whole range of services, incur significant cost in time and fares to access our courts.
However, I welcome the progress that the Government has made in this area. Ministers have recognised that our justice system needs to be reformed. Currently, the House of Lords is delaying the Criminal Justice Bill, which will, for example, rebalance the criminal justice system in favour of the victim, witnesses and the community to reduce crime and bring more offenders to justice. The Courts Bill makes provisions that will allow the Government to replace magistrates courts committees and the court service with a single executive agency responsible for the administration of all courts below the House of Lords. It ends the current division between the 42 magistrates courts committees and the court service. Again, I have no desire to re-rehearse the debates on the Courts Bill, which has been through its stages in the House, but some aspects were debated on Report that merit closer examination in this debate. I am pleased to see the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) in the Chamber, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome raised at column 413 the issue of proposed changes to the western circuit.
772
At this point I must apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I mistakenly gave the name of the circuit as the Wessex circuit when I applied for this debate. Such is my enthusiasm for regionalism that I got carried away in using the old regional titles for something as established and historic as the western circuit. The circuit has been in existence in roughly its present form since the King's Justices first went out on assize in medieval times. Its three main centres have always been Winchester, Bristol and Exeter. Indeed, Winchester, as we all know, was the original capital of Wessex.
On Report of the Courts Bill, to which I referred earlier, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome discussed the letter sent to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole by his honour Judge John Beashel. I also received a similar letter from the judge, in which he raised concerns about the proposals to remove Winchester from the western circuit and to place it in the southeastern circuit. He argued that the current arrangements work well and that without Winchester the circuit would not have sufficient business to sustain a viable high-quality circuit. The justification for the change would be to achieve coterminosity with the Government regions, which in almost all other respects place Hampshire in the south-east and the rest of the western circuit in the south-west.
As I have said, I am an avowed advocate of regional government. I am pleased that the Government are now starting to delegate more responsibility to regional and local level and I am keen to see those regional decisions made accountable through regional government. I was concerned, however, that it appeared to practitioners, from the Lord Chief Justice downwards, that this was a proposed reorganisation driven more by bureaucratic convenience than by improvement. We need to demonstrate clearly the gains if we are to proceed. Government policy is that the regional boundaries used by Departments should follow those of the nine English Government offices of the regions and Wales, except in exceptional circumstances. Regional offices will be joining up government at regional level, including strong involvement in spending reviews. I appreciate that the Government did not want courts to be left behind in this process.
First and foremost, however, we need to ensure that local justice works for the witnesses, the victims and the local people. Proposals for re-alignment under the Courts Bill make sense and fit well with Government plans for regional government. However, the delivery of an effective justice system serving the needs of local people must not be compromised merely to achieve administrative efficiency. That is why I was so delighted to receive a letter from the Minister by fax last Thursday that made a decision on the future of Hampshire in the new unified courts administration. Remarkably, the letter was written on the very day that I secured this debate. I pay great tribute to the Minister for responding with such lightning speed to the mere suggestion of the debate. The debate was announced on Thursday morning and the fax had arrived in my office by 1.30 pm. I applaud the Minister not only for his agility, but for listening to representations that have been made on the issue.

773
The Minister's letter says:
"We have focussed on what produces the best justice system for the public in the two regions."
He continues:
"We acknowledge that making a change at this stage would raise a number of potentially difficult issues for the Judiciary and the Bar, which could impact on the administration of justice for the public. In addition we have received representations from partner criminal justice agencies locally to the effect that from their perspective change would not bring significant benefit."
The letter concludes by saying:
"We have decided not to realign Hampshire and the Isle of Wight at this time."
That is a victory for common sense. I am sure that there were celebrations at that news this weekend throughout Somerton and Frome—led by its hon. Member.
That must not be the end of the story because two issues remain. First, the decision will be reviewed in 2006–07 and, secondly, and most importantly for my constituents, there is a question of whether we can do better in terms of access for justice for serious crimes in Dorset.
The Minister's letter says:
"We have decided that in order to provide a better service for court users in Dorset that, subject to the views of the Senior Judiciary, Bournemouth Crown Court should become a first tier centre."
That is potentially great news for Dorset because it means all crime will be heard locally. It means that the witnesses, jurors, and defendants to whom I referred earlier will all be able to access the courts easily.
I have already told you, Madam Deputy Speaker, about the time and cost to my constituents of getting to Bournemouth by public transport. Getting to Winchester court is yet another challenge. Naturally, there is no direct bus or train service from Swanage to Winchester, so one has to get the bus to Bournemouth and a non-connecting train to Winchester, which takes more than an hour and costs almost £12 return. The cost of accessing justice for my Swanage constituents who use the Winchester court is therefore almost £17, and four hours of their time is taken each day that they attend. Will the Minister give some detail on the pledge to bring justice closer to the good people of Dorset by hearing serious crimes in Bournemouth?
When can we expect certainty on the announcement? The Minister said that it is subject to the senior judiciary. If they view the proposal as part of a longer-term strategy to allow the western circuit to be sustainable without Winchester, they might resist it. I encourage the Minister to resist them, if that is the case. The enhancement of the Bournemouth court will increase the capacity of the courts throughout the south of England and improve access. It should therefore mean that cases would be heard more quickly and justice would speed up in what is currently a very busy part of the courts system. In order to achieve that, we would need to ensure that more professionals work on the circuit in time. I would be interested to find out what steps the Minister and the Department are taking to achieve that so that the extra capacity can genuinely be capitalised upon.
A series of other questions follow from this exciting proposal. Assuming that the Minister goes ahead with this proposal, how soon does he think that we can
774
proceed? Are there physical constraints relating to the court buildings in Bournemouth? What sort of development would be required, and how would such development relate to the reorganisation of the magistrates courts in Dorset? I appreciate that he might not be able to answer all those questions now, although I shall be delighted if he can, but I know that he and his officials will be listening carefully, so I would be happy to receive answers in due course.
The other key question is about the review in 2006–07 to which the Minister referred in his statement. What work will the Department for Constitutional Affairs undertake to prepare for such a review? If no work were done, what would have changed in the next few years? Would it not be sensible to ensure that the south-east could cope with the addition of a busy court such as Winchester and, in turn, that the addition of Bournemouth would provide sufficient work to sustain a new western circuit without Hampshire because the Minister would then have a genuine choice? I am aware that a similar anomaly will exist between Cheshire and north Wales. Will the Minister encourage change to allow coterminosity with the government regions or will the Department remain neutral?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I hope that we shall not have too much of a replay of the Courts Bill, although clearly some reference to it is acceptable.
Jim Knight: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will refrain from that.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue. Access to justice is at the heart of much of the Government's good work. It is no doubt apparent that I expected to use a different tone in the debate when I first applied for it. I expected to be pleading for improved access to justice for Dorset in the medium to long term and for common sense in relation to the western circuit in the short term. As a result of receiving the highly efficient fax from the Minister's office last Thursday, I have been able to make a different speech. He can tell that I am excited about the potential of his proposals for Bournemouth. He has listened to the representations on Winchester. I now ask him to listen to them on behalf of Dorset, to press ahead with those proposals and to use this opportunity to give the House more detail than he gave in last week's statement.
7.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) on his success in securing this timely debate on the organisation of the courts and the western circuit. He explained why he needed to change the debate's title from Wessex circuit to western circuit. I could spend some time delving into the different definitions of what is Wessex and whether it is the same as the south-west and so on, but I do not want to waste time.
My hon. Friend noted that faxes winged their way to him on the day his Adjournment debate was selected, but I assure him that the timing of the debate was unconnected to the decision taken. However, his advocacy of the case was very much part of the process.

775
His arguments to me, the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs were important and it is right to respond to them. Responding positively reflects the quality of his arguments. As my hon. Friend observed, we reached a decision on the organisation of the south-west region of the planned new courts agency. I am glad that our decision meets with his approval. I suspect that it will also meet with the approval of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have raised the issue in the Chamber and privately with me, as well as with many members of the judiciary and the legal services community, who have been vocal in their arguments on the subject.
It might help if I set out a bit of the history of how we went about planning the structure of the proposed agency. In our White Paper "Justice for All", the Government set out their intention to establish a new organisation responsible for the administration of all the courts in England and Wales below the House of Lords. We are implementing a programme to integrate those courts in England and Wales into a single executive agency, as my hon. Friend explained. That will be a major change programme, creating an agency of 20,000 staff engaging with a judicial work force of more than 30,000 and with a budget of about £1 billion. Bringing 43 separate organisations into one with a common management and culture will be a major leadership and change management challenge.
There are many benefits to the new agency. Briefly, it will involve better performance, better management and better use of resources; a more joined-up criminal justice system; a narrowing of the gap between offences recorded and offenders brought to justice; and a more developed stronger focus on the standards of service and modern methods of delivering services in all courts. The focus of our work is to create an organisation that is more responsive to better public service objectives and the needs of the courts' customers, victims and witnesses.
There are, of course, organisational issues to settle. In the court service, the Crown court and county courts are located in six different regions, known as circuits, each headed by a regional manager, called a circuit administrator. Magistrate's courts, on the other hand, are run by 42 independent magistrates courts committees. They are coterminous with criminal justice, police authority and Crown Prosecution Service areas.
We have decided that there should be 42 local management units when the agency is first established. That is because all the other criminal justice agencies are configured in that way. However, in the new unified courts agency, we want a regional management tier, similar to the circuit arrangements. A regional tier will help to facilitate a more collegiate approach between areas and the handling of local and regional issues. It will also enable the dissemination of best practice to raise standards and provide a strong leadership capacity, which will be especially important during the transition to the new agency, when we will have to forge a new organisation and culture.
Civil trial and family care centres, as well as specialist jurisdictions such as chancery and mercantile business, draw work from across criminal justice boundaries to
776
provide specialist facilities and a critical mass of cases. There is a need for the mechanism to be regionally based to move such work across the boundaries of the 42 areas.
Compared with the magistrates courts, the caseload of the Crown court, county courts and specialist courts is more complex and volatile, so a regional tier is needed to provide an overview to match resources to need. That would be much more difficult, if not impossible, to achieve from national headquarters. In addition, deployment of the full and part-time professional judiciary will be better managed at a level above local management units.
Having decided the principle that it is necessary to have a regional level of organisation, we then had to think about the boundaries of those regions. Of course, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, the Government's clearly stated policy is that regional boundaries should match those of the nine Government office regions and Wales, unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary. The Government last reaffirmed that principle in last year's White Paper on the regional agenda, and we believe that it will impact more and more on the work of the courts because they are a part of the wider public service community.
The regional offices will increasingly be joined up with other Government services at a regional level. We do not want the courts to be left behind in that, and many of our justice partners—the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, the national probation service, the Prison Service and, informally, the Crown Prosecution Service—are already aligning with the Government office regions. The courts have been an anomaly, and that is one reason that the issue has evolved in this way.
The Crown and county courts are currently organised around the circuits, which had their origin in the historic tours of duty that judges, their key officials and members of the Bar undertook, setting out from London at regular intervals to oversee the different regions. Over the centuries, the circuits varied from time to time, but until the Beeching reforms and subsequent Courts Act 1971, they continued to be based on groupings of counties. The reforms left the circuit boundaries relatively untouched, and the current court service organised itself on a regional basis corresponding with them.
The circuit boundaries are coterminous with those of the Government office regions, with two exceptions. First, the Wales and Chester and the western circuits broadly correspond with Wales and the south-west region, but the former also includes Cheshire, from the north-west region, and the latter includes Hampshire from the south-east region.
Dealing first with Wales and Chester, there are practical issues concerning the way in which court work is administered in north Wales and Cheshire, so we have decided to keep the link between them for now. We would like, however, to review that position in the financial year 2006–07 as part of a general post-implementation review of the agency's working arrangements. We believe that at that point there may well be compelling reasons for moving Cheshire into line with the region covered by the Government office for the north-west and to align the courts in Wales with the National Assembly.

777
For Hampshire, which is largely the subject of the debate, we had to decide whether it should be included in the south-east, in line with the Government office, or with the south-west, in line with the current western circuit. We focused on what produces the best justice system for the public in those two regions. I am aware that the western circuit of the Bar is strong and plays an important role in providing training for members of the Bar, among other things. The circuits work well for the judiciary and the Bar, but we wanted to ensure that the public were best served by the arrangements, and were at the centre of our thinking. We received and considered carefully a number of representations about the location of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight in the structure of the new courts agency.
I acknowledge that making a change now may raise a number of difficult issues for the judiciary and the Bar that could impact on the administration of justice for the public. Moreover, we received representations, as my hon. Friend pointed out, from partner criminal justice agencies locally to the effect that, from their perspective, change would not at present bring significant benefits. On balance and after a great deal of careful thought, there is insufficient merit at this time in adopting the policy of realigning the western circuit with the regional government boundary. Although the policy of aligning the courts administration with the boundaries of other government services is important and can have significant benefits for the administration of justice, we have concluded that, for now, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight should not be aligned with the south-east.
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Will the Minister outline the factors that need to change for a different decision to be made in 2006?
Mr. Leslie: As I have explained in, I hope, a logical sequence, there is a need for a regional management structure within the new unified courts administration. Given that arrangement, we would normally be predisposed to see whether it is possible to realign the boundaries with those of the relevant Government office for the regions to achieve the good administrative practice of coterminous services cutting across other public service boundaries. The regional agenda is clearly developing, as I have said, and it is prudent to keep the matter under review according to the time scale that I have set out.
778
We have listened carefully to the views of hon. Members and others who have made a case for the current structures, and whose arguments have been thorough and detailed. We have responded to their concerns, paid attention to worries and taken note of the success of current working arrangements, all of which has helped to inform the decision. Nevertheless, the regional agenda is developing, and there may well be a much clearer case for realignment later, so we will reconsider the issue in 2006–07.
My hon. Friend pressed me on the issues affecting his constituents in Dorset. In the course of studying and reviewing the particular circumstances of the organisation of the justice system in the south-west and south-east, it became clear that the distribution of court business across Hampshire, Dorset and Wiltshire needed to be improved, as my hon. Friend pointed out. The exercise identified the fact that, subject to the views of the senior judiciary, we could provide a better service for court users in Dorset if Bournemouth Crown court became a "first-tier centre" so that serious cases from Dorset could be tried more conveniently. There may be clear benefits for victims and witnesses in the area from upgrading Bournemouth to a first-tier centre, so the Government intend to investigate the possibility of achieving that. My hon. Friend pressed me on time scales and so on. I shall endeavour to establish a firmer timetable for the plans, and shall look closely at the question of buildings and facilities, as well as other issues that he raised.
While I recognise that many of the representations on the boundaries of the western court circuit have been made by people who work within the existing framework, it is essential that the Government take a fresh look at the arrangements from time to time to ensure that the needs of the public in the justice system remain paramount. We have concluded this matter for the time being but, as I have said, the greater need for a well-organised, cross-cutting and integrated criminal justice system able to work readily with other public services remains an important part of our reform agenda, hence the decision that has been made. I am glad to have the opportunity to put on record my appreciation for the strong case made by my hon. Friend, and my thanks to other hon. Members who have given the matter diligent scrutiny.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven o 'clock.

Preamble
[MR. GEORGE STEVENSON in the Chair]

Equitable Life
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned—[Mr. Kemp.]
9.30 am
Richard Ottaway: I start by declaring a past or latent interest I am a former Equitable Life policyholder.
It is remarkable that, despite repeated calls, this debate is taking place almost a year after the last, and it is profoundly depressing that absolutely nothing seems to have happened during that year. A few well-meaning but narrow inquiries have made constructive remarks, but Lord Penrose plods along at his own speed while millions of policyholders and their dependants remain frustrated, firmly believing that an injustice has been done. The Government sit on the sidelines, saying nothing, suggesting nothing, stalling, and hoping that they can evade responsibility.
The problems of Equitable Life are well documented. In its heyday, it was one of the most respected life assurance companies of the 20th century. It closed to new business in December 2000 after a House of Lords decision in July of that year that criticised decisions made by the regulators and management over the preceding 25 years. We are talking about a scandal on a massive scale. Policyholders from all walks of life who were planning for their retirement put their faith in pension companies like the Equitable for one simple reason: although there is no such thing as a risk-free investment, they believed that they were protected from financial mismanagement because the pension companies were subject to scrutiny, supervision and regulation by the authorities set up by Parliament. It is not acceptable, as has been suggested, to say that policyholders should have been more alert or that their expectations were too high. It is the job of the regulators to monitor the probity of an institution in the financial services sector and to take appropriate action. The people expect that and are entitled to demand it.
The Equitable started to go wrong in 1975, when policyholders were guaranteed annuities at interest rates that subsequently proved unsustainable. Throughout the 80s, that policy continued even though interest rates on the investments that underwrote the policies were falling. The Equitable then made the ultimately disastrous decision in 1988 to continue to issue policies without guaranteed annuities, and to mix the two classes of policy into one financial pot. By 1993, interest rates had fallen to such a level that those with guaranteed annuities were clearly sitting on a far more valuable asset than those without. In response, the board lowered the bonus for those entitled to guaranteed annuities. By not lowering the bonus for other policyholders, all policyholders were, in effect, put in the same financial
194WH
position. That was a recipe for disaster. In 1998, it was calculated that the liability for those with guaranteed annuity rates was in excess of £1.6 billion.
What on earth were the regulators up to? As long-term interest rates fell, the Equitable should have closed itself to new business involving policies that gave a guaranteed annuity rate, drawn a line under the business contracted on that basis and opened a new fund for policies without guaranteed annuities. That would have made it clear to all which funds were available to meet which liabilities. Why the regulators did not act is a central question for Lord Penrose. After all, if five Law Lords could work that out in a few days, why could the army of civil servants whose sole job it is to monitor such things not do so?
At the same time as the events I have described, the Equitable embarked on a bonus strategy that was deceptive and equally dangerous in its consequences. In simple terms, the Equitable consistently announced bonuses without having the underlying assets available to sustain them. A successful direct marketing campaign, hyped by over-bonusing, attracted a large number of new policyholders and an increasing flow of contributions from existing members. Through the 1990s, that gave the Equitable a level of growth that was without equal, but t was bound to end in tears. Even at the top of the bull market in January 2000, the fund was in deficit by about £2 billion, and it was £3.3 billion below policyholders' reasonable expectations.
Throughout that period, the regulator stood by and did nothing. It was a truly remarkable state of affairs. In the eyes of EMAG—Equitable Members Action Group, which is a most constructive and positive group—Equitable was effectively running a pyramid scheme. That is a point of view with which I have some sympathy. Perhaps the issue was so big that the regulators could not see the wood for the trees.
Equitable Life closed to new business in December 2000. The Government announced the Penrose inquiry in August 2001. It was set up on a non-statutory basis, and its brief was to discover the facts and establish what lessons could be learned. The then Economic Secretary to the Treasury—now the Financial Secretary—announced that Penrose would report as soon as possible. More than two years later, he still has not reported. In October 2001, the Government said that he would report in the second half of 2002. The Minister said in December 2002 that Penrose would report to Ministers in summer 2003; and in March 2003, that the report was expected in June. In May, Lord Penrose said that he could not report in June; in September, the secretary to the inquiry said that the report was nearly finished. In October, there were suggestions that the report could be delayed by litigation among those involved in this sorry saga; last week, Lord Penrose said that that was not the case. Now, there are suggestions that the report might not be published until the new year.
I draw back from demanding an inquiry into the inquiry, but it is incumbent on the Financial Secretary to explain what is going on. I put to her three specific questions of which I have given her prior notice. First, is she satisfied that the inquiry has had sufficient resources to do the job that it was required to do? If she is, will she explain the delay? Secondly, are witnesses refusing to co-operate? If they are, will she undertake to

195WH
put the inquiry on a statutory basis, so that Lord Penrose has the power to call witnesses? Thirdly, will she confirm that, immediately upon receipt, she will publish the report in full and that she will reject the arguments of those who seek to block publication on the grounds that the report could prejudice the outcome of their legal battles? The significance of the last point will not be lost on those who suspect that the Treasury would be only too happy if it was prevented from publishing a report that pointed to regulatory failure and opened the floodgates to compensation. In his statement last week, Lord Penrose made it clear that his job is to investigate the facts, not to determine fault: he will describe or comment on the role of those involved, but stick to the facts. In the light of that crystal-clear statement will the Financial Secretary confirm that the report will be published in full on receipt?
The Chairman of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), has written to me expressing his disappointment that he is unable to attend today—the Treasury Committee is sitting at this moment. However, he confirms that once the Penrose inquiry is published the Treasury Committee will continue its inquiries, which is greatly to be welcomed.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend has followed this story more closely than any other hon. Member. This is his third debate on the subject and many of us are incredibly grateful to him for that. Thousands upon thousands of people await the outcome of the Penrose inquiry to see where their future lies. My hon. Friend described vividly the delay in getting the report ready; does he agree that any delay in publication will be unacceptable?
Richard Ottaway: My hon. Friend has sat through our previous debates on this issue, and he makes a powerful point, which I am sure is not lost on the Financial Secretary. Millions of people await the outcome of the report, so that they will know exactly where they stand.
Before discussing the role of the parliamentary ombudsman, I should like to make one point about the role of the former directors. There is no doubt that extraordinary decisions were made by past board members. Those decisions are now the subject of litigation. Whatever we may think about the actions of those people, I believe that the decision to sue is a diversion from the exposure of the regulatory regime. Bankrupting former board members will raise a few millions, but that is peanuts in the global scale of Equitable's problems. If there is a remedy, it lies in the criminal law. My advice to the current board is to drop the litigation against the former directors and move on to expose the regulatory failures.
The report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration has had a very different voyage. Initially the ombudsman announced that he would not investigate the complaints put before him. However, during the debate held here in Westminster Hall in October 2001—our second debate on the subject—hon. Members on both sides of the House made it clear that the ombudsman should remember that he reports to Parliament, not to the Executive, and that his refusal to
196WH
investigate smacked very much of the wishes of the Executive. To his credit, the ombudsman recognised the force of this argument, and announced an investigation a few days later. That followed publication of the Baird report, which emerged from the Financial Services Authority's own internal inquiry. Like all good internal inquiries, it found that whoever was to blame, it certainly was not the FSA.
Jane Griffiths: The Baird report demonstrates that the die was cast for Equitable before 1999, and figures available to us show that that die was almost certainly cast before 1997. The hon. Gentleman referred to events as long ago as the 1970s. Where does he think the responsibility ultimately lies?
Richard Ottaway: I suspect that the hon. Lady is verging on making a political point. I wish that the Financial Secretary had made that point. The Labour Government continued precisely the same policy as the previous Government, so if the hon. Lady is suggesting that the previous Government got it wrong, she must acknowledge that the present Government have got it wrong too. Before she makes interventions like that she should come clean about exactly where she is coming from. There is a point to be made about the Baird inquiry, however, which is that it was limited in its scope and it did not look at the earlier problems.
The period covered by the ombudsman's inquiry has gone up and down. He initially announced that he would examine only the period January 1999 to December 2000, as the Baird report did. Then, in March 2003, his successor told the Public Administration Committee that she did not rule out pre-1999 investigations. In July, she published her report in which she ruled out further investigations. Now I read reports that once Lord Penrose has published, the ombudsman will consider further investigations. Perhaps this is all part of life's rich tapestry, but Parliament, to which the ombudsman reports, should have clarification of the matter rather than have to read about it in the press.
There have been many criticisms of the parliamentary ombudsman's report. Many people believe that the FSA's decision to allow the Equitable to continue to write new business despite knowing its parlous financial state was an error. For reasons that I find unconvincing, the parliamentary ombudsman found otherwise. Her view that the Government Actuary's Department is not within her remit is puzzling, and there are questions about her views on the definition of solvency and the test of a prudent regulator. However, the nub of the matter is that the ombudsman spoke in her report of a mismatch between the public's expectations of a regulatory regime and the light-touch approach of the regulators. That is the heart of the matter.
The ombudsman came down on the side of the establishment. The implication was that the policyholders should not have expected the regulators to notice and act on the financial chaos at the Equitable. The regulatory touch was so light that it was almost non-existent. If that is the Government's definition of regulation, their approach needs to be revisited—either that or the ombudsman was wrong. The real problem is whether the ombudsman, with limited resources, is the right person to conduct such an inquiry. It is perfectly

197WH
legitimate for MPs to put complaints such as those about the Equitable to the ombudsman. However, if the inquiries to be made are so technical, a review of the ombudsman's role in such complaints is justified.
The Financial Secretary must recognise that while the saga continues, hundreds of thousands of policyholders are affected. Billions of pounds have been lost and the elderly suffer; meanwhile the guilty men go free. These matters must be drawn to a head, and the Government must be seen to act decisively. We cannot be fobbed off with excuses and lame explanations.
9.46 am
John Barrett: I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) on initiating this morning's debate. His introduction provided a clear and concise history of events. People who have been confused by ongoing events, as I have, should read his speech because it provides a clear summary. Many hon. Members, including me, have been applying for a debate since the publication of the ombudsman's report. The Government should have allowed us an opportunity to discuss the report after it was produced, in Government time, before the summer recess. I am glad that hon. Members of all parties agreed with me and signed my early-day motion calling for such a debate; unfortunately, little notice was taken of it.
Today we have our latest opportunity to debate the ongoing quagmire that is the Equitable Life scandal, which has already been described as a "scandal on a massive scale". Many people would agree with that. It is our first chance to debate the matter since Ann Abraham produced her report, and the subject is topical, with stories about Equitable Life again appearing in newspapers as we anxiously await Lord Penrose's report. We should not go over old ground or rehearse old arguments, but it is important to consider what has happened since the last debate, to examine the ombudsman's report, and to look ahead to see what help remains to be given to the millions of people who trusted others with their finances only for that trust to be betrayed.
The ombudsman's report was a major disappointment and left many of my constituents worried and distraught about their remaining options and recourse for action. I found many of the report's conclusions surprising and confusing. I do not say that lightly. MPs and our constituents must be able to trust the ombudsman to root out maladministration. That trust must remain after a report is published, but it has been seriously dented on this occasion. I could not justify to my constituents the decision of the ombudsman not to award compensation, given that the Government in their role as regulator were at best negligent and careless, and at worst downright incompetent almost to the point of recklessness, while Equitable was being so badly mismanaged. Worse still, those of us who question the ombudsman's conclusions have been left further confused by the admission by the ombudsman's lawyers that further investigations by her offices may be necessary following the Penrose report, despite earlier statements that she would take no further role.
Such changing positions only make a complicated and difficult situation worse, leaving policyholders more confused and frustrated. Furthermore, as my hon.
198WH
Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) has pointed out, especially in his role as a member of the Treasury Committee, the sheer number of different investigations that are taking or have taken place should in no way mean that those policyholders who had the foresight or even the luck to choose one route have a better outcome than those who followed another. It is clear to me that all policyholders who have suffered at the hands of Equitable Life should be compensated; they deserve nothing less.
Looking to the longer term, perhaps the whole process has given the Government food for thought about the system for complaining about financial services. It is safe to say that there is room for massive improvements—changes that the Treasury would do well to consider. I do not envy Lord Penrose: many people, including many hon. Members, are pinning their hopes on his report, and although I understand the impatience for publication, it is important that haste does not come in place of thoroughness. However, Lord Penrose has had plenty of time. Although I read the recent intriguing news stories about the Penrose inquiry with interest, the resulting speculation has served only to increase people's expectations even more. Such heightened expectations are widespread, but the fact that Lord Penrose has again contacted Treasury and Department of Trade and Industry officials must not encourage people to draw early conclusions, before the report is made public.
I sincerely hope that when the day of publication comes, as much of the original report will be published as possible. We know the arguments that will be advanced for deleting some aspects of the report, but hiding behind the argument of commercial confidentiality will not win over any policyholders, especially with Equitable having been closed to new business for the past three years. The Financial Secretary must be warned that the anger that policyholders are showing now will be nothing to their anger if the report appears in any way to be a cover-up to protect not commercial sensitivity but the credibility and reputation of the Government. The inquiry process and the attempts to obtain justice by the policyholders of Equitable Life are coming to a climax. Much is expected of the Government, who should be trusted to be the defender of their interests. I am not sure that that trust exists now, but the Financial Secretary and the Treasury have a chance to build that trust in the way in which they act over the coming months.
I have a few questions that I hope the Financial Secretary will answer. Why has there been a delay in the Penrose report; will the full report be published; what can we expect next; and what is the time scale for what is about to unfold for the very many disappointed policyholders throughout the country?
9.52 am
Chris Grayling: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) and to the Financial Secretary for my late arrival.
I shall make a few comments on behalf of the many constituents of mine who have written to me, to the ombudsman and to Lord Penrose to express their great concern about what has happened to them and their

199WH
pensions, and about the circumstances surrounding this sorry affair. All of us as constituency MPs can judge the strength of feeling on an issue by the number of letters that we receive. Even the most high-profile issue arousing concern in a constituency does not necessarily generate many letters, but I am sure that I am not alone in having received a large number of letters from people in my constituency whose retirement prospects or retirement income have been ripped apart by this sorry affair, and who feel profoundly let, down and rightly seek answers about what has happened.
That is where the Government's key responsibility lies in the weeks and months ahead. Those people's expectations of retirement have been fundamentally changed by the unhappy events at Equitable Life. Their future will be altogether different from the one that they expected, so it is not unreasonable of them to seek absolute and clear answers and a true and open explanation of what has happened from the Government, who are ultimately responsible for setting the frameworks for regulation of the financial services sector, and who have played a central part in the regulation of Equitable Life and the sector as a whole.
My hon. Friend was right to talk about the mismatch that was highlighted by the ombudsman between public expectation of the role of regulation and the light-touch approach. Conservative Members do not want regulation to be imposed on industries that is onerous and that makes it impossible for them to work. None the less, there are public expectations about the way in which the Government will handle the response to the Penrose report and release its findings into the public arena, and the Government must deal with and meet those expectations.
There is no doubt that there was a major management failure at Equitable Life, and that in the eyes of policyholders the regulatory framework—and those responsible for regulating the industry—did not deliver the expected level of supervision. One of the fundamental jobs of Lord Penrose—and of the Government in their response to Lord Penrose's report—is to answer those people's queries, criticisms and unhappiness, and to set out what can sensibly be done to ensure that these events cannot happen again. That, at the very least, is what the Government owe to the pensioners who have lost out.
Every hon. Member present—including, I suspect, the Financial Secretary—will have received letters from pensioners saying that they feel profoundly let down by the company. With hindsight, and with the application of common sense, one can see that some of the actions that the company took—selling guaranteed annuity rate policies and, in effect, looking forward to a future in which nothing could go wrong—were clearly flawed. Those actions should not have been taken, and it is arguable that regulators should have taken a view about them much earlier than they did.
It is not only the circumstances of product development, product selling and the financial position of the company that have aroused so much concern. I am currently receiving letters from people who direct their anger at the Government. Many of my constituents believe that the Government are seeking to cover up the detail of what has happened. It will be for
200WH
the Government to disprove that. There have been too many stories about the possibility that the Penrose report may not include the full picture of what took place—too many stories of information not being included for commercial reasons, and suggestions that the report may be suppressed in part or in full. I am receiving letters from constituents who now believe that the whole picture will not be revealed. I wanted to participate in this debate so that I could say to Ministers that that must not happen. The people who have lost out must understand the reasons for what has occurred. Lord Penrose must give a full and accurate picture.
I have concerns, expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South, that the Penrose inquiry might not have the power that it needs to get to the bottom of what happened. I hope that, despite the fact that he cannot compel witnesses to attend or give evidence, Lord Penrose will have been able to gain access to all the information that he needs and that he will be able to produce an incisive and accurate report on what took place.
It is important that the report be concluded, published and fully in the open as soon as possible. Many people who come to see Members of Parliament in their surgeries are looking for closure—for answers. They have to deal with their own personal situation, but they want to know that the overall issue that has caused their personal situation has been dealt with. Speed, clarity and openness are therefore of the essence. I hope that at the end of this debate the Financial Secretary will give a clear public commitment to my constituents and those of other hon. Members that when the Penrose report is ready, it will be published quickly and in its entirety, that the Government will set out clearly what lessons need to be learned, and that there will be no attempt to cover up any failings in the Treasury or in the regulatory system. We should have a full and open debate about what went wrong, learn the lessons and change the systems to ensure that such difficulties cannot arise in future.
We need to give a true, open and honest picture to my constituents and those like them around the country who have suffered as a result of this appalling affair. I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to give those undertakings, and I look forward to the arrival of the Penrose report on the desk of every Member of Parliament in the very near future, so that we can write back to those who have written to us and give them at least a sense that the pressure on the Government appears to have made a difference, and the Government are taking a sensible and responsible attitude and addressing the issues that Lord Penrose has raised. That is my message to the Financial Secretary, and I look forward to her assurances at the end of the debate.
10 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway). I have been involved in all the debates on Equitable Life. He has always been present and actively involved, and he has maintained a consistent support for the policyholders. I congratulate him not only on what he said today but on his consistent interest in this very real problem.
I also congratulate EMAG. The issue is complex and it has dragged on for a long time. It would have been easy for our adversely affected constituents to become

201WH
demoralised and to lose track of the plot. They and we owe a great deal to EMAG for the way in which it has continued to marshal support and to brief us.
I introduced an Adjournment debate on Equitable Life a year ago. I was prompted to do so by two considerations. First, Equitable Life cut payments to 50,000 annuitants last autumn—nominally by 20 per cent., although in practice for many it amounted to 29 per cent. The hardship was particularly difficult for those annuitants, because they had no flexibility whatever. Their anger—like that of the other policyholders—is just as live and real now as it was then. That has been communicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) and by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). My other purpose in introducing the debate a year ago was to prod the Government into giving some suggestion of when the Penrose report would appear. It is eloquent testimony that a year later we are still waiting and there is no expectation that the report will appear within weeks, let alone days.
The ombudsman's report has been the major development during the past year. I agree with the hon. Member for Croydon, South that it was unsatisfactory. I hesitate to criticise the ombudsman, because constitutionally we need a back-stop organisation. We all have constituents who complain bitterly about real, or sometimes imagined, failures of Government. They must have an objective, impartial body to appeal to, and they must have confidence in that body. Constituents sometimes come to our surgeries carrying an unfavourable ombudsman's report, shaking with anger, wanting the ombudsman to be investigated, and we have the job of explaining that the report is the end of the story: the appeal process has finished, they have had their say and a reputable body has given a definitive view on the matter. However, if we are to be able to say that, we must have confidence in the office.
My confidence in the ombudsman has been shaken by the way in which this particular inquiry was conducted and concluded. As the hon. Member for Croydon, South said, there were fundamental failings in the report. It dealt with precisely that period in which the Government were not involved in regulation. It was narrow in scope, and consideration of the role of a key player in the story—the Government Actuary—was ruled out. The ombudsman adopted a definition of regulatory responsibility that was, frankly, bizarre, narrow and limited, and assumed that the regulators are purely concerned with solvency. She did not appreciate the philosophy of "twin peaks" regulation, which has run through the creation of the FSA. The report reflected the belief that it is the FSA's responsibility solely to maintain light-touch regulation and, above all, it concluded that there was no case for reopening the issue, even if Penrose were to find substantially against the Government's role in regulation. I understand from the press that that judgment has changed, and that the ombudsman will reopen the case, but I have not been informed of it in writing. Our constituents and we are owed an explanation as to where the ombudsman resides on the matter, as none of us is clear about it.
The trouble is that when one complains about the ombudsman it can sound like a whinge; however, it is worth our examining the speech made last week by Sir Gordon Downey, whose role as Parliamentary
202WH
Commissioner for Standards, which is a parliamentary institution, cannot be questioned or bettered, and who gave in three short pages a brilliantly concise description of the problem and the failings of the ombudsman's report and the structure of the Penrose inquiry.
Sir Gordon, in his eloquent summary, defined five precise ways in which there was clearly a failure of regulation. He made the point, first, that the Government allowed unguaranteed policies to be sold as low-risk investment, with the fact concealed from the people taking out those policies that there were obligations to the guaranteed policy holders; secondly, there was a period of over-bonusing the guaranteed policies at the expense of new investors; thirdly, an attempt was then made to correct the balance by introducing differential bonuses, which were subsequently found to be illegal; fourthly, there was a period in which Equitable Life was clearly being allowed to trade with insufficient reserves; and, finally, Equitable Life was allowed for a long time to publish misleading accounts. Sir Gordon, a highly experienced public official with experience as a regulator, commented:
"If this does not amount to maladministration, I really do not know what does."
That summarises the whole case.
There were investigations of the position of the FSA in the Baird report, and before discussing the Penrose report—and while we are waiting for its publication—I ask the Financial Secretary to explain what the FSA's role is now. It appears to be acting as a kind of shadow director: it has regulatory responsibility for the rump company and things are happening that are of great concern to policyholders and to our constituents. As I understand the present position, there is an assumption—indeed, an agreement—that something in the order of £900 million will be paid out in compensation to various aggrieved groups, including several thousand people who were mis-sold managed pensions, many of whom were effectively cheated out of their GAR policies. There is an understanding that they will be compensated, but they have not been paid yet; the potential beneficiaries do not expect to be paid at least until the end of next year.
What is the FSA's role in all that? Is it encouraging Equitable Life to achieve a prompt settlement? Is it doing nothing? How does it define its current responsibilities? How does the Financial Secretary, who has oversight of the FSA, see her role in this matter?
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman, whose industrial manufacturing background I share, has raised an interesting and crucial point about the possibility of the FSA in its current role being seen to be a shadow director. He, too, knows the grave issues that that raises about potential responsibility and liability. Has he had any advice that has helped him to establish a causal link between being a shadow director taking decisions now, and the likelihood of that leading either to future liability or to compensation?
Dr. Cable: I have not had any such advice. The hon. Gentleman puts a proper question, but it takes us into legal terrain with which I am not qualified to deal. However, I believe that the FSA is turning a blind eye to

203WH
what is happening and leaving Equitable Life to make the decisions itself, even though there is a public policy interest involved.
When the Penrose inquiry was established, many of us argued that its foundations were weak. The Government defined the terms of reference of the inquiry even though it was to examine Government behaviour, and they decided that it should report to Government, not to Parliament, even though it was to examine the failings of Government. No time limit was set, and we have seen the elasticity of the timetable stretched to breaking point in the past few years. Moreover, there is potential for key information to be suppressed in the name of confidentiality, even though, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West made clear, there is no justification for information to be suppressed on grounds of commercial confidentiality.
I have written a letter to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, to which I hope she will respond today, asking precisely what can and cannot be excluded from the report, in the context of "maxwellisation"—the process whereby officials are given prior notice of references against them and an opportunity to respond to them. I asked the Financial Secretary whether that would lead to the deletion of material about which we should know, and what sort of safeguards operate to ensure that the maxwellisation process is not used as a cover for censorship. We need reassurances on those matters, if the Penrose inquiry is to form a meaningful conclusion to this sorry episode.
Currently, there are two major inquiries examining the failures of the Government, both of which are being conducted by High Court judges. The fact that those inquiries are taking place under High Court judges is a sorry reflection on Parliament, because Parliament has the power to conduct such inquiries itself. The contrast between the two inquiries is striking: the Hutton inquiry has been a model inquiry in terms of speed and transparency, standing in gross contrast to the sluggishness and opacity of the Penrose inquiry. I hope that, even at this very late stage, the Government will try to conduct themselves with decorum and improve the sorry reputation that they have earned as a result of the way in which they have the conducted the process.
10.12 am
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: For the sake of good order, I declare a tangential interest, in that I have a life assurance policy with Equitable Life. I hope that I shall not have to cash it in.
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) on having secured the debate. I know that he would wish to join me in thanking all our colleagues who sought en masse to have a debate on this subject. I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who worked so diligently in the early period of this tragic saga to ensure that the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration was well understood and utilised.
As has been said, we last debated Equitable Life on 27 November last year. If it was timely then to have a debate on this serious matter, it is a scandal that the
204WH
Financial Secretary and her boss have presided over such a protracted and delayed process that we are here again today. About 1 million of our fellow citizens, many of advanced years, who did the right thing in their earning lifetime to provide for their non-earning time and not to be a burden on the state, have suffered and continue to suffer grievous financial damage through no fault of their own. Their security has been irreparably harmed. That is a grave matter, as the debate has already shown, and it affects all Members of Parliament, all of whom have constituents blighted by the appalling debacle of Equitable Life.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South about the catalogue of delays. He raised the interesting notion that the situation warrants an inquiry into the inquiry. I hope that the Treasury Committee can perform a useful function in examining the process and ensuring that we do not again have to endure the appalling length of time that it has taken to reach even this pre-report stage. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) pointed out, the process stands in stark contrast to the conduct of the Hutton inquiry.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the need to consider putting the inquiry on a statutory footing, even at this late stage, if the inability to compel witnesses to attend causes any difficulty. Like others, he noted that it would be unacceptable if there were any attempt not to publish the Penrose report in full on receipt by the Treasury. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) also made that point ably, as well as the good point that the Government should have made time for a debate on the Floor of the House when the parliamentary ombudsman's report was received just before the summer recess.
I will not even dignify the intervention by the only Labour Back Bencher present, the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths), on the basis that it was totally unworthy and tried to make party political points out of a tragic and difficult situation that affects all Members of Parliament. Although sadly few MPs are present today, it is interesting that both the Financial Secretary and I represent a north-west England constituency, as does her Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell), and there are three London MPs and one Member representing a Scottish constituency present, so it is fair to say that the whole country is represented.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) spoke passionately and with great force on behalf of his constituents, showing the strength of feeling that underlies the debate. There is a crying need for resolution and for consideration to be given to the compensatory opportunities for those who have suffered. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Twickenham for his continuing diligence, and he was right to raise the important issue of the FSA's role, which needs further explanation. He made further points, which I will try to reinforce.
It is with no apology that I rely on what Sir Gordon Downey said at the recent annual general meeting of EMAG. I pay an enormous tribute to EMAG for its commitment, energy, diligence and fairness in pursuing the issue over many long years. I also pay tribute to the

205WH
other six Equitable members' representative groups. All have worked hard on behalf of the various interests who are suffering from the Equitable Life saga.
Sir Gordon Downey is an authority not only because he is a non-GAR annuitant of Equitable Life but because he was head of the home finance division of the Treasury in the 1970s and is therefore a former regulator. He became the chairman of FIMBRA—the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association—in the 1990s and, briefly, chairman of the Personal Investment Authority, before becoming an Officer of the House of Commons, first as Comptroller and Auditor General, and then as Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. It is appropriate that we hear his measured, serious and authoritative comments on the issue.
Sir Gordon says, rightly, that the debate that we had a year ago continues to be relevant, which is part of the problem. However, there have been several significant developments, and for the sake of the record it is important to bring us up to date. Policy values and annuities have been further cut, prospects remain bleak, and time is running out for many annuitants. It is now more than three years since the House of Lords decision undermined the society's stability, and more than two years since the Penrose inquiry was established. The new Equitable Life board's actions against the auditors and former directors are progressing in the courts, but one must assume that they will be long drawn out and costly and the outcomes uncertain.
The parliamentary ombudsman produced a report exonerating the FSA from the charge of maladministration in its role as regulator in the period after 1 January 1999. That is now the subject of an application for judicial review.
Under the self-denying ordinance that we have in our rules, I cannot stray into the territory of the court actions in respect of the former directors and auditors and the merits of those actions. However, on checking with the House of Commons Library, I was interested to note that "Erskine May" makes an exception of anything said in respect of a judicial review of Executive action. While I do not intend to stray too far down that path, it is important to recognise that we have the opportunity to examine the application for judicial review, not least because EMAG and some of the individuals involved in it have put together a document of enormous authority and force that details the whole sorry saga. I hope that all Members of Parliament, especially Ministers, will read it with great care and recognise that they need to read it in conjunction with the Penrose report, which we hope—although we have expressed the hope before—will emerge in the not too distant future.
What issues remain unresolved? In matters of regulation, prudential supervision of the Equitable was exercised until 1999 by the DTI and the Treasury, after which responsibility was passed to the FSA. Throughout, much of the detail was delegated to the Government Actuary's Department, a subordinate body of the Treasury. Given the current dispute over the recent report by the parliamentary ombudsman, to pursue the role of the FSA too far at this stage does not seem the most profitable route to take. Suffice it to say that the FSA seems to have played a passive role when dealing with the crisis thrown up by the House of Lords
206WH
decision. The authority defended its role on the ground that, with all the information and expertise at its disposal, it was "99.9 per cent. certain" that the Equitable could be sold on terms that would safeguard the interests of policyholders—yet, within three months of putting itself up for sale, the Equitable was rejected by 16 or 17 suitors, who had rapidly reached the conclusion that it was not viable.
What of the other regulators? It is generally agreed that most of the damage done to the Equitable took place before the FSA took responsibility in 1999. The die was indeed cast before then, yet, on the basis of her limited inquiry into the FSA, the parliamentary ombudsman concluded that she saw no case for inquiring into the actions of the DTI and the Treasury and that she had no powers to inquire into the Government Actuary's Department. Surely Parliament cannot condone such a position. It must find a way of expressing what it expects from prudential supervision and know whether those expectations were realised. It has been suggested that prudential supervision is essentially a matter of ensuring that solvency requirements for life assurance companies are observed. That is not true. An equally important purpose is to exercise supervision to protect policyholders from unreasonable risks and to safeguard their reasonable expectations. The concept of reasonable expectations is specifically provided for in legislation, which also gives regulators ample powers to intervene to ensure prudent and responsible management.
Against that yardstick, the regulators have failed dramatically. They allowed the Equitable to sell unguaranteed policies as low-risk products without disclosing the existence of guaranteed policies representing huge contingent liabilities on the common fund. They permitted the publication of accounts that obscured the real position of the society, and endorsed its attempts to redress the balance by paying differential bonuses, which were later ruled illegal. The regulators allowed the society to pay unjustifiably high bonuses for several years and, in effect, to use the funds of new investors without their knowledge for the benefit of those enjoying prior guarantees. They also allowed it to trade with totally inadequate reserves.
I turn to the role of the parliamentary ombudsman, and in particular the fact that she cleared the FSA of failing in its regulatory duties. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South said, she warned investors of a fundamental mismatch between what the public expect from the financial regulator and the degree of protection that can be offered. EMAG has been extremely critical of the parliamentary ombudsman's report and considers it deeply flawed. I commend the extensive, comprehensive and responsible approach EMAG has taken to detailing its criticisms on its website, and I hope that they will be read in some detail.
I have sympathy with the approach taken by the hon. Member for Twickenham. It is important that we do not condemn the parliamentary ombudsman out of hand. There is an important process that we should defend with regard to her role in examining possible maladministration. Of course, the ombudsman's role is terribly important to us because of the potential for her to make recommendations on compensation: at the end of the day, compensation is what policyholders and annuitants are seeking, because they feel that they have

207WH
been done an injustice. However, we must recognise that, unfortunately, there is a serious mismatch in what successive parliamentary ombudsmen have done.
I do not want to condemn the office of parliamentary ombudsman, and I recognise that it is the last place of appeal. However, although the current parliamentary ombudsman's predecessor gave a pretty clear assurance that his office should consider whether it was appropriate to extend the inquiry into the pre-1 January 1999 position once Penrose had reported, that was categorically denied by the current parliamentary ombudsman. That is what has caused such outrage, and I have said on record that I think it an unnecessarily brutal finding. It seems that it has been made known to certain elements of the press—I cannot tell whether that is simply because this debate had been secured, so there was a stronger focus on the issue—that perhaps the issue could be considered again. I very much hope so, but I agree with what has been said: the commitment to do so should be put on a more formal basis, so that we can understand its essence.
It is important to say that this is not simply an argument for argument's sake. The proposal has been supported in a number of recent early-day motions by Members of all parties, all of whom call on the parliamentary ombudsman to extend her inquiry. I hope that, as a result of this debate, she will acknowledge the strong sense, in terms of the route provided by her office, that that is the only way in which justice will be satisfied. There is good cause and it would be in the interests of fairness to take forward her investigation.
In its most recent press release, EMAG lighted on what it calls "an astonishing 'U turn''' by the parliamentary ombudsman, saying that she has come full circle. It welcomes the fact that she has apparently rescinded the decision to preclude consideration of the pre-1999 period. EMAG says that it regards that as important because it is the parliamentary ombudsman's function
"to focus on maladministration by Government departments".
It says that it is worth recalling that,
"as in Barlow Clowes, she can recommend Government compensation. EMAG therefore welcomes"
the parliamentary ombudsman's
"change of heart as an encouraging step".
We need rapid clarification of that point.
It may be that Lord Penrose will tackle all the issues that we have discussed relating to the parliamentary ombudsman and to the broad understanding of those of us who have followed the matter closely and advocate the position of aggrieved policyholders and annuitants. None the less, it is worth looking at the constraints within which he has to work. The Government—the Treasury—set the terms of reference for the inquiry; they are very broad and relate largely to the future of the life assurance industry as a whole. Lord Penrose reports to the Treasury—that is, to one of the regulators under scrutiny. He cannot compel witnesses to give evidence, and the Treasury can accept or reject his recommendations, which cannot deal with compensation. There is no guarantee that the report will be published.
What is Parliament's responsibility? I said in the debate a year ago that I thought that the Government intended to kick the subject into the long grass until
208WH
after the next general election. My fear is that I was right, but I hope that my fear will be assuaged today. If only Parliament had the ability to prevent the Government seizing the initiative as they have done, but the Government like to believe that, given the current composition of the House, they can plough their own furrow regardless of the wider interests.
There is still no comfort to offer policyholders and annuitants. They have suffered injustice, and we have not yet found the machinery to deal with it. The damage to the savings industry in the broadest sense has been enormous. All MPs should be deeply concerned about the effect that that is having on the savings culture and about the yawning savings gap that has grown over the last few years. Sir Gordon Downey has written to me in the following words, which help to sum up the serious position in which we find ourselves:
"Of course, we shall now need to await the outcome of the Penrose Inquiry. But it is essential that it should be published as fully as possible and that Government should give a rapid response. Failing a satisfactory outcome, it must be a matter for the House to devise its own machinery for taking things forward. If the Parliamentary Ombudsman is, as she says, unable to cover much of the ground, we shall need to find another way."
In case the Financial Secretary is in any doubt, I put her on notice that my colleagues and I in Her Majesty's official Opposition will be relentless in pressing the case for justice for Equitable Life policyholders and annuitants. I know that that case is supported by hon. Members of all parties, including Labour Back Benchers.
The Penrose inquiry is a creature of the Treasury: it will report to the Treasury, the Treasury will determine what is published, and it is for the Treasury to decide how long to sit on the report before publication and whether to accept liability and award compensation where criticisms are made of the DTI and the Treasury. Does the Financial Secretary regard the Penrose inquiry as determinative or merely advisory? That is important, because many people witnessing today's proceedings will want to know whether, when the Penrose inquiry eventually reports and is published—and we demand that it be published in full—they will have to consider what it contains and then charge off to the courts or use some other process to prove the facts all over again. Can we have a copper-bottomed guarantee that if they are criticised and there is found to be regulatory failure, the Government will say, "Fair cop."?
We cannot continue to protract the misery of the policyholders and annuitants who have suffered. The Government must step up and look at the compensation that should be paid. All those witnessing today's proceedings, will be listening out for that in the Financial Secretary's response.
There has been a recent announcement from the Penrose inquiry that put on the record some corrections of what it regards as wrong information in the public domain. It said:
"The inquiry cannot, and will not seek to adjudicate on liability, including determination of a professional duty."
However, Lord Penrose has made it clear that he will make adverse findings about any institutions or individuals involved if the evidence justifies it. Because those two views sit somewhat uneasily together, we need an answer today, which I have just demanded from the Financial Secretary; otherwise, there will be genuine

209WH
concern about whether we can trust the process to deliver for the policyholders and annuitants if there is found to be regulatory failure at the hands of Departments.
On the issue of publication, if the Minister's refrain a year ago that the Penrose inquiry is independent and that it is up to Lord Penrose to decide how long the inquiry will take and when he will be able to report—[Interruption.]
Mr. George Stephenson (in the Chair): Order. May we have that piece of equipment silenced, please?
Mr. O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Stephenson.
In addition to my request to the Minister to do everything that she can to speed up the Penrose report, while recognising that maxwellisation is a genuine process that must be gone through, I want the Government to realise that they cannot have it both ways. If maxwellisation is taking place, we are going through a process whereby one of the restraints on future publication relating to confidentiality or potential prejudice is removed, because the process gives people the chance to comment. It must be clear that Lord Penrose has the liberty to make all the relevant findings that have been the subject of his inquiry and to adjudicate on them, notwithstanding the fact that he has said that he himself will not be finding fault. I urge the Minister to give a commitment once and for all. The maxwellisation process has engaged us in further delay, and the price of that delay, which has caused further misery for policyholders and annuitants, should be securing full publication of the report.
There is an important point about what might happen with regard to maxwellisation. There might be no finding of fault in the Penrose report—despite the fact that we will all pore over it, searching for findings and facts and seeing whether there has been any attempt to point the finger. We demand full publication, which should be coupled with an assurance that there will be no opportunity for a further protracted process. If the Government want to show that the Penrose inquiry is genuinely independent, they should accept that there is no need for a further process to determine and prove the independently gained facts of the case. If they have to be re-proved and the evidence marshalled again, and there is a move from Lord Penrose's investigative process to an adversarial court process, many policyholders and annuitants will rightly say that they are losing faith in the processes that the Government put in place and that the inquiry should have been put on a statutory basis from the very outset—as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South mentioned.
Policyholders and annuitants will rightly want to be satisfied on a further point, which was somewhat ungraciously introduced in the intervention of the hon. Member for Reading, East. It might be said that the fault entirely lies with a previous Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South answered that well by demonstrating that there has been a continuum. If Government as an institution—irrespective of which political party happens to hold power at any given time—are found to be at fault in their regulatory duties, subsequent Governments must step up and stand behind Government liabilities. That is one aspect of the
210WH
nature of Government. Therefore, I can give a commitment that if a finding of regulatory fault or failure is laid at the door of one or more Departments, and if compensation therefore flows, an incoming Conservative Government would not seek to renege on that responsibility. The Government should make the commitment that, if the Treasury and the DTI are criticised, they will not necessarily seek simply to defend them, but they will acknowledge that this whole episode must be brought to a swift resolution. It is difficult to see how it can be resolved when, by any test, there is a need for compensation for people who have suffered an injustice.
I hope that the Government will carefully look at following the precedents of Barlow Clowes and other lifeboat operations. Sir Gordon Downey has brought weight and authority to this whole sorry process. He understood what happened during the 1974 banking crisis: that crisis was potentially even more serious than the Equitable Life saga facing us now, but a solution was found and mutual responsibility was accepted by Government and the private sector.
I look forward to hearing the Financial Secretary's remarks, and I hope that she will be able to give full answers to the questions that have been raised.
10.38 am
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) on securing another debate on this important topic. I pay tribute to his long-standing interest in this subject and his championing of his constituents' cause. I also pay tribute to the work of the Equitable Life members' representative groups who have made their concerns known in a loud and clear manner.
I will try to respond now to as many as possible of the points that have been raised, but I first wish to make clear the sympathy that I feel for the many people who have been affected by the events at Equitable Life. It was in order to meet the concerns raised by hon. Members and the wider public that the Government set up the independent inquiry under Lord Penrose in August 2001. In making that decision we carefully considered the concerns of policyholders and a range of other bodies, including the Treasury Committee.
It is worth reminding hon. Members of Lord Penrose's terms of reference, which are:
"To enquire into the circumstances leading to the current situation of the Equitable Life Assurance Society, taking account of relevant life market background; to identify any lessons to be learnt for the conduct, administration and regulation of life assurance business; and to give a report thereon to Treasury Ministers."
The terms of reference have deliberately been drawn wide to ensure thorough consideration of the root causes of the problem. Some commentators and hon. Members have argued that the terms of reference do not allow Lord Penrose to lay blame, and that the inquiry is just a fact-finding exercise. The inquiry has made it clear to us that Lord Penrose will make adverse findings about any institutions or individuals if the evidence justifies that. He can interpret his terms of reference as he sees fit, and I stress that he is working independently of the Government and the Treasury, but with our full co-operation.

211WH
Many people are disappointed that Lord Penrose has not reported sooner. The undertaking has been considerably more complex than any of us appreciated when the inquiry was set up. It is important to stress that no deadline was set for Lord Penrose to report by. I understand the frustration of hon. Members and policyholders at the time needed to complete the work, but the inquiry's scope is broad and the issues are complex and important. It is in all our interests that the inquiry is thorough. The parliamentary ombudsman took more than 18 months to complete her report, which examined a period of just two years during which the FSA had stewardship. That report considered neither the regulation of business conduct nor Equitable's actions.
The inquiry spent most of its first year examining the substantial body of material held by Equitable Life and its regulators, as well as obtaining evidence from other sources such as the auditors and policyholders. On the basis of that work, the inquiry began a major programme of taking evidence directly from witnesses in autumn 2002. That continued until after Easter this year. The inquiry is currently maxwellising the draft report, a process that I will explain later. Once maxwellisation is complete, Lord Penrose will be in a position to finalise his report and present it to Treasury Ministers. It is a matter for Lord Penrose to determine when his report is complete and the timing for presenting it to Ministers, and we look forward to receiving it as soon as he completes it.
The hon. Members for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) raised a point about maxwellisation. Maxwellisation is the process whereby those who might be criticised in a report are given an opportunity to comment on the accuracy and completeness of the relevant facts and the reasoning process behind them. That is to ensure that any errors or misunderstandings can be corrected before the report is finalised. The term arose from cases following a DTI investigation into Robert Maxwell in the 1970s. Persons or institutions being maxwellised are not given access to the full draft or even to any complete part of the draft. They are informed of the substance of the proposed comments made about them and given access to the supporting material that Lord Penrose, in this case, considers it absolutely necessary that they see. Lord Penrose could change his view in the light of the representations made. Maxwellisation is intended to ensure that the report is fair to those individuals or institutions that may be criticised. The process also helps to ensure that the report is accurate and comprehensive. The chairman of the inquiry determines how and to what extent maxwellisation is carried out.
The Treasury is taking part in the maxwellisation process, but as I have already said, by no means does that mean that we have received the draft report. It may be worth explaining the arrangements that the Treasury has put in place internally to deal with the maxwellisation process, so that it cannot be subject to misinterpretation. A small team of dedicated staff is preparing the Treasury's response to Lord Penrose's material, commenting factually where appropriate. There is a Chinese wall between this team and those who have been liaising with the inquiry, and those who will
212WH
receive the report when it is completed, including Treasury Ministers. That means that only those officials who are in the maxwellisation team have seen any draft material sent by Lord Penrose. We decided to adopt that procedure given the Treasury's position as both the commissioner of the report and one of the parties with a direct interest in its contents. It is up to Lord Penrose to decide on any changes that he may make to his report following receipt of the comments. We have no influence over how he handles that process. In addition, once we receive the report, it will not be possible to take on board any other comments on the factual content or any other content of substance.
All hon. Members spoke about publication and asked how we intend to deal with the publication procedure. We will publish as much of Lord Penrose's report as we can—as much as is practicable—as soon as is practicable, following receipt of the report. However, I must emphasise, so that people do not have unrealistic expectations, that it will take time legally to examine the contents of the report. We must ensure that it is lawful for us to publish the report in full. Parts of it could be subject to legal confidentiality restrictions: for example, it is a criminal offence to reveal to a third party information received by the regulator in the course of their duties, except in narrowly specified conditions. Our lawyers will have to go through the report to ensure that none of those restrictions is breached. In fact, when Lord Penrose accepted the commission from us and undertook the inquiry, we had to go through a similar process to ensure that he could see the regulatory information relating to some of the decisions made. It would be completely negligent of the Department not to undertake that process.
Richard Ottaway: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for her explanation, but I am sure that anyone listening to her in the last minute or so will be dismayed, because she has implied that there will not be full disclosure if the Treasury considers that appropriate. Given that last week Lord Penrose made it crystal clear that all he was reporting on was facts, what can she be concerned about that might fall foul of what she has just said?
Ruth Kelly: Clearly, we will not be in a position to know that until we have seen the contents of the report. The other point is that Lord Penrose has made it clear to us that, in drawing up the report, he is aware of the legal confidentiality restrictions and is attempting to draw up the report so as not to breach those restrictions, so that we can publish it in full. It is our complete desire to put the full contents of the report in the public domain. The only reason why we may not be able to do so is the legal confidentiality restrictions. We hope that we can publish the report in full and that Lord Penrose has taken full account of those restrictions in drawing up the report.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Further to the question posed by my hon. Friend what strikes me and, I think, most people listening to the debate is that the Government cannot have it both ways. Either the report has been drafted so as to avoid legal difficulties—indeed, because it will not be finding fault, it cannot be seen as prejudicial to someone's interests—or this is a case of having to

213WH
look for the legal protection of commercial confidentiality. The Government seem to be hedging their bets. Above all, the Treasury owns the process, and one assumes that because the Treasury commissioned the report, once it is delivered to the Treasury, the Treasury owns it—
Mr. George Stevenson: Order. I think that the Minister has got the point.
Ruth Kelly: We do. That is why we want to publish the report in full. However, were we to publish it and breach any confidentiality restrictions by so doing, it would be open to third parties to sue the Government for infraction of those restrictions. Therefore, under a duty of care, we must subject the report to the scrutiny of our lawyers before putting it in the public domain. We intend to publish the report in full, but because of those technical confidentiality arguments, we must take legal advice before publishing it.
Dr. Cable: Is it the Treasury's intention to seek the advice of the Attorney-General about its legal obligations in respect of confidentiality?
Ruth Kelly: I cannot comment on that here. As far as I am aware, the Treasury lawyers will examine the content of the report. However, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue that point, I can respond to him later.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South and others asked whether we were satisfied that Lord Penrose had sufficient resources to carry out his inquiry and whether it should be put on a statutory footing. The inquiry is fully independent, so it is not up to us to determine what sort of resources or powers he needs, or how he carries out his investigation. However, I shall read an extract from a letter that Lord Penrose has put in the public domain—a letter that he wrote to the Treasury Committee in February this year.
On resources, he says:
"I was assured at the outset by the then permanent secretary to the Treasury that I would have access to all the resources that I could reasonably require. It took some time to establish what resources I needed, and the demands of the inquiry have fluctuated from time to time, but I would like to assure the committee that I have not been denied any resources that I have sought."
On whether we should have put the inquiry on a statutory footing, he says:
"I am grateful to all those who have co-operated so far with my inquiry, which includes Equitable, Ernst & Young, the Treasury and the FSA, as well as a great many policyholders."
He continues:
"I am far from convinced that statutory powers would have made as much difference to the rate of progress as some commentators have assumed. Parties involved in litigation and other proceedings would have been just as likely to want to review the evidence being made available and to assess the implications for them, in the context of those processes, of disclosing material to the inquiry and allowing the inquiry to form and express views on that evidence. And it is likely that, with a view to protecting those parties' wider interests, the exercise of those powers would have been challenged and the inquiry might well have spent time debating the extent of those powers, and their exercise, very possibly in court. In short, powers have disadvantages as well as advantages as compared with the informal approach I have been able to adopt."
214WH
Lord Penrose has made it clear to us that he prefers the non-statutory approach, and has received full co-operation from the Treasury and the FSA in carrying out his inquiry.
Richard Ottaway: Can the Financial Secretary confirm that all witnesses are co-operating? I asked whether Lord Penrose needed statutory powers, not whether he wanted them.
Ruth Kelly: It is up to Lord Penrose to decide whether he should put information in the public domain. To the extent that he has commented on that in public, he has indicated that he is receiving sufficient co-operation from witnesses. To suggest that, at this stage, we should put the inquiry on a statutory footing would be to suggest that the inquiry be held up for months while the process is sorted out. In effect, that would be to reopen the inquiry from scratch. I do not believe that anyone—certainly not the policyholders—would think that desirable.
Many hon. Members have commented on the parliamentary ombudsman's report. The publication of that report is one of the main developments that has taken place since we last debated Equitable Life in Westminster Hall. The parliamentary ombudsman published her report on the regulation of Equitable Life by the FSA on 1 July. The investigation examined the period from 1 January 1999, when the FSA became responsible on a day-to-day basis for prudential supervision of insurers, to 8 December 2000, when Equitable Life closed to new business. The Treasury and the FSA co-operated fully with the ombudsman at all stages of her investigation.
As hon. Members will be aware, the ombudsman is an Officer of the House and is entirely independent of the Government. She has wide discretion to determine the matters within her jurisdiction to investigate and the procedures that she adopts for doing so. The conclusions she reaches are a matter for her alone. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on how she has carried out her investigation, and I urge hon. Members to make their comments directly to the ombudsman's office.
Let me give a wider perspective on the role of Government and regulators—
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Before the Financial Secretary moves on, does she have an answer to my question about whether she sees the Penrose inquiry as determinative or advisory, and whether there will be any further process to establish compensation as a result of receiving the report?
Ruth Kelly: I found the hon. Gentleman's comments a little difficult to interpret, but I presume that he is referring mainly to compensation. On that, our terms of reference are in the public domain, and it is up to Lord Penrose to judge as he sees fit. It would not be wise to pre-empt or speculate about his findings, and he can comment on anything that he sees fit to comment on, but what is important is that we learn the lessons from this episode and minimise the prospect of it happening again.

215WH
The proper role of the Government is to ensure that a proper legislative and regulatory framework is in place for financial services. The FSA operates within that framework as the independent regulator. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) seemed to suggest that we should have a regime in which companies never have the opportunity of failing. That should not be the case. Regulation must balance the safety of policyholders against the freedom for firms to seek out the best return. It is not the regulator's role to prevent all business failure, as a no-failure approach would mean lower returns for investors and would stifle innovation and competition. In a well-regulated market, the consumer can be sure that he or she understands the risks when buying a product. In a well-regulated market, it is also true, as we all recognise, that some firms must fail—or might fail. That is why the Government have set up a safety net, in the form of the financial services compensation scheme, to compensate investors in those firms.
Chris Grayling: The Financial Secretary is putting words into my mouth—that is not what I said. Does she agree that the regulator's role is to sound an alarm bell when a situation has the potential to go wrong?
Ruth Kelly: Of course it is the regulator's role to monitor firms closely, which is one of the things that Lord Penrose is examining in his report, and with hon. Members and others, I await that report with interest.
I know that the hon. Member for Twickenham is interested in the role of the FSA in relation to policyholders. The FSA continues to monitor the situation at Equitable Life closely, and it has been working with the society to ensure that clear and appropriate information is available to policyholders as developments occur, and that they continue to receive appropriate support. We expect the FSA, as the independent regulator of financial services, to continue to monitor the regulatory solvency of Equitable Life and to ensure that the company acts in a way that is consistent with its responsibilities to its remaining policyholders. I am talking about Equitable Life, but that is the FSA's role in relation to any regulated firm for which it has responsibility.
To deal with the hon. Member for Croydon, South and the question of whether there has been a continuum of process, I draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that the regulation of the life assurance industry has been overhauled since the Labour Government came to power. We have established in the form of the FSA an independent regulatory body that brings together eight different sectoral regulators. It is wrong to suggest that there has been a continuum throughout a period spanning 30 or 40 years.
The Government's main concern regarding the Equitable Life affair is to ensure that the lessons are learned. That will allow both regulators and the industry to develop the tools that they need to prevent similar incidents in future.

Seal Hunting
11 am
Mr. David Amess: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise a very important issue, which has been somewhat forgotten in recent years. That is not for want of trying by people such as Brigitte Bardot to bring it to other people's attention. I emailed her office to tell her that this debate would be taking place, but I am not sure whether she will be joining us. It was she who, many years ago, first brought this issue to the attention of the general public. She went out to Canada and posed with some seals to demonstrate in graphic detail exactly what goes on.
There are some who would say, "For goodness' sake, why waste Parliament's time discussing animal welfare matters?" However, like many colleagues of all parties, I feel strongly about animal welfare issues. We feel that a civilisation is judged in certain respects by how it treats animals. None of us can get inside an animal to understand it. Are animals less intelligent than women and men? Are they more intelligent? None of us knows. But Parliament should spend at least some of its time discussing animal welfare issues.
I will certainly not use the debate as an opportunity to have a go at the Government. I am using the procedure in the hope that the Minister can send some sort of message to our Canadian friends. I pay tribute to an organisation called Respect for Animals. It is not perhaps widely known. It is run by four individuals and depends on the general public to sustain it financially. It runs campaigns sensibly and constructively and is entirely responsible for bringing this issue to the attention of myself and other hon. Members. As a result, an early-day motion has been tabled on our concerns about the slaughter of seals.
Together with two other Members I had a meeting on 11 September with the Canadian high commissioner. Canada is one of our greatest allies. Our meeting was conducted in a warm atmosphere. The high commissioner brought with him a number of his colleagues and officials who had great expertise in this area. It was time well spent. Although I will go into greater detail, the bottom line for me and the other 159 signatories to the early-day motion is that baby seals, lying on the ice, are not entirely delighted when a human being comes along and clubs them on the head.
I understand the historical reasons for the pursuit of seals, and I understand all the arguments that the Canadian Government advance. I said at the end of the meeting that I had not been convinced that killing the baby seals was anything other than cruel.
Early-day motion 135, tabled by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), called on the Government to take action over the seal hunt, and has been signed by about 160 Members of all parties. The hon. Members for Lewes (Mr. Baker) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) and I saw the Canadian high commissioner, His Excellency Mel Cappe, to raise the concerns detailed in the early-day motion.
I do not want to be too emotional, but the Canadian Government have effectively declared war on seals. Last winter they announced that they would allow nearly 1 million harp and hooded seals to be killed over the next

217WH
three years. That is a huge number. In 2003, according to figures from the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, some 289,512 harp seals, 151 hooded seals and 1,870 seals of four other species were killed; those are horrifying statistics. I hope that hon. Members will accept that they do not include the many seals that are shot in the water and die later but are never retrieved.
I am delighted that this debate is being held today, as the 2003–04 seal hunt officially opens in 11 days' time on 15 November, and lasts for six months. However, most of the seals will be killed in March next year, so there is time to take action. I shall later describe precisely what happens to the seals, as it is right that hon. Members should know. They are usually clubbed to death, and the vast majority are killed when they are less than three months old.
An independent veterinary survey established in 2001 by the International Fund for Animal Welfare included a number of eminent vets: Joanne Fielder, John Gripper and Ian Robinson from the United Kingdom, Rosemary Burden from the United States of America, Alan Longair from Canada, and Debbie Ruehlmann, a neurologist specialist from the United States. They showed that 42 per cent. of the seals observed were skinned while they were still alive and conscious. That is unbelievable in this day and age.
Stephen Harris, professor of environmental science at the university of Bristol, witnessed the hunt in 2002 and described in an excellent article—I am prepared to believe him, because obviously it suits me to do so—the complete indifference to cruelty of some of the sealers. He found that the hunt suffered from a lack of monitoring. The Canadian high commissioner reassured my parliamentary colleagues and me that monitoring took place, but Stephen Harris believes that there was a lack of monitoring, unacceptable cruelty and definitely the potential for over-exploitation.
Most of us, including the general public, think that the clubbing of baby seals no longer goes on, but it does. A million have been killed over three years, and it is an important issue—I shall not be sidetracked by hunting with hounds—as the level of killing is almost twice as bad as it was during the late 1970s and early 1980s, when Brigitte Bardot first brought it to the attention of the world.
As a result of public pressure and political will, the European Union banned the import of products from whitecoats, which are harp seals up to their first moult and approximately 10 days old, and from bluebacks, which are hooded seals up to their first moult and approximately 18 months old. That was wonderful, and all animal welfare groups welcomed it. However, although it stopped or at least severely curtailed the hunt for a few years, it has since continued. Those products are now exported to countries in the EU.
The Canadian Government have worked hard to find a way round the ban, and even subsidise the hunt. Thanks to a marketing effort, the skins from slightly older seals—in the case of harp seals, they are literally a few days older—are now being imported into the EU. That circumvents Council directive 83/129/EEC of 28 March 1983, which relates to the importation into member states of skins of certain seal pups and products derived therefrom, and which is aimed at stopping this cruel slaughter. The innocent seal is being used as a
218WH
scapegoat by the Canadian Department for Fisheries and Oceans, which is the very Department that oversaw the collapse through over-fishing of fish populations, including cod, in Canadian waters.
The Department also created the myth that seals are to blame for the demise in fish stocks, which is just not true. Harp seals spend most of their lives in the north Atlantic, where they eat a variety of species including arctic cod, a species that itself eats cod. If anything, seals maintain cod populations. The ecosystem is much more complicated than the Department for Fisheries and Oceans suggests, and if seals were not around other species would increase in number to fill the niche.
Seals and fish have been around for tens of millions of years. It is only human over-fishing, which the Department for Fisheries and Oceans has overseen, that has caused the problem of depleting fish stocks. Seal hunting is not the answer for restoring fish stocks, as the Canadians would have us believe. The answer is effective policing of fishermen and their respective catches, and the implementation of fishing quotas in Canada's waters.
Opinion poll research commissioned by the Canadian Government showed that 71 per cent. of Canadians are not familiar with the issues surrounding the seal hunt, and a majority of 54 per cent. of Canadians oppose the seal hunt. So why does it continue?
Last year, 46,463 raw and tanned seal skins were imported into the EU directly from Canada, and they were valued at €1.545 million—my primary source for that is EUROSTAT. Furthermore, the EU imports large numbers of skins of Canadian origin from Norway. The Minister might already be aware that the animal welfare organisation, Respect for Animals, has initiated a boycott of Canadian tourism—as many of us know, Canada is a wonderful and beautiful country to visit. The organisation will continue the boycott while the hunt continues, which concerns the Canadian high commissioner, and that type of protest is likely to increase.
Perhaps the Minister could remind the Canadian Government that tourism is worth far more to Canada than the seal hunt could ever be, and that the Government's reputation is being damaged by this bloody slaughter. I urge the Minster to persuade his European counterparts to consider extending the European regulations that were brought into force in 1983 to all seal products. Considering that the EU is the main importer of seal products, the Canadian Government might become resigned to the fact that the seal hunt, even when subsidised, is not worth continuing.
Danny Penman, a journalist, went to watch the slaughter of seals this March. He said he met his first Canadian harp seal, and added:
"At first she was frightened but curiosity soon got the better of her.
Within five minutes she was padding slowly across the ice. Moments later she was trying to snuggle up to me. The next day, she was almost certainly dead.
Canadian sealers landed on her ice sheet shortly after dawn. They then proceeded to batter, kill and skin every living thing. Within half an hour the ice and snow was drenched with blood."
This is not an emotive opportunity to exaggerate; that actually happened. The journalist said:

219WH
"We watched in horror as a man we called 'Conan the Barbarian' slaughtered everything that came within range.
In the space of thirty seconds he clubbed five baby seals. The first four were hit over the head with his hakaapik. The fifth was stroked on the head before being bolted with the club. He then flipped the seal over on her back and began to slice open her throat and stomach.
She then began to scream"—
so would we if we were treated like that—
"and wriggle furiously as Conan peeled off her skin. Within thirty seconds the baby seal's carcass was cooling on the ice, eyes staring blankly at the sky. Her skin was dragged across the ice and dumped on a pile of steaming pelts. Conan was a few dollars richer."
Later, the mother of that seal and others came on to the ice to look for it.
That cannot be allowed to continue, and I hope that the Minister agrees.
11.16 am
The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Like many of us, I am recovering my voice after the flu; I hope that it holds out for this debate.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on securing this debate on Canadian seal hunting. I know how many hon. Members have a view on the subject; it has been a matter of public interest for some time. I welcome this opportunity to give the Government's view on the issue.
As the hon. Gentleman said, seals are bright, inquisitive, sensitive creatures. The slightly amusing but sad story in today's newspapers about Hoover the talking seal demonstrates that. However, Canada and Britain have close links, including links of family, and a similarity in attitude—Canada is a liberal country with values similar to ours. In many ways, although we talk about our special relationship with the United States, our closest relationship in north America is really with Canada. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is a warm relationship.
When I was young, the Daily Mirror ran a series of articles showing pictures of seal clubbing. I can remember a picture on the front page of a seal clubber hitting a white seal cub. For many years after that, every time I heard the word "Canada", I recollected that image. I now know a lot more; I know that Canada is a beautiful country, that its people are wonderful, and that its attitude on most things is similar to ours. However, that association between Canada and seal clubbing is not something that does the reputation of Canadians any good at all. For a period, it certainly did not do so in my eyes—nor, I suspect, in the eyes of many others. The way in which seal clubbing and seal hunting are carried out does Canada's reputation a great deal of damage.
We closely follow developments in the Canadian seal hunt. It focuses on two main species—the harp seal and the hooded seal. Neither of them is listed in the appendices to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora—CITES. Their current populations are considered to be relatively healthy, so they do not meet the relevant listing criteria.
220WH
Harp seals are the most populous of the seal species on the Atlantic coast, and are the major species hunted for commercial purposes.
The Canadian seal hunt has been regulated by means of quotas for some time. Earlier this year, the Canadian Government announced a new seal management plan for 2003–05. Under that plan, the total allowable catch—TAC—for hooded seals is 10,000 a year: for harp seals, the figure has been set at 975,000 for the 2003–05 seasons, with a maximum annual TAC of 350,000. That TAC will be instrumental in meeting the Canadian Government's plan to reduce the current population of harp seals from 5.5 million to 4.7 million by 2006.
The Canadian Government maintain that their seal-hunting practices are not a danger to the sustainability of the seal population, but some authorities consider the quotas for 2003–05 to be at the limit of what may be sustainable. The Canadians have also expressed concern that the current seal population is having a negative impact on fish stocks, and especially cod stocks. However, the relationship between predator and prey may not be quite as simple as is imagined. For example, seals feed mainly on squid, which in turn eat juvenile cod, so a major reduction in seal numbers might, perversely, lead to an increase in squid and a decline in cod stocks. Seals are also a major source of prey for killer whales and polar bears, and any major decline in the seal populations is likely to hurt their major predators.
We do not accept the need for any seal cull, but if one does take place it should be sustainable and based on a precautionary principle—on an approach that takes into account the importance of the species in maintaining local biodiversity in its role as both predator and prey. Although we have made no formal representations to the Canadian Government since 1999, the Canadian authorities are aware of our views on this matter. We have expressed our concern that the seal cull should not exceed numbers that are required to maintain the sustainability of the species. We have also asked that the Canadians consider a total ban on the hunting of seals for commercial purposes. In this context, we welcome the Canadian Government's prohibition of the harvest of whitecoat and blueback seals. A whitecoat is a harp seal up to two and a half weeks old, and a blueback is a hooded seal up to about 15 to 18 months of age. The Canadian Government continue to enforce that prohibition.
The importation of the skins of harp and hooded seal pups has been prohibited in this country and throughout the European Union for 20 years. However, imports of adult skins are not prohibited. The trade in the skins of harp and hooded pup seals was prohibited on the ground that it was felt that the level of trade at that time was unsustainable. The European Commission is keeping the current status of adult populations of those seals under review, but there are insufficient grounds to intervene on the basis of sustainability at present.
I turn to the methods that are used to kill the seals, and clubbing in particular. The Canadians say that not the majority, but only about 3 per cent., of seals are killed in that way. It is an especially disgusting way of killing seals. The Canadian Government are aware of the concerns about it. They have regulations to ensure

221WH
that seals are killed in a safe and humane manner. Some say that it is both safe and humane to club a seal. I do not accept that. One of the issues considered by the Canadian royal commission on seals and sealing was how far the killing of seals was carried out in a safe and humane manner. It claimed that the methods used were designed to kill the animal quickly. I suppose that clubbing a seal over the head does kill it fairly quickly, but that does not make it particularly humane or safe, certainly not for the seal. The commission claimed that the methods used were designed to protect the animal from undue cruelty—we do not accept that clubbing is acceptable. It claimed also that the methods used in hunting seals were no less humane than those used in hunting other wild animals.
The Canadians say that most seals are now shot on the ice with high-powered rifles by sealers operating from the bow of small boats. We have heard evidence suggesting that that might not be the case. However, I do not have evidence that would lead to a firm conclusion either way. Certainly, there is a great deal of concern about clubbing, and I hope that the Canadian Government will take the view that it needs to be prohibited.
There is conflicting veterinary opinion on the cruelty of seal hunts. A recent survey showed that many seals were skinned while still conscious—a disgusting practice. However, a recent Canadian Veterinary Medical Association report concluded that 98 per cent. of seals were killed in what it described as a humane manner. Even if 2 per cent. are killed cruelly, that still represents thousands of seals. I hope that the Canadian Government will work to ensure that if seal hunts are carried out, 100 per cent. of seals are killed in a way that does not involve clubbing or inhumane and improper treatment.
The Government will continue to work to raise animal welfare standards internationally through continuing engagement and dialogue with our EU and other trading partners. I assure the hon. Member for Southend, West that we are maintaining an active interest in the Canadian seal hunt. We would prefer that there were no commercial hunting at all, and we have told the Canadian Government that. However, it is important to note that the seal-hunting programme does not contravene any international agreement and
222WH
that it is ultimately for the Canadian authorities to regulate the practice. As long as the hunting of seals is permitted, we hope that the killing methods will be monitored effectively and that the clubbing of seals will be stopped. We hope that the Canadian Government will monitor the operation of their regulations, and ensure that they are implemented in practice and do not just lie on the statute book. The Canadian Government do monitor and I hope that they will ensure that that monitoring is done as effectively as possible.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the EU and whether we should have a complete ban on the import of all seal products. We recognise those concerns and concerns about wider animal welfare issues; that is why we are pressing for animal welfare concerns to be recognised as legitimate grounds for action against goods under World Trade Organisation rules. Those rules govern our trade with other countries. The view of the WTO, which has to make a decision unanimously, is that it is not prepared to allow animal welfare issues to be a criterion for stopping trade in particular kinds of products. Some countries have said that the EU is attempting to impose its ethical views on other countries. It is our intention to convince, not to impose, and we will continue to seek to convince those other countries.
At present, WTO rules do not explicitly allow for trade restrictions on the basis of animal welfare concerns, and any proposal to restrict or ban the import of seal products from Canada or in general would have to be considered carefully to ensure that it would be justifiable and proportionate under WTO rules. Past experience with leghole traps has demonstrated that some trading partners will react strongly to EU attempts to impose trade measures on animal welfare grounds. There is no point in the EU or the UK making laws or implementing regulations that would be found to be in breach of WTO rules and would have to be repealed if successfully challenged. The UK's approach has been to seek discussion with Canada, which we hope will result in its ensuring that any hunting is done properly—and that, hopefully, all commercial seal hunting is ended.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Children's Play
2 pm
Paddy Tipping: Children's play is important, and I am delighted to introduce a debate that I hope will raise the profile of play and contribute towards a national strategy for children's play. Let me begin with a confession. It was 20 years this summer since I organised and ran my last summer play scheme, and slightly longer than that since I was involved in after-school clubs. However, the issues surrounding children's play have not changed substantially, and I shall highlight some of them.
Children's play is hard to define. It covers a wide spectrum, from intensive adult activity with small children to more informal, open approaches to play, both inside and outside. I shall concentrate this afternoon on the latter. However we define children's play, it is important to recognise that it involves much more than swings and roundabouts; it is an avenue for self-exploration, growth and development.
Although I generally welcome the Green Paper "Every Child Matters", which was published last month, it refers only in passing to children's play. One of my aims today is to make it clear that that document is out for consultation. I hope that our debate can contribute to a firmer children's Green Paper and a set of policies that recognise children's play.
Children's play is important to youngsters themselves. There is a tendency these days to try to make children grow up far too quickly. One has only to look at advertisements and television to see that. In a consumer society, all the emphasis is on making youngsters grow up quickly and reach adulthood. I want children's play and childhood to allow children time and space to relax, find freedom and enjoy the moment. We all know the old adage about all work and no play. Play is important in letting children just take stock as well as in their development. It can be exciting and imaginative. I have watched children go deep-sea diving, climb Everest and make the most dramatic space journeys—all in their own living rooms. Playing—that excitement—is a journey, a preparation for life.
Children's play is important for parents, too. In fact, I do not think that we understand just how important parents see children's play as being. There has been a great deal of public polling on it, and when parents were asked what would most improve their area, 43 per cent. cited better facilities for children as their top priority. When they were asked to place children's play facilities among 20 priorities for young people, they put them fifth, which, interestingly, was well above both health and education. Parents see play as important.
As I look into my crystal ball, which is notoriously cloudy, I think that the notions of space and of owning and being part of one's neighbourhood will be growing political themes in the future. Children have a right to expect part of that space. Parents also believe strongly that in a pressured world, in which they are stressed, in which life can be difficult, and in which there are many demands on families, it is important to have time when children can have their own space. Children's play is important to both children and their parents.
Children's play does not have the profile that it deserves. One argument is that that is because local and national structures of government are fragmented when
224WH
it comes to children's play. People are interested, but nobody has sole responsibility. In Whitehall, for example, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has the top interest in children's play, but officials in the Department for Education and Skills are also involved, as are those in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister through planning issues and work with local authorities. The Home Office also has an interest, so four big Departments of state have an interest in children's play.
That situation is mirrored in local authorities, although in many ways things are more fragmented there, because different authorities handle children's play in different ways. In some authorities, the social services department is the lead department, while in others it is the education, recreation or leisure departments. There is no clear local authority blueprint for children's play. Such fragmentation does not matter if structures are made to work, and it is essential that all parties, nationally and locally, should talk about children's play.
The voluntary sector is an important stakeholder. In Nottinghamshire and nationally, voluntary organisations—ordinary parents, residents groups and groups with special interests—are making provision for children to play. The voluntary sector has an important voice and must contribute widely to the debate.
In my county, Nottinghamshire, a framework for children's play has been in place for some years. It is not perfect, but it is evolving to meet needs. I am delighted to say that the county council, working with partners in the voluntary sector, has established play centres in each of the districts. There is also a play forum in each district, where partners come together to discuss a local strategy to meet local needs. I am pleased that 174 after-school clubs are running in Nottinghamshire and that more than 5,000 places are available. That is an important leap forward from what happened when I was involved in the system.
What impresses me most about Nottinghamshire is the training that takes place. The play centres have acted as vehicles for getting out and talking to parents and community groups, particularly in disadvantaged areas, and are making training available from an introductory level up to NVQ3 level. Adult skills in children's play and the facilities to encourage and excite children are also important. The Nottinghamshire model shows us what can be done.
I want us to go further by building on the Nottinghamshire base to form a national strategy. One tool available is the soon-to-be-published work coordinated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), whom the Department for Culture, Media and Sport asked to look at how new opportunities for funding for children's play—about £200 million is involved—should be spent. I have not yet seen the final product, but I have witnessed his work. What impressed me was that the team involved had regional meetings across the country and talked to people about the children's play facilities that they need.
The work done directly with young people is particularly impressive. For example, a workshop was held in Birmingham and young people were asked to discuss their views on the provision of children's play. In

225WH
a debate on children's play, we should hear the voice of the children. One article states:
"In Birmingham the children tended to favour smaller local provision with comments mainly about ease of access and variety. They included, 'Big play spaces cost too much money to get to', 'You can go to different ones to see what different things they do' and 'Lots of small ones means lots of different things to do'."
Concerns were also expressed that big playgrounds might lead to bullying. There is a view that, since big playgrounds might entail the presence of adult staff, smaller provision directed at local neighbourhood need is probably the best way forward.
Children also discussed better school playgrounds and more out-of-school and holiday clubs. Holiday and homework clubs are important, but there are dangers in provisions. There is a lot of pressure on schools and teachers to perform. There is a danger that homework clubs may be used to reinforce learning and schooling. That should happen to some extent, but out-of-school clubs should be more exciting, and different from school. They should be a chance for children to recover and explore after school.
Children had a say in the Dobson review. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts will be able to tell us when it will be published, as I understand that it is imminent. It is important to recognise that it is not a Government report, but a report to the Government. It is a set of ideas to put to the Government, to which they must respond. Clarity on the timetable of the discussion would be helpful.
I do not know what will be in the review, but I can imagine what some of the themes will be. We must examine children's play across the country, but we must consider in particular how to meet children's needs in the most disadvantaged areas. It is also important to consider the play needs of children with special and exceptional needs. They also have a right to play, and the facilities available to them are limited. I am grateful to the National Autistic Society for telling me, in a letter, that a recent survey of play facilities found that
"more than two thirds of disabled children do not use leisure facilities because they are made to feel uncomfortable while doing so. This highlights the need to challenge negative public perceptions if inclusion is to become anything but an aspiration. Over half of the families (55 per cent.) had to travel outside the area to find accessible facilities, with opportunities to access play and leisure limited by financial constraints and difficulties with transport."
It is important to include all children in any national strategy.
It is also important to examine how funding reaches children. It is fairly easy for voluntary groups to find capital for projects, but it is sometimes difficult for them to find the day-to-day resources to sustain projects in the long term. I am concerned that the Dobson review should not reinforce the impression that lottery money should fund children's play, although lottery money can make an important difference. The children's Green Paper and the Dobson report should provoke a stocktake of how much we currently spend on children's play. No one knows the answer, and if we are to develop new facilities and a national strategy, we need to start at base one. We need to know and to cost what we are doing before we move into the future.
It is also important for local authorities to examine what they are doing for children's play. I note that none of the targets set for local government concerns
226WH
children's play. We should reflect on whether there is a lesson to be learned from that. Should we be talking more clearly to local authorities about the targets that are set?
The important thing is to try to include funding for children's play in mainstream funding—it should not all be lottery money. For example, in big regeneration projects we should examine how some of the project money could be directed towards children's play. We should also use the planning process more sensitively and sensibly, to introduce appropriate provision for children in new developments. That should, but does not always, happen.
There is also the question of how we use schools. Budgets are tight, and the priority is children's education, but we should try to develop schools as community resources—as centres that can reach out to the wider community. That process has already begun, and I am confident that projects such as sure start will enable it to proceed.
We should examine our old Victorian parks. There is an increasing interest in how urban Victorian parks can be revitalised and regenerated. Children's needs should be considered when we are examine ways of developing those parks.
Those are some of the questions that I hope the review will answer. However, the essential requisite for good children's play is good training for the people who are involved in it. In fairness to the Green Paper, "Every Child Matters", I may say that it refers specifically to the need to encourage play training. People who work and play with children are not devoid of skills—they are highly skilled people who can pass their skills on to other child care professionals. I have seen children's lives radically changed through good-quality, thoughtful and structured play. However, for structured play to be done well, both training and resources are needed.
There are signs of progress. I am delighted that the Department for Education and Skills has recently recognised SkillsActive as the sector skills council for active leisure and learning training. Having a body with sole responsibility for certifying and promoting quality children's play training is a welcome and significant step forward.
The funding now available from the Department for Education and Skills for regional play centres reinforces that approach. In the last year, new regional training centres have been developed in Yorkshire and Humberside, the east midlands, the north-west, the east and the south-east regions, taking the total regional centres to nine; those are encouraging signs.
I want to continue to work with people within and without Parliament to build on important progress—the Dobson report, SkillsActive and the Green paper—to create a framework for children's play. Some high-quality work is being done, but there are big gaps where there is no appropriate provision, and we must look closely at that. The time has come to take stock of what we are doing about children's play, and to try to move forward and make a difference. It is 20 years since I ran a play scheme, but what impressed me then, and still impresses me, was that investment in children and their play is not just for the present, but for the future, too.
2.21 pm
Mr. Hilton Dawson: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to follow the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), whom I heartily congratulate on choosing the subject for discussion.
It is delightful to have this opportunity to discuss children's play, and also surprising, because it is taken for granted in the world we inhabit that play is peripheral and less important than other vital matters in people's lives. That view is wholly wrong, and I am disappointed that more hon. Members are not present for this debate.
Members of Parliament are extremely skilful people, adept at communication, building relationships, cooperating and forming—and sometimes breaking—alliances, but those essential social and people skills are not taught at school at any level or in higher education. They may result from the general experience of living, but most importantly they come fromthe profound learning experience of play. I learned lessons in our back lane that I use every day of my life.
A month or so ago, we held a day in Lancaster called, "What's life like for children in Lancaster," assisted by the great national expert, Professor Al Aynsley-Green, the national clinical director for children's services. About 150 adults and 30 or so children and young people were present, all of whom participated extremely well. One of my community campaigns followed from a suggestion made that day: a young chap from a local primary school stood up at the beginning of the meeting, in front of a large number of adults, and said that what was needed to improve life in Lancaster was a community telescope. That was such a wonderful idea. We are all in the gutter looking at the stars, and that was a fantastic insight into community need.
Many other young people contributed that day. They concentrated on the important aspects of their lives and the issues that seemed fundamental to them. They said that they needed more parks and more space. They suggested that the old bus garage down the road could be converted into an ice rink and a centre for a whole range of children's activities, saying, "We could run that centre". The children and young people had some strong messages. They want ownership of part of our communities. They want somewhere that is definitely theirs. They want somewhere over which they can exert control. Above all, they have good and solid ideas about their community, what it should provide and what they want to see in it.
I look forward to the report from my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I welcome the investment that the Government have made. It has come from a variety of sources. It shows its face in our communities. After long struggles and in the face of rampant scepticism from adults, skate parks are being developed in my constituency. That is what young people want. No, it is not a fad. It is the sort of sporting development that they want. Better youth and community facilities are being developed and there are more spaces for people to meet.
Meanwhile, begrudging little spaces are allowed on new housing estates. Planners force developers to include what is laughably described as a play space on estates over a certain size. The developers put them in
228WH
the most obscure corner of the estate and the people whose houses are built next to them lobby their MP to get the local authority to remove the planning condition. That has been one of my most depressing experiences as an MP. So often we give the message to young people that we do not like them very much and we do not want them around.
We are very critical of young people. We do not like it that they watch too much television and get fat, but we also criticise them when they go out. We are all concerned, rightly, about antisocial behaviour, but we can become obsessed by it and we can see it in situations where young people are simply being themselves.
Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a world of difference between behaviour that is rightly described as antisocial, and that plagues communities and mostly makes victims of young people, and the behaviour of the vast majority of young people who are bored and looking for something to do? We must stop criminalising children and realise that we must provide something constructive for them to do. We cannot rely on old, Victorian England values under which it was thought that children did not exist unless they were asked to contribute. If we do, we will force them further into problems that it will be costly to sort out.
Mr. Dawson: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend said. We are discussing a continuum. In certain situations, it is possible to misinterpret the behaviour of young people. When they congregate and become a little boisterous, that is not necessarily a sign that they pose a great threat to our communities. We need to respond to the views of children and young people. A wider range of resources must be made available to them. Above all, they need space. As young people from Lancaster said, they need a meeting place and to be allowed to do their own thing. They should be allowed to run things and be in control of their environment.
The debate gives us a good opportunity to look back at our own childhood. When my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood was talking, it struck me that he would have been a darn good member of our gang. We had an amazing time. We dammed streams, built wooden houses and climbed trees. Sometimes, we cut down trees. We had the huge advantage of being near a beach, on which we played all sorts of dangerous games. We also spent an enormous amount of time in our back lane where there was a lot of space because there were not many cars.
I recently made a nostalgic visit to the house where I lived 25 years ago. The area was full of cars. Children could not play cricket or cowboys and Indians there now. They could not be involved in grand construction projects. We always had a few nails and scrap wood. Such items seem to be missing now. We built things out of all sorts of junk. There is not the same tolerance for young people these days. As well as really good, well-organised activities of the sort mentioned by my hon. Friend, we need to provide children with opportunities for adventures. A load of constructive material must be put at their disposal. Children must be able to play games and let their imaginations roam around the possibility of using such material.

229WH
We need more co-ordination in the way in which we offer play projects. I do not understand where the different elements of funding come from. In our area, the county council provides opportunities for play, as does the district council. A community safety budget funds excellent projects. The lottery has funded various projects, but because it is so diverse and diffuse, play does not receive the attention that it deserves.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood was absolutely right to refer to the Green Paper, "Every Child Matters". If every child does matter, we must ensure that play is a central part of every organisation's work. There are children's trusts, and local authorities, which will have a lead officer—a lead politician—for children's services. We must ensure that those people give play the prominence that it deserves and requires.
We need to recognise that play work is a thoroughly respectable and vital profession. As part of that, we need to recognise that there are huge skills in our communities. Across the whole range of work with children, there are opportunities for community regeneration. In some of the most allegedly run-down parts of my constituency—certainly the parts with poorer reputations—there are people who have great experience with children: many of them have been parents, grandparents, brothers or sisters, and have taken part in a wide variety of voluntary activity on the estates where they live. We must recognise the talents of people from some of the most deprived communities in our land: we need to nurture those talents—and support and employ them.
If we really want to get to the nub of the problem of children's health and antisocial behaviour, and if we really want to engage children in our communities and the future of our society, we must give them opportunities to learn, grow and socialise, and to be part of their communities, and to take control. The first step towards that is to listen to children and young people. We have a great opportunity to make the changes that are required.
In a sense, a cultural change is required. We need to understand the importance of play and the significance of childhood. We must ensure that we enjoy children's childhoods, and that children enjoy them, too. If we get that right, we will do a great deal better by our society in the future.
2.37 pm
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I am, I think, quite well qualified to speak on the subject of children's play. I am the mother of three children, who will soon have presented me with five grandchildren, and I am becoming quite an expert on childhood, as they all live near me in my constituency.
The long title of the debate, "Government strategy for children's play", made me wonder whether we were going a little bit mad. Do we need a strategy for play? Do we need a programme for it? Will the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) set targets for play? Would that not be the very opposite of what play means? Play means doing something that you like doing—or doing nothing. What is wrong with doing nothing occasionally? If we are to have targets for doing nothing and doing things that we like doing, I dread to think what direction the Government are taking us in.
230WH
However, I will take this matter seriously. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) on securing the debate, because play is important. Why have we suddenly—maybe it happened gradually—realised that we need a strategy? One reason is that successive Governments have been very unjoined-up in their Departments. People have not actually thought out the consequences of particular policies, and we must start addressing that seriously.
Take the example of school playing fields. I do not blame the present Government for the non-existence of school playing fields, but an awful lot of them have been sold off over the past few decades. When little children, such as my toddler grandchildren, are taken into an open space or empty field, they run and run. The appeal of big empty spaces to a child is great, but, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) said, where can they be found? He had his beach when he was a child, but the vast majority of our children are brought up in towns and urban environments where they have no space. They cannot run around and get away from everything. The school playing fields policy was a sad move that meant many schools lost their fields.
The national curriculum is so prescriptive that it does not leave enough time in the day for extra activities. The wetland centre in Barnes, which is part of the Slimbridge Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust is a beautiful facility of reclaimed reservoirs with water birds, geese, ducks and all sorts of things for children as well as adults, and it is sad that so few schools visit it. Schools say that the school day is too crowded: they have no time any more to do trips, and teachers are overwhelmed by all the things that they have to do. There is no time and no space. All the targets that teachers must meet daily, weekly, monthly and term by term leave little time or energy to take the children out on an extra spree or trip. They have no time to ensure that the children are doing something constructive or playing happily in the playground rather than drifting around or thumping one another.
Dare I mention standard assessment tests for seven-year-olds? One of the saddest things that we have done to little children in this country is to make them prepare for tests at the age of seven. The hon. Member for Sherwood said that children are losing their childhood. They start taking tests at seven, and I know that the mentality of teachers who want their schools to do well means that they teach for that exam instead of letting children learn through play. Children do learn through play, and it is terribly important that they should, and not just learn in order to pass tests.
Parents are also at fault to some extent. In middle-class areas such as my constituency, I see the poor little souls being picked up from school, the girls being whisked off to ballet and their brothers off to judo. Then they go to piano lessons, and then they must have their extra tutoring at age nine or 10 for the independent school tests. Those children must fall into bed absolutely knackered. They are given so many extra opportunities for acquiring skills that they have no space for themselves. They are not allowed simply to do nothing. My eldest child loved doing nothing. He is a successful person who has done very well, which is partly, I hope, because I sometimes realised that he needed to do nothing and left him alone.

231WH
We all know that television and computers are turning us into a nation of couch potatoes, and that children are becoming anaemic and obese, and developing rickets—there all sorts of horror stories about how unhealthy our children have become. However, a lot of that results from parents being too afraid to let their children out, and that is because successive Governments have failed to realise the importance of community safety and the village bobby who knows all the children in the local schools and who can be referred to and relied on.
Yesterday, during discussions on the Sexual Offences Bill in the Chamber, I was thinking about today's debate. A law was passed—although my party tried to amend it—that made it a criminal offence for children under 16 to touch each other sexually. That means that they cannot play doctors and nurses or kiss-chase; they cannot even play postman's knock any more, as I did and as my children did. That is a bit more legislation saying, "You mustn't do that; you must do your reading instead." We do not think enough about the consequences on our children of legislation on other issues.
There have been some tremendous measures recently. I congratulate the Government on sure start. It is magnificent that that is being rolled out even in my constituency, which is not a deprived area. Sure start is coming, and it involves superb schemes.
Could we please pay tribute to the play group leaders and after-school club organisers who for decades have provided all those things that our children would otherwise have lacked? I applaud and praise them. They have done a magnificent job, and I hope that a lot of support for play groups and their leaders will come out of the strategy.
Equipment in municipal and school playgrounds is much better than it was. I sometimes worry a little that putting nice, soft, bouncy surfaces under every climbing frame must make children think that every tree that they want to climb will also have a nice, soft, bouncy surface underneath it. Sometimes, we must remember that children have to learn by taking little risks—supervised, I hope, by their parents. They need to know that there are safe and unsafe things to do.
The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre, on his trip down memory lane—my handkerchief was at the ready, and I bemoaned the childhood of our past—and the hon. Member for Sherwood both mentioned town planning. Where is the waste ground? In my childhood—if I may take a trip down memory lane—it was bomb sites. I was brought up in the west midlands in the years just after the war. We played mothers and fathers in bombed-out buildings. We finished off the job that Hitler started, by throwing stones at windows that were almost but not quite broken. We had a great time on bomb sites; they were wonderful places.
My two boys now have children of their own. Despite their being brought up in leafy, wonderful Kew with lovely playgrounds and open spaces, including Kew green and parks, the boys' favourite playground—I hope that my daughter did not go there—was a derelict public building down by the river that was desperately dangerous. I have only just heard about it. It was right
232WH
on the riverbank. What has happened to that most favoured place? Developers have built a block of luxury flats on it. That wonderful play space for young people in my constituency has gone.
There is no longer anywhere in our communities that does not belong to somebody. As soon as children start playing anywhere, someone complains about them making a noise or kicking balls. Everyone owns everything now; we are all very proprietorial, and children have no chance to let rip. Perhaps they do so in the country or on the beach, but most children do not have that facility.
Let me go back to the subject of SATs at age seven. A recent study compared our country with Sweden. Swedish children do not start formal school until they are going on seven. Until then, they go to pre-school and nursery. They are away from home, but learn through play, communication and interacting with their peer group. Our children are preparing for SATs in those years. What happens? Our children at seven are much better than Swedish children at reading, writing and arithmetic. They gain very good results at seven in comparison. At 14, however—oh dear! There is such a turnaround. The children in Sweden have learned to communicate and have caught up very fast, even though their formal schooling started a little later.
So many parents have to work that we need an expansion of before-school and after-school clubs. They are invaluable. In many areas, the old informal process of "You have the kids on Mondays, I have them on Tuesdays and Mrs. So-and-so has them on Wednesdays" meant that we all had after-school periods and one day off a week and that five mums shared the load. I am not sure that that happens as much as it did. I hope that it does, but in many urban areas perhaps it does not, because people do not make the same contact with one another.
I agree with the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre that we should ask the children what they went, whether it is to do nothing or whether they want skate parks, for example. Requests for skateboard parks in my constituency were pooh-poohed many times as a fad, and as something that the children would grow out of and move on from. However, they did not, and skateboarding is an excellent way of letting out energy.
Finally, let us not forget grandparents. My family has a play strategy for children called Grandpa—actually, they call him Poppy. He was the carver of pumpkins last weekend and is the controller of the railway network that is set up in our sitting room on Saturday mornings and not dismantled until Monday. He is a hard-working consultant in the national health service but he is also a magnificent play leader for the children. The gap between generations is an extremely useful one, which we do not exploit enough. Grandparents are very good at entertaining grandchildren, because they can send them home in the evenings; they do not have to keep them all night as well. So in our strategy let us not forget grandparents and particularly not the grandparent in my family—I commend him to the Chamber.
2.52 pm
Mr. Malcolm Moss: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) on his success in the ballot and on introducing

233WH
the debate. Judging by the number of interested people in the Public Gallery, it is long overdue and very important to many people. I commend him on his excellent speech, which covered all the key points. I have been wondering what I can add to it, but if I left the Minister 45 minutes to reply, she might not thank me, so I will say a few words.
I begin with a quotation from a psychologist:
"When we play games with other children we learn how to compete, organise groups, be creative and develop socially. It also helps to relate to others and to form relationships."
That encapsulates everything that we all believe about play and its importance in all its multifarious facets. We have touched on only some of those facets today, and they range enormously—from doing nothing, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said, to the structured, formalised play that takes place at certain locations. However, I think that we would all agree that there are problems with the notion and practice of play in this country at the moment. Playgrounds, once a Mecca for children, are in decline, often because councils no longer wish to maintain them because of to pressures on their revenue account, or perhaps because they no longer want to face up to the increasing claims for injury as our society becomes more litigious.
There is also a decline in the extended family. It is encouraging and heartwarming to know that there are tremendous granddads around who will look after their grandchildren, but today, unlike in the case of the hon. Member for Richmond Park, many grandparents do not live conveniently close to their grandchildren, which causes difficulties. In the past, the extended family brought on the younger children, but that option is no longer readily open to us, although I heartily agree with the hon. Lady's comment that the age gap between grandparents and grandchildren—between the generations—is often most productive, in that grandparents know how best to use time and have the patience to bring on young children.
I look back not with embarrassment, but with recognition that I did not spend anything like the time—or had the same patience—with my own two children that I spend with my one grandchild. I cannot claim to have more than one—Oh wait, I have two. [Laughter.] One was born two days ago; I had forgotten. He has not impinged on my life yet, but he is there. There is an eight-year gap between them.
As hon. Members have mentioned, we can no longer go out on the streets because of the sheer volume of traffic, and it is not only parents who are anxious about traffic and safety; children themselves are terrified. They say that they do not like going out and being near heavy traffic, and that affects the situation, too.
When it comes to safety, we are not talking only about surfaces in playgrounds. If we attempt to keep children in an ultra-safe environment, we run the risk of losing a key element of constructive play—a sense of adventure. Until I was about 10 or 11, I used to spend my holidays in north Wales, on the sand dunes near Prestatyn, in what we used to call a bungalow; it is a shack now. I went there for about a month every year, accompanied by my brother and my cousins. There were no playgrounds and no facilities—not even a cricket pitch—but every day after breakfast we went out with a
234WH
sense of adventure and we created things. We must not think that as a Government or as a society we must always produce something tangible for play. We need to think more widely and create the conditions in which children can grow and develop through their own play.
Of course, children do not get out as much today as they used to. I have covered some of the ground, but there are other issues. There is a feeling that they do not get out any more, but today's children are damned if they stay at home watching TV or playing video games—they risk being labelled couch potatoes—and damned if they go out, risking the wrath of their parents, who are worried about traffic and other safety issues. The hon. Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and for Richmond Park also mentioned the intolerance of members of the local community, such as neighbours or other people living nearby, who, as we MPs know, regularly complain about the activities of young people in their neighbourhood.
According to the latest research, most children now opt to stay indoors—a sedentary lifestyle that fuels the growing obesity epidemic. One survey of parents found that seven out of 10 children spend more time playing on computers and watching TV during the summer holidays than doing anything else, and 40 per cent. spend seven or more hours a day on such activities. Those statistics show that at least some play is taking place. One might call it domiciliary play, but it is important. Computers and the facility that children have with information technology bring them on much earlier than was the case with our generation. However, underlying the debate and the Government's so-called strategy on play is the feeling that although that type of play is okay in its place, play outdoors or in more structured areas, supervised or unsupervised, is suffering because children are not getting out of the home. The impetus seems to be towards restoring the conditions that would allow it to happen more.
There is growing concern about obesity, which is costing the health service £2.6 billion to tackle its direct and indirect effects, according to National Audit Office figures from 1998. We understand that that cost is still rising alarmingly. Given that evidence, the Government are right to consider how to develop more activity among our children, whether through play or sport or a combination of both.
We have spoken about structured facilities, and different costs are involved, such as capital costs to put the facility in place and the ongoing revenue cost, which is often the killer punch when local councils are considering whether to go ahead with various projects. However, we have facilities that are under-used in this country, such as those in our schools, particularly our primary schools. At this stage, like the hon. Member for Richmond Park, I pay tribute to all those involved in play groups and after-school clubs, who do a fantastic job with our children. A report by Learning through Landscapes, a national charity, has found that schools fail to make maximum use of their land and get only about 30 per cent. of the potential benefit from their outdoor facilities. There is the widespread problem of the sell-off of playing fields, which I will come to later, but too much existing land is being under-used.
Social, educational and play benefits are deemed to accrue from outdoor play facilities, and one example that I have obtained from the Library is that of

235WH
Ravenstone primary school in Balham, south London. It put improved facilities into the school and saw dramatic changes in bullying, social inclusion, structured play and children's work in the classroom. That did not take a lot of money—about £30,000 was spent—but the effects were dramatic. That could be replicated in existing facilities throughout the country, through the Department for Education and Skills rather than the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Rather than reinvent the wheel, we should make the most of under-used facilities on our doorstep.
Because of pressure on resources, heads and governing bodies cannot spend the money that they should on their playing fields. Fields are not cared for properly, as they are not drained or the grass is not cut, so they end up as no-go areas during wet winters. They are under-used because they are not maintained properly. As the heads and governing bodies do not then have the money to bring them back into full use, it is easy for them to take the option of selling the fields. If we gave those schools some ring-fenced money, we could perhaps encourage them to put in facilities that would allow their children to play in a more structured way.
Improvements can range from art, technology and architecture projects to sensory gardens. I opened such a garden at Eye Church of England primary school in my constituency a few months ago. The children had been involved in designing the garden; they related to it and it was theirs. That kind of thing can help children's play activities.
Land use and planning issues have already been covered, but I will mention them briefly. As 200,000 or 300,000 houses are to be built, particularly in south-east England, safe outdoor spaces should be planned as part of the infrastructure.
A recent survey by the Children's Play Council and the Children's Society found that, on average, fewer than one playground is provided for every 500 children under 12, and fewer than 40 per cent. of local authorities have either outdoor play policies or strategies for the public realm. At present, 56 per cent. of local authorities do not have an urban green space strategy, and 64 per cent. of those have no immediate plans to introduce one. The hon. Member for Sherwood made an important point when he said that public parks should be brought back into public use, as too many are run down—the same point that I made about revenue funding for the maintenance of school playing fields, which are tremendous facilities that can be brought back into greater public use, to the benefit of our children. The fear of crime, or of being accosted or bullied, drives children and adults out of those areas. We must address the crime and disorder dimension to the problem in parallel with the other considerations.
Mr. Dawson: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the fear of crime dissuades people from going to open spaces, but is not that fear of crime completely out of proportion to reality?
Mr. Moss: Yes, I accept that fear of crime colours people's judgment in a perverse way, but it is a real fear
236WH
and it should be addressed. My constituency in rural Cambridgeshire is not supposed to have huge crime problems, and the local chief constable told me last week that recorded crime was going down. That may well be so, but I told him that to judge from my postbag, crime is going up. People no longer bother to report it because they do not expect the system to deal with it. Small-beer crime such as antisocial behaviour—youngsters banging on doors and causing problems—frightens elderly people and contributes to their fears.
As the hon. Member for Sherwood said, improving the quality of public space is high on the list of issues that people think important to improvements in the quality of their lives. My statistics are slightly different from his: mine put that ahead of education, in the top three or four priorities, along with reducing crime and improving the health service. In spite of that, public space has been overlooked for many years, by this and previous Governments.
I have already mentioned the problems associated with school playing fields. Under a previous Sports Minister, the Government seemed determined to tackle the matter, but little improvement has been made and the problems still exist. There has been a steady rise in applications to build on playing fields; there were about 1,325 in 2002–03. Since the Secretary of State for Education took direct control of the disposal of school fields in October 1998, some 213 applications have been approved and only six refused. An alarming trend is developing. Most applications go through and few are turned down. The Government may argue that not all playing fields are lost and that sometimes an indoor facility is built on part of a playing field. I accept that, but neither the local authorities nor the Government have any clear statistics about what is happening out there.
Rather than piecemeal and ad hoc developments that are used by the education service to raise money to prop up education budgets, we need a cohesive view of what playing fields and facilities are needed. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport should lead on that, and we need to plan systematically. If we do not know exactly what is going on, a time will come when we say, "Whoops, we have gone too far. How do we go back?" Once playing fields are gone, they are irreplaceable. Unless we knock down huge swathes of housing to create new playing fields, they are lost and gone for ever. The Government must do more to secure the future of playing fields.
As the hon. Member for Sherwood pointed out, a review was carried out under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). It was set up last October to look at ways in which the £200 million allocated from the New Opportunities Fund would be spent on children's play. I understand that that review was completed in March. We were promised the Government's response in the summer. It is eight months since the right hon. Gentleman submitted his report. Like the hon. Member for Sherwood, I hope that the Minister has some good news. Does he think she has some good news? I see him nodding; perhaps that was what prompted the debate, which may be another launch pad for good Government news. I hope that the Minister has some good news and that the report will be published very soon.

237WH
I see the Minister looking at the clock, so I shall be very brief. It is funny how time goes. One thinks one has two minutes' worth of stuff to say and it lasts for 12.
I take the line taken by the hon. Member for Richmond Park on strategy for play. It is not the play that is at issue, but facilities and opportunities. Any strategy needs to be inclusive and to cross Departments. I do not mind whether it is DCMS that leads it, but someone needs to. It needs to be more co-ordinated, both nationally and locally. Local authorities seem to do their own thing without any requirement to supply even basic provision.
As the hon. Member for Sherwood said, provision is fragmented. Local authorities and planning departments need a clearer role to ensure that land use planning goes hand in hand with our need to provide facilities. All in all, the Government are doing some good things with their positive activities for young people, sure start and various other schemes, but it would be interesting to hear what they intend to do about the New Opportunities Fund money.
3.13 pm
The Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) on securing this debate. I had a word with him before it started and reminded him that, although it might be 20 years since he led a play group, within months of being elected in 1992 he was asking questions about play and play areas. It is not just in response to the publication of the Green Paper on children that he has shown an interest in play; his is a long-standing involvement. I congratulate him on his tenacity and have every confidence that that tenacity will extend through the months and years ahead.
We hope to publish the report prepared by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) by the end of the year. Having joined the Department belatedly, I had not realised how long ago the report was commissioned; I agree with the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) that it is an inordinate length of time. That is my commitment and I hope that nothing happens to make me apologise for the non-appearance of the report.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire on the birth of his second grandchild. In time, I hope that he becomes as good a play leader as the husband of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge). I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's grandson will be imprinted on his mind in a week, not least by the noise, and he will never again forget that he has two grandchildren.
It has been a good and helpful debate, devoid of party arguments or political party points, and I join hon. Members in stressing the importance of play. I was beginning to think that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood was giving us an opportunity to reminisce about our own play, and there is nothing wrong with making that comparison, which reminds us of the importance of play in our lives. Whether we used spare time in our youth legitimately or illegitimately, nobody would deny that it had formative influences on us.
However, I warn against thinking that everything in the old days was rosy, and that there were long summer days when it never rained, no child was at risk, and no
238WH
neighbour shouted at a child for putting a ball in their garden. That is not my memory of childhood. I was shouted at for kicking the ball in the neighbours' garden and that will always be part of the essential relationship between adults and children. They were not all glory days, but we were children and did not have much to worry about except whether the ball was kicked into the neighbours' garden.
The social context in which children now grow up is very different. It impacts on all areas of their lives, including play. I got out of the neighbours' way by going to the park, but that was at a time when my parents were not worried that I would not come back, and the newspapers were not so full of stories about risks to children. I do not know whether children are at more risk now from traffic and dangers from adults, but parents think that children are more at risk than a generation ago. It is not for the Government or MPs to talk to parents about the risk they take with their children; that has to be up to the parents, because the consequences of ill coming to children will be borne by them and no one else.
Everyone—the Government, the media, parents or MPs—has a social responsibility to ensure that when we discuss antisocial behaviour, which I suspect has increased since I was a child, and the risks to children, we do so in an open, honest and robust way to warn parents, but do not go over the top and scare them into altering how they deal with their children.
Mr. Dawson: Whatever we think about antisocial behaviour and crime, it is clear that the risk to children from traffic has increased markedly and continues to do so exponentially every year with more vehicles on the road. It is essential that local authorities address the issues of safe streets for children, safe routes to school and safe places for children to play where they can be fully protected and insulated from traffic.
Estelle Morris: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend, but frankly, that choice has been made. Members of Parliament and our constituents may have two cars, whereas a generation ago families might not have had any. We the public are responsible for the increase in the number of cars and untidy parking on streets. Children used to play in the streets but cannot do so any more; looking around the Chamber, I see that most hon. Members are of a similar age and probably did play in the street. That has changed but it is not controllable; it is the position that we are in. To summarise that debate, there is no going back to the days when back alleys were always safe, when streets did not have cars on them and open spaces were fit and safe for children.
I know that the hon. Member for Richmond Park did not mean her remarks to be so interpreted, but thank heaven that the bomb sites have been cleared. If they had not been, there would have been an Adjournment debate on why successive Governments had not dealt with them. There is a danger in dealing with life as it is and wanting to make play safe in the social context in which we live. Parents want more designated areas for safe play, unless children find their own areas and we deem that they are safe for them.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). Responsibility must be put on the relevant agencies, whether local or

239WH
national. They must ensure that in each area there are open spaces not only where children feel safe, but which parents consider safe. I could not agree more that the right balance must be struck between organised and disorganised play—an exceptionally good description. One of the exciting things about play is that it is an incredible learning process without children knowing that they are learning; it is about role play; it is about children learning how to deal with emotions; and it is certainly about the transition from childhood to adulthood, which takes 20 or more years. If children cannot play, imagine, be inspired and exaggerate, they will not go through the necessary transition to adulthood. They will instead become adults without the necessary adult skills.
I have no problem with the general thrust of our debate, which is about the importance of play, of doing nothing and children deciding what is play, not adults deciding it for them. We must acknowledge that all social changes—even ballet lessons, piano lessons, the choir, the orchestra, the scouts and the football club—are what parents want for their children. The Government's response must be to acknowledge that such projects comprise the social environment, and allow people to make their own choices.
I feel obliged to answer two politically contentious points, otherwise they will be recorded as unanswered in Hansard. On standard assessment tests, parents want their children to read and write. It is as simple as that. It cannot be either/or. How much adults worry about children taking tests is certainly an issue, not how much seven-year-olds worry. There is a huge difference in that. The SATs for seven-year-olds are tests that teachers undertake with the children at any point during a week in the school year. As a former teacher—although not a primary school teacher—I think that the best teachers have classes where the children do not even know that they have undertaken those SATs. I accept that the SATS for 11-year-olds are different, but there is absolutely no rhyme or reason for seven-year-olds to go to bed the night before worried about them.
Most children of the constituents of the hon. Member for Richmond Park can read and write. They have a damn good chance of going to university. Many of my constituents and those of other hon. Members were left out. They could not read or write and did not have life chances. I do not want a play strategy that takes away from the children the ability to learn to read and write. The challenge must be to do both. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire knows that I will refer to school playing fields. I have not got it at my finger tips, but if he wants a list of each playing field that has been disposed of since the legislation came into force in 1999, I shall make sure that he receives it. He will also receive an explanation of why the disposal took place and what use was made of the funds.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that I cannot give him such information for the years in which his party was in government, because the statistics were not collected then. It is worth his considering such matters, because I believe that he cares about them. The reason why 213 applications were approved and six were opposed is that people know the rules of the game. They do not choose to apply to dispose of playing fields if they
240WH
know that their application will go against the rules. Selling playing fields to build safe spaces has been mentioned: many designated playing fields were swamps or marshes that were not fit for children to play on.
I will use the remaining time to discuss the play strategy. I thank the hon. Members of all parties who acknowledged the contribution that the Government have made, through many funding streams, to play initiatives. The relevant list includes sure start, increasing the amount of green spaces, sports grounds and playgrounds, and living spaces, the work that has gone into toy libraries, and funds for training and education.
In particular, I wish to mention SkillsActive, which will run as a sector skills council. Training will be covered for the entire sector. I join all hon. Members in recognising the contribution of the voluntary sector: the fact that people are volunteers does not mean that they do not need training. The important thing about the skills training that will be given is that it will be inclusive: people will not have to get paid, or take on a job or be full-time to get training. It is very important that we do not lose the skills and experience that exist in the voluntary sector. I am delighted that SkillsActive is now in place, and I look forward to its working with the Government—the Department for Education and Skills—in the months and years ahead to create a skills strategy that is led by the sector and supported by the Government, so that it is a strategy that the sector wants. Despite all the initiatives, this is not universal.
For all the play areas that I can say have been regenerated and that are now in good order, hon. Members will be able to tell me of an area in their constituency that is not like that. I accept that: the job is not done. There must be more resources. Despite all the money that has been put in, nobody can say that play is now adequately funded. This is only the beginning: there is more to be done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood said he did not want the play strategy to be funded by the New Opportunities Fund. I understand why he said that, but I disagree. There is an army of people queueing up for NOF funding if play does not want it. We should not turn our noses up at NOF funding. It is real pounds, shillings and pence that bring about real improvement in play, and that is hard won: it is not easily given by NOF.
I know where my hon. Friend is coming from when he says that he wishes the funding to be mainstreamed. He said that there is more assurance with regard to continuity if funding becomes mainstreamed from local authorities than if there are three-year, time-ended funding streams. I remind him of the days when local authorities had their funding cut. Nothing is forever in public spending. To move funding to local authority expenditure would mean that it competed with other services, and it might be more at risk from future Governments seeking to cut revenue to local authorities than it would be if it were NOF-funded. At this stage in the development of play, we should say yes to any funding stream that comes along—yes, yes, yes, if it's money, money, money.
I agree with my hon. Friend about something else. This joins up with the points made by the hon. Members for Richmond Park and for North-East Cambridgeshire. I would have worries about a national

241WH
play strategy. Because of the way that Governments do things, it could end up being prescriptive and full of targets, and it could make all those voluntary workers we have been talking about, and our constituencies with all their different needs, feel that they do not have as much ownership of play as they do at present.
There is something that needs to happen. I had not fully realised until I started to prepare for this debate that the funding streams come from so many different Departments. I offer to reflect on something, and to comment on it when we comment on the Dobson report. We must make sure that the guidance that goes out with the funding streams is not contradictory, and that it enables people to have a cohesive provision of play at ground-floor level, while still getting those funding pots.
This is an important topic, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood on bringing it before us, and also on the work that he has done so far to ensure that it will not fall from the Government's agenda. I want to assure him that it will not, and we look forward to the Government's response to the reports by the end of the year.

Israeli Security Wall
3.30 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Some three weeks ago I spent three days travelling around the Palestinian territories. If I had not been in United Nations vehicles or, when I was in Hebron, in a Temporary International Presence in the City of Hebron vehicle, I would not have got very far. There are 482 Israeli military checkpoints in lands that are supposed to be administered by the Palestinian Authority. The land is now divided into 300 small clusters. In addition, there are "flying checkpoints", which can be set up anywhere at any time. I saw thousands of Palestinians herded at gunpoint by Israeli soldiers, waiting to get through checkpoints to go to schools, universities, their farmlands or hospitals.
The regime of military tyranny is bad enough, but worse still is the wall that the Israelis are building in large tracts of Palestinian land. The Israelis call it a fence, and claim that only a tiny percentage of its length is a wall. They could have fooled me. Parts of it are indeed a tall and ugly fence with electrified protection, scarring the landscape that the Israelis claim to love. However, large parts of it are composed of a hideous and menacing high wall in concrete sections, interspersed with concrete, fortress-like watchtowers.
The town of Qalqilya will be almost completely surrounded by such a wall. An Israeli military order of 2 October lays down conditions between the ceasefire line of 1949, which until June 1967 was Israel's international border, and the wall, 100 miles of whose 400-mile length has already been built, and which sweeps far into Palestinian territory. It is therefore an illegal structure.
I quote from a summary of the Israeli military order to which I referred:
"The Order states that 'No person will enter the Closed Zone'"—
the space between the wall and the border—
"and no one will remain there. (Section 3a) Free access to the Closed Zone will only be granted to Israelis (defined as Israeli citizens, Israeli residents, and anyone who is Jewish.) The Order requires Palestinian residents of the Closed Zone to obtain permits to live in their houses, farm their land and to travel. Palestinians not residing in the Closed Zone but whose agricultural lands are within the Closed Zone will also be required to apply for a permit to farm their land. The order effectively grants any Jew in the world the right to freely travel throughout the Closed Zone, while denying the same rights to the Christians and Muslims who live on, farm and own the land."
In addition, many Palestinian villages—I have seen it for myself—have had their entrance roads ploughed up, so that they are inaccessible from outside and are turned into prisons for those living in them. Sewage fills the ditches that have been dug across the roads.
The Israeli Government have now decided to build a wall that will divide the city of Bethlehem and siphon access to the city through narrow access points, totally controlled by the Israeli army. That will severely hinder access to the Church of the Nativity and to the Church of Christmas and will almost completely prevent access

243WH
to all but Jewish visitors to Rachel's tomb and to the Bilal bin Rabah mosque and the adjoining Muslim cemetery.
I was in Bethlehem last month, and it was explained to me what was going to happen. I was shown a map drawn up by the Israeli army. The wall is intended to be constructed in the middle of the main road at the entrance to Bethlehem. It will isolate the whole of the northern part of Bethlehem, inhabited by 4,000 people, representing 15 per cent. of the master plan, including it within separation walls and barbed wire, tightening the ring around it and stripping it off from Bethlehem. Thousands of additional acres of Bethlehem's valuable agriculture land north of the wall will accordingly not be accessible to its owners.
The wall will close the single bottleneck entrance to Bethlehem used by visitors and pilgrims. Tourism constitutes 65 per cent. of the citizens' revenue, and the construction of the wall will choke the town. It will deprive Bethlehem of the sole remaining zone for the town's future expansion. It will close the major historical, traditional and religious entrance of Bethlehem, violating the status quo arrangements abided by for centuries, and deny freedom of movement on the main road as stated in article 7 of the Oslo accords.
The wall will eliminate citizens' movements to and from their own homes and business locations, which will be encircled by walls and barbed wire. It will cut kinship relations and commercial activities between the afflicted area and the rest of the Palestinian territories. It will uproot Roman olive trees and demolish walls. In the closed areas, the wall will prevent essential municipal services, such as electricity, sewerage, water, cleaning, garbage removal and road maintenance. All of this is happening allegedly to increase Israeli security. However, not only will holy sites be desecrated, but Bethlehem's tourist trade and its agriculture, on which the city depends almost entirely for its livelihood, will be destroyed.
Not surprisingly, the wall has caused deep concerns among Christians and Muslims. I contacted the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, and received a reply on behalf of the Archbishop of Liverpool, who leads the Bishops' Conference on this issue. Father Frank Turner SJ wrote to me and said that, after discussing the matter with the Archbishop of Liverpool, he was aware of the gravity of the issues that I had raised. He said that
"the Bishops' Conference, and the Church in the Holy Land, fully share your profound concern about this structure and its effects."
He said that the Catholic bishops of several countries will meet their brother bishops of the Holy Land in Bethlehem and Jerusalem in January 2004 when the focus of the meeting will be the social situation of the Palestinian people and the Church's humanitarian efforts to meet their needs by both advocacy and practical support. He sent me a copy of a letter from the Archbishop of Liverpool to the Israeli ambassador, which expressed the Archbishop's
"great concern about the government of Israel's plans for the construction of a wall separating Israel itself from the West Bank."
244WH
He continued:
"I do not see how this construction will not have the most serious consequences for the inhabitants of Bethlehem or the Israeli side of this wall."
It is not only non-Israelis who have expressed concern. Only last week, Lieutenant-General Moshe Ya'alon, the Israeli chief of staff, expressed concern about the wall. He said that Israel's policies in the occupied territories were
"operating contrary to our strategic interests".
He also said that the restrictions were increasing hatred of Israel and encouraging terrorism. He went on:
"There is no hope, no expectations for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, nor in Bethlehem and Jericho".
As for Bethlehem, the Israeli chief of staff said not that the wall should be built, but that restrictions in Bethlehem—as well as in Jericho, the economy of which is also being ruined—should be lifted. He is not the only leading Israeli who has criticised the situation. A member of the Israeli Government, Yosef Paritzky, the Infrastructure Minister, said a few days ago:
"The failure to differentiate between civilians and terrorists turns all the Palestinians into potential suicide bombers."
What both baffles and appals me is that the history of the Jews is a history of being herded by Russians into a pale of settlement in the Russian territories. From Venice onwards, it is a history of being herded into ghettos, penned in, and treated as inferior to the rest of the citizens of the country. Yet now Israelis are creating hundreds of ghettos for the Palestinians and—as I saw when travelling around for several days—turning Israel into one large ghetto. The wall that is penning Palestinians into their towns and villages is penning Israelis into a ghetto, too.
Nor is that activity in any way increasing Israeli security. I went to Qalqilya and saw the huge wall and the vast gate that is the only way out—except that it was not manned, so that people going to the gate could not get through—and on my way back to Jerusalem I drove past the town of Tulkarem. The very next day, a suicide bomber struck at an Israeli administrative point at Tulkarem. The wall is not even achieving what Israelis claim to be its justification.
We all know that what the Israelis are doing is illegal. There is a growing resistance movement in Israel, as was shown at the wonderful rally of 100,000 people held a few days ago to commemorate the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli Prime Minister, by a fanatical Israeli Jew.
What I am looking for from the Government today is not simply condemnation of the illegal construction of an illegal wall preventing Palestinians from getting to their schools and universities. Let us be clear about this: if young people do not get to school or university, they have a day on their hands and have to find things to do, and can well be prey to people who preach that the way out for them is through terrorist activity.
I do not look to my hon. Friend the Minister simply to restate the Government's admirable position on the building of the wall; I am asking him to give us some idea of what can be done to stop the extension of this abomination—an abomination built to protect not Israelis, but the Israeli illegal settlements that are being constructed like so much jerry-built garbage on

245WH
practically every hilltop that can be seen in the Palestinian territories. I ask him to say what practical measures the Government can take to stop the Israelis continuing on a path that is not only damaging for the Palestinian people, but deeply damaging for the Israeli people.
3.43 pm
Mr. Mark Hendrick: I visited the occupied territories in July with a small delegation of Members, and what I saw appalled me. The so-called security wall was being constructed exclusively within occupied Palestinian territory, in many instances several kilometres within the 1967 border known as the green line, and in one instance entirely encircling the town of Qalqilya, mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).
There is reinforced concrete, cement, barbed wire and electrified fences, trenches, electronic surveillance and monitoring equipment, guard towers and security roads. That is not a security wall but an effective prison wall that is encircling Palestinian communities, who are now captives in their own towns and villages. It is also a land-grab, taking anything between 10 and 40 per cent. of Palestinian territory into Israel, and further undermines attempts to create a two-state solution to the conflict. Any attempts by Israel to impose a one-state solution against international law will lead to guaranteed future insecurity for Israel, as it will alienate both the Muslim states in the region and the wider world. The wall is a step in that direction.
I call on my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to make strong representations to Israel to cease the construction of the wall, and to ask the US to make similar representations.
3.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on raising what is an issue of concern throughout the House. We could have a long debate about whether we are talking about a wall or a fence, but it is clear that although it could be called a fence, a significant proportion of it is a wall, as was described. The effect of that wall or fence is an issue that we should discuss in the House.
Bethlehem has a unique and historical status, and it stands as an example of how Palestinian towns in the west bank will be affected by the building of the structure. Although my right hon. Friend referred to the Government's position, it is worth restating it. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in the House of Commons as recently as 14 October that we consider the building of the wall on Palestinian land to be illegal, and we need to underline that point.
We are not alone in holding that view. The United Nations General Assembly and leaders of all the European Union member states at the European Council clarified their opposition to the route of the fence. President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell also consider the route of the fence to be a problem and have urged the Israeli Government not to build it on Palestinian land, but along the green line between Israel
246WH
and the Palestinian territories. There is significant international consensus, and cross-party consensus in the House, on the issue.
I want to make it clear that the Government understand that the Israel Government must take precautionary measures within international law to protect their citizens. That is undoubtedly the duty of all Governments. However, although the wall may give some immediate relief from the relentless series of terrorist attacks inflicted on the state and people of Israel, building the fence on Palestinian territory will inflame tensions in the region and do nothing to solve the crisis. As my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) said, in common with many other Members, it will give only an illusion of security to the people of Israel in the longer term.
The proponents of the wall claim that it will separate the Israeli people from the Palestinians, and my hon. and right hon. Friends attested to that from their direct experience of the situation. However, on completion of the next section, agreed by the Israeli Cabinet on 1 October, an estimated 79,000 Palestinians will be left to the west of the wall—in other words, on the Israeli side of the barrier. Those people will not be able to enter Israel freely and will have severely limited access to essential services, such as schools and hospitals, in the west bank. A powerful point was made about the situation that will arise if young people cannot go to school and are left to their own devices and the temptations that exist.
Ms Oona King: I have also been to Qalqilya and seen the wall. I am concerned about the second wall that is being built around Jerusalem, which, according to estimates, will leave 100,000 Palestinians outside but without giving them the same rights as Israelis or other residents of Jerusalem. How long does my hon. Friend think that the right-wing Israeli Government can persist with a policy that makes a mockery of the concept of universal human rights?
Mr. Rammell: I understand the argument, and we have to restate that the wall built on the occupied territories is illegal under international law. We must make that point forcefully to the Israeli Government, and we are taking every opportunity to do so.
Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Rammell: I will briefly give way; then I want to make some progress.
Mr. Sarwar: I am sure that we all agree that building an apartheid wall will cause misery and economic ruin for thousands of Palestinians. I am pleased that the Government position is very clear: we are opposed to the wall. However, why are the Israeli Government treating the international community with contempt? Rather than stopping Israel building the wall, the United States of America—the only superpower—is giving billions of dollars in grants.
Mr. Rammell: As I said earlier, the United States shares our concern on the issue. It is critical that we keep it engaged on the issue, because only with active US participation can we get the movement necessary to resolve the matter.

247WH
To continue, I think that the fence will further damage the already desperate humanitarian and economic situation of the Palestinian people. Already, closures, curfews and demolitions have led to the virtual collapse of the Palestinian economy—60 per cent. of Palestinians now live on less than $2.10 a day. To put it bluntly, the fence is making that situation worse.
It is estimated that more than 100,000 olive and citrus trees have already been destroyed along the route of the wall; that damages a major part of the Palestinian agricultural economy and makes the situation worse. The regulations imposed by the Israeli Government prevent farmers from getting labourers and machinery to their fields. There are also too few access gates in some areas. Where they do exist, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton said, they are often not open at the right time of day. On some occasions, they may be shut for days on end.
In addition to limiting the Palestinian people's access to their land, the fence also restricts some Palestinian access to the west bank's water resources. Without ready access to that water, it will become more and more difficult for the Palestinian people to live independently. From a political perspective, the wall also threatens to establish new facts on the ground that will make it ever more difficult to achieve the two-state solution set out in the road map, to which the Israeli Government are committed and which the international community is pushing as strongly as it can.
It is claimed that the wall could be removed when there is a political solution and that the route has no long-term political significance. Yet the estimated $1 billion cost of the wall will be a powerful disincentive to removing it once it is built—that is a strong argument. It will become more and more difficult to remove the settlements that will continue to grow on Palestinian occupied territory behind the wall unless and until the Israeli Government put a freeze on their development—something that we have been calling for strongly.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) said, the fence being built around east Jerusalem will cause particular problems for the residents there and for those of the surrounding towns, including Bethlehem. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton said in opening the debate, the wall around east Jerusalem may separate it from some of the holiest places in the Christian faith.
Mr. Alan Duncan: Will the Minister give an assessment of claims purportedly made by the Israelis that they are only leasing the land and that they are giving adequate compensation for its temporary use?
Mr. Rammell: I simply restate the view that I have already expressed. The building of the wall or the fence on the occupied territories is illegal. That issue needs to be addressed if we are to make progress and get the peaceful solution that we are all calling for.
I have already mentioned the serious negative effect that the fence will have on the Palestinian economy throughout the west bank, but I particularly recognise the concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend the
248WH
Member for Manchester, Gorton about the effect on the residents of Bethlehem. Bethlehem is likely to encounter greater difficulties in getting its agricultural produce to large markets in Jerusalem. Certainly those residents of Bethlehem employed in Jerusalem will find it more difficult to get to work. That will have an impact on tourism and pilgrimages.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Rammell: Very briefly.
Dr. Tonge: The Minister is generous in giving way, and has been good at giving a detailed account of the effects of the security wall. However, what will the Government do practically to put the right amount of pressure on Israel to stop this atrocity?
Mr. Rammell: I could stand here giving hon. Members chapter and verse and all the fine words in the world. However, we need movement from the parties in the dispute. Yes, we are using the diplomatic mechanisms available to us, to the European Union, and to the American Administration on a regular basis, but to resolve the problem, movement is needed from the Israeli Government on building the wall and on settlement. Similarly, the Palestinian authorities need to take significant action to tackle terrorism. Both sides need to act if the issue is to be resolved, as I shall discuss.
The fence is not being built in a vacuum. As I said earlier, the Government understand the Israeli Government's need to seek security for their citizens. Right-thinking people on both sides of the argument condemn the regular and devastating suicide attacks to which the Israeli people have been subjected. The Government's goal in working with the rest of the international community is a peaceful resolution of the conflict in the middle east, once and for all, which delivers a secure Israel within internationally recognised borders, and a viable Palestinian state.
The achievement of that goal, far more than a wall, fence or barrier, will provide real and long-term security to people in the region. People across the divide seek that objective, and an end to the violence. With commitment and courage, the parties can overcome the difficulties together and realise that vision.
The only long-term, credible way to achieve the objective remains the Quartet's road map. If such a process did not exist, we would have to establish a similar process. It is the only mechanism available, and I urge every Member connected with the debate to put the force of their argument behind it.
The Government's commitment to the road map is on the record and unparalleled; we want the process to be published, and up and running, and we are pressing for it to be implemented.
Dr. Tonge: I fail to understand how the Minister can promote the road map when Israel is clearly flouting it every day and not obeying its conditions. Perhaps the Palestinians are not doing so, but is not the road map being discredited all the time? The Minister has not

249WH
mentioned the Geneva accord, to which even Yasser Arafat subscribed. Could we not have a fresh look at the issue and start again?
Mr. Rammell: I think that to have a fresh look at the issue and start again would set the peace process back significantly. It is all well and good to stand up and make such a statement in this Chamber, but it does not serve the cause that the hon. Lady rightly advances. If she is asking me whether I have significant anxieties about how the road map is being progressed at the moment. the answer is yes, I acknowledge that that is the case. These are grave times and we need to impress on both sides the need to respect the road map. They have signed up to the process; they must recognise that it is the only way forward and carry out the commitments to which they have already committed themselves. That means significant action by the Palestinian authorities to carry through their commitments to tackle terrorism and security issues within the occupied territories. Similarly, the Israeli Government should recognise that what they are doing in terms of building the fence or the wall in the occupied territories is contrary to international law. That issue needs to be revisited and reconsidered.
I simply do not see another mechanism for making progress apart from the road map. As I said, if such a mechanism did not exist, we would have to invent it. I take the point that since the publication of the road map, the Israeli Government have issued tenders for more than 1,500 housing units, 900 in the past month alone. Israeli action to remove settlement outposts has ground to a halt. There needs to be further action by the Palestinian authorities to further the process to which they have committed themselves.
It was extraordinarily helpful for my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton to raise the issue and allow it to be aired. Hon. Members who have observed the situation on the ground and described in detail some of the problems created by the fence and the wall have made an important contribution to the process. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for publicising the issue; I recall the television programme that he undertook last year, which brought some information and clarity to these issues.
It is important that we urge it on both sides that we face a very grave situation. We need to see movement by the Palestinian Authority on security, but at the same time we need the Israeli Government to tackle the issue of the settlements, the wall and the fence. At one level, one might be able to understand where the Israeli Government are coming from, but with regard to the long-term security of the Israeli people, I do not think—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Parenting
4 pm
Mr. Steve Webb: Being a parent is probably the most important job in the world, and parents, almost without exception, want to do their best at that job. Although those of us who are parents—like me, the Minister is a parent—recognise that we will never be perfect parents, we all, at the very least, want to be good enough parents. However, many things stand in the way of parents doing the job to the best of their abilities. That is a huge agenda, and we have only a short time, so I shall focus on only one issue that makes it difficult to be a good parent, which is simply the difficulty of finding time to spend with children.
I fully agree with what the Minister said in a debate on work-life balance:
"Strong families help children to flourish, which means that parents need time to spend with their children."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 9 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 231WH.]
That has to be right.
The author of the book entitled "The 60 Minute Father"—I occasionally think of the 60-second father, but then I realise that one has to spend a whole hour—said that children spell love t-i-m-e. In practice, however, growing numbers of parents spend less time with their children than ever before. I was shocked to read about a learning and skills council project in Norfolk that arose from a survey suggesting that the pressures of work meant that fathers spent less than 15 minutes a day with their children. In other words, they might spend more time shaving and cleaning their teeth than playing with their children.
I stress that I am not attacking parents who do not spend time with their children or stigmatising failing parents, but saying that we can do much more to encourage and enable parents. That is why I wanted to hold the debate. It is about Government policy supporting parents. It is about not condemning those who fail to spend time with their children, but helping those who want to spend more time with them, because there is plenty of evidence that parents who do not spend time with their children often have to be away from them; it is not that they want to be away from them. I maintain that there are plenty of things that Governments can do to try to put that right.
First, I shall consider whether it is true that parents spend less time with their children. One senses that anecdotally, but is there evidence for it? Is it a free choice? Are parents saying, "That is what we have decided. That is our priority, and the Government should not get involved"? If it is not a free choice and parents are, perhaps to some extent against their will, spending less time with their children, does that matter? Are there consequences? Are there respects in which Government policy in a raft of areas may exacerbate the problem, often as an unintended by-product of well-intentioned policies? What might be done? That is a long agenda for a short debate, but I shall try to scratch the surface of it.
As I said, my first question is whether parents are spending less time with their children. The clear answer is yes. Just in the last decade, over the 1990s, the proportion of working mothers with children under five increased by about a quarter, from 43 per cent. to 54 per

251WH
cent. Again, I stress that I am not attacking working mums, dads who do not spend time with their children or single parents. I am simply asking what is happening to the time that we spend with our children. What are the pressures causing this situation and can we do anything about it? Parents with young children, including mothers with young children, are more likely to be in work.
There is not only the issue of work as we traditionally understand it, but what is known as atypical work. I will draw on some statistics from work by Ivana La Valle, commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, with which I am sure the Minister is familiar, on atypical work done by parents. It is work that is done outside the typical working day of 8.30 am to 5.30 pm. The evidence is that half of mothers and four fifths of fathers sometimes work atypical hours—those are huge numbers. Parents are having to work when the children are not at school but at home, in the evening and on the weekend. A quarter of mothers and a third of fathers work one or more Sundays a month. As I examined the figures I was shocked at the scale of what Ivana La Valle says is increasingly not atypical but the norm.
People are not working only on evenings or weekends, but they are working long hours. Almost a third of fathers, and 6 per cent. of mothers regularly work more than the 48-hour limit set in the working time directive, although that is not an absolute ceiling. Those proportions are higher among the self-employed, who tend to be more driven and are trying to make ends meet. A high proportion of parents are working long hours.
A survey last month by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development found that between 1998 and now, the proportion of those in work doing 48 hours or more had risen from one in 10 to one in four. When I first saw that figure I asked for it to be checked because I did not believe it. Those trends are no longer atypical; one in four works more than 48 hours a week. The press release from the institute included the comment that
"the Government's campaign on work-life balance has had little or no effect to date."
That conclusion was based on trends, some of them recent.
There is clear evidence that parents are working longer hours, on weekends and evenings, and that parents with young children are more likely to be at work. Those are the trends. Is that of their free choice? Are parents choosing to do that and should we therefore poke our noses out? The evidence is that parents would not choose that for themselves. Of those who frequently work atypical hours, a quarter of mothers with a husband or partner and a third of lone mothers said that they were dissatisfied with the time that they could spend with their children. In cases where both partners worked atypical hours, two fifths of them said that they were dissatisfied with the time spent with each other. The research has shown us that the welfare of children is greatly enhanced by a healthy relationship between the parents. That is not rocket science. If they do not see each other, it is hard to build a meaningful relationship. Although parenting is the subject on today's agenda,
252WH
part of Government policy should be to encourage strong relationships between parents as well as between parents and children.
The survey showed that half of working mothers in two-earner couples—the combination of full-time and part-time two-earner couples is now the norm—would prefer to stop work and be at home with their children if they could afford to do so. People are driven by a range of factors, of which financial pressure is a strong influence, into spending less time with their children. According to Professor Shirley Dex, who studied a range of the research, "many mothers' preferences" to spend time with their children
"run counter to the direction Government policy is trying to encourage, since they would prefer to work less rather than more while their children are young".
There is a raft of surveys and reams of statistics that hack up the view that many parents want to spend more time with their children. Seventy five per cent. of mothers-to-be surveyed by Pregnancy & Birth said that they would not return to employment if finances allowed. The fact that parents spend less time with their children is often not through choice but is forced on them.
As well as going out to work when children are young, working at weekends, especially Sundays, was
"the most unpopular working arrangement among parents".
Is this choice? Are people choosing to work at weekends because it suits them? No, often they do not want to do it, but parents in lower socio-economic groups and in low-status jobs do not have the negotiating power with an employer to refuse to work at weekends. The bargaining power of such parents is often very weak. They often feel that they have no choice but to work at atypical times.
Mr. Graham Allen: The hon. Gentleman is known as an innovative and creative thinker. He has not disappointed us today by choosing this important subject. I ask him to consider that inadequate parenting skills often lead to antisocial behaviour. Social behaviour and its development are tied inextricably to better parenting. I hope that he will join me in urging the new Minister for Children, whom we welcome here today, to redouble her efforts to ensure that we invest in parenting skills so that we can improve social behaviour and reduce antisocial behaviour.
Mr. Webb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Although his eyesight is probably not that good, he leads me naturally to the theme that I was about to take up in my notes, which is the consequences of lack of parental contact with children on children's behaviour. So often in the House of Commons we pick up the pieces where things have gone wrong. Investment in encouraging and helping parents would yield rewards in children's behaviour, welfare and education, which, as the Minister said, is a win-win agenda.
Does the lack of parental contact produce adverse outcomes? Many of us will have heard the startling comments of the head of Ofsted, who said that
"if you talk to a lot of primary head teachers, as I do, they will say that youngsters appear less well prepared for school than have ever been before. For many young people school is the most stable part of what can be quite disrupted and dishevelled lives."

253WH
That struck a chord with me. When I have visited schools in my constituency, heads have told me how children arrive at school lacking social skills and appearing in some cases to have been neglected. Their parents have not given them time, listened to them, talked to them or played with them. Schools have to pick up the pieces.
The head of Ofsted said:
"There is evidence that children's verbal skills are lacking. We should encourage parents to talk to their children and give them a whole range of stimulating things to do and not just assume that the television … will do all that for them."
Mr. Adrian Flook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the fore. Would one way to get parents better educated be through the voluntary sector rather than the Government? There are organisations such as the community family trusts, for example.
Mr. Webb: I support the work of the network of community family trusts that are being set up throughout the country. They have sometimes struggled for funding. They were dealing with the Lord Chancellor's Department in the past. I hope that the Minister will clarify that for me, because I am slightly hazy about where the area of relationship education and support for couples now falls within Government. I see that the Minister points to herself. I am pleased that we have the right person with us.
Returning to the theme of lack of parental contact and the consequences, in 1997 Feinstein and Symons, researchers at the London School of Economics, found some astonishing results about educational outcomes in secondary school. One might assume that outcomes depend on how bright one's parents were or how posh an area one grew up in, but they said that the critical factor was parental involvement. Academics do not often say things as clear as this, and as a former academic I can say that this is strong stuff. They say:
"Variables indicating parental interest in the education of their children generally drive out the family background indicators of social class, family size and parental education."
The thing that matters is whether the parents are involved. That is an astonishing and powerful result.
Research shows that long working hours, particularly Sunday working, disrupt family life. I was astonished to see that the Department of Health has commissioned the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the Social Care Institute for Excellence to carry out an appraisal. Parenting courses will be appraised in the same way as drugs. They will appraise parent-training programmes to tackle conduct disorder of the sort described by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook). The scope of the appraisal is set out in a document, which states:
"Associated factors for conduct disorders include: homelessness, overcrowding, maternal depression, paternal criminality, violence and abuse. Aspects of parenting have also been associated with conduct disorders and include: poor supervision … and low parental involvement in the child's activities."
Mr. Andy Reed: Is not one of the problems that as soon as we talk about parenting courses or skills, we tend to think as parents that we
254WH
have it right and that such matters are someone else's problem? However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, as youngish parents we know only too well the difficulties that are involved. I have not been taught how to parent. I have learned from a wife who has a professional job and child development skills that I would never have thought of. Perhaps we must work out a way in which to overcome the stigma of parenting courses and lead the way as Members of Parliament, given the atypical working hours that we work for a start.
Mr. Webb: Having met the hon. Gentleman's children, I know that he is an excellent parent. I accept that we must make sure that we are not talking about a marginal stigmatised provision for people when things go horribly wrong. Accepting that parenting is difficult and that we all need some help should be a natural approach. I apologise for going on a bit, but the fact that several hon. Members have said that they are interested in the subject shows that we are scratching at something that crosses the party divide. I hope that the Minister will be involved in such an agenda and take it on across the Government.
At the risk of wrecking the chance of such action, I must ask whether the Government's policy is making matters worse. Much policy is drafted with the best of intentions, but the spin-offs are quite worrying. The Government often talk positively about the 24/7 society, urban renaissance, the evening economy, making cities nice places to visit, and having places to visit other than pubs in the evening. However, who will staff such places? Who will work the late-night shifts? The Government talk a lot about flexible working, too, but people have to work in such places, and often they are on low incomes. They do not have a strong negotiating position and work in the service industries, such as McDonald's. They do not have the power to say that they will not work evenings or weekends. I worry about the 24-hour society and the Government's sometimes positive rhetoric about it, and what it means for family life.
Recently, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that, on reflection, perhaps the Government's rhetoric about work was wrong. She said:
"If I look back over the last 6 years … we have given the impression that we think all mothers should be out to work, preferably full time as soon as their children are a few months old … We have got to move to a position where as a society … we recognise and we value the unpaid work that people do within their families."
That is right. Five or six years ago, I was saying much the same thing, but the Government were saying, "No. Work for those who can. Security for those who can't", by which they meant paid work. The rhetoric has been wrong, and there is a beginning of a realisation of that, but much more needs to be done. The Government still have goals for 70 per cent. of lone parents to be in work. No one will say that it is wrong for a lone parent to work, but is it right for the Government to set an arbitrary target for lone parents, rather than to say to them, "You judge what is in the welfare interests of yourself and your child, and we will support you; we will give you choices"?
If I have a core message, it is about choices. It is about parents who often want to spend time with their children not having free choices because financial necessity and

255WH
lack of employment status put pressure on them to work when they do not want to. What can be done? There is a huge agenda, but I wish to flag up a couple of matters. I hope that the Minister will talk to her colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister about the 24-hour society and the agenda that that Department is pursuing. What does it mean for families? Will she talk to the Department for Work and Pensions about the poor pension rights of part-time workers? Even now, women—especially women—who try to spend time with their children and who earn less than the lower earnings limit, perhaps in two separate part-time jobs that both pay less than the lower earnings limit, do not build up pension rights. What signal does that send out?
Will the Minister talk to the Department for Work and Pensions? Will she talk within the Department for Education and Skills about women, in particular, and parents who are forced to work weekends, when no child care is available and when the children are left in situations that are not ideal for their welfare? Is it right that women and mothers suffer lack of employment rights in such circumstances? Will she talk to the Department of Trade and Industry about the need for employment rights and the need for parents to say no to being forced to work at weekends? Will she examine the working time directive to see whether it is stopping some of the long-hour working as effectively as possible? Will she essentially never sleep? I shall allow her to spend time with her children.
Will the right hon. Lady say to every colleague in the Government, "When you bring in a Bill in the next Queen's Speech, will you report to me and tell me what it will do for parents? Tell me whether it will mean that parents can spend more time with their children—which many of them want to—rather than less."
The House supports the Minister. We are glad that her reach extends beyond her own Department, and we urge her to talk to as many of her colleagues as she can, and to recognise that if we can get this right so many of the other problems that the Government are trying to tackle might mysteriously disappear.
4.19 pm
The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge): I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing this important debate. We have only a bare half an hour to discuss the matter, but other hon. Members might seek to ignite the debate in another forum.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government's commitment to support parenting and families is a central part of our vision. Parenting is not probably the most important job that we do on this earth; it is the most important, and the most rewarding and difficult. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) that we are too often ill prepared to do it.
I hope that the hon. Member for Northavon accepts that the Government's commitment to parenting and families is underlined by the creation of the post that I currently have the privilege to hold. With the machinery of Government changes, we are trying to bring together in one place responsibility for all the policy and services
256WH
for children, parents and families, so that we can respond more easily to their needs and make it easier for individuals and organisations to do business with us.
Much has come together under the remit of my Department—the Department for Education and Skills—but there are still boundaries in Government. We must make sure that they do not become barriers. We must work together throughout Government. That is central to many of my concerns, and to the way in which I have been working—the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that I have very regular meetings with Ministers from other Departments.
I am conscious of the shortage of time, so I will try to respond to some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. He said that parents are spending less time with their children. If we look at the history of parenting, it may be that in the past the tradition was for the woman to be in the home for longer, but it is questionable whether she spent more time in the home focused on the children than she does now.
I would not make the easy assertion, which the hon. Gentleman talked about, that more time means better quality of parenting. One of the changes that I have seen in my adult life is that fathers are now much more readily engaged in parenting. My oldest child is now in his early 30s: when I used to pick him up at the school gates, it was rare to see a dad there, but that is no longer atypical. I often visit parents and toddlers groups in my present role, and it is apparent that fathers are much more strongly engaged in the parenting of their children than they used to be. Both parents matter, and that equality of engagement is a change for the better.
Things have not become worse. What has happened is that more women are in the workplace. Is that a good or a bad thing? Do we give parents a choice? Choice underpins our policy. It underpinned it before my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equality made the statement that she made, but it helped to underline what has been a consistent policy throughout the term of the Government.
We are attempting to provide choice. The amount of choice that parents have is influenced by whether they have trust in the quality and safety of the child care that is available to them. That is why we are proud of being the first Government to launch a national child care strategy, of the progress we have made in that, and of introducing free early years education for children aged three and four.
I often meet lone parents who have been helped back into the workplace by our welfare to work programme. That often works for the most disadvantaged parents: it is a terrific route out of poverty, because of the income that they get from it, and we help them with their child care costs through the child care tax credits system; it is also terrific because of the confidence and self-esteem that they gain from fulfilling a role in both the home and the workplace. When parents, particularly lone parents, have that confidence and self-esteem, they make better parents, and I have received some very warming letters from children about their mums going back to work. There is no right or wrong answer. There must be choice, as the answer depends on the individual circumstances. However, for many lone parents, work is a route back to self-esteem, confidence and better parenting, and out of poverty.

257WH
I have only five minutes to respond, and I want to talk about atypical hours. From talking to families and parents, I have found that women in work want their supermarket open and to be able to access their health service, GP or dentist at atypical hours. They also want to be able to talk to their children's teachers and school staff at atypical hours, so we are moving into a different world. Many parents who work atypical hours do so out of choice, because in two-parent households it often fits in well with parents' lifestyles and how they care for their children. They also want to enjoy the additional wealth that it brings. We should not see atypical hours working as a retrograde step; it can be positive for many people.
I agree with some of the points made about the long-working-hours culture, but statistics show that it is higher-level, better-off men who tend to work the longest hours and are more disengaged from their families, children and partners than those in lower income families. That is a terrible part of British culture, which we have taken from America more than Europe, and we should try to encourage greater engagement in the home.
I have spoken a lot to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) about the importance of parenting skills, which was raised by both him and my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough. Some research in my Department mirrors what was referred to. It demonstrates that good parenting in the home is more important for the child's outcome than the best teacher in the most excellent school. Armed with that knowledge, we need to do all that we can to support parents in developing their skills, and although I recognise that we have a long way to go, I am proud of what we have done so far. There is our sure start programme and its work on parenting, and we give
258WH
support to voluntary projects such as home-start throughout the country. We want to spread that to make it a more universal service, as is detailed in our Green Paper "Every Child Matters". Those are important early interventions.
Parenting classes can also be appropriate, but I worry a lot about transition. As new mothers come home from hospital, and as children move from home to nursery, primary and then secondary school, support for parents is important, and we are trying to focus our energy on those transition stages. Our Green Paper includes many propositions to extend services, for example with a parenting phone line not dissimilar to NHS Direct that parents could ring up during a crisis with their three-year-old or 15-year-old to seek some support. We are taking many different steps.
The hon. Member for Northavon talked about choice, and that is what we are about. We are trying to provide an infrastructure that gives parents both choice and the opportunity to engage. Choices are often different if the children are under five, and we have done much to support people who stay at home as long as possible with our reforms of maternity pay and benefits. We could perhaps do more, but we have taken the agenda further. Choice is important, as is joint working throughout Government, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am firmly engaged in that.
We must ensure that high-quality child care supports good parenting in the home to give children the maximum opportunity to develop their potential and ensures that no child falls through the net. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having successfully secured this short debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Four o'clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA SPORT

  Television (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the secretary of state for Culture, Media and Sport whether she plans to change her policy on the self-help scheme to provide assistance for rural residents outside the reach of analogue television signals. [135268]

  Estelle Morris
  We recognise the benifit of existing analogue self help schemes in extending terrestrial television to rural communities not reached by the broadcasters' television transmitters. These schemes continue to be licensed by my Department. We will be considering the potential of self help schemes to enable communities to receive digital television services in the context of on-going work under the Digital Television Action Plan.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her plans are for those rural areas that will be unable to receive analogue television signals in 2010. [135269]

  Estelle Morris
  The Government are committed to ensuring that terrestrial analogue broadcasting signals are maintained until: everyone who can currently get the main public service broadcasting channels in analogue form (BBC1. BBC2, ITV, Channel 4/S4C and Five) can receive them on digital systems; switching to digital is an affordable option for the vast majority of people; and as a target indicator of affordability, 95 per cent. of consumers have access to digital equipment. A Digital Television Action Plan is already in place, designed to deliver these pre-conditions for switching off analogue terrestrial transmissions. A copy of the Action Plan is available at www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk.

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [135049]

  Mr. Caborn
  The figures for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for years 1997 to 2002 were provided to the hon. Member by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), on 3 November 2003,Official Report, columns 403-06W.

  In the year 2003 the Department anticipates that it will use 415,000 KWH of electricity and 346,000 KWH of gas.
  538W
  Consumption Figures in Kilowatt hours per square metre are 313 for electricity and for 260 gas.

  In year 2004 the Department anticipates that it will use 4,450,000 KWH for electricity and 346,000 for gas.

  Consumption figures per square metre would then be 335 for electricity and 260 for gas.

  The Department is initiating energy audits and is working with Office of Government Commerce contractors to reduce consumption.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list visits made by ministers in her Department in England in each of the last five years, broken down by constituency. [135524]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Olympic Games
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding has been made available to British sportsmen and women in preparation for the Olympic Games in Athens in 2004. [135831]

  Tessa Jowell
  Funding to our elite sportsmen and women is provided from the National Lottery. The Government committed £100 million to support elite British Sportsmen and women in the four-year period from the Sydney to the Athens Olympics. This commitment maintains the level of lottery funding to elite athletes at the same level in the run up to the Athens Olympics as was provided in the run up to the Sydney Games.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with disability groups on the involvement of disabled people in planning for the 2012 Olympic Games bid. [135841]

  Tessa Jowell
  Arrangements for holding the Paralympic Games form an important and integral part of hosting the Olympic Games. London 2012 is responsible for preparing the London Olympic bid and has appointed Mike Brace, Chairman of the British Paralympic Association, as a member of its board. Disability groups have been in contact with my officials about ensuring the London Olympic bid is inclusive and delivers a sustainable legacy.

  Television Licence Fee
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much was paid in television licence fees by residents of Dumfries and Galloway in the last year for which figures are available. [135254]

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much was paid in TV licence fees by residents of Chorley parliamentary constituency in each of the last five years. [135522]
  539W
  Estelle Morris
  The information requested is not available, since TV Licensing, who administer the television licensing system for the BBC, do not maintain statistics of television licence sales and revenues by locality.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of television licence fee holders in(a) Dumfries and Galloway, (b) Scotland and (c) the UK are able to receive (i) all five terrestrial television channels and (ii) Freeview. [135260]

  Estelle Morris
  The ITC and BBC advise that the available estimates of terrestrial television coverage are as follows:

  UK households

  Scotland households

  Analogue BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4

  99.4

  98.1

  Analogue Five

  80

  1—

  Freeview digital terrestrial television (all multiplexes)

  73.1

  80.5

  1 Estimate not available

  Further details of Five analogue terrestrial television coverage can be found at the website: www.five.tv and details of digital terrestrial television coverage at: www. dtg.org.uk and www.freeview.co.uk

TRANSPORT

  RAF Lyneham
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to increase air freight traffic through Lyneham; and if he will make a statement. [135023]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have taken the hon. Member's question to refer to civilian freight traffic. No steps have been taken to increase such traffic through RAF Lyneham; requests are considered on a case-by-case basis and are fulfilled on repayment terms, using irreducible spare capacity at the Station.

  Air Travel
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the total demand for air travel in the UK in 2060, expressed as a multiple of the present number of passengers using Heathrow, on the basis of the forecast rates of growth used to calculate the economic benefits of various runway options in the consultation on the Future of Air Transport. [135187]

  Dr. Howells
  The forecasts presented in the consultation document, "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East", 2002, extended to 2030. No forecast has been made of the total demand for air travel in the UK in 2060. However, for the purposes of the analysis of economic benefits of runway options, the forecasts were projected forward to 2060, assuming a 50 per cent. increase in demand from 2030 to 2060.
  540W
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer of 11 September 2003,Official Report, column 373W, on air travel, what estimate has been made of the percentage change in the cost of air travel from 2000 to 2030, if no new runways were to be built in the UK. [135218]

  Dr. Howells
  The mid point forecasts in the consultation document: The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom-South East, assumed an underlying trend reduction in air fares of I per cent. per annum. In addition to this, if no new runways were built in the South East, passengers at Heathrow would pay a fare premium of £67.50 on a single journey in 2030. This fare premium would be higher if airport capacity outside the South East was also constrained, but no estimate has been made of this. The combined effect of these two factors would be an 18 per cent. increase in the cost of air travel in this case.

  Airport Infrastructure
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) financial and (b) other support his Department will provide for new airport infrastructure, including associated transport links. [135651]

  Mr. McNulty
  The question of Government support for any new airport infrastructure is being considered in the context of decisions about future development. In our consultation. we invited views on the use of public money to support airport development and surface transport links, and we are analysing the responses. We will set out our policy in the air transport White Paper.

  Deep Vein Thrombosis
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what funding the Government have contributed to the World Health Organisation's research into deep vein thrombosis; and what progress has been made in the research. [135477]

  Mr. McNulty
  To date, the Government have contributed approximately £400,000 to the WHO research project. We expect our total contribution to be in excess of £1.1 million. Epidemiological studies are being carried out in the Netherlands: two at the Leiden University Medical Centre and one at the Amsterdam Medical Centre. Clinical and physiopathological studies are being carried out in the UK.

  At the Leiden centre, work is well advanced on the cohort study among business travellers, following a successful pilot study of the employees of an international company in Switzerland. The proposed methodology for the case-control study among frequent travellers was also piloted. However, for technical reasons an alternative methodology has been proposed, which I understand the Scientific Executive Committee responsible for the research protocols has approved in principle. At the Amsterdam centre, following extensive planning and preparation, the first test of the travel and non-travel immobility study will start shortly. This will comprise an eight-hour flight before, during and after which blood samples from volunteer passengers will be drawn for examination. Further tests will be carried out

  541W
  on the same volunteers to assess their clinical response to eight hours immobility, without travel, and eight hours engaged in normal activities.

  The other stream of the research, examining the effects of hypobaria and hypoxia on the risk of deep vein thrombosis, is already under way under the auspices of Leicester University. Hypobaric chamber tests are being carried out at the aviation medical facilities at RA F Henlow to examine the effects of reduced atmospheric pressure on the cardio-vascular systems of volunteers seated for eight hours.

  The World Health Organisation is due to publish the results of the research at the end of 2004 or early 2005.

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much(a) electricity and (b) other energy his 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 he has to reduce usage; and if he will make a statement. [135059]

  Mr. McNulty
  In respect of(a) and (b) I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) on 3 November 2003, Official Report, columns 403-08W.

  Energy management is delegated to local energy managers who are responsible for assessing usage and tailoring procurement decisions and awareness campaigns accordingly.

  The Department is committed in its Greening Operations Policy Statement to reducing energy usage. The Department will communicate with staff and contractors about environmental policies and best practice and continue with office equipment 'switch off and other energy awareness campaigns.

  Airports Consultation
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether the report of the Inspector of the Terminal 5 Inquiry at Heathrow is included as part of the consultation into Future Development of Air Transport in the UK; [135291]

  (2) if he will uphold the recommendations of the Inspector for the Heathrow Terminal 5 Inquiry in the forthcoming Aviation White Paper. [135292]

  Mr. McNulty
  In his decision of 20 November 2001 on the Heathrow Terminal 5 planning application, the then Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions said that matters about the future of Heathrow airport (other than his decision on Terminal 5 I would be for the review of airports policy and this would take account of the Inquiry Inspector's comments.

  Paragraph 7.2 of "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East" consultation referred to the approval for Terminal 5 at Heathrow.
  542W
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether nitrogen dioxide is assessed as a relevant pollutant in section 7.29 of the Government's consultation paper The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom. [135293]

  Mr. McNulty
  Yes.

  M5 (Roadworks)
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the(a) current and (b) projected roadworks on the M5 motorway between Bristol and Tiverton; and how long each section of work is expected to take. [135423]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Acting Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Stephen Hickey, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Richard Bennett to Mr. Adrian Flook, dated 4 November 2003:
  I am writing on behalf of Stephen Mickey, who has been asked by David Jamieson to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the current and projected roadworks on the M5 motorway
  The Highways Agency has a four-year rolling programme of works. This includes resurfacing (including overlay of concrete roads), the upgrade of signs and safety fence installations well as improvements to reduce congestion. Those works due to begin in this financial year are listed in Table 1. Those due to start in the next financial year are still subject to decisions on funding and prioritisation before a list can be provided.

  Table 1

  Scheme title and location

  Approximate works duration

  Works currently undertaken

  M5 Junction 20-21 Resurfacing

  Eight Weeks

  Works to be undertaken in 2003–04

  M5 Junction 26-27 Concrete Resurfacing

  13 weeks (starts March 04)

  M5 Signing Upgrade

  Rolling Programme

  M5 Junction 19 Park and Ride Signing

  Four Weeks

  Motorcycling
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the safety proposals of the Government Advisory Group for Motorcycling; and if he will make a statement; [135880]

  (2) what plans he has to introduce safety-related legislation regarding the use of motorised two wheelers; and if he will make a statement; [135881]

  (3) what plans he has to promote motorcycles as an environmentally friendly alternative to cars; and if he will make a statement. [135882]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Advisory Group on Motorcycling, which I chair, has been considering a range of issues related to the role of motorcycling, including safety and environmental performance. The Advisory Group is not due to report until next year, following which the Government will determine its strategy for motorcycling. It is too early to say what Government policy will include, as it would be inappropriate to pre-empt the findings of the Advisory Group.

  Public Transport (Safety and Security)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action the Government is taking to increase the(a) security and (b) safety of public transport in London. [135383]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government fully support the British Transport Police (BTP) who as the police force for London's railways and London Underground are an integral part of the city's anti-terrorism policing strategy. There is very close liaison and co-operation between BTP and the rail industry, Transport For London (TfL), Government departments, the Metropolitan Police and other emergency services at all levels. The Health Safety Executive, as rail regulator, also work closely with London Underground and the national rail operators on safety related issues.

  In addition, TfL is part of a joint initiative with the Metropolitan police—the Transport Policing Initiative, which is aimed particularly at increasing safety and security on London's bus services.

  The Secretary of State for Transport also issues the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) with directions and guidance, which require the SRA to encourage train operators to participate in both the Secure Stations and Secure Car Park schemes, which award accreditation when specified standards of design and management are reached. Further to this, the Modern Facilities at Stations programme will provide CCTV at some of London's stations.

  Rail Traffic Congestion (Birmingham New Street)
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of rail traffic congestion at and around Birmingham New Street station on the performance of the national rail network. [135373]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Strategic Rail. Authority (SRA) has developed a 'Capacity Utilisation Policy' aimed at delivering the most efficient use of the current network. Individual 'Route Utilisation Strategies' (RUS) will now be developed. The SRA intends to consult on the RUS for the West Midlands in Spring 2004. The outcomes are expected to include improved capacity and performance.

  The SRA has also announced a new approach to the long term planning of the railway network through Regional Planning Assessments (RPAs). These will form the basis on which the development of Britain's railway is planned over the medium to longer term (5-20 years). The provisional date for the publication of the West Midlands RPA is Autumn 2004.

  Railway Stations
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 17 July 2003,Official Report, column 618W, on station improvements, if he will list the stations where improvements are (a) taking place and (b) being considered. [131454]

  Mr. McNulty
  Further to the answer I gave to the hon. Gentleman of 17 July: at Table 1 is a list of the Strategic Rail Authority's Rail Passenger Partnership (RPP) schemes that include station improvements and which 544W
  have been approved for RPP funding. Table 2 lists a further 68 stations that are being considered by the Authority under its Modern Facilities at Stations Scheme (MFAS). The SRA and Network Rail are currently developing a schedule of work for the stations included in the programme. The timetable has yet to be finalised. Table 3 is a list of schemes in Scotland. Some of these are funded through RPP and some through the Incremental Outputs Statements scheme (I0S). In other cases new stations are also being provided as part of a wider project.

  Table 1. Rail Passenger Partnership Schemes

  Station scheme

  Status

  1. Witham

  Now withdrawn

  2. Burnham on Crouch

  Completed

  3. Waterbeach

  In progress

  4. Littleport

  Contracts being finalised

  5. Bury St. Edmunds

  In progress

  6. Downham

  Contracts being finalised

  7. Brentford

  Completed

  8. Tees Valley

  In Progress

  9. Thornaby

  Completed

  10. Macclesfield

  Completed

  11. Horwich

  In progress

  12. Chorley

  Contracts being finalised

  13. Hexham/Carlisle

  Completed

  14. Ramsgate Interchange

  Contracts being finalised

  15. Saltash

  Contracts being finalised

  16. Penzance Interchange

  Completed (Phase 1)

  17. Liskeard Interchange

  Contracts being finalised

  18. Plymouth

  Completed

  19. Chippenham

  Contracts being finalised

  20. Bodmin

  Completed

  21. Redruth

  Completed

  22. Beauly

  Completed

  23. Edinburgh Park

  In progress

  24. Ludlow

  Completed

  25. Burnley Central

  Contracts being finalised

  26. Bromsgrove

  Completed

  27. Gobowen

  Completed

  28. Haverfordwest

  Completed

  29. Doncaster

  Now withdrawn

  30. Sheffield

  In progress

  Table 2: Modern facilities at station schemes

  Station scheme

  1. Aintree

  2. Audley End

  3. Aughton Park

  4. Bebington

  5. Birkenhead Central

  6. Bishops Stortford

  7. BootleNew Strand

  8. Bootle Oriel Road

  9. Bromborough

  10. Brondesbury

  11. Brondesbury Park

  12. Bush Hill Park

  13. Cheshunt

  14. Clacton-on-Sea

  15. Colchester

  16. Colchester Town

  17. Davenport

  18. Downham Market

  19. Edmonton Green

  545W

  20. Elsenham

  21. Enfield Lock

  22. Enfield Town

  23. Erdington

  24. Flitwick

  25. Forest Gate

  26. Formby

  27. Four Oaks

  28. Freshfield

  29. Goodmayes

  30. Green Lane

  31. Hadfield

  32. Harlington

  33. Harlow Hill

  34. Harlow Town

  35. Hatfield Peverel

  36. Hazel Grove

  37. Hightown

  38. Hillside

  39. Hockley

  40. Hooton

  41. Ingatestone

  42. Kelvedon

  43. Kensal Rise

  44. Laindon

  45. Leagrave

  46. Lichfield City

  47. Manningtree

  48. Marks Tey

  49. Marple

  50. Moreton

  51. New Mills Newton

  52. Newport (Essex)

  53. Old Roan

  54. Orrell Oak

  55. Rye House

  56. Sandhills

  57. Seven Kings

  58. Shelford

  59. Spital

  60. St. Margarets (Herts)

  61. Stansted Mountfitchet

  62. Town Green

  63. Ware

  64. Waterloo (Merseyside)

  65. West Hampstead

  66. West Kirby

  67. Whittlesford

  68. Wivenhoe

  Table 3: Schemes in Scotland

  Scheme

  Status

  Edinburgh Park station (RPP)

  Due to open November 2003

  Beauly station (RPP)

  Completed

  Gourock station

  Development plan under consideration

  Edinburgh Waverley station

  Development options being considered

  Edinburgh Crossrail (RPP1)

  Completed

  Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line2

  Statutory powers being sought

  Airdree-Bathgate line2

  Engineering study let

  546W

  Table 3: Schemes in Scotland

  Scheme

  Status

  Larkhall-Milngavie line2

  Contract tendered

  Scottish Borders line2

  Statutory powers being sought

  Glasgow Airport Link2

  Engineering study

  Edinburgh Airport Link2

  Engineering study

  Aberdeen Crossrail2

  Feasibility stage

  Platform extensions at 25 stations:3

  Due for completion October 2004

  Uphall

  Livingston North

  Bathgate

  South Gyle

  North Queensferry

  Dalgety Bay

  Aberdour

  Kinghorn

  Glenrothes

  Cardenden

  Lochgelly

  Cowdenbeath

  Dunfermline Queen Margaret

  Rosyth

  Bridge of Allan

  Larbet

  Camelon

  Pollockshaws West

  Thornliebank

  Giffnock

  Clarkston

  Busby

  Thorntonhall

  Hairmyres

  East Kilbride

  1 RPP support for operating costs only

  2 New stations provided or proposed as part of a wider project.

  3 Jointly funded through the SRA's Incremental Output Statements scheme and the Scottish Executive's Integrated Transport Fund

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects that Liverpool Lime Street station will be owned by Network Rail; and if he will make a statement. [136452]

  Mr. McNulty
  In common with the other 2,500 railway stations on the rail network, Liverpool Lime Street is already owned by Network Rail.

  Network Rail are, however, in negotiations with First North Western to take operational control of the station. Network Rail inform me that negotiations are well advanced.

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received in support of a review of the speed limits on roads; and what plans he has to undertake such a review. [135299]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Road Safety Strategy, published in March 2000 gave a commitment to review guidance on setting local speed limits. The Transport Select Committee on Road Traffic Speed that reported last year also recommended a review of speed limit guidance and this was supported by local authorities and road safety professionals.

  Work has already started on revised guidance to local authorities and we expect a first draft to be available in spring 2004.

  Stansted Airport
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the cross-subsidy in favour of Stansted Airport. [135629]

  Mr. McNulty
  Stansted is a designated airport subject to price cap regulation under the 1986 Airports Act. As such, the issue of cross-subsidy in favour of Stansted was considered by the CAA as part of its price cap review and decisions on BAA's London airports, published in February 2003. The Government will set out their policy on this issue in the Air Transport White Paper.

  Transport Managers
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether it is mandatory for a transport manager to be in the employment of the licence holder under EU Directive 96/26. [135272]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Section 58 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 defines a transport manager as
  "an individual who is in, or is engaged to enter into, the employment of the holder of a standard licence who, either alone or jointly with one or more other persons, has continuous and effective responsibility for the management of the transport operations of the business".
  This complies with the requirements of EU Directive 96/26/EC in respect of transport managers.

  It is for the statutorily independent traffic commissioners who administer the goods operator licensing system to interpret the law and to satisfy themselves that transport managers meet its requirements.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent to which the Administration of Mr. Hamid Karzai is considered to be a credible national Government across Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [133623]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  President Karzai and the Afghan Transitional Administration (ATA) are the legitimate Government of Afghanistan, following President Karzai's election by the Emergency Loya Jirga in June 2002.

  Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department's aims are at the Convention on Conventional Weapons negotiations in November; and if he will make a statement. [135848]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government recognises the importance of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and will continue to play an active role in the negotiations at the United Nations in Geneva. Our immediate aims for the November meeting will be to continue to work for conclusion of an agreement on a new and legally binding instrument on Explosive 548W
  Remnants of War (ERW) and to reach consensus on a negotiating mandate for 2004 to take forward constructive work on Mines Other Than Anti-Personnel Mines (MOTAPMS).

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department's representatives at the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons negotiations in November will seek agreement on a mandate for future negotiations on cluster munitions. [135849]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK will seek a mandate for negotiations on an instrument that could contain technical standards to be phased in for cluster munitions. This would aim to improve the reliability of cluster munitions so that fewer of them remain unexploded.

  Ethiopia/Eritrea
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with the generals of(a) Ethiopia and (b) Eritrea concerning the implementation of the decision on the border dispute; and if he will make a statement. [136530]

  Mr. Mullin
  We have had no direct discussions with generals on either side on this subject. However, the UN Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) Forces Commander has had regular, joint discussions with the military commanders of both sides in the Military Coordination Committee (MCC). And we are in close touch with the Governments of both countries.

  European Commission Vacancies
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role the UK representative office has in selecting candidates for European Commission vacancies; what guidelines have been issued on this process; and if he will make a statement. [135891]

  Mr. MacShane
  The European Commission is responsible for selecting candidates for vacancies within its services. Most such vacancies are filled through internal procedures by permanent Commission employees who have been recruited through open competition. For a small number of temporary appointments the Commission inform member states of vacancies and invite them to submit names of potential candidates. A Commission Selection Committee decides on such appointments.

  Iraq
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications of opening Basra International Airport to non-governmental commercial and passenger flights for(a) trade with and (b) the reconstruction of Iraq. [135361]

  Mr. Rammell
  Opening Basra airport to commercial aviation would have a positive effect on trade and reconstruction. We intend that the airport should be
  549W
  opened to commercial aviation as soon as possible once the relevant security and other requirements have been met.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the coalition governments have had with Red Crescent officials regarding involvement in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [135598]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Coalition Provisional Authority has had contacts with the Iraqi Red Crescent Society, which is active throughout the country. The Iraqi Red Crescent Society works with the local authorities in the search for, and identification of bodies in, mass graves; contacting families and assisting with burials; basic first aid; ambulance services; and rehabilitation of its four hospitals.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the United States State Department informed the Government of the outcome of the work undertaken by the working groups on the likely political, economic and security situation in a post-invasion Iraq. [135628]

  Mr. MacShane
  There have been frequent and regular meetings between the Government and members of the United States State Department before, during and after the conflict, at which all aspects of policy in Iraq have been discussed.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he is doing to combat the(a) production and (b) export of land mines worldwide. [136477]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government considers universalisation of the Ottawa Convention to be the best means of combating the production, use, stockpiling or transfer of anti-personnel land mines. The United Kingdom was among the first states to ratify the Convention and continues to play a leading role in follow-up work, including encouraging the widest possible adherence to the treaty. Through our diplomatic missions overseas we have recently lobbied states not party to the Convention, urging their ratification or accession at the earliest opportunity.

  Religious Freedom (Egypt)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise the issue of religious freedom with the Egyptian Government and urge it to permit Muslim converts to Christianity to change their(a) religion and (b) names in their identity papers. [135499]

  Mr. Rammell
  The British Government is committed to promoting tolerance and mutual respect between religions. Although the majority of people in Egypt are Muslim, there is a large Christian minority who are free to practice their own religion. The Egyptian State upholds Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and their obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Egyptian citizens are therefore free to convert to Christianity. The lack of an administrative provision for 550W
  converts to Christianity to change their religious affiliation on their identity cards is a problem. We understand that a suit has been brought in the Egyptian courts to remove this affiliation altogether.

  Serbia
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans there are to rebuild the bridges at Novi Sad; and if he will make a statement. [135599]

  Mr. MacShane
  The 3 bridges destroyed at Novi Sad during the 1999 NATO intervention have been replaced. However, one of these is a temporary pontoon structure, which will be removed on completion of a €40 million European-Union funded reconstruction of the 'Sloboda' bridge, due in May 2005. The EU also contributed €22 million to the successful clearance of bris and unexploded ordnance from the riverbed, which was completed in June 2003.

  Stability Pact
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the European Union's Stability Pact for the Balkans; what projects have been completed; what projects are under way; what stage they are at; when they are estimated to be completed; what projects have been agreed to but have not yet commenced; what projects have been submitted for consideration and are awaiting decision; and which of these relate to Serbia and Montenegro. [135440]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe was established in 1999. It has helped the region address a wide range of issues in support of stabilisation, development and reform. The Stability Pact's activity is divided into three Working Tables: Human Rights and Democratisation (Working Table I); Economic Reconstruction, Development and Cooperation (Working Table II); and Security Issues (Working Table III). The Pact's umbrella currently covers 26 different initiatives. The Pact has six priorities for 2003: Local Democracy and Cross Border Cooperation; Media (both Working Table I): Regional Infrastructure/ Energy; Trade and Investment (both Working Table II); Organised Crime; and Managing and Stabilising Population Movements (both Working Table III).

  The Pact has no budget (except for its own Secretariat) with which to fund or implement projects. Its principal function is to act as a conduit for project implementers and donors. It is therefore difficult to provide information on the status of projects profiled under the auspices of the Pact, as these remain owned by the donor(s).

  In relation to Serbia and Montenegro (SaM), the Pact has helped with the following items under the six priorities during 2003:

  Local Democracy and Cross Border Cooperation
  Launch of the Nis-Skopje-Sofia local government Euroregion initiative.
  Establishment of a network of National Associations and Local Authorities in South Eastern Europe (which will cover SaM).
  551W
  Media
  Production of a grid of media related projects (the most recent version had nine projects relating specifically to SaM).
  Support for implementation of broadcast legislation in Montenegro.
  Identification of donor funds to support specialist schools of journalism in the region, including one in Podgorica.

  Regional Infrastructure/Energy
  Support for Industry Round Tables in Prague in February and Sofia in October.
  Assistance for a meeting of senior government Energy advisers from the region in Vienna in June was supported. SaM representatives participated in these.

  Trade and Investment
  Facilitation of discussions to help overcome obstacles to the practical implementation of SaM's bilateral free-trade agreements with the rest of the region.

  Organised Crime
  Experts' meetings organised within the South Eastern European Cooperation Process in June and October. SaM representatives attended these meetings.

  Managing and Stabilising Population Movements
  Facilitation of discussions on resolving the issue of pension payments for returnees between SaM and Croatia.
  Support for a comprehensive return agreement between SaM and Bosnia Herzegovina, signed in October.

  Further details can be found on the Stability Pact's website (www.stabilitypact.org).

  Sudan
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to(a) promote respect for human rights and justice among participants in the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development sponsored peace process in Sudan and (b) encourage the inclusion and participation in the peace process of hitherto excluded political parties and civil society groups. [136223]

  Mr. Mullin
  In their decision to end the civil war, the parties recognise that the principle of human rights must be at the core of any peace agreement. We have taker every opportunity to reiterate this message. Or 14 October the Government of Sudan released from house arrest Dr. Hassan al-Turabi, the leader of the Popular National Congress, as well as other politica prisoners. We welcome this step towards reconciliatior of all parties.

  We are considering ways to strengthen civil society participation in consolidating peace and, with others to support the establishment of a Human Right Commission and other relevant institutions following peace agreement. We will also look at ways to support the development of an effective public administration and judicial system throughout Sudan.

  Human Rights is at the forefront of our policy it helping Sudan reach a comprehensive peace agreement

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations hi: Department has made to the Government of Sudan since the end of the temporary ceasefire on finding t political solution to the conflict in Darfur. [136225]
  552W
  Mr. Mullin
  Our Embassy in Khartoum continues to focus on the issue of Darfur and is following closely both the humanitarian situation and the political dialogue at the Abeche peace talks.

  We believe that the Abeche Agreement did not stipulate an end to the cease-fire and we call on both parties to respect that agreement. Our Ambassador to Sudan has spoken to the Government of Sudan on a number of occasions, and continues to do so, about the need for a process of political engagement.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Sudan on the house detention of Dr. Hassan al-Turabi. [136492]

  Mr. Mullin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to him on 23 October 2003,Official Report, column 713W. Dr. Hassan al-Turabi, and other political prisoners, were released on 13 October 2003.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the security agreement signed between the government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Army/Movement; and what assessment he has made of the prospects for long-lasting peace in Sudan. [136494]

  Mr. Mullin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the joint press statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my noble Friend the then Secretary of State for International Development (Baroness Amos) on 25 September in which they welcomed the Framework Agreement on Security Arrangements during the Interim Period. A copy of the statement is available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website: www.fco.gov.uk/policy/news/press-releases. We believe that this is a reflection of the commitment of both Parties and an important step towards peace.

  We are encouraged by the progress made so far and are optimistic for the prospects of peace in the long term.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken to trail assets moved by spouses and children of senior ZANU PF officials; and if he will make a statement. [135259]

  Mr. Mullin
  In 2002 the EU imposed an asset freeze on senior members of the Zimbabwe government. The list of targets includes Grace Mugabe, Robert Mugabe's wife. We are obliged to locate and freeze any assets held by her in the UK. While no other spouses or children of senior Zanu PF officials are on the sanctions list, if a UK bank suspects that an account in someone else's name is being used by or for a Zimbabwean on the sanctions then it should be reported to the Bank of England.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he
  553W
  has made to the threat by Mr. Robert Mugabe to use British citizens as hostages in the event of British action. [135310]

  Mr. Mullin
  Mugabe has made a range of threats in response to alleged British plans to intervene in Zimbabwe. There are no such plans.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his response to the Eighth Report of Session 2002–03 from the Foreign Affairs Committee on Zimbabwe, if he will now revisit his decision not to take steps to strip Mr. Robert Mugabe of his honorary knighthood. [135342]

  Mr. Mullin
  Our position on this remains unchanged. We do not view the removal of Mugabe's honorary knighthood, conferred on him in 1994. on the recommendation of the previous government, as an immediate priority. Our current efforts are focused on providing humanitarian assistance to the people of Zimbabwe, whilst encouraging the return of a democratically accountable government which respects human rights and the rule of law. We may nevertheless revisit this question in the future.

  Mr. Matins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his plans for(a) the consular section of the British

  £000

  (a) Consultations

  (b) Pilot Schemes

  (c) Conferences

  (d) Publications

  (e) Staffing

  2001–02

  69

  n/a

  1

  697

  1,371

  2002–03

  964

  168

  45

  1,548

  3,136

  2003–041

  672

  701

  59

  563

  2,044

  1 To end September 2003.

  Notes:

  1. Figures given in columns (a) and (b) exclude staffing, publications and conference costs relating to these work streams. These appear as part of the global figures in columns (c),(d) and (e).

  2. Consultation costs include consultation activities and public and public opinions research undertaken by the Electoral Commission in relation to policy reviews under section 6 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA) and to inform the preparation of statutory election reports under section 5 of PPERA. It also includes consultation exercises carried out by the Boundary Committee for England costs associated with consultations carried out as part of the current Local Government Reviews are also included; however, there is an off setting Appropriation in Aid from the budget of the office of the Deputy Prime Minister to meet these costs.

  3. The Boundary Committee for England was established as part of the Electoral Commission on 1 April 2002. Costs for 2001–02 therefore do not include the costs associated with periodic electoral reviews of English local authorities, which in that year were being undertaken by the local Government Commission for England.

  4. The Commission first evaluated an electoral pilot scheme in April 2002. No costs were therefore incurred in 2001–02.

  5. Staffing costs include secondees and agency staff.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Double Summer Time
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research she has commissioned on the effects of the possible introduction of double summertime. [135833]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Government have no current plans to alter the present summer time arrangements as previous research concluded that the disadvantages outweighed the benefits.
  554W
  High Commission in Harare and (b) the processing of applications for entry clearance from Zimbabwean nationals. [135428]

  Mr. Mullin
  The High Commission in Harare is currently offering a full range of consular and entry clearance services. There are no plans to change the consular services provided by the British High Commission in Harare, including the processing of entry clearance applications.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION

  Expenditure
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission what total expenditure by the Electoral Commission has been on(a) consultations, (b) pilot schemes, (c) conferences, (d) publications and (e) staffing costs for each financial year from 2001; and if he will make a statement. [135068]

  Mr. Viggers
  Total expenditure by the Electoral Commission, rounded to the nearest £1,000, on(a) consultations, (b) pilot schemes, (c) conferences, (d) publications and (e) staffing costs, for each financial year from 1 April 2001, is set out in the following table:

  Fireworks
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to tackle the public use of Chinese fireworks; and if she will make a statement. [135756]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Most fireworks sold to the general public in the United Kingdom originate in China. But whether fireworks are imported or made here in the UK, all which are intended for use by the general public must meet the requirements of the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 and the British Standard BS 7114, the safety standard governing the safe construction, testing and labelling of consumer fireworks.
  555W
  We advise the public therefore to buy only fireworks marked as complying with "BS 7114 Part 2". Also it is illegal for shopkeepers to sell fireworks to the public which do not meet the requirements of the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 and BS 7114.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) in respect of what(a) weight and (b) number of items of fireworks import licences were granted to Global Fireworks Ltd. (i) prior to 5 April 2002, (ii) between 6 April 2002 and 5 April 2003 and (iii) from 6 April 2003 to date; [135638]

  (2) how many import licences for fireworks were granted to Global Fireworks Ltd.. (a) prior to 5 April 2002, (b) between 6 April 2002 and 5 April 2003 and(c) from 6 April 2003 to date. [135646]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Licensing controls on imports of fireworks from China applied from 15 March 1994 to 10 March 2003. Licences specified weight of shipment rather than the number of items. The ending of the licensing regime was one of the conditions of China's entry into the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The following licences were issued to Global Fireworks Ltd.:

  (a) Prior to 5 April 2002: four licences totalling 103,608 kg

  (b) Between 6 April 2002 and 5 April 2003: no licences issued

  (c) From 6 April 2003 to date: no licences issued.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to tackle the sale of illegal fireworks through the internet; and if she will make a statement. [135784]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  United Kingdom based companies selling over the internet are subject to the provisions of the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997. We cannot legislate for those companies who operate outside the UK. However, we advise consumers to exercise the utmost caution when buying fireworks over the internet from outside the UK. Also it is illegal to supply fireworks in the UK which have not been classified by Health and Safety Executive's Explosives Inspectorate.

  Scottish Aerospace Strategy
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the efficacy of the Scottish Aerospace Strategy Initiative; what plans she has to establish a similar strategy for the aerospace industry in the North West of England; what discussions she has had with the Scotland Office about developing the aerospace industry in Scotland; and if she will make a statement. [134013]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made no assessment of the efficacy of the Scottish Aerospace Strategy Initiative, as this is a matter of economic development and devolved to the Scottish Executive.

  In May 2002, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry established the Aerospace Innovation and Growth Team (AeIGT) to produce a 20-year vision for the future of the aerospace industry across the whole of the UK and to make recommendations as to how to make that vision a reality. Those recommendations were published in June 2003 and give strategic direction for the aerospace industry across the UK, including the North West of
  556W
  England. The Chairman of the North West Regional Development Agency is a member of the AeIGT and continues to be, closely involved in its work. It is for the North West Regional Development Agency to consider the need for a regional strategy.

  The Department has an on-going relationship with the Scottish Executive and its economic development agencies both as part of the dialogue of Working with the Regions and Devolved Administrations and in the context of the implementation of the AeIGT report.

  Airbus/Aircraft Carrier Projects
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on the provision of launch aid to businesses in the supply chain for(a) Airbus and (b) aircraft carrier projects. [135405]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 30 October 2003]: The provision of Launch Investment is entirely discretionary. Each application is considered on its merits against a range of established criteria and against public expenditure constraints.

  The Government are currently investing £530 million of Launch Investment to Airbus UK for the design and development of the Airbus A380 wings. The support provided to the prime contractor such as Airbus UK benefits the whole of the supply chain by securing strategically important projects for the UK. On the A380 programme more than 400 companies located throughout the UK are already contributing to the programme.

  Launch Investment is only available to the civil aerospace sector and therefore aircraft carrier projects would not be eligible for support.

  Arms Trade
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) pursuant to her answer of 6 October 2003,Official Report, column 1067W, whether her Department's proposals for secondary orders under the Export Control Act 2002 will comply with the text adopted by the plenary session of the European Parliament on 19 June 2003 (B5-0312/2003); [135102]

  (2) pursuant to her answer of 6 October 2003, Official Report, column 1069W, if she will change her proposals on the secondary orders on export control to comply with the text adopted by the plenary session of the European Parliament on 19 June 2003 B5-0312/2003, regarding (a) full extraterritorial control and (b) a register of arms dealers. [135103]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The European Parliament resolution is exhortatory so the question of compliance with it does not arise.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many exhibitors at the recent Arms Trade Fair in London did not have licences to trade and possess such weapons in the United Kingdom; what proportion of the total exhibitors and traders were unlicensed; and on what basis they were allowed to continue to participate in the fair. [134905]

  Caroline Flint
  I have been asked to reply.
  557W
  I understand from the Metropolitan police that 44 out of some 1,000 exhibitors required certificates of registration as firearms dealers. Of those, 41 needed the authority of the Secretary of State under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 to possess prohibited weapons. Many of the exhibitors were exhibiting items such as boats, vehicles, equipment and clothing for which no licensing was required.

  A total of nine exhibitors arrived without the necessary documentation and arrangements were made for this to be rectified before they were allowed to exhibit any firearms.

  Broadband
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will estimate the cost of broadband telecommunications charges to public bodies within the Ribble Valley constituency in 2002–03; and what plans there are for improving value for money. [131699]

  Mr. Timms
  Estimates of the cost of broadband telecommunications charges to public bodies within the Ribble Valley-constituency in 2002–03 are not available.

  The Government are improving value for money through the aggregation of public sector demand for broadband connectivity. In the coming month, nine new Regional Aggregation Bodies (RABs) will be set up, one in each of the English regions to join up individual public sector requirements and present them to the market in larger units. They will deliver better value deals and drive up availability by making it more attractive to telecommunications companies to make the capital investment necessary to provide broadband in new areas. Their work will also improve broadband availability for non-public sector users in those areas by encouraging service providers to use the infrastructure to provide broadband services to the public and small businesses.

  Community Interest Companies
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the timescale for the introduction of community interest companies. [136087]

  Jacqui Smith
  I announced in a Written Ministerial Statement on 10 July 2003,Official Report, column 62WS, that the Government intend to move ahead with legislation on Community Interest Companies, alongside some company law issues, as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Health on the introduction of community interest companies as a means for delivering foundation hospitals. [136088]

  Jacqui Smith
  None. Subject to legislation, NHS Foundation Trusts are to be incorporated as public benefit corporations, as set out in the Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts and the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the contributors to the Government's consultation on community interest companies. [136089]
  558W
  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced in a Written Ministerial Statement on 22 October 2003,Official Report, column 41 WS, that a report on the outcome of the consultation on Community Interest Companies has been published. A list of the 134 respondents to the consultation is included at Annex A of the report. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the Houses and on the DTI website.

  European Software Patent Directive
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on the European Software Patent Directive. [135283]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's policy remains the same as that announced in 2001 after a public consultation on the patentability of software. The Government's conclusion from that consultation was to reaffirm the principle that patents are for technological innovations. Software should not be patentable where there is no technological innovation, and technological innovations should not cease to be patentable merely because the innovation lies in software. However, the consultation also concluded that business methods should remain unpatentable.

  Subsequently, we have supported the introduction by the European Commission of a draft Directive on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions, in order to clarify the legal position across the European Union. Discussions on this Directive are on-going and I await the outcome of further discussions between the EU institutions on its progress.

  Interpol
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 6 October 2003,Official Report, column 1069W, on Interpol, for what reason her Department does not use Interpol's international weapons and explosives tracking system. [135113]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The DTI does not have responsibility for tracking weapons or explosives.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to encourage an increase in the capital per worker ratio in UK manufacturing. [134869]

  Jacqui Smith
  By maintaining a stable macroeconomic environment, together with measures such as reforming capital gains tax, making permanent enhanced capital allowances for small and medium-sized firms, and introducing the Research and Development Tax Credit, we are providing a climate conducive to investment for the long-term in UK manufacturing.

  The global slowdown in 2001 and added uncertainty in 2002 have led firms to postpone investment decisions, but the UK's strong economic fundamentals mean that manufacturers are well placed to benefit when the global recovery shifts up a gear.
  559W
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on manufacturing industry. [135581]

  Jacqui Smith
  While we should remain cautious, we may now be at the start of a recovery path, with positive data from the last four Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply (CIPS) surveys and manufacturing output from the Office for National Statistics up by 0.5 per cent. in the three months to August. However, the sector clearly remains under considerable pressure and we are doing all we can to help.

  For example, the Manufacturing Advisory Service has been a real success as a major source of advice and support for small- and medium-sized manufacturers. Since it launched in April 2002, the Manufacturing Advisory Service has handled over 17,000 enquiries from manufacturing companies and has carried out over 3,000 diagnostic and advisory visits. Over 1,000 firms have benefited from in-depth consultancies to help them improve their productivity. The total value added benefit to firms helped by the Manufacturing Advisory Service is over £18 million.

  Martu Aborigines
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment her Department has made of the(a) impact on and (b) cost to UK companies of the reclamation of land in 2002 by the Martu Aborigines of Western Australia; and if she will make a statement. [133640]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None. Since no representations have been made to the Department on this issue.

  Oil and Gas Industry
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations the Government have received from(a) the Oil and Gas Industry Liaison Team and (b) other parties concerning the proposed Energy Chapter in the draft European Constitution; and if she will make a statement. [135884]

  Mr. Timms
  The Oil and Gas Industry Liaison Team, in an open letter to the my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 22 October 2003, set out their view of the implications for the UK oil and gas industry posed by the Energy Chapter of the draft European Constitution. A number of organisations with UK oil and gas interests have also made representations to Ministers. Under the Treaty establishing the European Community, there is already Union activity in energy matters and we believe there is a strong case for making the legal base for policy in this area more transparent. However, the UK Government will only agree to an extension of competence in energy policy if it is consistent with British national interests.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what overseas visits(a) she and (b) her ministerial colleagues plan to make in the next year to promote trade with the United Kingdom. [135475]
  560W
  Ms Hewitt
  Next year's overseas visits programme for Ministers, in support of trade development and policy, has yet to be finalised. All plans will take into account other travel proposals across Government.

  Post Office Closures
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-post offices have closed in(a) Haltemprice and Howden constituency and (b) the East Riding of Yorkshire in (i) each of the last 12 months and (ii) the previous five years. [135923]

  Mr. Timms
  I am advised by Post Office Ltd. that data on post office numbers is not available in the form requested.

  However, I understand that since March 2000 the company has recorded details of post office closures on the basis of Government Region and in the Yorkshire and Humberside Region as a whole, the numbers of net closures were as follows:

  2000–01: 50

  2001–02: 21

  2002–03: 26 (including seven closures under the urban reinvention programme)

  Post Office Ltd. produces information on post office closures on a quarterly basis. There were 19 net closures (including 18 closures under the urban reinvention programme) of post offices in the Yorkshire and Humberside Region to the end of June 2003, the latest quarter for which figures are currently available.

  Pottery Products
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent meetings she has had with her counterpart in the United States of America to discuss import tariffs on United Kingdom pottery products; and if she will make a statement. [135478]

  Ms Hewitt
  US tariffs on pottery products are being addressed as part of the ongoing WTO Doha Development Agenda multilateral negotiations on market access for non-agricultural products. In these talks the EU negotiates as one and maintains regular contact with other WTO members including the United States of America.

  Printer Cartridges
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what steps her Department is taking to encourage the manufacture of reusable printer cartridges; [135887]

  (2)what discussions she has had with (a) the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and (b) the National Assembly for Wales on the consequences of classifying printer cartridges as consumer products for (i) environmental targets and (ii) sustainable development commitments; [135889]

  (3) hat assessment she has made of the effects the exclusion of printer cartridges under the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive will have on (a) the UK and (b) the Welsh re-manufacturing industry. [135890]
  561W
  Mr. Timms
  The transposition of the WEEE Directive into UK legislation is being overseen by an interdepartmental team, including officials from all of the Departments concerned and the devolved Administrations.

  The Department has had extensive dialogue with cartridge manufacturers and the UK Cartridge Remanufacturers Association on the scope of the WEEE Directive in relation to printer cartridges, but there is no formal assessment by Government on the effects of inclusion or exclusion on either manufacturers or re-manufacturers.

  My Department continues to welcome the reuse and re-manufacture of printer cartridges, as a useful contribution to sustainable consumption and production, but does not operate a promotional programme specifically aimed at encouraging printer cartridge re-manufacture.

  Redundancies
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many redundancies were notified, broken down by nation and region, in each year since

  Table 1: Number of proposed redundancies notified in advance

  Thousand

  Region

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  West Midlands

  20.1

  27.4

  38.4

  43.1

  52.3

  24.7

  East Midlands

  28.4

  31.5

  35.1

  40.0

  54.9

  31.0

  South West

  13.9

  22.0

  17.5

  20.2

  41.6

  19.2

  London and South East

  64.2

  82.0

  101.5

  115.7

  229.9

  94.4

  Northern

  23.1

  21.2

  20.0

  16.4

  24.4

  8.5

  North West

  33.3

  36.8

  46.3

  41.7

  71.5

  23.8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  25.6

  27.6

  29.0

  30.3

  50.4

  18.8

  Total for England

  208.6

  248.5

  287.8

  307.4

  524.9

  220.4

  Scotland

  25.7

  29

  35.4

  25.5

  54.1

  27.6

  Wales

  9.4

  13.6

  14.5

  15.0

  18.0

  11.6

  Table 2: Total employee jobs at December each year

  Thousand

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  England

  20,658.9

  21,022.9

  21,488.9

  21,808.2

  21,883.5

  21,828.7

  Scotland

  2,121.6

  2,161.1

  2,171.6

  2,232.5

  2,281.1

  2,257.2

  Wales

  1,019.3

  1,035.2

  1,070.6

  1.085.4

  1,074.8

  1,072.6

  Table 3: As a percentage of total employee jobs

  Region

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  England

  1.0

  1.2

  1.3

  1.4

  2.4

  1.0

  Scotland

  1.2

  1.3

  1.6

  1.1

  2.4

  1.2

  Wales

  0.9

  1.3

  1.4

  1.4

  1.7

  1.1

  Regional Economies
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to strengthen regional economies in the UK. [134870]
  562W
  1997; what these figures represent as a percentage of the total work force, broken down by nation and region; and if she will make a statement. [133497]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The following tables show the available information. The notification requirements apply only where an employer proposes to make redundant 20 or more employees at one establishment. Such notifications should be made 30 days in advance. If an employer proposes to make 100 or more employees redundant at one establishment, the notifications should be 90 days in advance. In addition, there is no information about how many of the proposed redundancies actually take place. The purpose of the advance notifications is to alert trade unions and employment and other support services to likely future job losses. They do not purport to represent a measure of the numbers of redundancies occurring in the economy.

  Table 1 shows the total numbers of proposed redundancies notified. Table 2 shows these numbers as a percentage of the total number of employee jobs in England, Scotland and Wales, respectively. There are no percentages for individual regions of England as the figures for notified proposed redundancies are not compiled on the same regional basis as those for employee jobs.

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department jointly owns, along with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Treasury, a public service agreement to make sustainable improvements in the economic performance of all English regions and, over the long term, reduce the persistent gap in growth rates between the regions. The
  563W
  joint team taking this work forward has been reviewing the key drivers of economic growth in the regions and the market failures which result in under-performance in some of them, and examining the regional impact of current policies in the three departments and across Government. A coherent and effective package of policy proposals will then be developed to be taken forward as part of the next spending review and beyond.

  In addition, strengthening regional economies and improving the economic performance of the regions forms one of the key areas identified in DTI's five-year strategy, launched in September 2003. Regional thinking will play a bigger role in DTI policy formation, so that national and regional strategies reinforce and complement each other. As part of this, DTI will consider regional impacts throughout its business planning process. The Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) have a pivotal role to play as strategic drivers of regional economic development. Funding for the RDAs under the Single Pot is set to rise: it will be worth £2 billion a year in 2005–06—up from £1.8 billion in 2003–04.

  Shipbuilding/Offshore Industries
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) new starters and (b) people returning to the industry (i) have been trained and (ii) are being trained for the (A) ship building, (B) ship repair and (C) offshore industries under schemes supported by One NorthEast. [133392]

  Jacqui Smith
  Available figures1 show that, over the last 12 months, 76 new trainees/apprentices joined ship building and offshore companies in the North East of England.

  ONE NorthEast, the Learning and Skills Council, COGENT (the Sector Skills Council for the Oil and Gas Extraction, Chemicals Manufacturing and Petroleum Industries) and SEMTA (the Sector Skills Council for the Science, Engineering and Manufacturing Technologies) are working closely together on skills issues, including the development of a comprehensive Energy Cluster Skills Action Plan covering the offshore, marine, defence and renewables sectors. The Action Plan will identify sector skills gaps and propose solutions on issues including crafts levels, graduate skills and employee retention. An initial draft will be available in the next few weeks.

  1The figures do not identify whether these places were created under the schemes supported directly by ONE NorthEast. Statistics are not broken down between new starters and those returning to the industry, nor are reliable statistics currently available separately for the ship building, ship repair and offshore industries.

  Trade
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary and state for Trade and industry if she will make a statement on the trade relationship between Britain and(a) New Zealand and (b) Australia. [135512]

  Ms Hewit
  Britain has a healthy bilateral trade relationship with(a) New Zealand and (b) Australia From January to July 2003. bilateral trade in goods between the UK and New Zealand was worth £0.55 billion representing a 9 per cent. increase over the
  564W
  same period of last year, and bilateral trade in goods between the UK and Australia was worth £2.3 billion representing a 1.8 per cent. increase over the same period of last year.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment her Department has made of the impact of the Institution for the Multilateral Protection of pan-African Commercial Transactions on UK companies investing in Africa; and if she will make a statement. [134447]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department has not made an assessment of the impact of the Institution for the Multilateral Protection of pan-African Commercial Transactions (IMPACT) on direct investment in Africa. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development confirmed that such an assessment would be most appropriately carried out by the World Bank, who provided a US $5 million IDA loan for the establishment of the Africa Trade Insurance Agency (as IMPACT is also known) in 2001, and as such the initiative would be subject to EDA procedures for assessment and review.

  Waiapi Indians
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment her Department has made of the(a) impact on and (b) cost to UK companies of the 2002 judicial ruling to allow the Waiapi Indians of Amazonia to surface mine in their land; and if she will make a statement. [133641]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None, since no representations have been made to the Department on this issue.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Call Centre Work
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her Department plans to outsource call centre work to premises outside the United Kingdom. [132104]

  Alun Michael
  The Department has no plans to outsource call centre work to premises outside the UK, nor through OJEU procurement process at present.

  Chicken Farming
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what regulations govern the(a) quantity and (b) type of therapeutic and non-therapeutic drugs given to chickens; and if she will make a statement on their use. [134704]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The regulation of medicines given to chickens and all other animals. is governed by European legislation. Directive 2001 82 EC requires all veterinary medicines. including therapeutic antimicrobials, to be assessed against statutory criteria this context includes the health and the treated animal. the operator, the environment and the safety of consumers of any food products from the treated animals. All therapeutic antimicrobials are classified as Prescription Only
  565W
  Medicines (POM) and can be administered only on the basis of a prescription issued by a veterinary surgeon. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD), an executive agency of Defra, is responsible for the authorisation of therapeutic veterinary medicinal products in the UK.

  The authorisation and use of non-therapeutic products administered to farm animals in their feed is subject to controls set down by the European Union (Council Directive 70/524/EC as amended). Under these rules, such products cannot be authorised for use unless they satisfy statutory criteria designed to ensure that, at the level permitted in feedstuffs, they will not adversely affect human or animal health or the environment. Additionally, they may only be used in accordance with the terms set out in an annex to the Directive, which specifies the species in which they may be used, authorised dosage rates and the withdrawal periods that must be applied before animals can be slaughtered for human consumption. Non-therapeutic products administered to farm animals in their feed are authorised centrally in the EU.

  Flooding
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the threshold score will be for securing funding from her Department for sea defence and flood alleviation schemes in the next period for which a threshold is set. [136153]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 November 2003]: In general, in order to be approved for grant aid, proposed schemes must satisfy the Department's economic, environmental and technical criteria and achieve a minimum threshold priority score which is set annually at around this time for the following financial year. Changes to the threshold do not affect schemes which have already been approved.

  The threshold for projects to start in 2003–04 is 22 (out of a maximum possible score of 44). The Department is still analysing operating authority returns detailing their funding requirements for 2004–05 but I hope to be in a position to announce the threshold score for 2004–05 shortly.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the regulatory framework which will need to be put in place for the introduction of GM crops. [135760]

  Mr. Morley
  There is already a comprehensive regulatory framework for the control of GM crops, with several regulatory approvals being needed before a given crop could be introduced for commercial cultivation.

  Under European Directive 2001/18/EC each particular GM crop must be judged on its own merits according to scientific evidence of any risks it may pose to human health or the environment. A person or company wishing to market such a GM crop must supply a detailed dossier of information and a detailed environmental risk assessment on that GM crop. This
  566W
  information is open to scrutiny by all 15 member states and their expert advisers and the European Commission and its expert advisers, and an EU-wide public consultation must be held. No GM crop may be grown commercially unless and until EU member states have agreed collectively that it is safe.

  In addition, each GM crop will need approval under EU seeds legislation before it can be grown commercially. Also, any GM crop intended for use with a particular herbicide or pesticide will need approval under EU pesticides legislation. And any GM crop intended to be used as a food will need approval under EU novel foods legislation. Furthermore, from spring 2004 all GM crops and any products derived from them will become subject to comprehensive new EU GM traceability and labelling legislation, which significantly extends the provisions for traceability and labelling already required by Directive 2001/18.

  In addition to these regulatory frameworks we will be considering the terms on which GM and non-GM crops might co-exist in the light of a report on this issue expected shortly from the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what published research she has assessed on the(a) persistence and (b) invasiveness of (i) GM herbicide tolerant and (ii) other crops in disturbed habitats where herbicides and fertilisers are used; and what research she has commissioned on this subject. [136063]

  Mr. Morley
  When assessing the potential impact of the release of a GM crop in England the Department is advised by an independent statutory expert body, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE). In considering each case, ACRE will take account of all available relevant information on the implications of the proposed release.

  A large body of research has been published on the persistence and invasiveness of GM (and non-GM) crops and weeds in disturbed, improved and tilled land. This includes Government-commissioned work and work conducted independently of Government. 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. Section 6.2 of that report specifically refers to the potential persistence and invasiveness of GM crops. This report has been made available to ACRE.

  Details of all Defra-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. Several of these include a consideration of persistence and invasiveness, including:

  'Environmental Risks of Herbicide-Tolerant Oilseed Rape' (March 1999);

  'Investigation of Feral Oilseed Rape Populations' (February 1999);

  'Monitoring largescale releases of genetically modified crops, incorporating report on project EPG 1/5/30: monitoring releases of genetically modified crop plants' (December 2002);

  'Consequences for agriculture of the introduction of GM crops' (October 2003).
  567W
  A further project investigating aspects of persistence of oilseed rape is currently underway entitled 'Factors affecting cross-pollination in oilseed rape varieties, particularly of low male fertility, growing under typical UK conditions' and due to be completed in 2006.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research has been(a) commissioned and (b) published about the biochemical implications of introducing genes coding for enzymes under the control of host gene regulation systems; and what the implications are of this in respect of the host GM plant. [136169]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 November 2003]: The Department has not commissioned research into the biochemical implications of introducing genes coding for enzymes under the control of host regulatory elements because it is not relevant to the risk assessment of current GM crop releases. However, there has been a large volume of research commissioned elsewhere, which would inform decision making if this issue became relevant to proposed releases in the future.

  The biochemical implications of using regulatory elements will vary in each specific case, and where relevant, would be taken into account by our expert advisers alongside other factors. In general, the use of regulatory elements native to plants will result in lower levels of transgene expression than those derived from bacteria and viruses as used in current GM crops (e.g. 35S cauliflower mosaic virus promoter).

  There is a possibility that introducing copies of regulatory elements that are already present in the host plant could result in partial or complete silencing of native genes under the control of these elements. In recent years, there has been a substantial body of high quality research on 'gene silencing'. an issue which is addressed in Chapter 3 of the GM Science Review, published in July 2003 (http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/).

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research has been(a) commissioned and (b) published about the (i) behaviour and (ii) fate in the environment of toxins used in the production of GM insect resistant crops. [136190]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 November 2003]: In July 2001 the Department commissioned research into the "Environmental Impact of Bt Exudates from Roots of Genetically Modified Plants". We expect it to be published early in the new year on: he Defra website. Other publications regarding the issues on the behaviour and fate in the environment of toxins (13t) used in the production of GM insect resistant crops have been considered recently in the GM Science Review, which was published in July 2003. No GM insect resistant crops have been grown or trialed in the UK apart from two small scale research trials involving potato and strawberry plants in the raid-1990s.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the legal processes relating to the EU directive on the GM contamination threshold for conventional seeds. [135273]
  568W
  Mr. Morley
  The European Commission has decided that the appropriate mechanism for establishing statutory thresholds for the adventitious presence of approved GMOs in conventional seeds would be as follows:

  1. The thresholds would be set, by species, in the Regulatory Committee established under the Directive on the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs (2001/18/EC);

  2. These same thresholds would then be inserted into the seeds marketing Directives by agreement in the Standing Committee on Seeds.

  Fish Stocks (Irish Box)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many square miles of water off the Irish coast have been opened up to European fishing fleets as a result of removal of restrictions relating to the Irish box; and what steps are being taken to protect fish stocks in this area. [134836]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Irish Box, part of Western Waters, was established by Council Regulation (EC) No 685/95. It comprises the area to the west of Great Britain south of latitude 56 30° North, east of longitude12 West and north of latitude 50 30° North and includes some some sixty to sixty five thousand square miles of water in parts of ICES Sub Areas VI and VII. Effort ceilings for Community vessels over 18 metres operating in specified fisheries within Western Waters, including the constituent parts of the Irish Box, were subsequently set by Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/95. Under new measures agreed by the Council of Ministers on13 October 2003, to take effect no later than 1 August 2004, separate effort ceilings will no longer operate for the Irish Box other than for a smaller management area off the south west coast of Ireland designed to protect juvenile hake stocks. Future fishing effort by vessels over 15 metres in the Irish Box will fall to be contained within new effort ceilings to be established for the totality of Areas VI and VII on the basis of actual fishing effort in those areas between 1998 and 2002. In addition a statement added to the minutes of the 13 October Council states that in this and other areas where vessels have previously been excluded the Commission and Member States concerned shall carefully monitor fishing activities in order to ensure that such activities are consistent with the measures already in place for the conservation of fisheries resources.

  Live Sheep Exports
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many live sheep were exported from Dover to Europe on 18 September; when and where health certification was carried out in respect of the sheep; how many of the sheep were rejected as unfit for the intended journey(a) during inspection for health certification purposes and (b) at Dover docks, and to where those sheep were taken; and what the address was of the final destination given on the route plan for each of the consignments. [135179]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The information is requested is as follows:
  569W

  Date

  18 September 1993

  Total animals

  2,615

  Where consignments were certified

  England and Scotland

  Animals rejected at certification

  0

  Animals rejected at Dover docks

  0

  Destination

  France

  The sheep for the consignment above were certified within 24 hours prior to export. There were no rejected animals either during health certification or at Dover docks. The consignment was of sheep for further fattening which were transported to holdings in France.

  Livestock Markets
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with representatives from(a) the Meat and Livestock Commission, (b) local authorities and (c) the livestock industry about the (i) extent and (ii) impact of livestock market closures. [136192]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 3 November 2003]: In consultation with its stakeholders the Department keeps the network of livestock auction markets throughout the country under review. This includes the extent and impact of closures in view of the importance of these enterprises in the rural economy.

  Meat Inspections
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with(a) EU representatives, (b) the Food Standards Agency and (c) the Scottish Executive on the impact of proposals on animal welfare from the European Commission to replace independent meat inspection with inspection by the meat industry. [133120]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Defra officials continue to liaise with the European Commission, other Government Departments and the Devolved Administrations on issues relating to primary production and animal welfare and the proposed Food Hygiene Regulations.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to receive the detailed proposals for better controls on intermediate level radioactive waste conditioning and storage as reported in the Government's First Progress Report to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on Managing Radioactive Waste Safely. [134075]

  Mr. Morley
  Advice from the regulators is expected shortly.

  Restaurants (Local Produce)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps are being taken to encourage restaurants to use local produce. [133895]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: As part of the Department's Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food, we have agreed a programme of
  570W
  measures aimed at helping find new outlets (including restaurants) for locally produced food and drink. Implementation of the programme is being led by Food from Britain in England with the help of additional funding from this Department and includes:
  regional food exhibitions and meet the buyer events with the specific objective of targeting caterers and chefs;
  organising a series of seminars this year aimed at raising the profile of locally produced food and drink with catering college students;
  producing, with "Visit Britain", an in-depth trade guide aimed at helping producers understand the opportunities presented by the public's growing enthusiasm for locally produced food and drink when eating out; and
  supporting a new guide, to be launched later this year, which highlights those restaurants and hotels providing the best locally produced food and drink.

  US Ships (Disposal)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with her US counterpart about importation for dismantling purposes of the ships from the US Reserve Fleet which have set sail for the United Kingdom. [133290]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 October 2003]: None. However, there is on-going contact between officials in the relevant regulatory authorities, both here and in the US, and they are working to ensure that potential risks to the environment, during the transport and recycling phases, are thoroughly assessed.

  Wild Birds
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made in increasing the number of(a) finches, (b)) tits and (c) buntings in the wild. [132207]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Marsh tit, Willow tit, Linnet, Bullfinch, Yellowhammer, Cirl bunting, Reed bunting and Corn bunting are red-listed in the 2002 birds of conservation concern listings. The Lesser redpoll is amber listed. The Long tailed tit, Coal tit, Blue tit, Great tit, Chaffinch, Greenfinch, Goldfinch are green listed. The colour listing relates to their conservation status, with red representing the steepest decline in numbers. (Gregory et al. 2002:British Birds 1995).

  The National Woodland Bird Survey gathers information about the probable causes of change in woodland bird populations and is the first step in identifying possible new approaches to management of woodlands for songbirds; it was initiated in spring 2003 and is organised by the British Trust for Ornithology and the RSPB and funded by Governmental and non governmental bodies. To date, no general national management scheme has been initiated to recover woodland bird populations, although some local management changes brought about through managing both national forests and designated sites may have benefited woodland species. Recent increases in some woodland species are likely to be due to largely natural factors.

  As part of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, species action plans for the conservation and enhancement of the cirl bunting, corn bunting, reed bunting and

  571W
  bullfinch were published in 1998. Implementation of the plans is being taken forward through partnerships including government, the agencies and NGOs. The plans identify a wide variety of measures that are being pursued to help improve the status of the species.

  Some of the work has been very specific, for example for the cirl bunting there have been special management options made available to farmers. For some of the other species, in addition to some specific measures. general changes to agri-environment schemes to benefit farmland birds have been put in place.

  The yellowhammer is a new addition to the birds of conservation concern red-list and as such does not have a formal Species Action Plan. It is, however, one of the core 20 farmland bird species that are included in the government's Farmland Bird Indicator and as such will benefit from actions being taken to improve general farmland habitat management. Defra has recently piloted a new Entry Level agri-environment scheme in England which relies on much simpler management options to benefit widespread farmland habitats—the advantage with this, if it is implemented, will be that it could cover a much greater area of farmland than under current schemes and so ultimately have much greater benefits for farmland birds.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Iraq
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Solicitor-General whether, in concluding that Iraq had failed to comply with UN Resolution 1441, the Attorney-General relied upon facts and assertions contained in Cm 5769 as material to his conclusion and to the opinion he gave as to the authority to use force; and which such facts and assertions were so relied upon. [135602]

  The Solicitor-General
  In reaching his view of the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq, as set out in the written statement made in Parliament on 17 March 2003, the Attorney-General had regard to the terms of all the Security Council resolutions set out in Cm 5769. In addition, in concluding that Iraq h ad failed to comply with its obligations under Security Council resolution 1441, the Attorney-General took into account the statements by the Executive Chairman of UMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA dated 27 January 2003 and 14 February 2003.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many staff in the Department were on long-term sick leave in each of the last five years. [109262]

  The Solicitor-General
  [pursuant to her answer of 9 June 2003, Official Report, c. 574'W]: The figures I provided on the numbers of staff within the Crown
  572W
  Prosecution Service who have had periods of long-term sick leave in each of the last five years were unfortunately incorrect. "Long-Term" is defined as being a continuous spell of sick absences lasting four weeks or more. Further analysis of the data has revealed it included persons who had more than one period of sickness which cumulatively added up to 20 days or more. The corrected figures are:

  Number of people

  Total number of employees

  Percentage of employees

  1998

  312

  6,274

  5.0

  1999

  523

  6,360

  8.2

  2000

  650

  6,440

  10.1

  2001

  674

  6,613

  10.2

  2002

  698

  7,219

  9.7

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General pursuant to her answer of 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 574W, on sickness absence, what assessment she has made of the reasons for the rise in the level of long-term sick leave from the Crown Prosecution Service since 1998. [128545]

  The Solicitor-General
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer above. The Crown Prosecution Service has not carried out any detailed analysis of the reasons for the rise in the level of long-term sick absence since 1998. However, there continues to be a programme to reduce the overall level of sick absence in line with Government targets for the Civil Service as a whole. The Crown Prosecution Service is actively managing sick absence in line with the Cabinet office's initiative and the figures given in my answer above indicate a reduction in long-term sick absence from 2001 to 2002. The present figures for sick absence in the Crown Prosecution Service are broadly similar to Civil Service figures. The latest Cabinet Office figures show 9.7 per cent. of Civil Service staff had periods of absences lasting 21 days or more.

WALES

  Departmental Expenditure (Official Residences)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [134699]

  Mr. Touhig
  The Wales Office was established in 1999. It is not responsible for maintenance, renovation, council tax or running costs of any residential properties.

  Departmental Offices
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many offices are(a) owned and (b) rented by his Department in countries other than the UK, broken down by country. [133622]

  Mr. Touhig
  The Wales Office does not own or rent any accommodation outside the UK.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Alcohol Misuse
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his Answer of 15 July 2003,Official Report, column 221W, on alcoholism, when the report on the cross-governmental alcohol harm reduction strategy for England will be published. [135517]

  Ms Blears
  On 19 September the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit published their Interim Analytical Report on the harms associated with alcohol misuse. This will help inform the development of the cross-governmental alcohol harm reduction strategy for England. The final report setting out the Strategy will be published in time for implementation to begin in 2004.

  Administrative Court
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases are waiting to be dealt with by the Administrative Court which relate to section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. [135454]

  Mr. Lammy
  I have been asked to reply. 882 cases are awaiting final determination.

  National Criminal Intelligence Service
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff of the National Criminal Intelligence Service have the monitoring of allegations of bribery of foreign public officials as part of their job description; what percentage of time they are recommended as part of their job description to give to such monitoring; and in which department of NCIS they are based. [134677]

  Caroline Flint
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 27 October 2003,Official Report, column 115W.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many allegations of corruption the National Criminal Intelligence Service has received since(a) 14 February 2002 and (b) January 2003 following the Memorandum of Understanding on Implementing Part 12 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001; how many of these allegations have resulted in investigations; and what subsequent arrests have been made under Part 12 of the Act. [134676]

  Caroline Flint
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 27 October 2003,Official Report, column 115W.

  Breast Cancer Relief
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps the Charity Commission has taken to ensure that internet donations to Breast Cancer Relief are not misapplied; [135432]

  (2) what assessment the Charity Commission has made of the role of Breacan Fundraising as owner of the website operated for Breast Cancer Relief; [135352]
  574W
  (3) what assessment the Charity Commission has made of the volume of donations made to Breast Cancer Relief via its website since the charity was placed in the control of a receiver manager; [135353]

  (4) what action the Charity Commission took, and when, to alert WorldPay to the appointment of a receiver manager for Breast Cancer Relief. [135356]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  These are matters for the Charity Commission as the non-ministerial Government Department responsible for the registration of charities in England and Wales. The Director of Operations will write to the hon. Member and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Community Support Officers
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Community Support Officers are deployed in each local authority area in Sussex. [135171]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 28 October 2003]In total 65 Community Support Officers (CSOs) have been
  deployed in Sussex. Of these, 55 are wholly or partly funded by the Home Office. 10 of the 20 CSOs deployed in Brighton and Hove are wholly locally funded. The table gives a breakdown of CSO deployment by local authority.

  Local authority

  Number of CSOs

  Adur

  3

  Arun

  5

  Chichester

  3

  Worthing

  4

  Rother

  3

  Hastings

  6

  Lewes

  4

  Wealden

  2

  Eastbourne

  5

  Brighton and Hove

  20

  Horsham

  3

  Crawley

  4

  Mid Sussex

  3

  Total

  65

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Walsall, North (1) will receive a reply to his letter of 24 July 2003 regarding a constituent, ref: M3906/3; [128955]

  (2) will receive a reply to his letter of 24 July regarding pay negotiations in the Probation Service, reference: M3906/3; and what the reasons are for the delay. [132830]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answers 11 September 2003 and 20 October 2003]. The information requested is as follows:

  We have received numerous letters from Members of Parliament and their constituents, querying the delay in the settlement of this year's pay negotiations for the National Probation Service.

  I have replied to my hon. Friend on 4 November 2003 and I apologise for this unacceptable delay.
  575W
  A pay offer was made to the Trade Unions on 22 July and has been accepted following ballots of members.

  Crime (North-West)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the recorded crime figures were for the north-west in each year since 1992. [134899]

  Ms Blears
  The requested information is given in the table. The north-west region is comprised of the following police force areas: Cheshire, Cumbria, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Merseyside.

  Total number of crimes recorded by the police for the north west region

  Number

  1992

  801,832

  1993

  765,664

  1994

  719,653

  1995

  720,732

  1996

  702,372

  1997

  649,310

  1998–99

  726,730

  1999–2000

  736,381

  2000–01

  720,055

  2001–02

  777,809

  2002–03

  795,024

  Note:

  Up to 1997, offences were recorded on a calendar year basis, and on a financial year basis thereafter.

  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 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. Cheshire and Merseyside police forces introduced the Standard in April 2002, Greater Manchester in January 2002, Cumbria in April 2001, and Lancashire in August 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 are not comparable with previous years.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [123076]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Information on the costs of categories(a) ministerial cars and drivers and (f) chartered planes, in respect of ministerial travel, is being provided centrally by the Cabinet Office in a parallel question.

  With regard to the departmental cost of taxi, train and air travel since 1997, the detailed information requested is not held centrally within the Home Office and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. All official travel undertaken by Home Office employees is in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Service
  576W
  Management Code. All ministerial travel is undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the "Ministerial Code" and "Travel by Ministers".

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) foreign and (b) UK visits he has made since 1 April; with the cost to public funds of each; whom he met; and the gifts received. [126899]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Government publishes an annual list of gifts received by Ministers valued at more than £140. The information for 2003–04 will be published after the end of the financial year.

  The Government also publishes on an annual basis the cost and details of all Ministers' visits overseas. The information for 2003–04 will be published after the end of the financial year.

  Detailed information for all Ministers in respect of UK travel is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. All travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are in the Library.

  Entitlement Cards
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) of 7 April 2003,Official Report, column 36W, on entitlement cards, when the summary of responses to the consultation on entitlement cards will be published. [133969]

  Beverley Hughes
  We would prefer to publish the summary of responses to the consultation alongside an announcement of how the Government intends to proceed. This is currently being considered by Ministers.

  Ministerial Allowances
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is a ministerial allowance for mobile phone costs. [135785]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  There is no ministerial allowance for mobile phone costs. Ministers have access to mobile phones for ministerial duties should they require them.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the financial allowances that Home Office Ministers are allotted; and how much each Home Office Minister has spent of their allowance so far this financial year. [135918]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Ministers are not allotted financial allowances.

  People Trafficking
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the number of(a) women and (b) children being trafficked into (i) the UK and (ii) Leicestershire through the illegal sex industry in the last 24 months. [134354]

  Caroline Flint
  The nature of trafficking means that it is a hidden crime. The only available estimates of the levels of trafficking are based on a Home Office research
  577W
  study 'Stopping Traffic' (Police Research Series 125, published in 2000), which indicated that there was intelligence to suggest that some women and children are trafficked into the UK for the purposes of sexual exploitation. This was estimated at between 140 and 1,400 per year but it was impossible to make a more accurate assessment of numbers. The report concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that this was on a large scale compared with other European countries.

  However, the very nature of the crime demands that it is treated very seriously, which is why the Government have introduced criminal sanctions covering traffickers and has tasked the Reflex group with coordinating the response to this problem. Leicestershire Constabulary are engaged with Reflex in building up intelligence and multi-agency working to tackle trafficking at a regional and national level. Reflex is sponsoring a major Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) conference on 13 November on this issue.

  The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act received Royal Assent in November last year, and sections 145 and 146 of it came into force on 10 February 2003. Data on numbers of prosecutions under these sections will be collected in the usual way and published in Home Office Criminal Statistics. Given that the powers came into effect recently there is not any information yet held centrally about numbers of prosecutions.

  Local Policing (New Earswick)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the experiment in local policing at New Earswick; and if he will make a statement. [135336]

  Ms Blears
  Any assessment of the local policing experiment in New Earswick is for the Chief Constable of North Yorkshire to make. Nonetheless, the Government encourages the principle of local people's involvement and participation in delivering police services for their communities.

  The Government published on 4 November a consultation document on police reform, which seeks views on involving communities in shaping and delivering their policing services.

  Police Force (Racial Discrimination)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take in relation to racial discrimination in the police force. [135384]

  Ms Blears
  I am committed to driving out racist attitudes wherever they are found. We are engaged with the leadership of the Police Service in addressing diversity and racism in recruitment, training and development and in the conduct of officers and staff. I welcome the service's determination to confront racism, as evidenced by Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO's) seven point programme. I welcome too the Commission for Racial Equality's investigation announced on 30 October and their wish to work consultatively with Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
  578W
  We have developed new selection processes which test candidates' attitudes towards race and diversity vigorously through interviews, role play and written assessment. These processes are already in place in 13 forces and will be implemented in the remainder of the service by summer 2004. Those candidates who do not meet the standard are not recruited, regardless of performance elsewhere in the assessments.

  Fundamental changes to the way in which probationer constables are trained are under way. The focus will be in delivery of practice-based training within the local community rather than in residential police training centres. This new approach is already being piloted in several areas of the country. A new curriculum is being designed which will reinforce high professional standards and respect for race and diversity. Engagement with the community will be a key element in the new programme. The training of trainers and tutor constables in race and diversity awareness will also be addressed. The new programme will start to be trialled from April 2004.

  A review of the delivery of Community and Race Relations training in the Police Service was published by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary in March 2003 and the recommendations of that report are being taken forward. The strategy for the next phase of the training will call for leadership at all levels to drive cultural change.

  There are procedures under the Police Act 1996 and the Police (Misconduct) Regulations 1999 to deal with conduct which falls below the required standard. These procedures can be invoked by way of a complaint from a member of the public or a report or allegation from any other person. This includes any complaint or allegation of racial discrimination or attitudes. The Police Reform Act 2002 introduces a new complaints system to come into force on 1 April 2004, under which serious racial discrimination is a category of a complaint that must be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which will decide how such a complaint will be dealt with.

  It is important that attitudes within the service change and that staff themselves are confident to bring forward evidence of racism. I do not wish to rely on revelations by the media but on proper investigation, analysis and decisive action by senior officers when they are made aware of such evidence.

  Police Pay
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the(a) hourly wage for a newly qualified police officer, (b) the average hourly wage for serving police officers and (c) the hourly wage of newly qualified police officers for overtime work are; and how much money was spent by police forces in employing police officers on overtime in each of the last three years. [135868]

  Ms Blears
  The information is as follows.

  (a) Police officers are not paid an hourly wage, instead they receive an annual salary. Upon completion of initial training, an officer will receive £21,462 per year.
  579W
  (b) Figures are not available for the average hourly wage for serving police officers. The average length of service for constables is 11 years. A constable with 11 years service receives £29,589 per year.

  The figures do not include any regional allowances which may be payable.

  (c) Overtime is payable at the rate of one twenty-fourth of a day's pay for each completed period of 15 minutes of overtime worked.

  Figures for the amount spent on overtime in the police service are currently only available centrally for 2001–02 with a total United Kingdom spend of £400,392,000. This was made up of £319,620,000 for England and Wales, £26,097,000 for Scotland and £54,675,000 for Northern Ireland.

  Details of overtime payments for other years have not been aggregated.

  Prison Population
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his most recent estimates are of the(a) uncrowded and (b) maximum capacity of prisons in England and Wales and of the average daily prison population for each of the next five years. [131652]

  Paul Goggins
  As at 17 October 2003, the certified normal accommodation (uncrowded) for the prison estate in England and Wales was 66,738 and the useable operational capacity was 74,775. Average projections for the next five years are set out in the following table.

  Average daily figures for prison population projections are not available.

  Capacity projections forecast 2003–08

  Uncrowded

  Usable operational capacity

  2003

  65,900

  74,200

  2004

  67,500

  75,800

  2005

  69,800

  78,200

  2006

  70,400

  78,750

  2007

  70,400

  78,700

  2008

  70,400

  78,700

  Proceeds of Crime Act
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the value of criminal funds seized since the introduction of the Proceeds of Crime Act has been in(a) the Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) the North East and (d) the UK. [133220]

  Caroline Flint
  Information is available for the United Kingdom only.

  The confiscation powers in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 are triggered by offences committed after the provisions were brought into force on 24 March 2003, so it will be some time before cases are dealt with by the Crown Court in numbers. As of 16 October, nine confiscation orders with a total value of £89,000 had been made against convicted offenders in England and Wales; these orders have yet to be enforced. No confiscation orders under the new legislation have been made in Scotland. The total amount of cash seized by police and customs officers under new powers in the Act
  580W
  which came into effect on 30 December 2002 is £41 million in England, Wales and Scotland. In addition, the Assets Recovery Agency has obtained freezing orders on assets with a total value of over £10 million on 16 cases which are under investigation under the new powers in the Act for civil recovery of criminal assets.

  Road Deaths
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deaths there have been because of(a) dangerous driving, (b) driving under the influence of illegal drugs and (c) driving under the influence of alcohol in (i) Southend-on-Sea and (ii) Essex in each year since 2001. [132757]

  Caroline Flint
  The requested information has not been published and is therefore not available centrally. Recorded crime figures for Southend are collected at Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP), and Basic Command Unit (BCD) level. At CDRP and BCD level, figures are published for six key offences only, which are violence against the person, sexual offences, robbery, burglary in a dwelling, theft of a motor vehicle, and theft from a vehicle.

  Sani Abacha
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons he has not responded to requests for documentation sought by the Nigerian Government in connection with funds believed to have been stolen from the country by the late Sani Abacha; and what steps the Government are taking to assist Nigeria in repatriating these funds. [131987]

  Caroline Flint
  We are still awaiting receipt of information from the Federal Government of Nigeria, requested a year ago that will permit me to make a fully informed decision on transmission of the requested evidence to them. There are court orders that have been issued in Nigeria, which have the apparent effect of precluding the Nigerian authorities from pursuing the mutual legal assistance requests it has issued. We are awaiting confirmation from the Federal Government of Nigeria that those court orders have been lifted or overturned on appeal by them. The Federal Government of Nigeria has confirmed through their solicitors in the United Kingdom that although they contest the validity of those judgments, they would comply with them so long as they remained in force.

  In the light of a previous judicial review, it has been made clear that to attempt to transmit the evidence when such court orders were apparently outstanding would leave my discretionary decision liable to being overturned on judicial review. Equally, it would serve no purpose to transmit evidence to Federal Government of Nigeria that they may not be able to use in their criminal proceedings. We prefer to await the outcome of those proceedings before transmitting the requested evidence. We are also not in a position to repatriate any funds that may be in the United Kingdom until the outstanding matters have been addressed by them. We have not been asked to enforce Nigerian confiscation orders in this case.

  Stop and Search (London)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many stop and searches have been carried out during each of the last three years under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in London; what the charges of those arrested were; and how many have resulted in successful prosecutions. [135165]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Figures on stops and searches under section 44(1) and section 44(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000 are published annually in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin. The latest published figures are for the financial year 2001–02 and show that in the Metropolitan police district, 3,598 stops and searches were carried out under section 44(1) resulting in 63 arrests. 473 stops and searches were carried out under section 44(2), resulting in 11 arrests.

  For the same period in the City of London police district, 3,409 stops and searches were carried out under Section 44(1) resulting in 92 arrests. 86 stops and searches were carried out under section 44(2), resulting in 8 arrests.

  Figures for 2002–03 are due to be published later this year. Figures for 2003–2004 will be published when the relevant data has been collated and verified.

  The data collected on stops and searches made under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is not automatically cross-referenced with subsequent charges or prosecutions, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to combat youth offending; and if he will make a statement. [132938]

  Ms Blears
  On 8 September we published "Youth Justice—The Next Steps", consulting on how to take further our youth justice reform programme for England and Wales. A copy has been placed in the Library. The document sets out changes we would like to make over the next few years in the way young offenders are dealt with. It includes proposals to:

  Strengthen parenting interventions

  Improve understanding of trials and trial preparation

  Manage juvenile remandees better in the community

  Establish a simpler sentencing structure with more flexible interventions

  Provide intensive supervision and surveillance as the main response to repeat and serious offending while still having custody available

  Introduce a more graduated progression between secure, open and community facilities

  Improve youth justice skills and organisation: and

  Invites views on how pre-court interventions can be developed further.

  Consultation ends on 1 December and we encourage anyone with an interest in these issues to let us have their views on whether the proposals represent the best way forward.
  582W
  These proposals complement the wide programme of work put forward in "Every Child Matters", published on the same date by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. This consults in particular on how to help children achieve their full potential and how to tackle the risks of adverse outcomes including offending which some face in their early lives. The paper consults on ways to strengthen the work of the services which deal with children.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police authority and (b) Crown Prosecution Service region fast tracking cases involved persistent youth offenders in the last year for which figures are available. [133053]

  Ms Blears
  Figures on the time taken from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders are collected by Criminal Justice Area. Nationally, the number of persistent young offender cases dealt with over the last year for which figures are available, was:

  Persistent young offender cases

  2002

  August

  2,065

  September

  2,041

  October

  2,341

  November

  2,120

  December

  1,675

  2003

  January

  2,316

  February

  2,164

  March

  2,123

  April

  2,144

  May

  2,109

  June

  2,111

  July

  2,503

  Total

  25,712

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to his answer of 24 June 2003,Official Report, column 707W, on asbestos, if he will list the buildings which have been identified as containing asbestos. [130950]

  Mr. Pearson
  Two schedules, one of which lists those buildings within the Northern Ireland Civil Service office estate that contain asbestos, and one of which lists the specialist buildings owned by NICS departments that contain asbestos, will be placed in the Library.

  Concessionary Fares
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland hold a Translink senior smart pass issued under the Northern Ireland Concessionary Fares scheme. [136139]

  Mr. Spellar
  Translink report that, up to 30 October 2003, 166,345 Senior smart passes have been issued under the Northern Ireland Concessionary Fares scheme.

  Driving Licences
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland hold a driving licence. [136137]

  Angela Smith
  Figures at 31 October 2003 show that 1,191,574 people in Northern Ireland hold a valid driving licence.

  Electoral Identity Cards
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been issued with an electoral identity card in each of the parliamentary constituencies. [136136]

  Mr. Spellar
  The number of cards issued at 31 October 2003 in each of the 18 Northern Ireland constituencies is as follows:

  Constituency

  Number of cards issued

  Foyle

  7,093

  East Londonderry

  4,338

  North Antrim

  5,091

  East Antrim

  3,299

  Mid-Ulster

  4,465

  West Tyrone

  5,376

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  5,380

  Upper Bann

  3,974

  Newry and Armagh

  4,038

  South Down

  4,326

  Lagan Valley

  4,208

  Strangford

  3,865

  South Antrim

  3,590

  North Down

  2,929

  Belfast, East

  3,700

  Belfast, South

  3,453

  Belfast, West

  6,339

  Belfast, North

  5,789

  Total

  81,253

  Passports
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland hold(a) a British and (b) an Irish passport. [136138]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has advised me that records are not kept on the numbers of British passports issued in a particular region of the United Kingdom.

  Irish passports are the responsibility of the Irish Government.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Adult and Community Learning Fund
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the future of the Adult and Community Learning Fund. [134979]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I have decided to transfer the available budget to the Learning and Skills Council from April 2004. The money will be used to support the LSC's Widening Participation Strategy, meet our Skills 584W
  Strategy commitment to build on the experience of the ACLF, and complement the LSC's strategy for working with the voluntary and community sectors. The decision has the support of NIACE and the LSC.

  Asian Language Teaching
  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to include Asian languages as part of modern language education at primary level. [132726]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The National Languages Strategy, "Languages for All: Languages for Life", published in December 2002, sets out the Government's commitment that all pupils throughout Key Stage 2 will have the entitlement to learn a language at least in part in class time by the end of this decade. That entitlement must comprise one of the working languages of the European Union. Schools are able to take local decisions about which languages they will offer, and whether or not they wish to teach a community language alongside the teaching of a European language. If a school wishes to teach additional languages, including Asian languages, they are free to do so.

  By September 2005, specimen materials for three initial stages of the developing National Recognition System, which will endorse language competence, will be available in a number of languages including Urdu and Punjabi. By 2006, similar materials will also be available in Bengali, Gujarati and Hindi. All of these materials will support the initial stages of language learning, including learning undertaken by young people.

  Condover Hall School
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, (1) if he will make a statement on the range of disabilities of children at Condover Hall School; [135321]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the average funding per pupil at Condover Hall School in the last year for which figures are available;. [135322]

  (3) if he will publish the correspondence between his Department and the Royal National Institute for the Blind on the closure of Condover Hall School. [135287]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 30 October]We understand that Condover Hall School makes provision for pupils who are visually impaired with multiple and complex needs. Some children are non-ambulant. The School also makes specialist provision for deaf-blind pupils.

  As a non-maintained special school, local education authorities placing children at Condover Hall negotiate with the school about the fees to be paid for each child. Fee levels vary depending on the complexity of the child's needs and the type of placement, for example, day placement, weekly boarding, 38 week or in some cases 52 week boarding. Average funding per pupil varies between around £30,000 p.a. and £100,000 p.a. depending on the type of placement. In the current financial year Condover Hall received around £70,000 in grants from the Department for Education and Skills (DfES), designed to raise standards.
  585W
  My Department was formally notified by the RNIB about the proposed closure of Condover Hall in a letter dated 24 July this year. As my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards said in his reply to the hon. Gentleman's earlier questions about Condover Hall School, officials at the DfES have asked the RNIB to clarify its plans for the closure of Condover Hall, and in particular to explain how the RNIB intends to ensure that appropriate and realistic plans for the placement of children currently attending the school are in place. They are currently awaiting a response. Copies of the relevant correspondence have been forwarded to the hon. Member.

  Education (16-year-olds)
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of 16-year-olds stayed in full-time education and training in Stoke-on-Trent local education authority in each year since 1997. [135479]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The percentage of 16-year-olds participating in full-time education, and in education and training in Stoke-on-Trent local education authority for end 1997 to end 2000, the latest available year, are shown in the table.

  Participation in education and training by 16-year-olds in Stoke-on-Trent LEA

  End 1997

  End 1998

  End 1999

  End 2000

  Full-time education1

  49

  52

  58

  60

  Education and training

  2n/a

  68

  73

  78

  1 Includes participation in full-time education, part-time education and government supported training.

  2 Education and training figures by LEA were first published for 1998.

  Note:

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

  Source:

  DfES Statistical Bulletin. published 16 December 2002.

  Participation rates by LEA for 16-year-olds are published in an annual statistical bulletin, 'Participation in Education and Training by Young People Aged 16 and 17 in Each Local Area and Region, England'.

  Educational Maintenance Allowance
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he decided to set the maximum educational maintenance allowance at £30 per week; and if he will make a statement. [134257]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Decisions about the various elements of the national scheme were taken in June 2003, including the maximum weekly payment. This has drawn on evidence from the pilot scheme. This information was then disseminated to local partners and schools and colleges in the form of a general leaflet; copies of this were also placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will estimate the cost of the national introduction of educational maintenance allowances in(a) 2004–05, (b) 2005–06 and (c) 2006–07 if the upper limit is set at (i) £30 per week and (ii) £40 per week. [134258]
  586W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The EMA pilot has been extensively evaluated, including those variants testing different maximum payment-3. We have drawn from the evidence to develop what I believe will be the most effective model for the national EMA scheme. Evidence indicated that an upper limit of £40 per week was no more effective at increasing participation than the maximum of £30 per week. We have, however, been able to raise the lower threshold for receiving the maximum payment to £19,000 compared to £13,000 in the pilot scheme.

  The estimated cost of the scheme for each of the three years is:

  Cost (£ million)

  Estimated number of young people on EMA

  2004–05

  238

  274,000

  2005–06

  374

  390,000

  2006–07

  462

  439,000

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he is planning to promote the take-up of educational maintenance allowances; and if he will make a statement. [134259]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Plans to promote the take up of the national EMA scheme focus on three main phases of promotional activity, which are:

  February 2004—a helpline opens for young people and their parents, along with an interactive website and a main promotion launch.

  April/May 2004—second phase of the main promotional activity to raise awareness to coincide with the application packs being made available from April.

  August/September 2004—third phase of main promotional activity to coincide with GCSE results and enrolment in further education.

  Some promotional activity is already under way to raise awareness in the form of: a general EMA leaflet for local partners and schools and colleges, a leaflet specifically for young people, information in careers materials and a series of regional conferences.

  Financial Literacy
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he will take to increase the level of financial literacy. [135757]

  Mr. Miliband
  Some aspects of financial literacy are covered within the new Citizenship curriculum, which is already compulsory in secondary schools. For example, 14 to 16-year-old pupils should be taught about how the economy functions, including the role of business and financial services. The non-statutory framework for Personal, Social and Health Education, provides for personal finance education to be taught to all age groups, allowing teachers to cover the wide range of topics as set out in the Department's "Financial Capability through Personal Financial Education" guidance for schools.
  587W
  From 2005/6 a new £60 million Enterprise Education entitlement will provide all Key Stage 4 pupils with the equivalent of five days' enterprise activity which will develop enterprise capability—including personal financial capability as well as business understanding. 151 Pathfinder projects in nearly 400 secondary schools were approved for September 2003 start. They will help DfES to develop additional guidance including case studies and lesson plans related to financial literacy, including advice from the Financial Services Authority and financial institutions.

  Free School Milk
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what measures he will take with local authorities to ensure that all children under the age of 11 receive free school milk; [136069]

  (2) what measures he will take to encourage education authorities to use the EU subsidy for provision of school milk; [136070]

  (3) what financial support he will give to (a) education authorities and (b) schools to provide free school milk for all those aged 11 and under; [136071]

  (4) what discussions he has had with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs regarding (a) the provision of free school milk and (b) the provision of free school milk to all those aged 11 and under. [136102]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  This Department supports the provision of free and paid for milk in maintained schools and encourages schools and local education authorities to offer it to pupils. In addition, our guidance on school lunches includes a strong recommendation that drinking milk is made available to all pupils as an option every day. Following a 20 per cent. reduction in the EU subsidy on school milk from January 2001, this Department agreed jointly with the Department of Health and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to top up the annual £1.5 million shortfall. This assistance helps prevent increases in the cost of providing school milk.

  Key Stage 3 Strategy
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what evaluation of the Key Stage 3 strategy has taken place that compares schools in the original pilot with a similar range of schools outside the pilot; and what the result was. [136305]

  Mr. Miliband
  Final school-level Key Stage 3 data will become available later this year when school performance tables are published. We will then be undertaking an analysis comparing the performance of schools which participated in the Key Stage 3 pilots and other schools in similar circumstances. I will write to the hon. Member to inform him of the outcome of this analysis in the New Year.

  Local Education Authority Expenditure
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average(a) primary and (b) secondary formula spending share per pupil will be in each local education authority in England and Wales for (i) 2004–05 and (ii) subsequent years. [136167]

  Mr. Miliband
  Figures for 2004–05 will not be available until we have announced the provisional Local Government Finance Settlement in mid-November: figures for future years will become available at the time of the Settlement for each year. The system in Wales is different and is the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will answer the questions, references(a) 129889 and (b) 129891, tabled by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham on 10 September 2003. [135964]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education on 3 November 2003,Official Report, columns 449W and 455W.

  School Funding
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average per pupil funding for(a) primary, (b) secondary and (c) special schools was in each Excellence in Cities area for (i) 2002–03 and (ii) 2003–04. [133604]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 21 October 2003]The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) whether his pledge of increased school funding is related to a baseline that involves excluding(a) capital funding used for revenue purposes, (b) balances used to permit higher revenue spending, (c) staff reductions, redundancies or non-appointments made to reduce revenue spending and (d) funding incorporated into school mainstream budgets in 2002–03 that in previous years was made by way of special grants; [136301]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the base used to calculate each school's 4 per cent. increase in funding. [136302]

  Mr. Miliband
  The proposed baseline for the per pupil minimum funding guarantee is an adjusted version of a school's budget share for the financial year 2003–04. It therefore does not include any reference to capital funding used for revenue, spend from school balances, the effect of staffing changes, or additions to 2002–03 budgets. The adjustments to the 2003–04 budget shares would have the effect of adding to the baseline any sums
  589W
  made available from Additional Budget Support Grant, whether within a redetermined budget share or allocated separately; and excluding the following items: rates; amounts for named pupils, including those for special educational needs; prior year adjustments and sixth form funding from the Learning and Skills Council.

  School Meals
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what systems are in place to ensure that compulsory nutrition standards for school lunches are maintained. [133909]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  It is the responsibility of the local education authority or, where the budget for school meals has been delegated to them, a school's governing body, to ensure that the statutory nutritional standards for school lunches are met. The Department for Education and Skills, in partnership with the Food Standards Agency, have commissioned research by Kings College London to assess whether food provided for and consumed during school lunches in a sample of maintained secondary schools in England complies with statutory nutritional standards and associated guidance. We expect that the findings of this survey will be available in spring 2004.

  Specialist Schools
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the performance of(a) specialist schools and (b) specialist schools in Redcar and Cleveland borough, in achieving 5A*-C grades at GCSE compared to the national average; and if he will make a statement. [135903]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 3 November 2003]56.1 per cent. of 15-year-olds in specialist schools1 gained 5 or more A*-C grades at GCSE/GNVQ in 2003, based on provisional data. For non-specialist2 schools, the figure was 48.7 per cent. The national average was 52.6 per cent.

  This supports our view that every secondary school should be given the opportunity to attain specialist status when it is ready to do so. The breakdown of data for specialist schools in Redcar and Cleveland is not yet available. GCSE/GNVQ Performance Table data will be published in January 2004.

  1Specialist schools cover the 979 maintained, mainstream schools which were operational specialists as at September 2002, with 2003 GCSE/GNVQ results.

  2 Non-specialist schools cover maintained, mainstream schools with 2003 GCSE/GNVQ results.

  Source:

  SFR 29/2003, October 8th 2003: GCSE/GNVQ Examination Results for Young People in England, 2002/2003 (Provisional), Tables 1 and 2. http://www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/ s000419/index.shtml

  Student Income
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average gross income of students was in the last 12 months, broken down by income quintile. [135358]
  590W
  Alan Johnson
  The Department has conducted a Student Income and Expenditure Survey (SIES) for the 2002/03 academic year. It will provide up-to-date information on students' income in the 2002/03 academic year for full-time, young, single, childless, English and Welsh domiciled students who are undertaking an undergraduate degree at publicly funded Higher Education Institutions in England and Wales in 2002/03.

  The Department will announce a date for publication once a finalised report has been agreed with the researcher. Once published, the Department will use the data for further analysis of students' income.

  Teachers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many newly-qualified teachers have failed to start an induction year four terms after starting daily supply work since the regulation was introduced; and who is responsible for enforcing this regulation. [136304]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not collect any data on the number of newly qualified teachers that fail to start an induction year four terms after starting daily supply work.

  It is the responsibility of the parties involved in the induction process—heads, governors and local education authorities, as well as the individual teachers themselves, to ensure that the regulations are observed.

  Transitional Grants
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which criteria for the newly announced transitional grants for low funded authorities Poole local education authority does not meet. [136490]

  Mr. Miliband
  In 2004–05, we are targeting transitional grant at LEAs which have received increases of less than 12 per cent. in Education Formula Spending and DfES grant between 2002–03 and 2004–05. On provisional figures, Poole does not fall into that category. We will be announcing details of the calculations at the time of the provisional Local Government Finance Settlement in mid-November 2003.

  Truancy
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many officials in his Department have been employed on projects to reduce truancy in each year since 1997. [133698]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The number of officials working on the co-ordination and implementation of projects to reduce truancy and improve school attendance has varied between five in 1997 and 11 today.

  University Applications
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many applications there were for university places in England and Wales in each year since 1997. [130376]
  591W
  Alan Johnson
  The latest available information from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS), covering those applying for entry to full time undergraduate courses is shown in the table. Over the same period, the number of applicants from England and Wales who were accepted for entry increased by 9 per cent., and the latest figures published by UCAS for 2003 entry indicate that there will be a further rise this year

  Applications through UCAS to fill time undergraduate courses in institutions Number England and Welsh institutions

  Year of entry

  Number

  1997

  1,851,316

  1998

  1,803,032

  1999

  1,750,075

  2000

  1,723,836

  2001

  1,729,702

  2002

  1,739,875

  Note:

  Each applicant can make up to six applications in each cycle.

  Source:

  UCAS

HEALTH

  Hospital Acquired Infections
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health. what recent estimate he has made of the number of people who die from infections acquired in hospital. [135981]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Estimates of the number of deaths associated with these infections cannot be provided as certifying doctors may not have information on where an infection was acquired.

  Emergency Calls (East Sussex)
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what percentage of category A emergency calls were answered within eight minutes in East Sussex in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [135982]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Response times to life threatening calls have significantly improved across the country. Latest information for the year 2002–03 showed that the Sussex Ambulance NHS Trust responded to 72.4 per cent. of life threatening category A calls within eight minutes, compared with 61.3 per cent. in 2000–01.

  Foundation Hospitals
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many putative NHS foundation hospital trusts have published material seeking public support for foundation status; and how much was spent in each case. [135983]

  Mr. Hutton
  The 25 applicants in the first wave for NHS foundation trust status are all currently consulting with patients, the public, staff and partner organisations on their application. The costs associated with this consultation are not kept centrally.

  Phlebotomy Services
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what support his Department provides for phlebotomy services in general practice. [135984]

  Mr. Hutton
  Near-patient testing—including phlebotomy—in general practice depends on ensuring that there are enough doctors with the right support. We have just seen the biggest year-on-year increase in the number of GPs for 20 years, and they are supported by more practice nurses and other health care professionals than ever before.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make a statement on the number of care home beds available in counties south of the Thames. [135986]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The number of care home places in counties south of the Thames at 31 March 2001 was 141,365. This was the last year that the Department of Health collected the data. The National Care Standards Commission now has responsibility for collecting this data.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the average differential between the cost to local councils of running an old people's care home and the residential fee level for independent care homes, with special reference to Redcar and Cleveland. [134945]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Data on fees charged for independent care home places are not available centrally.

  For 2001–02 (the latest figures available), figures provided by councils suggest that the average gross weekly expenditure on supporting older people in council-run care homes in England was £446 and the corresponding expenditure on places in care homes in the independent sector was £286. Caution is needed in interpreting the difference between these figures. This is covered in "Personal Social Services Expenditure and unit costs: England 2001–2002", a copy of which is available in the Library. For example, the difference may in part reflect differences in the dependency of people cared for. Where council-run services are more expensive than those provided by the independent sector, councils need to demonstrate through best value reviews that those higher costs are justified.

  According to information reported to the Department by Redcar and Cleveland council, the current gross cost of providing a place in a council-run care home is £456 per week. The average cost for a place in a care home for older people in the independent sector is £292 per week.

  Care (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) residential care home and (b) nursing home places were available in (i) Lancashire and (ii) Chorley in each of the last five years, broken down by (A) local authority homes, (B) private sector homes and (C) charity and non-profit homes. [135804]
  593W
  Dr. Ladyman
  The table shows the number of care home places by type of accommodation available in Lancashire as at 31 March for the years 1998 to 2001. Data below local authority and health authority level is not available.

  Figures for later years have been collected by the National Care Standards Commission but comparable details broken down by authority are not available.

  Number of care home places in Lancashire1 by type of accommodation 31 March 1998 to 2001

  Rounded data

  Residential homes

  Nursing homes

  LA

  Private

  Voluntary

  Small2

  Independent

  1998

  2,850

  10,985

  1,080

  550

  7,555

  1999

  2,600

  11,140

  1,080

  570

  7,315

  2000

  2,550

  11,275

  1,045

  580

  6,930

  2001

  2,345

  11,065

  1,035

  590

  6,185

  1 For residential care Lancashire has been interpreted as Lancashire, Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool for 1999 onwards; for 1998 it covered Blackburn with Darwen and Blackpool. For nursing care it has been defined as South, East and Northwest Lancashire health authorities.

  2 Independent registered care homes with less than four places.

  Source:

  RA and RH(N) form A.

  Community Pharmacies
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps are being taken to enhance the contribution community pharmacies make to the provision of health care. [135987]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Community pharmacy is an integral part of the NHS. Our pharmacy programme, supported by a new contractual framework aimed to be in place next April, sets out a strong, ambitious role for community pharmacy in providing high quality health care services, reducing inequalities and improving access and choice for patients.

  NHS Treatment Entitlement
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions the NHS has in place to ensure that only those entitled to NHS treatment receive it. [135988]

  Mr. Hutton
  Entitlement to free national health service treatment is based on residence in the United Kingdom. The National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989 place a duty on NHS trusts to establish whether a patient is ordinarily resident or eligible for free NHS hospital treatment and if not to levy a charge for any treatment provided. The Government is consulting on proposals to strengthen the charging regulations.

  Men's Health
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress the Government has made in meeting targets set for men's health in the National Plan. [135989]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Work under way on the Department's priority areas, coronary heart disease and cancer—the major killers of men—is having the greatest 594W
  impact upon men's health. This includes initiatives to reduce smoking and improve diet and nutrition. Action to tackle drugs and alcohol misuse will also impact preferentially on men's health.

  New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton
  Mr. Dennis Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he proposes to visit New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton to inspect the premises. [135990]

  Dr. Ladyman
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has accepted an invitation to visit New Cross Hospital. The date has not yet been finalised.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of state for Health if he will make a statement on NHS dentistry provision in Leicestershire. [135991]

  Dr. Ladyman
  In common with a number of areas, the recruitment of NHS dentists is a challenge in the Leicestershire area. The Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland SHA is addressing access to NHS dentistry as a key priority. A number of options are being examined and these will be supported by funding which has been ring fenced with the aim of attracting more dentists to the area.

  "Forecasting the Nation's Health"
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the pilot of the "Forecasting the Nation's Health"; if he will list the trusts which participated in the pilot of the "Forecasting the Nation's Health"; and what plans he has to expand the pilots of the "Forecasting the Nation's Health" to further trusts. [133930]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To support national health service managers in anticipating circumstances of weather related high demand, the Met Office (in partnership with the Department of Health and NHS pilot sites) ran a weather forecast/health demand trial project, "Forecasting the Nation's Health", supported by Her Majesty's Treasury "Invest to Save" funding over the winters of 2001–02 and 2002–03. The aim was to provide NHS managers with advance warning of whether to expect increased or reduced emergency admissions and allow them to plan the use of resources more efficiently.

  This work was without precedent internationally. The trial project has been completed and two external evaluations examined the reliability and value of such workload forecasting for the NHS. NHS users have been closely involved in the evaluation. The following trusts participated in the pilot:

  595W

  Addenbrooke's

  Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals NHS Trust

  South Durham Healthcare NHS Trust

  The Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust

  Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull NHS Trust

  Central Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  City Hospital NHS Trust

  Ealing Hospital NHS Trust

  Good Hope Hospital NHS Trust

  Hinchingbrooke Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mid-Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust

  Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust

  Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust

  Oldham NHS Trust

  Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospital NHS Trust

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals NHS Trust

  Salford Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  Sheffield Teaching Hospital Trust

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust Stockport NHS Trust

  The Royal West Sussex NHS Trust

  The Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust

  Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust

  United Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust

  University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust

  Whipps Cross Hospital.

  The Department of Health is currently assessing the evaluations with particular interest in the reliability, accuracy and usability of the forecasts in order to make an informed decision about the future direction of support for health demand forecasting systems.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has made to the Chancellor for funds to be made available for the continuation of the piloting of the "Forecasting the Nation's Health". [133931]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To support national health service managers in anticipating circumstances of weather related high demand, the Met Office (in partnership with the Department of Health and NHS pilot sites) ran a weather forecast/health demand trial project, "Forecasting the Nation's Health", supported by Her Majesty's Treasury "Invest to Save" funding over the winters of 2001–02 and 2002–2003.

  The Department of Health is currently assessing the independent evaluations of this project before making a decision as to the future direction, support and funding of demand forecasting systems in the NHS. Any decisions about levels and sources of funding will depend on the outcome of this assessment.

  Alternative and Complementary Medicine
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will bring forward proposals on the statutory self-regulation of herbal medicine and acupuncture practitioners. [135972]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government welcomes the recent publication of the reports of the Herbal Medicine and Acupuncture Regulatory Working Groups. We will give careful consideration to the working groups' recommendations, prior to consulting on the statutory regulation of herbal medicine and acupuncture practitioners. A consultation document will be published early next year.

  Ashford (Middlesex) Hospital
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the staff in the new treatment centre it Ashford (Middlesex) hospital will be(a) additional staff and (b) staff transferring from the NHS. [130935]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 18 September 2003]: The exact position on staffing in this unit will be finalised as Dart of the final negotiations. It is expected that the professional staff will include additional staff provided Cry the independent sector provider and national health service staff working in the unit in an agreed and structured way.

  Mental Health (Deaf People Audiology
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps the Government are taking to make its suicide prevention strategy accessible to deaf people; [134941]

  (2) what measures he is taking to encourage the collection of information on suicides by deaf people at primary care trust level. [134942]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The suicide prevention strategy was launched in September 2002. The strategy is still available in hard copy and can also be accessed via the Department of Health and National Institute for Mental Health in England websites. The deaf community is able to request copies of the document through the Department of Health Publications Orderline on minicom.

  Primary care trusts (PCTs) are required to carry, out suicide audits as part of their performance review process, but this does not, however, require PCTs to collect data about deaf people as distinct from any other group.

  The development of mental health services for deaf people, "A Sign of the Times", was the subject of a separate extensive consultation, which concluded earlier this year. Officials are currently considering how to represent the many high quality responses received.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures the Government is taking to develop evidence-based service provision for the prevention of mental health problems in deaf people. [134943]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The evidence that we have indicates, as outlined in the consultation document Sign of the Times, that access to a full range of services,
  597W
  support to parents in the early years and appropriate educational provision are likely to be the important factors.

  The responsibility for assessing the needs of their entire populations, and for making the provision they consider most appropriate, lies with the primary care trusts.

  Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list each local network provider awarded a contract by the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, the areas they have been awarded contracts for, and their registered office address; how many patient forums they are responsible for; which aspects of the service they have sub-contracted; and to whom they have sub-contracted. [134066]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: A full list of local network providers, the area they cover and the patients' forums they support is available on the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health's (CPPIH's) website at www.cppih.org. A copy of the relevant information has been placed in the Library. Local network providers have to seek approval from the CPPIH to sub contract the services for which they have been contracted to provide. No such requests have been made.

  Data Protection
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued to(a) primary care trusts, (b) NHS trusts and (c) agencies of his Department on S.I., 2002, No. 2905, The Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) (Elected Representatives) Order 2002 and the involvement of hon. Members with cases; and if he will make a statement. [135261]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Guidance was issued to all primary care trusts, national health service trusts and agencies of the Department in July 2003 as part of the "Confidentiality: NHS Code of Practice". The guidance states the following in the case of disclosures of health data to hon. and right hon. Members."If an investigation is appropriately authorised, disclosure will meet tests of necessity and appropriateness. The minimum necessary information should be disclosed. There is a balance to be drawn between ensuring that a patient has understood and properly consented to a disclosure of information and needlessly obstructing an investigation. Careful consideration of any written authorisation and prompt action are key, e.g. where an MP states, in writing, that s/he has a patient's consent for disclosure this may be accepted without further resort to the patient."

  Plutonium Contamination
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent studies his Department has evaluated relating to the level of plutonium in the teeth of children(a) in the Sellafield area and (b) elsewhere in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [129247]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department of Health funded studies on the contamination of the population of the United Kingdom by environmental plutonium and other radionuclides in the late 1990s.
  598W
  The samples chosen for analysis were either teeth, removed for orthodontic purposes, or 24 hour urine samples. Teeth, mostly intact first pre-molars, were collected by district health authorities, batched into samples of 50 teeth. then analysed for plutonium-239 + 240 by alpha-spectrometry. Additional single teeth were analysed for their total alpha-activity by alpha-track counting with Tastrak 'R' and additional batches were analysed for radiostrontium. The results showed that the average concentrations of total alpha-emitters and radiostrontium were approximately three orders of magnitude greater than the equivalent concentrations of plutonium isotopes. Analysis indicated that the concentrations of plutonium, but not strontium-90 or total alpha-emitters decreased with increasing distance from the west Cumbrian coast and its Sellafield nuclear fuel reprocessing plant—suggesting that this plant is a source of plutonium contamination in the wider population of the British Isles. Nevertheless, the measured average absolute concentrations of plutonium-239 + 240 were so low that they are considered to present an insignificant radiological hazard. Moreover, additional analyses showed that the concentrations of other "high toxicity", natural alpha-emitting radionuclides (radium, thorium and uranium) were much higher than the levels of plutonium.

  Trainee Dentists
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to increase the number of dentists training in(a) the North West, (b) East Lancashire and (c) England. [135496]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We are currently undertaking the first review of the dental workforce since 1987 in consultation with the dental profession—professional bodies, dental academics, as well as the British Dental Association. We hope to publish the review by the end of this year. The findings of this review will enable us to consider both the number of dentists and the location of their training in England.

  Departmental Expenditure (Official Residences)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his 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. [134691]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department and its executive agencies have no residential properties on its estate.

  Insulin
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people in the UK use(a) animal insulin and (b) GM insulin for treatment of diabetes; [134781]

  (2) what the cost to the NHS of prescribing (a) animal insulin and (b) GM insulin for treatment of diabetes was in the last 12 months. [134783]
  599W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Data on the number of people using these insulins is not collected, However, the table shows the number of prescription items that were dispensed in the community in England, and their cost, in the twelve months ended June 2003.

  Number of prescription items and net ingredient cost of Insulins that were dispensed in the community in England for the twelve months ending June 2003

  Number of prescription items (Thousands)

  Net ingredient cost (£000s)

  Highly purified animal insulin

  128.1

  4,217.2

  Human sequence (GM Insulin)

  3,522.0

  150,528.8

  All Insulins

  3,650.0

  154,746.0

  Notes:

  The data is from the Prescription Cost Anallysis (PCA) system which covers all prescription items that are dispensed in the community in England. This does not include drugs dispensed in hospitals or private prescriptions.

  Insulins are those defined in the British National Formulary BNF) paragraph 6.1.1, "Insulins". Insulin drugs have been grouped into highly purified animal and human sequence (GM) insulin in line with the British National Formulary (BNF)

  Doctors write prescriptions on a prescription form. Each single item written on the form is counted as a prescription item. The net ingredient cost refers to the cost (which the dispenser is reimbursed) of the drug before discounts arid does not include any dispensing costs or fees.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people in the UK are known to be unable to use GM insulin for the treatment of diabetes; [134782]

  (2) how many users of GM insulins for treatment of Type 1 diabetes have been found dead attributable to dead in bed syndrome in each of the last 10 years; [134785]

  (3) what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) assessed regarding the (i) efficacy and (ii) side-effects of GM insulin against animal insulin on diabetes patients; [134788]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the side-effects of GM insulin on certain diabetes sufferers. [134802]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We have no estimate of the numbers of people with diabetes who are known to be unable to use genetically modified (human) insulin. Decisions on the most suitable type of insulin should be made by people with diabetes in consultation with their healthcare providers. The Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has kept the safety of human insulins under close review. The CSM concluded that, although some patients have experienced problems on transferring to human insulin and are better suited to animal derived insulins, there is no evidence of a safety concern specific to human insulin. The CSM Sub-Committee on Pharmacovigilance reviewed the issue again in September 2000, following the publication of a systematic review of the literature. 52 randomised controlled trials were identified, in addition to 56 studies of other designs and case reports. The Sub-Committee considered the paper and agreed with the conclusions of the authors that there is no evidence of a safety problem specific to human insulin. In 2002, the Cochrane Library published a review of human insulin versus animal insulin in people with diabetes mellitus. This review included randomised controlled trials of at least one 600W
  month in duration. No significant differences in metabolic control or hypoglycaemic episodes between various insulin species could be found. Data on the rare occurrence of dead in bed syndrome is not collected.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures the Government are taking to secure the continued availability of animal insulin to people who have shown a resistance to GM insulin for the treatment of diabetes; [134784]

  (2) what discussions he has had with his Danish counterparts about the continued supply of animal insulin; [134786]

  (3) from where the NHS sources (a) animal insulin and (b) GM insulin; [134787]

  (4) what discussions he has had with the Insulin Dependent Diabetes Trust about the continued supply of animal insulin to diabetes patients in the UK. [134801]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There are two companies supplying animal insulin in the United Kingdom; CP Pharmaceuticals and Novo Nordisk. Both companies have confirmed that they will continue to supply animal insulin for the foreseeable future. Officials are in regular contact with these companies. I have had no discussions with either the Insulin Dependent Diabetes Trust or my Danish counterparts on this subject.

  Diagnostic and Treatment Centres
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the organisations invited to run private diagnostic and treatment centres; in how many cases such an organisation, its associated companies, subsidiaries or directors(a) have been indicted for defrauding taxpayers, patients, staff or their national revenue service and (b) are being investigated for such offences; and if he will list the offences in each case. [130355]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 16 September 2003]: A list of bidders selected to run new treatment centres was announced on Friday 12 September.

  In line with major public procurements, Official Journal of the European Communities procurement rules have been adhered to. Regulation 14 of the Public Services Contracts Regulations 1993 specifies the criteria for rejecting bidders. All bidders were required to complete a pre-qualification questionnaire confirming that no bidder had among other matters been convicted of a criminal offence or committed a grave misconduct in the course of its business of not fulfilling obligations relating to payment of taxes. Each appointed preferred bidder has confirmed that that there are no grounds applicable pursuant to which they could be rejected under Regulation 14.

  Further, each preferred bidder has confirmed that there are no material nor employment related litigation or other legal proceedings relating to any of the projects that have undertaken which they relied on in their bid to demonstrate their experience of health care projects.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research informed the grouping of diagnostic and treatment centres into the chain which includes the proposed Ashford centre. [131503]
  601W
  Mr. Hutton
  In autumn 2002, the national health service undertook a national capacity planning process lead by local NHS commissioners. This identified a range of capacity gaps that needed to be met for the NHS to meet the waiting time target set for 2005. Where the NHS was not able to demonstrate plans to meet this demand the residual activity was market tested in December 2002 through an Official Journal of the European Communities (OJEC) advert. In light of the preliminary response, the chains were configured to link capacity gaps of similar activity and organised in a way that the market could provide a rapid response.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether privately run diagnostics and treatment centres will operate(a) in whole and (b) in part from NHS premises. [131906]

  Mr. Hutton
  A principal aim of the independent sector treatment centre programme is to make available to national health service commissioners additional capacity. Many of the units will either be new build or modular accommodation. In some cases, where local NHS commissioners have requested and where it tits within the local health economy, these units may use NHS accommodation for which they will pay the NHS rent.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether NHS premises will be used by private sector diagnostic and treatment centres. [131051]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 18 September 2003]: A principle aim of the independent sector treatment centre programme is to make available to national health service commissioners additional capacity. Many of the units will either be new buildings or modular accommodation (pre-built operating theatres or ward space). In some cases, local NHS commissioners will make available NHS accommodation that is not currently in use for these new units. In these cases the independent sector provider will pay rent to the NHS.

  Trainee Doctors
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors were in training on the latest date for which figures are available. [135968]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Ms Mountford) earlier today.

  Harefield Hospital
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of personnel working at Harefield Hospital, Middlesex, indicated in the latest staff survey a willingness to transfer to a new cardiothoracic hospital at Paddington Basin in central London. [134656]

  Mr. Hutton
  Staff retention and recruitment is a major priority in the planning process for the Paddington Health Campus. The most recent Harefield staff survey was conducted by the Royal Brompton and Harefield National Health Service Trust in February 2003. This is a trust document and a copy is available from them on request.

  Hospital Trusts (Performance Ratings)
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Commission for Health Improvement on the desirability of the Commission, when assessing the performance of hospital trusts, focusing on(a) outcome, (b) quality and (c) process. [133368]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Commission for Health Improvement has already introduced new performance indicators which reflect increasingly the outcomes and quality of treatment patients receive, as well as good processes. The Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection will, subject to parliamentary approval, take over from April 2004 responsibility for performance ratings and, in consultation with the national health service and the Department of Health, develop the assessment process further.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Commission for Health Improvement concerning its commitment to reassess the way in which the Commission assesses the performance of hospital trusts. [133404]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) inherited and further developed a robust methodology for producing performance ratings. The Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (CHAT), subject to parliamentary approval, will take over responsibility for the ratings from April 2004, and will consult the national health service and the Department of Health, to further develop the assessment process.

  Local Pharmaceutical Services
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if patient registration will become an aspect of local pharmacy service; pilots. [133268]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Local pharmaceutical services pilots can offer patient registration although there is no requirement for patients to use the scheme if they do not wish to do so.

  Mental Health Bill
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to issue the results of the consultation on the Mental Health Bill; and in what form. [134775]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government's response to the consultation will be published before the introduction of the Bill. It will be available in hard copy and on the Department's website.

  At that time, copies of responses will be placed in the Library, except in cases where respondents have asked for confidentiality.

  NHS Cancer Plan
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions his Department has had with primary care trusts about their role in implementing the preventative elements of the NHS Cancer Plan in(a) Blackpool and (b) England. [135985]
  603W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No specific discussions have taken place with primary care trusts (PCTs) about their role in implementing the preventative elements of the NHS Cancer Plan in Blackpool and England. It is for PCTs to discuss with their respective strategic health authorities their role in implementing the preventative elements of the NHS Cancer Plan.

  A resource handbook is available for PCTs to highlight the opportunities for the challenges locally from the national service frameworks entitled, "National Service Frameworks: A Practical Aid to Implementation in Primary Care (2002)".

  A resource to help health professionals implement the prevention aspects of the NHS Cancer Plan was launched on 1 November 2002 by the Health Development Agency. "Cancer Prevention: A resource to support local action in delivering the NHS Cancer Plan" makes recommendations for action based on the evidence of what works best to tackle Smoking; Diet and Nutrition; Obesity; Physical Activity; Alcohol; Sunlight and Radon—the seven key cancer risk factors highlighted in the NHS Cancer Plan.

  Support has been made available in respect of the role of PCTs in delivering NHS stop smoking services, namely recommendations produced by the Health Development Agency entitled, "Meeting Department Of Health Smoking Cessation Targets: Recommendations for Primary Care Trusts" (ISBN: 1-84279-125-7) and available on the Department of Health's tobacco website. These recommendations cover all aspects of service delivery in this area to help PCTs to commission effective, efficient services.

  NHS Administrative Costs
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the administrative costs of each health authority in England were in each year since 1997. [127339]

  Mr. Hutton
  A list of the administrative costs of each health authority in England in each year since 1997 has been placed in the Library.

  The following table shows national commissioner administration, and provider management costs in the national health service 1997–98 to 2001–02.

  Total HA + PCT administration and NHS trust management costs (£000)

  NHS total expenditure England (£ million)

  Percentage HA + PCT administration and NHS trust management costs of NHS budget

  1997–98

  1,962,983

  34,664

  5.7

  1998–99

  1,935,116

  36,608

  5.3

  1999–2000

  2,051,259

  40,215

  5.1

  2000–01

  2,124,710

  43,951

  4.8

  2001–02

  2,565,092

  49,279

  5.0

  Management costs have, as a percentage of the overall NHS budget, fallen from 5 per cent. to 4 per cent. over the period 1997–98 to 2001–02.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how much(a) electricity and (b) other energy his Department and its predecessors 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 he has to reduce usage; and if he will make a statement. [135048]

  Mr. Lammy
  For the amount of energy consumed each year since 1997, in total, and per square metre for my Department I refer the hon. Member to the answer given him by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 3 November 2003,Official Report, column 403W. This is based on annual returns provided by this Department.

  My Department only forecasts energy usage for the forthcoming financial year and the current forecast for 2004–05 are set out in the following table. This table also includes details of our actual consumption for 2002–03 and our forecast consumption for 2003–04.

  Consumption (GWH)

  Fossil

  Electricity

  2002–031

  104.5

  264.6

  2003–04

  95.7

  61.7

  2004–05

  97.7

  67.4

  1 The figures for 2002–03 have been weather corrected to the 1999–2000 20 year average.

  2 This includes 10 per cent. of energy which is from renewable sources and therefore exempt from CCL.

  My Department plans to reduce energy usage by continuing its planned program of energy surveys, efficiency works and training courses for Accommodation Liaison Officers.

  In addition my Department follows guidance on government procurement produced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. This requires all new contracts to meet minimum efficiency standards as well as value for money, when purchasing certain types of product. Types of product that must meet energy efficiency criteria include IT equipment, gas boilers, white goods (eg fridges and washing machines), televisions, lighting systems and light-bulbs 2003.

  Judicial Committee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many countries use the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as their final court of appeal; and if he will make a statement. [134401]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Judicial Committee is used by 15 countries, as well as by the Sovereign Base area of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus and by the United
  605W
  Kingdom Overseas Territories. Fuller details are available on the Privy Council Office website www.privycouncil.gov.uk.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what amounts of fines were(a) due to be paid and (b) collected in each magistrates' court in the most recent year for which information is available. [136532]

  Debt Analysis—Financial Year April 2002—March 2003

  Including Confiscation Orders

  Excluding Confiscation Orders

  Amount Owed Total Including Confiscation Orders

  Amount Collected Total including Confiscation Orders

  Amount Owed Total Excluding Confiscation Orders

  Amount Collected Total Excluding Confiscation Orders

  Avon and Somerset

  8,181,788

  5,259,280

  8,037,845

  5,201,617

  Bedfordshire

  3,480,794

  2,025,001

  3,369,920

  1,990,976

  Cambridgeshire

  7,212,583

  3,238,169

  4,823,762

  3,235,925

  Cheshire

  6,343,975

  3,528,927

  5,937,986

  3,517,973

  Cleveland

  4,216,677

  1,975,152

  3,988,362

  1,975,152

  Cumbria

  3,731,662

  2,775,099

  3,664,593

  2,774,655

  Derbyshire

  8,019,991

  4,686,960

  7,701,784

  4,375,281

  Devon and Cornwall

  8,789,409

  5,532,765

  8,611,511

  5,427,765

  Dorset

  3,129,353

  2,389,428

  2,937,889

  2,254,069

  Durham

  3,810,252

  2,824,406

  3,724,459

  2,804,406

  Dyfed Powys

  2,998,274

  1,960,800

  2,985,359

  1,955,054

  Essex

  11,051,684

  8,218,465

  10,823,161

  8,187,035

  Gloucestershire

  2,810,188

  2,354,218

  2,778,482

  2,285,011

  Greater London

  111,347,014

  44,495,021

  78,359,500

  40,008,859

  Greater Manchester

  23,784,474

  15,219,139

  23,637,845

  15,114,771

  Gwent

  5,112,864

  2,928,599

  5,078,825

  2,927,407

  Hampshire and IoW

  9,564,623

  7,373,651

  9,559,305

  7,130,126

  Hertfordshire

  6,601,848

  4,435,570

  6,465,770

  4,051,933

  Humberside

  5,435,985

  3,624,952

  5,230,916

  3,510,212

  Kent

  9,434,951

  5,730,421

  9,433,926

  5,279,995

  Lancashire

  11,325,845

  7,126,465

  10,315,616

  6,979,413

  Leicestershire

  6,860,746

  4,714,845

  6,856,679

  4,712,644

  Lincolnshire

  5,112,202

  3,022,844

  4,357,890

  2,877,555

  Merseyside

  13,398,088

  4,377,442

  11,211,568

  4,257,610

  Norfolk

  3,788,526

  2,844,567

  3,564,228

  2,631,267

  North Wales

  5,413,000

  2,887,586

  5,329,765

  2,828,407

  North Yorkshire

  3,204,012

  2,485,638

  3,173,526

  2,367,756

  Northamptonshire

  5,444,863

  3,447,419

  5,243,809

  3,367,406

  Northumbria

  8,823,707

  5,231,567

  8,813,707

  5,231,567

  Nottinghamshire

  6,901,699

  4,503,754

  6,306,446

  4,186,059

  South Wales

  9,536,317

  4,936,250

  9,496,396

  4,902,869

  South Yorkshire

  8,461,741

  5,127,542

  7,395,710

  5,070,458

  Staffordshire

  7,974,944

  4,533,341

  7,095,831

  4,320,887

  Suffolk

  3,405,285

  2,366,200

  3,226,536

  2,330,078

  Surrey

  5,427,711

  4,414,523

  5,379,103

  4,349,531

  Sussex

  6,402,558

  3,958,078

  6,402,558

  3,958,078

  Thames Valley

  12,245,768

  8,450,928

  12,066,998

  8,450,928

  Warwickshire

  3,015,942

  2,612,689

  2,906,417

  2,578,005

  West Mercia

  6,807,395

  4,845,635

  6,666,562

  4,843,985

  West Midlands

  23,774,188

  11,759,135

  20,876,615

  11,749,870

  West Yorkshire

  18,252,877

  8,550,736

  12,641,471

  8,514,510

  Wiltshire

  5,228,069

  3,546,903

  4,831,198

  3,353,379

  England and Wales

  425,863,872

  236,320,110

  371,309,829

  227,870,484

  Small Claims Courts
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how the personnel who adjudicate in the small claims court are selected for(a) the job and (b) particular types of case. [134295]

  Mr. Leslie
  Small claims are heard in county courts by District Judges and deputy District Judges who are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Any District Judge, or deputy, can deal with small claims cases. The listing
  606W
  Mr. Leslie
  Magistrates' Courts Committees (MCCs) have a responsibility for the collection of a range of debts imposed by both the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court. Debt collected includes not only fines but also fees, compensation, confiscation orders, legal aid contributions and some maintenance orders. It is not yet possible to separate out only fines from the total so the figures provided in the table include all the elements above. Data are collected centrally at a MCC level, rather than at court level.

  officer in each court is responsible, under the superintendence of the judges, on a day-to-day basis for allocating cases to individual judges.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Housing (Islington)
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the London borough of Islington concerning(a) its arm's length management

  607W
  organisation application, (b) the cost of its preparation and (c) the views of the borough's tenants on this policy. [136508]

  Keith Hill
  The London borough of Islington was given a provisional allocation of £24.9 million under Round Three of the Arm's Length Management Organisation (ALMO) Programme in July this year. Officials at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have had detailed discussions with council officers while the bid was being assessed. This dialogue will continue as the council draws up its application under section 27 of the Housing Act 1985 to delegate its housing management functions to the ALMO. Approval under section 27 will only be given if we are satisfied that proper consultation has been carried out and that tenants support proposals. The cost of preparing ALMO applications is a matter for the council.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what in-service death benefits are payable to members of the Fire Service. [136196]

  Phil Hope
  For Great Britain the full range of death benefits that are potentially available under the Firefighters' Pension Scheme are:

  Spouse's Ordinary Pension

  Spouse's Special Pension

  Spouse's Augmented Award

  Spouse's Accrued Pension

  Child's Ordinary Pension

  Child's Special Allowance

  Child's Special Gratuity

  Child's Accrued Allowance

  Lump Sum Death Grant

  Adult Dependent Relative's Special Pension

  Dependent Relative's Gratuity

  Eligibility will depend on individual circumstances at the time of death. In addition, under the Conditions of Service agreed by the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Fire Brigades, death grant is payable to the dependants or estate of any fire-fighter killed as a result of an accident on duty.

  Local Authority Housing Transfers
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) whether the requirement that local authorities consultation material issued as part of large scale voluntary transfer is checked by the Department extends to information issued by(a) individual (i) councillors, (ii) tenants, (iii) tenant groups and (b) the selected stock transfer organisation; [136040]
  608W
  (2) what the reasons are for requiring local authorities to have all materials checked as part of the consultation process for large scale voluntary transfer. [136041]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not formally check material issued by parties other than the local authority. An authority is required to give Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Housing Corporation an opportunity to comment on its consultation material before it is issued. This is to enable identification of anything which is likely to be unacceptable to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister when he comes to consider the authority's consent application or to draw attention to the adequacy or comprehensiveness of the material.

  In carrying out consultation with tenants about a proposed transfer, local authorities must meet the statutory requirements set out in section 106 of and Schedule 3A to the Housing Act 1985 (as inserted by section six of and Schedule one to the Housing and Planning Act 1986). They are also obliged to adhere to the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity. This permits authorities to explain and justify their proposals and ensure that local authority publicity concentrates on facts and explanation.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the material his Department has checked from(a) Stroud district council and (b) other parties involved in the large scale voluntary transfer process. [136042]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has formally cleared material issued by the local authority and has, on request, commented on material issued by other stakeholders.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will publish the advice his Department has given to Stroud district council on their communication with tenants regarding the procedures for large scale voluntary transfer. [136142]

  Keith Hill
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 22 October 2003,Official Report, column 564. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects all local authorities involved in housing transfer to follow the guidance on involving tenants and other stakeholders in the Housing Transfer Manual. All comments provided to Stroud district council have been in accordance with this guidance.

  Mobile Masts
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received on third generation mobile telephone masts from the Churt Mast Action Group. [136233]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no record of having received representations on third generation mobile telephone masts from the Churt Mast Action Group.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much the United Kingdom has contributed to the Global Fund to fight AIDS in each year: how much is planned to be spent in 2004–05; and if he will make a statement. [134971]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  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 two 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 2002–03, the UK provided £50 million in two separate payments of £25 million, in 2003–04 the UK 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.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funds the Government is committed to allocating towards the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria; and what funds have been allocated to date. [135274]

  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. The pattern of our disbursements has been agreed with the Global Fund Secretariat and to date these amount to £75 million.

  International Debt
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of debt repayments which are made by developing countries and are received by the UK are(a) channelled to non-governmental organisations, (b) channelled to departmental aid programmes and (c) absorbed by the Exchequer. [135064]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  Over 90 per cent. of sovereign debt payments to the Government relates to recoveries and interest payable to the Export Credit Guarantee Department (ECGD) under Bilateral Debt Rescheduling agreements in respect of defaulted export contracts.

  With the exception of an amount, averaging less than 1.6 per cent. per annum, which is passed on to ECGD's policyholders as their part of the recovery, all the receipts are paid into the Consolidated Fund.
  610W
  The Department for International Development (DfID) also receives some repayments on aid. The principal repayments are channelled to the DfID bilateral aid programme. Repayments of interest are paid into the Consolidated Fund.

  The UK Government are committed to providing debt relief for the most heavily indebted countries in the world through the rapid and full implementation of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, ensuring that it delivers a robust exit from unsustainable debt for the world's poorest countries. The UK has already made a commitment to provide 100 per cent. relief on debts for all eligible HIPC countries when they reach Completion point. Furthermore, the Chancellor has announced that any payments from countries yet to reach Decision Point will be held in trust for the day they can be returned to fund poverty reduction. The HIPC Initiative has an important role to play in maximising the resources available for poverty reduction in developing countries. However, all HIPC countries would still need additional aid to meet the Millennium Development Goals, even if all of their debt from the World bank and IMF were forgiven. That is why the UK's proposal for an International Finance Facility is so important. It can provide the much-needed substantial increase in resources that debt relief alone would not achieve and that could be disbursed by way of grants and additional debt relief.

  Kyrgyzstan/Uzbekistan
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the humanitarian situation on the border between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. [135200]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Uzbekistan closed its border with the Kyrgyz Republic in January 2003. It was done, according to the Uzbeks, to protect Uzbekistan from cheap Kyrgyz goods. It has had a severe impact on the livelihoods of people living near the border. Cross-border trade has declined, although smuggling, by bribing border officials, has increased dramatically. Families living on either side of the border are separated from their relatives. Some 20 Uzbek citizens, mainly women, have drowned while attempting to cross the border river at Kara Suu. Uzbek border guards along the 1100km border have shot several Uzbek and Kyrgyz citizens. The Kyrgyz Foreign Ministry continues to issue protest notes to Uzbekistan.

  Several Kyrgyz and Uzbek NGOs have recently started a project on reducing tension in border areas. International organizations and donors working on cross-border issues include OSCE, USAID, UNDP, Mercy Corps, ICG, ICRC, IOM.

  Mongolia
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what projects his Department(a) has initiated, (b) fully directed funds, (c) partially directed funds, (d) funds through EU initiatives and (e) funds through United Nations initiatives in Mongolia; and if he will make a statement on the (i) aims, (ii) structure, (iii) methods and (iv) progress of each. [134456]
  611W
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID has no long-term or current bilateral programme in Mongolia. The British embassy does provide some direct assistance in the form of a Small Grants Scheme (SGS) allocation (currently £200,000 per annum) to support small-scale poverty and human development focused activities. The focus of the SGS in Mongolia is on children, especially with respect to education, social care and protection from exploitation and violence. Key projects will direct funds towards assisting the integration of vulnerable children into pre and primary school education, while also helping to tackle problems that face Mongolia's street children by defining clear standards of care for shelters and increasing the number of children united with their families. The SGS is largely managed by the Save the Children on behalf of the FCO. The Save the Children Fund reports annually on the SGS to the FCO.

  DFID has made small contributions for humanitarian aid and relief in previous years., but none in this financial year.

  In addition the UK contributes to the development programmes of various multi-lateral agencies. The imputed share of the UK's spend on Mongolia (in 2001, the latest year for which figures are available) through the EU and the UN was £400,000 and £600,000 respectively.

  The EU's current Country Strategy for Mongolia runs from 2002–04 and focuses on Rural Development (including providing support for rural enterprises; addressing the social consequences of transition and protection of the environment). Performance against the Country Strategy is due to be reviewed in 2004–05.

  A range of specialised UN agencies—such as UNICEF—operate in Mongolia. In addition, the United Nations Development Programme facilitates delivery of programmes under three headings in Mongolia: Democratic Governance, Economic Transition and Poverty Reduction and Sustainable Natural Resource Management.

  DFID does not individually monitor the progress of all projects that are funded on a multilateral basis, as this would involve duplication and unnecessarily divert resources. DFID therefore works to ensure that sufficiently robust reporting arrangements are in place within relevant multilateral agencies.

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment his Department has made of the concerns raised by(a) Mr. Dennis McNamara, Inspector General of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UN HCR) and (b) Dr. Dawit Zawde, President and CEO of Africa Humanitarian Action during his presentation to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees' pre-Governing Executive Committee meeting in Geneva on 2 October; what plans his Department has to address these concerns; and if he will make a statement. [133655]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government attaches high priority to the concerns raised by Dennis McNamara on the safety and security of humanitarian workers in Iraq and other conflict-affected countries. Prior to the conflict in 612W
  Iraq, DFID provided the Office of the UN Security Coordinator (UNSECOORD) with £100,000 for security support measures and a further £500,000 immediately following conflict also to support UN security. Since the bombing of the UN Headquarters, DFID funds of up to £3 million have been earmarked to UNSECOORD for extra staff, equipment and measures for improving UN security.

  DFID maintains regular contact with nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) working in Iraq, at which safety and security issues are carefully considered. Where necessary DFID is supporting NGOs to enhance security measures through our programme support to their work in Iraq.

  Dr. Dawit Zawde raised concerns that smaller NGOs are being sidelined in favour of larger ones. DFID does not exclude small agencies. We are focused on achieving results and DFID will work with smaller agencies when this is the most effective way of achieving our objectives.

  Sudan
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much his Department is spending in 2003–04 on development aid to Sudan, broken down by(a) type of programme, (b) cost of programme and (c) region for which support is being provided. [136224]

  Hilary Benn
  In 2003–04 DFID plans to spend £20 million on development aid to Sudan.

  The following is a list of those Sudanese projects which are now active, or have been active in 2003–04.

  We are open to working in all regions of Sudan. The allocation of funds is decided by need, not location. However, where a project in the aforementioned list is engaged in working in a particular locality, this is mentioned.

  DFID funded activities if Sudan during financial year 2003–04

  National Projects

  Abduction/Slavery
  Save the Children UK—Case Resolution and the Eradication of Internal Abduction of Women and Children in Sudan and Mine Clearence in Nuba Maintains (£500,000).

  Demining
  UN Mine Action Service—Mine Action throughout Sudan and Mine Clearance in Nuba Mountains (£1,000,000).

  Education
  INICEF—Supporting Primary Education in the conflict-affected areas of Sudan. Building for Peace (£2,000,000)
  Bishop Mubarek Scholarship Fund for Nuba Women and the Hugh Pilkington Charitable Trust—Scholarship Programmes for Sudanese Students at universities and colleges in Sudan, Kenya and Uganda (£360,000).

  Gender
  Women's Development Associations—enhancing women's knowledge about their rights to services, and strengthening the linkages between WDA's and local institutions. including the public sector (£113,007).
  613W
  Health/Food

  International Committee of the Red Cross: 2003 Sudan Appeal (£2,500,000).

  UNICEF—Sudan Water and Sanitation Programme (£500,000).

  World Food Programme—Sudan Emergency Food Assistance 2003 (£2,500,000).

  Peace Building

  UNDP—Support for the joint secretariat of the Government of Sudan and Sudan People's Liberation Movement's Joint Planning Mechanism (JPM) (£88,000).

  Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD)—Contribution to Budget for the Sudan Peace Secretariat in Nairobi, to facilitate direct talks between parties involved in the civil war in Sudan (£505,000).

  IGAD—Sudan Ceasefire Verification Monitoring Team (£490,000).

  Resource People for the Peace talks (advice and support to parties involved in the IGAD peace talks in Sudan) (£100,000).

  Demobilisation, Disarmament and Reintegration Adviser to the IGAD Sudan Peace Talks (£63,000).

  Relief Organisation/Coordination
  UNDP Regional Humanitarian Coordinator, Sudan—Emergency Operations Coordinating and planning (£185,000).

  Local Projects

  Health/Food

  International Federation of the Red Cross—Emergency Appeal Sudan. Floods in Kassala State (£150,000).

  Action Contre la Faim—Emergency Nutritional Programme Red Sea State, Sudan (£202,593).

  Action Contre la Faim—Nutrition, Food Security and Surveillance Programme in Bentiu, Rob Kona and Surroundings, Unity State, Sudan (£316,426).

  Concern—Aweil West and North, Supplementary and Community Therapeutic Care and Emergency Nutrition (£350,000).

  GOAL—To prevent disease and establish PHC in Kassala Town in Kassala Sudan in light of the recent floods in the area (£96,500).

  MEDAIR: Emergency Nutrition Project: Lekuangale Pibor County, Sudan (£114,500).

  Medecins sans Frontieres—Emergency Health Interventions in the Gederaf, Malkal and Wau states in Sudan: treatment of Kala Azar (£700,000).

  Medecins sans Frontieres—Health Assistance for the Resident and Displaced Populations in Jonglei and Upper Nile Provinces, Southern Sudan (£424,000).

  Medecins sans Frontieres—Primary Health Care: Akop, Ananatak and Luacjang Payams in Tonj County (£265,439).

  Medecins sans Frontieres—Treatment of Human African Trypanosomiasis (Sleeping sickness) in Ibba, Maridi County, Western Equatoria, Sudan (£250,000).

  Oxfam—Emergency Food and Nutrition Intervention Tokar, Rural Port Sudan and urban shanty areas in Port Sudan, Red Sea State (£647,220).

  614W

  Save the Children UK: Emergency response to conflict related internal displacement in North Dafur (£500,000).

  Tear Fund—Emergency Nutrition, Health and Food Security in Aweil East, South and West (£506,458).

  World Vision Emergency Nutrition Project: Thiet, Tonj, Pagal and Kuanythi Payarns, Tonj County, Bhar el Ghazal Region, Sudan (£513,706).

  Peace Building

  IGAD Peace Talks: Joint Military Commission—The Nuba Mountains Cease-Fire Agreement (£2,308,000).

  Christian Aid: Legal Stakeholders consultative Workshop, Rumbek, September 2003 (planning an integrated justice sector for south Sudan) (£33,500).

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what resources he will make available to aid post-conflict reconstruction and development in Sudan on the signing of a comprehensive peace agreement; for what types of programme funding will be made available; and which regions will benefit. [136226]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID intends to increase its programme in Sudan should a peace agreement be reached. The majority of our resources would continue to go towards humanitarian needs, but with a greater emphasis towards longer-term development. We believe that work on the implementation of the peace agreement will require early funding. We would gradually increase the amount put towards the longer-term objectives of improved governance and policies. In addition, we expect to pay our share of the costs of debt relief.

  Our intention is to ensure all regions would benefit from peace in Sudan.

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps he will take to ensure that resources made available by his Department will be allocated(a) transparently and (b) to all marginalised groups and regions of Sudan. [136227]

  Hilary Benn
  We will provide information on the activities we fund in Sudan to any member of the public who requests it.

  With regard to making resources available to all marginalised regions and groups on Sudan, our support for peace building is built on the premise that all regions and all peoples need their voices and grievances to be heard. However, Ls humanitarian responses are based on need, not geography or ethnicity. Our limited resources mean we cannot fund all activities.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the peace process in Sudan. [136348]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her on 21 October 2003,Official Report, column 510W.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps he is taking to ensure the safety of workers distributing aid funded by his Department in Sudan; and if he will make a statement on the recent murders of aid workers in the Darfur region. [136349]
  615W
  Hilary Benn
  When considering proposals for activities in insecure regions of Sudan, the experience and ability of the requesting body to deal with a difficult environment is considered. If an agency funded by us decides to withdraw, suspending or cancelling a project due to deteriorating conditions, we support their decision.

  We were saddened to hear of the deaths of the aid workers in Darfur and our thoughts are with their families.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will increase the number of local NGOs with which his Department works in Zimbabwe. [135341]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is already funding the activities of several local NGOs either directly or through the partnerships local NGOs have with international NGOs in Zimbabwe. The international NGOs that have such partnerships include Oxfam, SCF, CRS, Care, CAFOD, Christian Aid, JSI and others.

  An example of a local NGO DFID is funding is the farm community trust of Zimbabwe (FCTZ). This is assisting displaced former commercial farm workers with both agricultural recovery inputs such as seeds and fertilizers (with some technical assistance) and food aid. In addition we are providing funding to Fosenet, which is an umbrella organisation of local NGOs, with support for four of its members.

  The capacity of the local NGOs is often limited and this is being addressed either directly or through the international NGOs that are providing support and facilitation.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures are being taken to ensure that(a) aid distributors in Zimbabwe and (b) those responsible for registration are appropriately trained to ensure they (i) understand and (ii) comply with the apolitical nature of aid programmes. [135344]

  Hilary Benn
  The memorandum of understanding recently signed between the World Food Programme (WFP) and government of Zimbabwe sets out clear processes for registration of beneficiaries and distribution of food aid. WFP conducts rigorous training of its implementing partners on these aid delivery protocols which stress the apolitical nature of food aid. WFP has also disseminated these guidelines to local government officials to remind them remind of their obligations to ensure food aid is distributed on the basis of need rather than political affiliation.

  DFID and other donors are providing additional support to WFP to strengthen their capacity to monitor food aid including registration and distribution processes. Particular focus is on the monitoring of political incidents. WFP and NGOs have a zero tolerance policy with regard to politicisation of food aid. Although there have been a few local incidents of political interference these have been dealt with swiftly at a local level through prompt action by NGOs and WFP.
  616W
  In addition, DFID holds regular meetings with its NGO partners (many of whom are also WFP implementing partners), to discuss and improve food aid mechanisms. Many DFID partners are also individually negotiating memoranda of understanding at district level to ensure all stakeholders are aware of apolitical registration and distribution processes.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Council Tax Benefit
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will estimate the average level of unclaimed council tax benefit per pensioner in London; [135151]

  (2) if he will estimate the proportion of (a) pensioners and (b) households in London who are eligible for council tax benefit but do not claim. [135152]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available.

  Statistics for Great Britain are presented in the DWP series "Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-Up". The latest estimates relate to financial year 2000–01 and are in the Library.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many recipients of disability living allowance had their entitlement reduced on review to a lower rate in(a) 2002 and (b) 2001. [127229]

  Maria Eagle
  The available information is in the table.

  Numbers of disability living allowance (DLA) recipients whose awards were reviewed1 and those which were reduced to a lower rate on review in the years ending 30 November 2001 and November 2002

  Thousands

  Year ending 30 November 2001

  Year ending 30 November 2002

  Total number of reconsiderations and supersessions2

  256.6

  268.24

  DLA reduced to a lower amount3

  13.2

  26.2

  1 Figures given for "review" are where a reconsideration or supersession has been made. Figures do not include those for renewal claims on expiry of fixed-period awards, or for appeals.

  2 Figures are from a 100 per cent sample and rounded to the nearest hundred

  3 Figures are: from a 5 per cent. sample, in thousands and rounded to the nearest hundred; for DLA awards which are reduced to a lower amount which remains in payment (this includes cases in which of one of the two components is withdrawn); not including terminations; and based on claims in which the last decision recorded was due to a reconsideration or supersession.

  Figures are not available for reductions which have resulted from an earlier decision in the same year.

  4 From November 2002, the methodology for producing these figures was changed to allow statistics to be published much sooner. This has resulted in a small increase in the reported caseload. This is because some cases which have actually terminated but have not yet been updated on the computer system
  are now included.

  Note:

  The higher figure for reductions in year ending November 2002 is due to a change in legislation from 8 April 2002. Preserved rights to help with care home costs through income support were

  617W
  replaced by alternative help from local authorities. This overall switch in financial responsibility for care home residents included withdrawal of DLA care component (or attendance allowance), but not mobility component, in such cases after 28 days' residence.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre

  Welfare-to-Work Programmes
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people found work of over 13 weeks in 2002, broken down by Progress2Work area; and how many of these remain in employment. [135313]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 30 October 2003]: The first phase of Progress2Work was rolled out in March 2002 in 27 pathfinder districts. The programme was extended to cover 60 districts by April 2003, and national roll out will be complete by March 2004.

  Given the range of problems faced by recovering drug mis-users and the relatively long periods of participation, this is not a programme where we would expect immediate results. However, by the end of 2002, Progress2Work had already been successful in helping 31 people into employment lasting 13 weeks or longer. Due to the small numbers involved, we cannot give figures broken down by Progress2Work area, to avoid the risk of identifying individuals.

  As with all of our welfare to work programmes, Progress2Work will be subject to evaluation and the results from this will be published when they become available. This will include an evaluation of whether Progress2Work is successful in helping people to remain in employment in the longer term.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people securing employment through the New Deal 25 plus remained in that job for(a) more than two, (b) more than six and (c) more than 12 months, in each year since the New Deal 25 plus was introduced. [133029]

  Mr. Browne
  By the end of June 2003, 154,900 people had been helped into work through New Deal 25 plus. We do not collect data on the length of time an individual remains in the same job but we do record whether they have returned to claiming jobseekers allowance (JSA). If there is no claim to JSA within 13 weeks then their employment is classed as 'sustained'. This is the first point at which we collect such data. The number of people gaining jobs through New Deal 25 plus and the number of those who had not made a new claim to JSA within 13 weeks, six and 12 months is in the table.

  New Deal 25 plus—number into work since 1998

  Year (January to December)

  People gaining a job

  No claim for JSA within 13 weeks

  No claim for JSA within 6 months

  No claim for JSA within 12 months

  1998 (from June)

  6,080

  4,460

  3,220

  3,120

  1999

  27,040

  21,650

  17,300

  16,560

  2000

  27,470

  22,330

  17,930

  17,080

  20011

  32,500

  25,960

  21,340

  20,120

  2002

  41,450

  31,720

  26,520

  226,520

  2003 (to June)

  20,360

  16,030

  215,610

  215,610

  1 Includes jobs gained in both the pre-April 2001 New Deal 25 plus programme and the post April re-engineered New Deal 25 plus programme.
  618W
  2 These numbers will reduce over time as they include people for whom six or 12 months will not have elapsed since the job was gained.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database.

DEFENCE

  A400M
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the employment and technology benefits are to Lancashire of the A400M project; and if he will make a statement. [135571]

  Mr. Ingram
  The A400M Prime Contractor, Airbus Military, is free to select equipment through competition so that the programme is organised and managed as cost effectively as possible. It is therefore not known how many jobs or the degree of investment that might be generated in Lancashire.

  However, Airbus UK have estimated that the A400M programme will directly create up to 2,500 high quality jobs in the United Kingdom—notably in design and advanced manufacture. They have calculated that indirect employment could bring that figure to over 8,000.

  Astute Class Submarines
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to place an order for further Astute class submarines; and if he will make a statement. [134483]

  Mr. Ingram
  A contract was placed in March 1997 for the design and manufacture of three Astute class submarines. The procurement of further Astute submarines is being considered and announcements will be made as soon as possible.

  Bomb Disposal Units
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions, broken down by fire authority, in(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003 to date armed forces bomb disposal teams have been called out to provide assistance where the device has been (i) a firework and (ii) firework related; and what the total cost of such call-outs has been. [135647]

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

  Broadband (RAF Bases)
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in introducing broadband for RAF bases. [134388]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 29 October 2003]: RAF station commanders have the option to provide separate recreational broadband internet connectivity for their station if it is commercially available at their localities.

  The Defence Communication Services Agency is engaged in the provision of a Defence Intranet broadband service, which allows those Defence users with broadband capable local telephone exchanges to connect to MOD's Restricted Wide Area Network.
  619W
  This MOD Broadband service has been trialled successfully, and is due to be launched this calendar year.

  Disciplinary Offences
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints of bullying and violent assaults were investigated by the Special Investigations Branch in the last 12 months; and what the breakdown of outcomes is. [132179]

  Mr. Ingram
  In the period 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002, the Royal Military Police conducted 2,399 investigations of assault. Of these, 30 cases involved an allegation or suspicion of bullying and as a result: disciplinary action was taken in nine cases; no further action was taken in 14; and the outcome has yet to be determined in seven.

  In the period 1 January 2003 to 30 September 2003, 1,686 cases were investigated. Of these, 16 cases involved an allegation or suspicion of bullying and as a result: disciplinary action was taken in four cases; no further action was taken in seven; while investigations into the remaining five have not concluded.

  RAF Griffin
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the deployment of RAF Griffin aircraft from Cyprus outside Cyprus since 2002 required the mobilisation of sponsored reserve personnel; what cost it entailed; and what mobilisation costs were budgeted when the leasing contract was signed to cover such deployments. [134554]

  Mr. Ingram
  Griffin helicopters, which are supplied by a contractor but flown by RAF personnel, have been based in Cyprus since April 2003. The aircraft have been deployed once since, in support of a training exercise. There is no contractual requirement for the aircraft to deploy on operations and no requirement for contractor personnel to be sponsored reserves.

  Defence Diversification Agency
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many new jobs have been created in Scotland through the Defence Diversification Agency in each year since its inception; and if he will make a statement. [135797]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Defence Diversification Agency (DDA) has been operating in Scotland since early 1999 and has so far assisted over 250 companies in Scotland, producing technology transfer contracts from the Ministry of Defence to a value in excess of £1 million.

  There are no reliable techniques for translating the impact of technology transfer into new jobs created. However, the DDA is exploring methods of measuring value with a view to imbedding appropriate systems into future projects. Estimates from other United Kingdom regions suggests the DDA adds value through its activities of around three times that of its costs.

  Defence Systems International Exhibition
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence(a) when and (b) where the next Defence Systems Equipment International Exhibition will be held. [134965]

  Mr. Ingram
  We understand from the exhibition organisers, Spearhead Exhibitions, that they plan to hold the next Defence Systems International Exhibition between 13 and 16 September 2005, at the Excel Exhibition Centre, London Docklands.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Government Ministers attended(a) the Defence Systems Equipment International Exhibition in September and (b) the exhibition dinner. [134966]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, my noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement and I attended the exhibition. There was no official exhibition dinner or reception.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the size is of UK military deployment to the Democratic Republic of Congo; what its estimated annual cost is; and under whose command the forces operate. [136529]

  Mr. Ingram
  The UK currently contributes six military personnel (shortly to reduce to five) to the UN peacekeeping mission (MONUC) that has been operating in the Democratic Republic of Congo since 13 November 1999. The estimated annual cost of the deployment is £713,000. Troops deployed on MONUC are under the command of the UN Force Commander, General Diallo.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent technical difficulties have been encountered in the development of the Eurofighter Typhoon; and when he expects the aircraft to enter operational service with the RAF. [134461]

  Mr. Ingram
  Following a minor malfunction of the aircraft's landing gear computer during a test flight in Germany on 9 October, all Typhoon flying has been suspended as a precautionary measure while the problem is investigated and rectified. This work is progressing and we hope to resume flying and the acceptance of aircraft into RAF service shortly. Typhoon remains on schedule to become operationally deployable in the second half of the decade.

  Export Control
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 16 September 2003,Official Report, column 705W, on export control, what assessment he has made of the benefits of having extra-territorial controls on UK arms deals; and whether this would have an impact on the number of (a) fatalities and (b) injuries caused to UK armed forces by illicitly purchased weapons. [135104]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I have been asked to reply.
  621W
  The 1998 White Paper on Strategic Export Controls (CM 3989) sets out the benefits of introducing extra-territorial trade controls.

  No assessment has been made of the impact of extra-territorial trade controls on fatalities and injuries caused to UK armed personnel.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the future size of the(a) Army, (b) Royal Navy and (c) Royal Air Force in Gibraltar. [135525]

  Mr. Ingram
  Gibraltar remains a key staging post and forward mounting base comprising a naval base, airfield and other support facilities. We will continue to maintain forces there appropriate to its role.

  Mental Health
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what action the Royal Welch Fusiliers have taken in respect of soldiers suffering from stress-related mental conditions in the past five years; [135362]

  (2)what guidelines he has issued in respect of support and treatment of army personnel suffering from stress-related mental conditions; [135363]

  (3)what facilities the Royal Welch Fusiliers have for support and treatment of soldiers suffering from stress-related mental conditions. [135364]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence recognises that stress-related disorders are serious and disabling conditions. Policy on prevention is reviewed regularly in light of medical developments. Guidance and prevention of stress-related conditions has been issued widely throughout the army chain of command, and all army medical officers receive training in the recognition and management of such conditions.

  Community-based psychiatry is available to every military unit and to every service person. Support available to the Royal Welch Fusiliers includes an on-site community psychiatric nurse, who is backed-up by a psychiatric consultant where possible. Secondary care is provided by military and civilian psychiatric hospitals. If a soldier is assessed as suffering from a stress-related condition the unit medical officer will order treatment tailored to his or her clinical needs. The unit medical officer liaises closely with the chain of command and may also refer individuals to the unit welfare officer and/or the padre as appropriate.

  NATO Response Force
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the United Kingdom's commitments to the newly formed NATO response force. [135389]

  Mr. Hoon
  The NATO Response Force (NRF) was inaugurated on 15 October 2003, some 12 months ahead of schedule, with a limited interim capability.

  The NRF is not a standing force and responsibility for providing elements of the force will rotate between nations. The Force Generation and associated force balancing for the NRF is a continuing process which
  622W
  means that both force offers and the subsequent makeup of the force, including the scale of individual national contributions, will change.

  As the detailed information on the NRF received from NATO is classified, I am withholding precise details of the United Kingdom and other nations' offers of forces in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  However, I can say that the UK has made an initial contribution to NRF1 (October 2003 to January 2004) and NRF2 (January 2004 to July 2004) primarily consisting of maritime and air assets.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress being made with the construction of the new aircraft carriers. [134436]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Future Carrier project is currently in the Assessment Phase and I refer my hon. Friend to my Written Ministerial Statement made on 16 September 2003,Official Report, columns 44-45WS.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what impact the reduction in size of the two new aircraft carriers will have on operational plans for(a) the capability and use of the carriers and (b) the size of the crews. [134437]

  Mr. Ingram
  Final decisions have yet to be taken on the main specifications for CVF. The programme is currently in its Assessment Phase which is aimed at increasing the maturity of the design as well as optimising capability and value for money. The size of the vessels will continue to evolve as the design matures to meet the required capability. Crew size will similarly not be fixed until the design is sufficiently mature.

  New Vessels
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many new vessels for the Royal Navy have been approved but not yet launched; how many have been allocated names; arid what names have been selected. [135411]

  Mr. Ingram
  A total of 12 vessels—three Astute submarines, six Type 45 destroyers and three Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (Auxiliary) (LSD(A))—have passed Main Gate approval but have not yet been launched. All have been allocated names.

  The Astute submarines are to be called HMS Astute, HMS Ambush and HMS Artful. The T45s will be called HMS Daring, HMS Dauntless, HMS Diamond, HMS Dragon, HMS Defender and HMS Duncan, and the LSD(A)s RFA Lyme Bay, RFA Mounts Bay and RFA Cardigan Bay.

  Procurement Projects
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which procurement projects involve production of parts outside the UK; which countries are taking part in production; and for what reasons the contract was awarded for production overseas in each case. [133042]
  623W
  Mr. Ingram
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. (Exemption 9 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.)

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress with the Nimrod Procurement project since June 2003. [133644]

  Mr. Ingram
  On 19 February, my noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement, Lord Bach announced that the MOD and BAE Systems had reached agreement on the way ahead for the Nimrod MRA4 (and ASTUTE) programmes. Since then, we and BAE Systems have been working to agree a formal amendment to the Nimrod MRA4 contract. We hope to have this signed shortly.

  RAF Recruitment
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to change the admission rules for the RAF for individuals with anterior cruciate ligament damage, in relation to posts which do not require an active military role. [136033]

  Mr. Caplin
  Members of the armed forces, regardless of their role, can be required to serve anywhere in the world at any time, often in remote locations. As such they must be physically fit and able to meet the challenge that operating in these environments brings. Consequently, the Ministry of Defence has no plans to change its policy regarding the disqualification of individuals with anterior cruciate ligament damage from joining the armed forces.

  Replenishment Tankers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to purchase Henry J. Kaiser class replenishment tankers from the US Navy. [135339]

  Mr. Ingram
  We have no plans to purchase Kaiser class tankers.

  Ship Naming
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his role is in the naming of Her Majesty's ships; and what his policy is in exercising that role. [135449]

  Mr. Ingram
  Her Majesty the Queen approves the names of warships on the recommendation of the First Sea Lord, as advised by the Ships' Names and Badges Committee and as endorsed by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Policy for naming ships of the Royal Navy is informed by a number of guiding principles. For example, many ship names have a long and illustrious heritage, and a name with a tradition of Royal Navy use is preferred. Other factors in making a selection include the number of battle honours associated with a name, and whether a name is already classically associated with a particular type of vessel. Alternatively, a ship's name might commemorate historically strong links between the Royal Navy and a particular town or district.

  Tanks
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the operational availability is of the(a) Warrior and (b) Challenger, broken down by unit; and what the overall availability targets are for these vehicles. [135392]

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

TREASURY

  Information Technology
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 11 June 2003,Official Report, column 891W, on open source operating systems, how many open source software solution procurements have taken place within the public sector procurement community in the last 12 months; and what percentage of the (a) IT contracts awarded and (b) value of IT contracts awarded this represents. [136447]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Alternative Investment Market
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what discussions he has had with the(a) London Stock Exchange and (b) Financial Services Authority on the alternative investment market becoming an unregulated market; [136078]

  (2) what research he has carried out on the way in which an unregulated alternative investment market would affect companies and investors; [136079]

  (3) what discussions he has had with the European Commission about the alternative investment market becoming an unregulated market. [136080]

  Ruth Kelly
  The London Stock Exchange (LSE) is a Recognised Investment Exchange (RIE) under the Financial Services and Markets Act (FSMA) and has to operate all its markets, including the Alternative Investment Market (AIM), in compliance with the recognition requirements for RIEs. The Financial Services Authority (FSA) supervises its compliance with these obligations.

  AIM is also a 'regulated market' under the EU's Investment Services Directive (ISO). This means that it complies with the standards for regulated markets set out in the directive and can do business in other member states on the basis of mutual recognition of its regulatory status in the UK.

  The LSE has indicated that it is planning to consult about removing AIM from the list of EU regulated markets. If this happens, AIM would not become an unregulated market. The LSE would still be required by the FSA to meet its existing UK regulatory obligations under FSMA with respect to the way it operates AIM. But there would be no mutual recognition of AIM'S regulatory status in the UK by other member states under the ISO. Treasury officials have discussed this issue with the LSE and the FSA.
  625W
  Because AIM is not going to become an unregulated market, the Treasury has not done any research about the impact of such a scenario on investors and issuers, nor have we discussed it with the European Commission.

  Changing Jobs
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 17 September 2003,Official Report, column 863W, on changing jobs, whether similar schemes exist for those making the transition between poorly paid jobs. [136168]

  Mr. Boateng
  Similar schemes for those making the transition between poorly paid jobs do not exist. The Government have, however, introduced a range of policies to make work pay, including the national minimum wage and the working and child tax credits. Jobcentre Plus advisers also offer help and advice on request to people already in work and seeking new employment.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will answer the letter to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry of 14 July from the hon. Member for Taunton about Berry's Coaches that was passed to him on 30 July. [135879]

  John Healey
  I have done so.

  Customs and Excise (Explosives)
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the role of HM Customs and Excise is in respect of monitoring cargoes of explosives, with particular reference to fireworks, entering the United Kingdom. [135643]

  John Healey
  As part of the Government's measures to tackle firework misuse, announced in October 2002 by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Melanie Johnson), then Minister for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Markets, Customs advise the Health and Safety Executive of commercial imports of fireworks which are of concern to HSE.

  Customs enforce anti-smuggling controls against imports of illicit explosives and have powers to detain on behalf of Trading Standards officers any fireworks suspected of being unsafe.

  Departmental Employees
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to which organisations members of the Treasury are seconded; and if he will make a statement. [135304]
  626W
  Ruth Kelly
  The list of organisations to which Treasury officials are currently seconded is:

  3i

  AstraZeneca

  Barclays

  Barts and the London NHS Trust

  BBC

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Church House

  Civil Aviation Authority

  Croydon council

  European Banking Federation

  European Commission

  Ministry of Finance, France

  Giving Campaign

  International Monetary Fund

  KPMG

  London borough of Camden

  Ministry of Finance, Japan

  National Audit Office

  National Electricity Code Administrator, Australia

  New Zealand Treasury

  OFCOM

  Royal Bank of Scotland

  Royal National Institute for the Deaf

  South West Regional Development Agency

  Statistics Commission

  World Bank

  UK Business Federation

  Vegan Society.

  Secondments continue to provide the Treasury with the opportunity to increase the diversity of the skills and experience of our staff.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of his Department's staff are employed outside London; and if he will make a statement. [135307]

  Ruth Kelly
  None at present, apart from those on secondments to other organisations or on loans to other Government Departments.

  Fuel Duty
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was collected in fuel duty from(a) motorists and (b) road hauliers in (i) Scotland and (ii) the UK in each of the last five years. [136451]

  John Healey
  During the past five calendar years the Exchequer raised the following amounts of fuel duty revenue in the UK:

  billion

  Petrol

  Diesel

  2002

  12.8

  9.1

  2001

  13.0

  8.8

  2000

  13.7

  9.1

  1999

  13.6

  8.6

  1998

  12.9

  7.9

  627W
  These figures are published in the Customs and Exercise Hydrocarbon Oils Bulletin, a copy of which is available on the UK trade Information website www.uktradeinfo.com.

  The method by which fuel duty revenue is collected does not distinguish between different fuel consumers or geographic areas.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answers of 15 October 2003,Official Report, column 141W, and 14 October 2003, Official Report, column 139W, what the average marginal cost incurred by the Inland Revenue was in dealing with each of the potential suppliers invited by them to participate in the market making exercise in support of Project ASPIRE until 10 May 2002; what activities gave rise to these marginal costs; and what costs were associated with meetings with individual suppliers. [136566]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The data requested is available only at disproportionate cost.

  ISAs
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what change there has been in the number of ISA holders who are(a) standard rate taxpayers and (b) higher rate taxpayers since the introduction of ISAs; how many people in each category held PEPs; and if he will make a statement. [132874]

  Ruth Kell
  y: The information is not available in the format requested. However, I refer the hon. Gentleman to table T9.7 of Inland Revenue Statistics. The latest version is on the Inland Revenue website: http://www. inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/isa/03IR07.pdf.

  Lung Cancer
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the comparative death rates from lung cancer were in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other EU member states and EU accession states in the last year for which figures are available. [136049]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Dr. Phyllis Starkey, dated 4 November 2003:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning lung cancer deaths rates in the United Kingdom, the EU and EU Accession states. (136049)
  The latest year for which comparative data are available is 1998, figures for which are shown in the attached table.

  Mortality rates1 for malignant neoplasm of trachea, bronchus or lung, United Kingdom, EU member states and EU accession states, 1998

  Males

  Females

  EU member states

  Austria

  39.7

  10.8

  Belgium

  68.1

  9.7

  Denmark

  43.3

  27.0

  Finland

  37.4

  8.1

  France

  47.3

  7.2

  628W

  Mortality rates1 for malignant neoplasm of trachea, bronchus or lung, United Kingdom, EU member states and EU accession states, 1998

  Males

  Females

  Germany

  43.3

  10.2

  Greece

  48.4

  7.4

  Ireland

  40.0

  18.5

  Italy

  49.6

  8.0

  Luxembourg

  52.6

  11.8

  The Netherlands

  56.3

  15.0

  Portugal

  29.9

  4.7

  Spain

  47.8

  4.3

  Sweden

  21.2

  12.2

  United Kingdom

  42.7

  20.2

  Accession countries

  Bulgaria

  38.9

  6.4

  Cyprus2

  Czech Republic

  61.0

  11.5

  Estonia

  64.6

  7.0

  Hungary

  86.5

  20.4

  Latvia

  58.2

  6.2

  Lithuania

  59.2

  4.6

  Malta

  33.6

  6.2

  Poland3

  70.3

  11.3

  Romania

  45.7

  7.6

  Slovakia4

  61.0

  7.4

  Slovenia

  56.2

  9.2

  Turkey2

  1 Directly age-standardised to the World Standard Population.

  2 Not available

  3 1996

  4 1997

  Source:

  EU Member states: EUCAN database, Acession countries: WHO mortality data base

  Income Distribution
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of national income accrued to the(a) top and (b) bottom (i) 10 per cent. and (ii) 20 per cent. of the income distribution in Wales in each year since 1979. [136485]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Lembit Opik Esq, dated 4 November 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about income distribution in Wales. I am replying in his absence. (136485)
  The information required to answer these questions is not readily to hand and will require extensive analysis. Unfortunately, we are unable to supply this in the time available. The necessary work is being carried out as a matter of urgency and we will provide the information subject to data availability and sample size limitations for regional data. We will send the completed answer to you as soon as it is available.
  In the meantime, please accept my apologies for this delay.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of national income accrued to the(a) top and (b) bottom (i) 10 per cent. and (ii) 20 per cent. of the income distribution for each year since 1979 in London. [136525]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  629W
  Letter from Colin Mowl to Simon Hughes, dated 4 November 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about income distribution in London. I am replying in his absence. (136525)
  The information required to answer these questions is not readily to hand and will require extensive analysis. Unfortunately, we are unable to supply this in the time available. The necessary work is being carried out as a matter of urgency and we will provide the information subject to data availability and any sample size limitations for regional data. We will send the completed answer to you as soon as it is available.
  In the meantime, please accept my apologies for this delay.

  National Insurance
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money he estimates the National Insurance Fund would receive in 2003–04 if those people who are retired but remain in paid employment continued to pay national insurance contributions. [133490]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The National Insurance Fund in 2003–04 would increase by an estimated £225 million if employees over state retirement pension age were required to pay primary Class 1 contributions.

  This estimate is based on April 2003 Budget forecasts.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of those who did not receive national insurance contributions deficiency notices have received letters notifying them of the contributions needed to secure full entitlement. [136154]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue started the exercise to notify working age people about shortfalls in their contributions for the tax years 1996–97 to 2000–01 at the end of October and it is anticipated that all letters will be sent out by September next year. Everyone will have as much time to make voluntary payments, if they want to, as they would have had if the letters had been issued at the normal time, and payment will be at the original rate.

  Private Health Insurance
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will restore tax incentives for pensioners taking out private health insurance; and if he will make a statement. [136228]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have no plans to restore the tax relief that used to be available on private medical insurance premiums. We remain convinced that the best way to use the resources available to provide health care is by funding the NHS directly for the benefit of all British residents.

  Public Borrowing
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will measure the surplus or deficit on the current budget between(a) the month in which the present cycle is judged to have started and the month in
  630W
  which the present cycle is judged to have finished, (b) the quarter in which the present cycle is judged to have started and the quarter in which the present cycle is judged to have finished and (c) the fiscal year in which the present cycle is judged to have started and the fiscal year in which the present cycle is judged to have finished, for the purpose of assessing whether he has satisfied his golden rule at the end of the present economic cycle. [135777]

  Mr. Boateng
  Progress against the golden rule is measured by the average surplus on the current budget over the period from the financial year in which the economic cycle starts up to and including the financial year in which it ends.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he plans to measure the total surplus or deficit on the current budget(a) in cash terms since the start of the cycle and (b) as a share of GDP in each period covered by the cycle and take the average of these, for the purpose of assessing performance against his golden rule, over the present economic cycle. [135778]

  Mr. Boateng
  Progress against the golden rule is measured by the average surplus on the current budget expressed as a ratio to GDP over the economic cycle.

  Small Business Investment Companies
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the timetable for the launch of small business investment companies. [135568]

  John Healey
  The Government issued a consultation document alongside Budget 2003 called 'Bridging the Finance Gap: a consultation on improving access to growth capital for small businesses'. One of the issues raised by the consultation was the possibility of introducing in the UK a variant of the US Small Business Investment Company programme. The Government are currently considering the responses that they have received from the consultation and will respond to them in due course.

  Stamp Duty Land Tax
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether licences granted to(a) individuals and (b) businesses requiring an interest in land will be exempt from stamp duty land tax. [135603]

  Ruth Kelly
  The acquisition of a licence to use or occupy land is not in itself a chargeable transaction. However, the acquisition of such licences is often part of a larger transaction, other elements of which may be chargeable.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what alternative suggestions he has received to the proposal of charging stamp duty land tax on leases other than basing the charge on the net present value of the lease. [135606]

  Ruth Kelly
  A number of alternative suggestions were received, some based on net present value, some based on average annual rent and some based on a combination of the two.
  631W
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether assured shorthold tenancies will be chargeable to stamp duty land tax after 1 December. [135623]

  Ruth Kelly
  The grant of a lease, including an assured shorthold tenancy, is within the scope of stamp duty land tax. Whether there is a charge will depend on a number of factors such as the initial term and the rent payable.
  632W
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether mineral rights royalties are to be chargeable for stamp duty land tax after 1 December. [135624]

  Ruth Kelly
  The grant of a lease, including a lease giving the right to extract minerals, is within the scope of stamp duty land tax. Whether there is a charge will depend on a number of factors such as the initial term and the rent payable.

DEFENCE

  Regional Prime Contract South West
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  The Ministry of Defence has undertaken to make significant improvements to the defence estate through a restructuring of the service and construction delivery mechanisms. Regional prime contracting is a key element of that policy for which the South West region represents the second of five regional contracts. The initiative aims to provide a better quality of service and greater value for money through a suitably incentivised contract awarded on Smart Procurement principles that encourages innovation and efficiency.

  I am pleased to tell the House that the assessment phase is now complete. Revised bids have been received from three consortia and the bids have been evaluated against detailed criteria. The preferred bidder has been identified as Debut Services Ltd, a consortium of Bovis Lend Lease and Babcock Services Group International.

  The South West regional prime contract will provide for capital works, property maintenance and facilities management services throughout the MOD's estate in South West England over the next seven years. The value of this contract is likely to be in excess of £500 million. It is expected that contract award will take place in spring next year.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw)
  The Independent Scientific Group on cattle TB (ISG) was appointed by Ministers in 1998 to design and oversee a large-scale field trial, the randomised badger culling trial (RBCT), aimed at evaluating badger culling as a means to reduce the incidence of cattle TB. The trial involves three experimental treatments: (i) proactive culling, which aims to reduce badger densities to very low levels across entire trial areas, (ii) reactive culling, which seeks to remove only those badgers geographically close to recent cattle TB outbreaks on particular premises, and (iii) no culling (survey only).

  The culling of badgers in reactive treatment areas of the RBCT will be suspended from today. The decision to suspend the culling of badgers in these areas has been taken on the basis of recent scientific findings from the ISG.

  The ISG has advised Ministers that its interim analysis of trial data so far indicates that there was a 27 per cent. increase in the number of cases of bovine TB
  28WS
  (breakdowns) occurring in reactive culling areas compared to the related survey only areas where no badger culling took place.

  I have decided to suspend operations immediately because of the risk that a further three months of culling would cause additional TB breakdowns.

  The results that have now emerged from the reactive culling part of the trial will be published as soon as possible in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Data on herd breakdowns from the reactive trial areas will continue to be collected and subjected to further analysis with the more detailed results being submitted for publication in a peer reviewed journal at a later date.

  On the advice of the ISG, operations will continue in proactive areas because the data for these areas do not yet yield a statistically significant result. The survey-only (control) areas will also continue to be monitored.

  The Government's policy on bovine TB is based on scientific advice and these findings will be taken into account in the development of the forthcoming TB strategy.

TREASURY

  Double Taxation Convention (United Kingdom and New Zealand)
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  A protocol to the double taxation convention with New Zealand was signed on 4 November 2003. After signature, the text of the protocol was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and made available on the Inland Revenue's website. The text of the Protocol will be scheduled to a draft Order in Council and laid before the House of Commons in due course.

  Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly)
  I am today announcing the scope of the two-year review of the Financial Services and Markets Act, details of which are set out in a paper which is available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Bermuda
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  Pursuant to my written statement of 3 March 2003,Official Report, column WS72, the Governor of Bermuda has, on 2 November 2003, initiated a public debate in Bermuda on this subject, by publicising and distributing widely a consultation document seeking comments from political parties, organisations and interested individuals by 31 December 2003. Copies of this document have been placed in the Library of the House.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Extradition Bill
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint)
  The Government are today publishing a report containing their response to the consultation on the draft extradition code of practice.

  The draft code of practice, which sets out the operation of police powers under Part 4 of the Extradition Bill, was published on 9 June 2003. The consultation closed on 8 September.

  We are grateful to all those who took the time and trouble to respond to the consultation. The responses (other than those where the author requested that the response remain confidential) were placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament and made available on the Home Office website on 30 September.

  The report contains a summary and analysis of the comments received and sets out the Government's position in response to the main issues raised by respondents. Copies of the report are available in the Libraries of both Houses and can be accessed through the Home Office website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crimpol/oic/extradition/bill/documents.html

  Assuming that the Extradition Bill receives Royal Assent, the code of practice will be revised in the light of the comments received and laid before Parliament for approval by a resolution of each House.

  National Policing Plan 2004–07
  The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears)
  I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses copies of the National Policing Plan 2004–07 and the consultation paper "Policing: Building Safer Communities Together".

  The national policing plan sets the framework and context for policing in England and Wales for the next three years. It sets out the vision for successful policing, the key priorities, underpinning themes, national standards and the operational tools to deliver the service wanted and demanded by the public. The national policing plan will inform local planning and help to ensure that all communities know what they should expect from their local police force.

  The plan is central to our determination to ensure the police are able to work within a modern and efficient criminal justice system and to be engaged with the communities they serve. That is why we have published it jointly with our consultation paper "Policing: Building Safer Communities Together".

  The consultation paper sets out our broad thoughts on the future direction of police reform. We want to build on the successes of the existing reform programme in moving towards a modernised, truly representative, more responsive police service delivering, consistently, core national standards of policing that the public has a right to expect, within a framework which allows for local flexibilities. We want a genuine dialogue on the issues contained in the paper which are grouped under four main themes—increasing community engagement, strengthening accountability arrangements, improving operational effectiveness and modernising the police service.

  Both documents are available on the Home Office website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.
Lord Grantchester, having received a Writ of Summons in accordance with Standing Order 10 (Hereditary Peers: By-elections) following the death of Lord Milner of Leeds—took the Oath.

Statistics Commission Review of Economic Statistics
2.37 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will publish the results of the Statistics Commission review of the way official statistics relating to economic growth and other data are compiled by the Office for National Statistics.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, as specified in the framework for national statistics, the Statistics Commission operates independently of Ministers, so decisions on publication are a matter for the commission itself. However, the commission operates in a transparent and open way, with the minutes of its meetings, correspondence and the advice that it gives all normally made available for public scrutiny.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply, but he would have to admit that there is a touch of the miraculous about the doubling of the economic growth figures for the first half of the year. In view of the importance of the figures, and the way in which they affect interest rates, government revenue and other important issues, is there not something that can be done to look into the extreme variability of the figures provided by the ONS?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, that these are important matters. However, the implication behind his question, that there is "a touch of the miraculous", rather sounds to me as if he were implying that there is collusion between the Office for National Statistics and the Government. I am glad to see him shaking his head, because, as he recognises, that is certainly not the case.
678
Revisions of statistics, such as growth or manufacturing output statistics, have been a feature of national statistics ever since they first started to be collected. It is important that figures should be given as early as possible, and they are; but it must be recognised that the price paid for that is that returns sometimes come in late and have to be changed. There is no greater change recently than there has been in the past.
Lord Moser: My Lords, I have long experience of government statistics, and of the mistakes and errors that are almost inevitable. I remember when I was in charge, when we made mistakes or revisions, the media had a field day—and, of course, so did politicians. Sometimes, politicians use faulty statistics as a cover for somewhat faulty policies. I should like to quote to your Lordships—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Moser: My Lords, I should like to quote a minute from a Chancellor who said to the then director, "Please recalculate these statistics, they are not compatible with my policies".
Does the Minister agree that two things are important in the context of the Statistics Commission's report? First, should not a clear distinction be made between mistakes that are very rare and revisions that are necessary and which are a trade-off for timeliness? Secondly, does he agree that those in high places, whether in the Monetary Policy Committee or in government, must never rely on any one statistic that is inevitably subject to some errors?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I acknowledge the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Moser, in this matter, as the former head of the Central Statistical Office. I cannot remember his exact title, but it was something like chief statistical adviser to Her Majesty's Government. It is important that he should point out the difference between errors, which is what the press tends to call them, and necessary revisions. If things are produced in a timely way and not all of the information is available, revisions sometimes have to be made. There is nothing wrong with that.
Lord Newby: My Lords, given the problems of credibility and trust at the Office for National Statistics at the moment, and the potential conflict of interest between the National Statistician and the Chancellor—bearing in mind that he is appointed by the Chancellor and is asked to make decisions bearing on government policy—does the Minister agree that it would be preferable in future if the national statistician were appointed by the Statistics Commission and not directly by the Chancellor?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not accept either of the premises of the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I do not accept that there are particular problems at present, or that the National Statistician is appointed on a personal basis by the Chancellor. They are Nolan appointments, and it is entirely proper

679
that they should be so. Indeed, the setting up of the Statistics Commission shows that the Government believe that the commission and the Office for National Statistics should operate independently of government. That has not always been the case. However, I am interested by his suggestion about future appointments.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Statistics Commission review will include the treatment of £110 billion of PFI liabilities shown in table C20 of the Red Book 2003? Will he accept that the present treatment of these government debts is not in conformity with generally accepted accounting practice, and that if it were, it would put the Government in breach of both their own golden rule and the EU growth and stability pact?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not carry the Red Book with me. Therefore, unless the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, tells me what table C20 is about, it is very difficult for me to give a direct answer. If she is referring to the treatment of the obligations of Network Rail, then I can tell her that the Statistics Commission has confirmed that the Office for National Statistics has behaved entirely properly and correctly and in accordance with its obligations under international statistical standards.
Lord Lives of Talgarth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the sub-regional GDP figures assembled by the Office for National Statistics—and this applies to Wales, which has a 76 per cent average GDP, as against the South East, which has a 140 per cent GDP—have not been produced promptly for some areas? That has complicated matters in applying for European funding.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I would never have dared to call Wales a sub-region. I am shocked that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, should use such a term for the Principality.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I am sure the Minister will understand that I am talking about sub-regions within Wales.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that clarification. Of course, what I said about the potential conflict between timeliness and the final figures applies to Wales and to sub-regions in Wales as well. If the data are not returned to the DTI in time, then there is the possibility that revisions have to be made. That applies to Wales as it does to any other part of the country.

European Parliament: Members' Allowances
2.45 p.m.
Lord Waddington Lord Waddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much the British taxpayer pays directly or indirectly towards the allowances paid to Members of the European Parliament.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, MEPs' allowances fall within the operating expenditure of the European Parliament under the administration heading of the European Communities budget. In 2003, the expenditure on MEPs' allowances is budgeted at 79.92 million euros, or £51.95 million, out of the European Parliament's total budgeted expenditure of 1,020.3 million euros or £663.2 million. The UK's expected financing share of the 2003 EC budget is estimated at 13 per cent after the UK's abatement.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very detailed reply. However, would he not agree that when a British MP with considerable courage writes to the newspapers pointing out that the allowances paid to MEPs bear not the slightest relationship to the costs actually incurred it is time for all of us to sit up and take notice? Travel costs are reimbursed on the basis of the most expensive form of travel, plus 20 per cent; a staff allowance of £8,000 a month; a general expenses allowance of £2,500 a month on top of the £180 daily allowance, not to mention £35 a week for taxis after 10 p.m. when the limousine service ceases to run. Is this not a matter of great public importance because, so long as the European Parliament itself operates a racket, it is in a very weak position morally to investigate fraud in the Commission?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I very much enjoyed Mr Daniel Hannan's article in the Sunday Telegraph to which the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is no doubt referring. I particularly enjoyed the remark made to Mr Hannan by a French MEP:
"What is it about you English? You employ your wives and you sleep with your staff",
unquote, I think.
I entirely agree that the existence and nature of the statute that controls the expenses of Members of the European Parliament are unsatisfactory. The European Parliament needs a new statute, but the proposed new European Parliament version of the statute has proved to be unacceptable to the Council of Ministers. We are on the side of the Council of Ministers. To that extent I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. However, as I pointed out in my first Answer, the costs of MEPs' staff are only 19 per cent of the total costs of the European Parliament. The Kinnock reforms are resulting in savings of 80 million euros a year by 2006. Those include

681
pension reforms, promotion on merit and many other necessary reforms which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, will applaud.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, when the Minister gave me a Written Answer two weeks ago, did he draw any conclusions when he told me that the total cost per year to European taxpayers of a Member of the European Parliament works out at £1,059,000; that the cost to the British taxpayer of a Member of the House of Commons is £425,000; and that the total cost to the British taxpayer of a Member of the House of Lords is £96,000? Does he agree that a reasonable conclusion is that the House of Lords offers such fantastic value for money that it is best to leave it alone?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for drawing attention to an excellent publication of the House of Lords which gives in graphic form the figures to which he refers. I can confirm that I took them from that House of Lords publication and reported them directly to the noble Lord. As to the value of the contributions of Members of the European Parliament, Members of the House of Commons and Members of this House, I think that it would be entirely at variance with comity between the Houses of Parliament if I were to make an observation.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I am delighted to hear how seriously the Minister is taking this subject. I believe that he answered the question that I am going to ask, but I am not sure so I should like to have it on the record. We have our own Wicks Committee on Standards in Public Life which has put forward excellent recommendations. Does the Minister accept, or has he already said, that there is a case for such a committee to report on the European Parliament? Will he undertake to propose to our partners the establishment of such a committee and press for it with enthusiasm?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure that I quite said that, but certainly I agree with the thrust behind the noble Baroness's question. The trouble is that the statutes of the European Parliament are enshrined in paragraph 5 of Article: 190 of the treaty and were introduced by the Treaty of Nice. It will require major changes which we are certainly urging to ensure that there is greater transparency and accountability. Perhaps it would be useful to add that the salaries of Members of the European Parliament are paid at the national rate by member states and therefore are not paid out of our contribution to the European Parliament.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the biggest single waste of money in connection with the European Parliament relates to the fact that it is based on two sites, and that travel to Strasbourg costs the best part of 100 million unnecessary pounds a year? Will the Government, who have a major say in this as
682
it is a matter for treaty provision, give greater priority to persuading our French partners that this is a complete waste of money and should be stopped?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have given it priority. We have said what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked us to say. It is daft.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I declare an interest as an elected Member of the European Parliament. Does the noble Lord agree that there is consensus among the British Members of the European Parliament that the way in which the allowance and salary structure of MEPs is put together is an embarrassment to us? We merely want to see a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. Does the noble Lord further agree that in the most general terms the overall package of terms and conditions of a Member of the European Parliament is not dissimilar from that of a Member of the other place?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that the British Members of the European Parliament voted for a change in the statutes. That comprises the Conservatives, the Socialists and—I cannot remember their formal title in European jargon—I think also the Liberal Democrat Members of the European Parliament. I pay tribute to all those British Members of the European Parliament who took that step to control what is undoubtedly a system which is out of control.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, as the Member of the European Parliament who represents me costs, apparently, £1 million a year, is my noble friend able to tell me who he or she is? I remember going to the polling station and not being able to vote for a candidate, only for a party.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have no idea where my noble friend Lord Corbett lives.

Overseas Student Visas
2.53 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
How the imposition of a £250 fee for the renewal of student visas fits into their strategy for overseas students.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we fully recognise the contribution overseas students make to the United Kingdom and wish to encourage them to study here, but do not accept that the general taxpayer should fund the service. The benefits are, after all, reciprocal. Fees are set at levels which recover the costs of the service, £155 for the postal service and £250 for the same day premium service.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that very Home Office Answer. Does he

683
nevertheless accept that it entirely contradicts the Prime Minister's efforts to encourage international students to study in Britain, and the efforts that Charles Clarke and others have made to increase the attraction of UK higher education to people outside the European Union? Does the noble Lord also accept that moving from a nil charge to £250 in one go for students on very limited budgets is remarkable and that to do so without the consultation that was promised in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 seems to be an example of very unjoined-up government?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not accept that it runs contrary to the Prime Minister's initiative. Since that initiative was launched increasing numbers of overseas students have come to the United Kingdom. In the year 2001–02, there were some 190,000 international students in further and higher education—55,000 more than in 1996–97. We are a brand leader. There are examples of comparable fees in our major competitor nations for the receipt of overseas students. We feel that we now have a very good service. It costs but it is a cost based on a quite proper calculation of the real costs in terms of delivering that service.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is a great deal of difference between the length of time that international students are permitted to be in the UK on their initial visa? Would it not help to mitigate the hostility that has been created by this announcement if there was more uniformity? For example, some students are given the full period of their studentship plus a few months on their initial visa whereas others are given as little as six months. If the full time was always available, there would be less work for the Home Office and students would still come to the UK in the numbers that they have been.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an interesting and important point. The length that the visa lasts is very much related to the length of course the student is undertaking. But of course these are matters that the Government will continue to keep under review. When we look again at charges, that is something that we shall no doubt reconsider.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, do the Government think that they have explained this sharp rise adequately in the public domain to mitigate precisely the kind of hostility and lack of comprehension to which the recent supplementary question drew attention?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, obviously we are sensitive to the issues the right reverend Prelate raises, but during the passage of the 1999 legislation we made it plain that we would charge for this service. The origin of charging for such services goes back to legislation which has been on the statute book since
684
1983 and 1988. I hope that in future years, with the regular consultation that we are promising, people will better understand the basis of the fees.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Cambridge Commonwealth Trust and of the Cambridge Overseas Trust which, together with a number of similar trusts and the government Chevening scholarships, very substantially finance the attendance of thousands of students at Cambridge University among many others. Can the noble Lord possibly justify the introduction of these fees without the promised consultation? The fee of £250 for personal attendance is seven times the £36 fee heretofore paid for attendance as a student. Does the noble Lord appreciate that these changes will make it profoundly difficult to continue attracting quality students to this country and will increase hostility to this country?
When I was in China a few weeks ago the international director of studies at one of the universities there said that until recently Chinese students had been angry with their own government for refusing to let them leave the country. They are now becoming increasingly hostile to western governments for their unfriendly response in this respect. It surely is not compatible with the Prime Minister's initiative specifically undertaken to make student access simpler and more user friendly for this kind of change to be made at this notice without proper consultation. Is it not a classic example of unjoined-up government of which the Government should be frankly ashamed?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble and learned Lord. We have had this facility to charge on the statute book for approaching four years. We made it plain that that was our intent. I accept the noble and learned Lord's point that there should have perhaps been greater consultation but the negative resolution procedure did not necessarily facilitate that. We are very committed to ensuring that there is consultation in future, and that the fees represent a real charge in terms of the quality of the service. Students who apply for visas can now have a same-day application process, and can expect to have their postal application processed and turned round in a matter of weeks.
We believe that to be a significant improvement. Evidence, certainly that from MORI polling, suggests that students are impressed by the efficiency and effectiveness of the service, and that there is no disincentive so far as applying to universities here to come and study is concerned.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, first, will the Minister confirm on record that no consultation had taken place before the charge was increased, and that it was just introduced? Secondly, will he address the point raised by the noble Baroness on the Government Back Benches about those

685
students who have only an annual visa and therefore have to pay the charge three or four times to complete a degree subject in this country?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I would like to write to the noble Lord and confirm the exact situation on the second point. I made it plain at the outset that consultation was limited, but the power was in legislation in 1999. It was understood, and I am sure that it was debated in another place and in this House. The facility was also in legislation that goes back to 1988.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, the Minister has acknowledged the importance of the foreign students in this country, from both an education point of view and that of the financial contribution that they make. He referred to future consultation. Will he be more specific and give a more detailed undertaking that he will from now on consult the universities on the matter?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am entirely happy to give that confirmation. Now that the policy has been introduced and is working effectively, there will obviously be far greater opportunity for consultation with the British Council, UKCOSA, the universities and the higher and further education institutions. We are committed to that, and will ensure that there is much more information in the public domain. There is now much more information than there was, and the process of an application being rapidly seen to is plain for all to see.

Afghanistan: Reconstruction
3.2 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their current policies to ensure adequate security in southern Afghanistan will allow its people to move safely towards reconstruction and democratic rule.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the aim of United Kingdom policy is to achieve stability and security throughout Afghanistan as a whole. The United Kingdom is involved in all aspects of security-sector reform, which is central to enabling the Afghans to take responsibility for their own security. Establishing a centrally controlled, multi-ethnic national army and police force will underpin the authority of a nationally mandated central government and help to create an environment in which reconstruction can be carried out in safety.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has a particular interest in the security sector in Afghanistan. She will know that peacekeeping has had successes in the north, where the
686
Northern Alliance is, but not yet in the south and east, where the Taliban is still very active alongside A1'Qaeda. My principal question is this: has NATO got, or is it developing, a strategy for southern Afghanistan? How can we encourage our European partners in NATO to make a stronger contribution to the peacekeeping force as a matter of urgency, because we are looking forward to the elections only next summer?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his remarks about the Foreign Office. It is important to register what happened in UNSCR 1510, which enables ISAF to operate beyond Kabul and its environment, in the form of what are called provisional reconstruction teams and temporary deployments beyond the capital. Quite rightly, NATO is carefully considering the feasibility of taking on some additional tasks. It is important to remember that of the provisional reconstruction teams, four are in being at the moment, one of which is in the south. However, of the remaining four that it is hoped will be brought in next year, three will be in the south.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is not the real problem that, outside Kabul to the south and the east, the warlords and a revived Taliban are gaining increasing influence, and that they are doing so funded by a vast increase in opium revenues? Is not the position that the area under opium planting has increased by 75 per cent since the war, and that farmers earn 40 times as much as they would from wheat from growing more opium? Given that the UK Government have taken on special responsibility for co-ordinating the attempt to curb opium growth—they have spent £70 million doing so—is it not regrettable that the targets that we enunciated have been completely missed? It is becoming more and more essential to take a grip on a situation that is moving rapidly out of control.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there is a serious problem, but I do not think that it is quite of the apocalyptic proportions that the noble Lord has described. Of course security is a very serious matter. He is right to point out that the drug problem is very far from being under control. The results of the 2003 survey by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime showed an 8 per cent increase in cultivation, and a 6 per cent increase in production.
I point out to the noble Lord—he may find it disappointing, given what he said about targets—that that was very much in line with the sort of expectations that we had. Experience in countries such as Thailand and Pakistan, where opium production has been reduced very significantly, suggests that there is always something of a peak between trying to bring in the elements that will undermine drug production and reaching such a conclusion.
I acknowledge the real problem. I cannot say whether the security problem is fuelled by drugs; I am bound to say that I think that a number of elements are

687
involved in it. However, the noble Lord should not be so very gloomy about the outlook on the drugs question.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, is the Minister not being rather over-optimistic? Is she aware that, last Wednesday, the UN report to which she referred warned that Afghanistan risked becoming a state controlled by narco-terrorists? As said by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, production has increased, and poppies are now being cultivated in 28 of the 32 provinces in Afghanistan. That is double the number at the height of poppy production in the 1990s.
Given that 90 per cent of heroin on British streets comes from Afghanistan, how was it that the Government felt that they could claim, in a press release from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office last Wednesday, that the UN report showed that the UK was on track to meet its target of eliminating heroin from Afghanistan on UK streets over 10 years?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Baroness might well have prepared that question before I gave my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Howell. The fact is that there is never linear progression in the way the drugs issue is managed. There was not linear progression in Thailand or Pakistan. Development programmes take some time to deliver sustainable alternatives to the poppy farmers. In Afghanistan, where the institutional capacity and level of security is so low— that is what the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, pointed out in the Question—it takes time to build effective institutions and tackle law enforcement.
The figures that I gave noble Lords were taken from that report. They are the right figures. I am not being overly optimistic, but completely realistic about what has happened. However, I did not agree with the apocalyptic analysis of the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench.
Lord Elton: My Lords, there are just over seven months until the elections are due to take place. The noble Baroness referred to SCR 1510, which is permissive. However, I think that the House wants to know what will be the physical result of increasing security in the south-eastern sector of Afghanistan, where there is a powerful deployment of Taliban with more reinforcements waiting to come in from over the border in Pakistan. Who will be responsible for the security for those elections in such a short time?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is the point of introducing the provisional reconstruction teams, and of extending the remit of ISAF beyond Kabul in the way in which UNSCR 1510 seeks to do. The registration process for the elections should start on 1st December in urban areas and late February 2004 in rural areas. I understand that the process has been delayed, but that part of that delay is related not only to security but to lack of funds.
688
The point of trying to bring in provincial reconstruction teams is to see more progress in giving different parts of the country real underlying security. As I pointed out to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, it is hoped that in the south of the country three more teams will be introduced in the New Year. They will be looking at processes such as demobilisation, disarmament and the reintegration of former combatants and they will be supporting the security of the election process.

Commission for Equality and Human Rights
3.10 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ensure that their proposals for a commission for equality and human rights do not weaken existing legal protection against unlawful discrimination and that the chair and members of the commission are appointed in a way that demonstrates their independence.
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the Government's proposals are made to fight discrimination and inequality as effectively as possible. The new body is the result of the biggest review of equality institutions in a quarter of a century. Bringing the existing commissions together and adding human rights will give greater support and more coherent advice to individuals, businesses and communities. A single body had the support of a clear majority of the respondents to the consultation.
The commission's chair and members will be appointed in accordance with the Code of Practice of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, which ensures a fair, open and transparent process for making public appointments and includes provision for independent scrutiny.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that helpful Answer to my Question. The Government's announcement in it will be very welcome to the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, which has advocated these reforms, as has my party.
Does the noble and learned Lord agree that in order to win and retain confidence among the vulnerable groups which are the potential victims of discrimination, it is essential that in any reform nothing should be done to weaken the existing legal protection provided against discrimination? Does he also agree that there is nothing whatever in the suggestions around the marketplace that someone has already been lined up to be chair, notwithstanding that this is a Nolan appointment?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I would entirely agree with the noble Lord that none of the existing legal protections should be reduced. We

689
believe that bringing the commissions together into one single body provides better protection and a greater focus on fighting discrimination and inequality. Yes, I can completely scotch the suggestion made in the latter part of the noble Lord's question.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that the problems of discrimination which face disabled people are of a different degree and kind from problems of those who face discrimination on grounds of, say, gender or race? There are physical problems of mobility and access; there are communication problems for those with learning difficulties; and there are different communication problems for those who are visually or hearing impaired. Will my noble and learned friend assure the House that the work on all those different problems which are specific to disabled people will not be lost in the work of an overarching commission for equality and human rights?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend's description of the differences in relation to the problems faced by the disabled. In constructing the single body—and much work needs to be done in working out the detail—we must be sure that people who are disabled and have experienced the problems of disability discrimination are actively involved in the process of creating the new body. That is why a task force has been set up in which those campaigners will be actively involved and we shall try to meet the very point that my noble friend has raised.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, on that point, does there not remain a strong view that disablement should be dealt with by a separate commission and not be included with the others?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, indeed, that point was made during the consultation. We had to take a decision in relation to it and we believe that the right course is to bring the Disability Rights Commission into the single body. However, we must ensure that the creation of the body meets the point raised by my noble friend Lord Carter.
Baroness Prashar: My Lords, as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I, too, welcome the establishment of a single commission to promote equality and human rights. However, does the Minister agree that if the objective of the commission is to promote equality for all, it should be seen as a new body and not one which emerges as a result of the merger of the existing equality commissions?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, very much so. I remind noble Lords of what I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lester: it must not dilute existing protections for those who suffer discrimination. However, in creating the new body, one of the
690
purposes is to make it absolutely clear that equality and anti-discrimination are a mainstream activity— not just for individual groups but for everyone.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, under existing legislation relating to sex and race discrimination, the Crown is not exempt from the provisions of the Acts. Will the same apply to the new legislation?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the announcement about the single body relates only to the setting up of the single body. It is not about changing any other aspects of the discrimination legislation. A whole range of other issues need to be considered in relation to further legislation, but we propose to proceed on an incremental basis in relation to those other issues, one of which my noble friend Lady Lockwood has raised. The announcement we made last week is about the single body.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the Government believe that it is not sufficient to have the Disability Rights Commission in consultation. That is fine and helpful. However, is not the real answer to ensure that on disability the new body has complete autonomy? Without autonomy, disabled people will be overshadowed, overruled and overseen by other problems. Can the Minister assure us that there will be a significant degree of autonomy for the disabled groups?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I said in answer to my noble friend Lord Carter, we are absolutely determined that the disability issues are not lost in any way. Precisely how one ensures that is a matter for the task force that has been set up. It will have those involved with disability as its members and it will be for them to work out the best way to put forward the detail which will achieve that.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, in the light of what has been said today, can the noble and learned Lord assure us that such a giant-like organisation can be as effective as the existing organisations in protecting the rights of the groups they represent?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we believe that it can. That was the view of the majority of people who responded to the consultation; it was the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We believe that it can because it brings equality and anti-discrimination issues into the mainstream. Instead of going to a number of bodies, one can go to one body to obtain the support that so many people need for equality and anti-discrimination issues.

Ragwort Control Bill
3.17 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.— (Baroness Masham of Ilton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

European Union (Accessions) Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with an amendment.

Criminal Justice Bill
3.19 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.
[Amendment No. 143B not moved.]
Schedule 4 [Qualifying offences for purposes of Part 9]
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith)The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith) moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 219, line 7, leave out paragraph 5.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 144, I shall speak also to the other amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal—Amendments Nos. 145 to 154. Also in this grouping is Amendment No. 155, standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Dholakia.
Schedule 4 to the Bill, to which the amendments relate, contains the list of offences that the Government presented as those most suitable for the new retrial procedures. Opposition to this part of the Bill has focused on three points: first, some have criticised the schedule for being too extensive; secondly, some thought that the list did not comprise the most serious crimes; and, thirdly, others in another place argued that some of the crimes were high volume and that, instead of the retrial procedures being used in exceptional circumstances, retrial would therefore be used as a matter of routine.
The Government have listened carefully to the criticisms levelled at Schedule 4 in both Houses. What comprises the most serious offences remains a matter of judgment, but I believe that the retrial procedure should apply to offences other than murder, soliciting murder and genocide alone, as was proposed by the Opposition.
Having said that and having looked again at this matter, we believe there is scope to reduce the number of offences that should qualify for the retrial
692
provisions. Therefore, we are proposing a number of amendments which will help to focus the list on the gravest offences and remove those which are not of the highest order of seriousness but are relatively high-volume offences—for example, causing grievous bodily harm.
I should point out that, although we have deleted a number of offences, the list overall does not look shorter. However, that is because we need to include in the schedule the new sex offences which are regarded as of equivalent seriousness to rape or attempted rape under the new Sexual Offences Bill. Because those offences are brigaded under heads, they seem to go up in number but they are equivalent in terms of seriousness. I hope that the amendments will allay the fears of noble Lords who have expressed concerns about this part of the retrial provisions.
With your Lordships' leave, I shall wait to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, says about Amendment No. 155 and then respond. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that on the previous day on Report I said that, in considering whether a retrial should be permitted, it is necessary to strike a balance between the rights of the victim, the rights of an acquitted defendant, the resources available to the justice process and the resources available to the investigation by the police.
I conceded from these Benches that we were prepared to accept that the ancient double-jeopardy rule should be invaded to a very limited and narrow degree. Indeed, it is interesting that in the reign of Henry VII, despite the double-jeopardy rule, which was then part of the common law, an Act expressly permitted a second trial by appeal following an acquittal on an indictment for homicide only. The Act was motivated, so it was said, by,
"The King remembering how Murders and slaying of his Subjects daily do increase in this Land … and thereby great Boldness is given to Slayers and Murderers".
That appeal procedure—the second trial—was abolished in 1819. Therefore it lasted for some time, but only in respect of murders.
We on these Benches have taken the view that the Government's approach introduces into the schedule far too many offences which would be subject to the retrial procedure. If one looks for balance, as I outlined it, one is driven back to consider which cases really cause public disquiet. In any event, the whole purpose of introducing these provisions is to deal with public disquiet. The cases which have attracted publicity in the past are, without exception to my knowledge, cases of murder or homicide. It is those cases where acquitted defendants have, in very rare instances, gone on record as saying, "I have been acquitted. I cannot be prosecuted again, and I did it". It is in those cases, where there is a feeling that the police investigation has not been thorough enough or that people have been wrongly acquitted, that public disquiet arises.

693
I have said to your Lordships on many occasions that the whole basis of the criminal justice system rests not with lawyers or judges but with the people. If the people do not have confidence in the justice system for one reason or another, injustice will occur because witnesses will not come forward and jurors will not convict in appropriate cases. Therefore, where there is a degree of disquiet, as happens when a person is acquitted of murder and then confesses to having committed the crime, we concede that the double-jeopardy principle should be breached.
We oppose the amendments put forward by the Government and we oppose the scope of Schedule 4 as originally drafted. I suppose one can say that at least the amendments cut down the size of the list. But we cannot see that it is in the public interest that cases listed in Schedule 4, even as amended, should be the subject of the use of resources in the judicial process and police investigations and that they should breach the principle of finality about which we said so much on the previous occasion.
If there is to be an exception, it should be as the Law Commission decided after considerable thought in its report, Double Jeopardy and Prosecution Appeals, Cmnd. 5048, published in 2001 and presented to Parliament in March 2001. We take a principled stand on the basis of what is recommended in that report, and we believe that the Government have not justified going beyond the Law Commission's views.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak at this juncture to put on the record clearly the position of these Benches rather than wait until the end of what I am sure will be a detailed and interesting debate.
I made it clear in Committee that I believed it was vital to provide safeguards for the rules on relaxing double jeopardy. I now believe that the amendments put forward in this group by the Government go a long way towards achieving just that. It is true that only time and events will prove whether they go far enough, but I am prepared to accept them today.
Throughout, our view has been that retrial should be limited. If it is to happen at all, it should be limited to very serious offences. From a purely practical point of view it is essential that the police and the prosecution service should be given the opportunity to demonstrate that the new proposals work fairly and effectively before we roll out the relaxation of double jeopardy as widely as the Government intended in their first list of offences.
I have looked closely at the list now proposed by the Government. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for meeting with me during the September sitting to discuss how to achieve some agreement on these issues. We both gave a little in what has to be a compromise.
The noble and learned Lord was also kind enough to ensure that I had the opportunity to speak— individually in all but one case—to my own Back-Bench Bill team, most of whom, if not all, are here
694
today. Also at the Bill team meeting held as preparation for Report stage I was able to explain the objectives of the government amendments and not one of the team put forward objections to the proposals that the noble and learned Lord puts forward today.
From speeches made from the Benches behind me last week, the noble and learned Lord will be aware that several of my noble friends remain deeply concerned about the principle of retrial being available. We on the Front Bench have accepted that in certain limited terms it will be available. I know that the purists among us on the Back Benches would have been happier if the Government had not brought forward this part at all.
On the amendments relating to safeguards and restricting the list in the schedule, I have not yet received from any on my team any objections to the government amendments. I now accept that the Government's new schedule would cover the most serious offences, including those most commonly associated with international crime and terrorism. I accept that it vastly reduces the number of acquitted persons who may face the possibility of a retrial. I estimate the reduction, taking the annual figure, to be about 65 per cent. Despite all that, we have to take note that it will be vital for the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police to consider very carefully in each and every case whether it would be right, safe or appropriate to seek a retrial and if they determine to proceed, to ensure that the process is carried out with the utmost care and reliability.
The fact remains that the Government and the police have already raised the hopes of victims and the relatives of victims with the promise of this new power. It must not be used incautiously or unfairly. Both the innocent accused—there will remain innocent accused who may be caught by this—and the victim would, thereby, suffer even more than they do now. We must avoid that. In the mean time, I support the amendments and in so doing that will reduce the amount of time that I shall need to trouble your Lordships in speaking to later groups of amendments.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I support the principle of doing away with the double-jeopardy rule. The defence has always had the right to obtain a new trial on the basis of fresh evidence that was not available at the time of the original trial, so if the prosecution has genuine new evidence, equally it should have the right to apply for a retrial. It is vital that such a measure should be used sparingly; it is vital that it should be limited in the offences that it covers; and it is vital that there are adequate safeguards in the way that it is used. Presumably we shall come to those safeguards later in the debate.
I accept that, as the Attorney-General says, in the end it will be a matter of balance as to which offences will be covered. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Thomas is right to say that in the past we have argued for or considered the issue of double jeopardy in murder or manslaughter cases, but how can one be sure that all offences with a high profile will necessarily fall into that category in the future? Clearly, it is arguable that someone who is charged, for example, with a series of rapes or with arson—offences of equal seriousness—

695
should be liable to be retried provided the evidence is there and the tests are met. I take the first two offences on the Attorney-General's list. Therefore, while I sympathise with what my noble friend Lord Thomas says, I do not think that one can in practice limit it as narrowly as he wishes. Therefore, I welcome what the Government have done in producing a new list at this time.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, in one sense, after the very thorough debate on double jeopardy at the previous day of Report stage, there is little more to be said. On that occasion, the principle having been conceded by the House, noble Lords raised a theme that bears on whether the list provided by the Government or the list provided by the Benches opposite would be the better list. Many noble Lords fear that, the double-jeopardy principle having been breached once, we could be on a slippery slope and that there will be pressure for anything that could be called high profile to find its way on to the list. Therefore, to my mind, to judge between the amendments before us, we should consider which set of amendments provides some kind of principled division between the offences that can be retried and those that cannot.
It seems to me that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, limits the offences in a way that can be described as principled; namely they are offences in which life has been taken. If we are to make this major change, as the House has decided, it is extremely important to reassure those of us who believe that this is a dangerous precedent that there is a principled bulwark against the gradual accretion of crimes to the list simply under pressure from the press or from a public outcry in a particular place. Therefore, I commend the amendment that limits those offences that would appear in the Bill to those in which life has been taken.
Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, as one who unsuccessfully opposed the whole of this change in the law last week, my position is to favour the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I believe that we make a great mistake in getting rid of a historic rule of English law and if we are to do that, we should confine it as narrowly as possible. Looking back, the real force for this change was the Law Commission's report. It is true that it was mentioned in the Macpherson report, but I believe that the support given by the Law Commission has led to the present provision. I strongly recommend to your Lordships that we should confine the principle as narrowly as possible and in accordance with the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I too am not totally opposed to some relaxation of the rules, as I have made clear in the past. But I agree both with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and with the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, that in the first instance the exceptions should be confined as narrowly as possible and then let us see
696
how the provision works. Therefore, I would support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and oppose the amendment which has apparently been agreed between the two Front Benches.
Perhaps I may underline one reason. The Law Commission clearly considered that this a very important and difficult step to take. It said that in the first instance the matter should be confined to murder. No good reason has been given why we should reject its advice.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I have doubts about the breadth of the list put forward by the Government. I see very much the force of the argument that we should follow the Law Commission's representations and the principled argument developed by the right reverend Prelate, whereas we look at a list of offences which have here been categorised as serious— and they are serious—but on relatively judgmental grounds without the underlying thread of principle that will indicate how this branch of the law will develop.
It seems to me—I may be wrong—that this intertwines in some way with an amendment that will be put forward later by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in which the noble Lord seeks to insert in the provision for retrial regarding evidential requirements that evidence,
"could not reasonably have been adduced".
I am not, at the moment, clear about the Government's approach to this amendment. For my part, I should be extremely sceptical about a relatively long list of offences, particularly if this protection, and this discipline on those who carry out their inquiries, was not accepted by the Government and introduced. But, in any event, I slightly favour the approach put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I too think that we should proceed incrementally. I see no virtue in leaping far ahead. We can always add to the legislation. Criminal Justice Bills seem to appear at every Session, so there is no reason to doubt that the opportunity will arise again.
On the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, when we reach the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, we shall see whether his very understandable concern, which I share, is catered for. I believe that it probably is by the way in which the Government seek to provide safeguards. But we shall come to that matter later.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a procedural question. Clearly, the first logical question is whether one reduces the list to the size wanted by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. If one decides not to do that, it seems to me that everyone is agreed that the Government's pruning is an improvement. However, if the House accepts the noble and learned Lord's amendments which prune the list, can it go on

697
and substitute the very much shorter list of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, or will it be said that that has been pre-empted by the governmental pruning?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, 1 have taken advice on that issue. I understand that I would be able to move my amendment in its proper place.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, on advice, I agree with that. I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I recognise, as I did last week, that there are sincerely held views about the desirability of including these provisions at all. That was the debate which we had in detail and decided last week.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for her support, but, as she said, the provision involved discussion and a degree of compromise. As a number of noble Lords have said during the debate, ultimately it is a question of judgment. For these purposes, we believe that the judgment reached, at least on both Front Benches, is just and appropriate.
Before turning to the detailed points made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and other noble Lords, I agree entirely—this is of course common ground— that it is vital for the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider very carefully whether a case is appropriate before proceeding with it; and, as I said last week, that is one of the important safeguards, as is the fact that it will be for the Court of Appeal to decide whether it is in the interests of justice to proceed. We may return to the issue of safeguards and I shall say something about them then.
I also agree, for the same reason, with the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, that this is a right which will be used sparingly. Reducing the list means that the opportunity for using it is significantly reduced. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, gave some figures which might give some indication in relation to that. Having said that, I remain of the view that the pruning proposed by the Government takes adequate and proper account of the concerns expressed.
Amendment No. 155 goes too far. Despite what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester said, we do not see the principle behind the shorter list; nor, for that matter, did Lord Justice Auld. It is right to recollect that although, as a number of noble Lords have remarked, the Law Commission made an important recommendation in relation to double jeopardy, so did Lord Justice Auld in his very important report on access to justice. He was in favour of not limiting the proposal to murder. He recommended that it should extend to other grave offences punishable with life and/or long terms of imprisonment. The Government's list in the main covers offences which are punishable by life imprisonment. He said—and I commend it to noble Lords:
"What principled distinction, for individual justice or having regard to the integrity of the system as a whole, is there between murder and other serious offences capable of attracting sentences that may in practice be as severe as the mandatory life sentence? Why should an alleged violent rapist or robber, who leaves his victim near dead, or a large scale importer of hard drugs, dealing
698
in death, against whom new compelling evidence of guilt emerges, not be answerable to the law in the same way as an alleged murderer?".
I note that the list of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, does not include all offences in which death is caused. It does not include manslaughter, or arson endangering life in which it may be a matter of lucky happenstance that death does not in fact result, but the culpability of the offence may be just as great.
We do not think that it should be possible for a person who has been acquitted of a violent rape to escape being retried if new and compelling evidence comes to light. Equally, we do not think that it is right to exclude the case of someone directing a terrorist organisation, which may very well be dealing in death. I give way to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General is looking for a principled distinction, surely there is a very clear one: murder is subject to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment, a point on which no doubt he will rely when we come later to other amendments. What is wrong with that as a principled distinction?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I shall not have the pleasure of dealing with that part of the debate today, although I shall read with interest of course all that is said. The principle here is the principle of finding the right balance where particularly serious crimes can be the subject of a retrial if new and compelling evidence comes to light.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, says that the public disquiet test he poses would be satisfied only in the case of murder. I disagree and would strongly suggest that kidnappers, terrorists and violent rapists, if allowed to walk free, although there is new and compelling evidence which cannot be tested again, would also satisfy the test of public disquiet. That is the difference between us. The public interest in obtaining proper convictions in those circumstances is plain. To reduce the list simply to murder, soliciting murder and genocide would exclude too many offences. Noble Lords will note that not even attempted murder is included. With respect, I do not understand the principle for including soliciting murder but not attempted murder. We owe it to victims and their families to make those provisions.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendments Nos. 145 to 154:M
Page 219, line 13, leave out "or 2"
Page 219, line 17, leave out "or 2"
Page 219, line 22, at end insert—
"Assault by penetration
An offence under section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent
An offence under section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 where it is alleged that the activity caused involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section.
Rape of a child under 13
An offence under section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Attempted rape of a child under 13
An offence under section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 (c. 47) of attempting to commit an offence under section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Assault of a child under 13 by penetration
An offence under section 6 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity
An offence under section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 where it is alleged that an activity involving penetration within subsection (3)(a) to (d) of that section was caused.
Sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder
An offence under section 31 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 where it is alleged that the touching involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section.
Causing or inciting a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity
An offence under section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 where it is alleged that an activity involving penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section was caused."

Page 220, line 10, leave out paragraph 15.

Page 220, line 15, leave out paragraph 16.

Page 221, line 7, leave out paragraphs 24 to 30.

Page 222, line 15, leave out paragraph 36.

Page 223, line 19, leave out paragraph 46.

Page 223, line 24, leave out paragraph 47.

Page 224, line 15, leave out paragraphs 55 to 61.

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 155:
Leave out Schedule 4 and insert the following new Schedule—

PART 1 LIST OF OFFENCES FOR ENGLAND AND WALES
Murder
1.Murder.
Soliciting murder
2. An offence under section 4 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (c. 100) (conspiring or soliciting to commit murder).
Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes
3 An offence under section 51 (genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes) or 52 (conduct ancillary to genocide, etc committed outside jurisdiction) of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (c. 17).

PART 2 LIST OF OFFENCES FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
Murder
4.Murder.
Soliciting murder
5.An offence under section 4 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (c. 100).
Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes
6. An offence under section 51 or 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (c. 17).

PART 3 SUPPLEMENTARY
7 A reference in this Schedule to an enactment includes a reference to the enactment as enacted and as amended from time to time."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have presented what I want to say on the amendment, but perhaps noble Lords will permit me to reply to the comments that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has just made. In particular, I draw his attention to paragraph 4.22 of the Law Commission's report, which states:
"Any exception [to the double jeopardy rule] must, however, be limited to those types of cases where the damage to the credibility of the criminal justice system by an apparently illegitimate acquittal is manifest, and so serious that it overrides the values implicit in the rule against double jeopardy".
On the noble and learned Lord's other point about whether there is a principled basis for murder as opposed to any other crime, the Law Commission, at paragraph 4.34, said that,
"murder, as the most serious form of homicide, is in a unique position and can as a matter of principle be separated off from all other offences. There is, we must accept, a potential problem with using such an analysis to justify treating murder in this way. Murder, as defined in English law, is not confined to deliberate killing".
It deals also with intent to cause serious harm. Even if most murderers are not deliberate killers, however, there is still an important sense in which deliberate killing is the core of the offence of murder. That is sufficient to justify concluding that it remains a unique offence, not merely one that is more serious than others.
The Law Commission's view on whether there is a principled distinction with murder is as I have described it. On the principle of disquiet to the public, the Law Commission is with us. For that reason, I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the Government's position is to resist the amendment. The amendments that have just been agreed and those that the noble Lord is moving do not admit of the principle to which he relates. The Law Commission quotations that he cited limit the position to murder; that is not what the noble Lord's amendment would do. He includes cases that do not involve death at all—soliciting murder might not; nor might war crimes and breaches of the Geneva Convention. I make no complaint about that. It is a question of balance.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, on a point of information, genocide is covered by the Law Commission.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that one does not find the right balance by limiting the scope to murder—neither of us does. I continue to resist the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, in those circumstances, I seek to obtain the opinion of the House.
3.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 155) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 185.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L

Neill of Bladen, L.

Addington, L.

Newby, L.

Alderdice, L.

Northover, B.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Allenby of Megiddo,V.

Onslow,E.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Avebury, L.

Redesdale, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Renton, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Bridges, L.

Roper, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Russell, E.

Chalfont, L.

Sandberg, L.

Chorley. L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

[Teller]

Cobbold, L.

Sharman, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Shutt of Greetland,L.

Dholakia, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Erroll, E.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Ezra, L.

Stern, B.

Falkland, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Fearn, L.

Strange, B.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Taverne, L.

Goodhart, L.

Tebbit, L.

Hamwee, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Harris of Richmond, B

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hylton, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Laird, L.

Tordoff, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L

Walker of Worcester, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Listowel, E.

Walmsley, B.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Walpole, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Warnock, B.

Maclennan of Rogart, L

Watson of Richmond, L.

McNally, L.

Weatherill, L.

Maddock, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.[Teller]

Wigoder, L.

Methuen, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Millet of Chilthorne Domer.B.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Monson, L.

Worcester, Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Ahmed, L

Berkeley, L.

Alli, L

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Billingham, B.

Ampthill, L

Blackstone, B.

Andrews, B.

Blaker, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B

Blatch, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Ashcroft, L.

Borrie, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Bragg, L.

Bach, L.

Brennan, L.

Barnett, L

Bridgeman, V.

702

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Liverpool, E.

Brookman, L

Lockwood, B.

Burlison, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Buscombe, B.

Lucas, L.

Byford, B.

Luke, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carter, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Christopher, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Colwyn, L.

Mar, C.

Condon, L.

Marsh, L.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Cox, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Crawley, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

David, B.

Mitchell, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Desai, L.

Morgan, L.

Dixon, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Moser, L.

Dubs, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Moynihan, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Nicol, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Noakes, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Ouseley, L.

Filkin, L.

Parekh, L.

Gale, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Glentoran, L.

Paul, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Pendry, L.

Goudie, B.

Peston, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Grantchester, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gregson, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Radice, L.

Hanham, B.

Rea, L.

Harrison, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Haskel, L.

Rooker, L.

Hayman, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Saatchi, L.

Higgins, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Sandwich, E.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Sawyer, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Seccombe. B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Selsdon, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Sharples, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Simon, V.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hoyle, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L

Stallard, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Inglewood, L.

Swinfen, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Joffe, L.

Thornton, B.

Jones, L.

Turnberg, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Vivian, L.

Levy, L.

Waddington, L.

Lindsay, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lipsey, L.

Wakeham, L.

703

Warner, L.

Wilcox.B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Wilkins,B.

Whitaker, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Whitty, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.6 p.m.
Clause 61 [Application to Court of Appeal]:
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 41, line 16, leave out "and"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 156 is consequential to Amendment No. 157, whose purpose is to ensure that the Director of Public Prosecutions must take into account the United Kingdom's obligations in relation to double jeopardy under the Treaty of European Union. The purpose of the amendment is to make it clear that the statutory provisions to reopen acquittals given in other EU member states will be compatible with the United Kingdom's obligations under the Treaty of European Union. The Director of Public Prosecutions will take into account those obligations when deciding whether to make an application to the Court of Appeal.
At present, we are in negotiation with our European Union partners to provide for mutual recognition of acquittals in the courts of other EU member states. Those negotiations continue but are aimed at preventing the reopening of cases for which there has already been an acquittal in another EU member state, except in exceptional circumstances. The amendment makes it clear that the DPP will have to consider any obligations that arise as an outcome of those negotiations, before making an application to the Court of Appeal. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 41, line 17, at end insert ", and
"( ) any trial pursuant to an order on the application would not be inconsistent with obligations of the United Kingdom under Article 31 or 34 of the Treaty on European Union relating to the principle of ne bis in idem."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 157A not moved.]
Clause 62 [Determination by Court of Appeal]:
[Amendment No. 157B not moved.]
Clause 63 [New and compelling evidence]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 41, line 36, at end insert "scientific"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now move to the different topic of confining the nature of the new and compelling evidence that is to trigger the retrial of an acquitted person. In general, retrials are usually asked for on new evidence where the issue is identity. It is in
704
those cases that, in recent years, more scientific methods have evolved that may indicate that the person acquitted was the perpetrator of the offence.
There are only two ways in which one can obtain compelling evidence: a confession or clear scientific evidence. One should also have regard to the problem of murder cases, on which, I suspect, despite the decision taken a moment ago, most of the clamour for retrials will take place. In murder cases identity is not the usual issue. I have seen the statistic: in about 10 per cent of cases identity is the issue in a murder trial. Normally the question is whether there is intent, provocation, self-defence and so forth. Those are the usual defences in murder trials. Identity rears its head only occasionally. The same goes for rape, which is another area when one might expect applications for retrial. The question is not consent—I cannot imagine that there would be fresh evidence that would go to the issue of consent in a rape trial that could make any difference. However, the issue is identity.
We have considered the two aspects of overwhelming evidence that would make a retrial of an acquitted person just against the background that we have discussed of the double jeopardy rule. We do not think that confessions are a sufficient ground, largely because, in my experience, confessions arise from the evidence of other prisoners in prison—cell confessions and confessions to people who have an interest to serve. That type of evidence, although it might be dealt with by the Court of Appeal in deciding whether to grant leave, is inherently unacceptable. So we think it right to confine the fresh evidence that goes essentially to issues of identity to scientific evidence such as DNA or new methods that may evolve. We have been familiar with fingerprints for many years, but identification from the iris of the eye is something that is new and coming into this field.
We believe that evidence of that nature is the only evidence capable of giving the Court of Appeal sufficient assurance that the likelihood of a conviction in a retrial makes it just for that retrial to take place.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I point out that there is no definition of "scientific" in this part of the Bill? Does he have a statutory definition of "scientific" in mind, because much must depend on how that word is defined?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, before I get into the business of defining the word "scientific", it is important to establish the principle, which is the purpose of this amendment.
I note that I have not spoken to Amendment No. 159 which is grouped with this amendment. Again, we take the view that it is very important to prevent applications for a retrial coming before the court on evidence that was discoverable by,
"reasonable and diligent inquiry before or at the proceedings in which the person was acquitted".
One of the basic problems with the abolition of the double jeopardy rule is that it could lead to sloppy police investigation in the first place. The purpose of

705
this amendment, grouped with the one to which I have already spoken, is to ensure that that does not happen. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend tabled this amendment. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General may remember that we had a very brief exchange on the subject of confessions last Thursday, in which I raised the case of Lawrence Clarkson the ranter who claimed to have slept with 365 women. The noble and learned Lord said that that was quite a different case from the other one that we discussed. One was an admission of crime and the other was sheer boastfulness. It may have escaped the noble and learned Lord's attention, but at the time Lawrence Clarkson spoke, adultery was actually a capital offence, so the distinction was a little less than the noble and learned Lord thought. Admittedly, it is a capital offence of which I believe only six known convictions have yet been discovered, but capital offence it was, so Clarkson took a risk.
On the word "scientific", the noble Lord, Lord Renton, raises a point, which, as always, demands thought. Over the centuries, "scientific" has changed its meaning fairly considerably. A great deal that appeared even to a man as clear-headed as Francis Bacon to be scientific would not appear to us to be so. A great deal of the literature on witchcraft was described at the time as scientific. I would have thought that this was something best left to evolve according to the wisdom of the common law at the time prevailing. Were we to attempt to define it in statute we would be attempting to ascribe in stone something that, I regret to say, has the viscosity of mud.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 158A in my name. The Bill as drafted is inordinately complex, as are the amendments. The question arises of whether my amendment has been overtaken by anything that the Government have produced. It may have been. In any event, what I am trying to do, which may not be sufficient, is to ensure that the evidence could have been adduced—it was there and it was possible for the evidence to be considered adduced. I cannot find any provision in the government amendments that effect that. However, I may be wrong. I am puzzled by the Government amendments in this regard, and I am trying to put the matter beyond any peradventure of doubt, which this amendment does.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and Amendment No. 159 in the name of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. Surely, when we talk about new and compelling evidence, we are talking about evidence that was not available at the time of trial. A person who goes before the Court of Appeal for a defendant and requests a retrial because of fresh evidence will be asked, "When was that evidence available to you?". I understand fresh evidence to mean—and I think it still does
706
mean—evidence that was not readily available at the time of the trial. Equal matter should apply to new evidence under the prosecution's power to apply for a retrial.
Indeed, the Attorney-General himself has accepted that point. I made a note of what he said in answer to another amendment. On two separate occasions he said,
"if new and compelling evidence comes to light",
which clearly implies that new evidence comes to light after the trial has taken place. However, new evidence is defined in Clause 63(2). It states:
"Evidence is new if it was not adduced in the proceedings".
With respect, that is totally different from saying that it has come to light since the proceedings. Those of us who accept that the principle of double jeopardy should go and who support the Government's new list and the amendment to this Bill have done so on the basis that it is vital that there are proper and adequate safeguards before the power can be used. It is essential that one of them should be that the evidence that a party wishes to put before the jury should not be evidence that it could have put, had it chosen, before the jury at the earlier trial.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I was concerned, immediately I read the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, by a recollection that the matter was covered. Is it not covered by Clause 64, which deals specifically with the interests of justice? Clause 64(2) says:
"That question is to be determined having regard in particular to … whether it is likely that the new evidence would have been adduced in the earlier proceedings against the acquitted person but for a failure by an officer or by a prosecutor to act with due diligence or expedition".
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. The one reference is in Clause 64(2)(c). As he says, it states:
"the new evidence would have been adduced in the earlier proceedings against the acquitted person but for a failure by an officer or by a prosecutor to act with due diligence or expedition".
That is the only safeguard with regard to the word "new". It does not seem adequate merely to say that it is likely that it would have been adduced, if someone had not made a mistake.
In Clause 63(2), there is a clear statement of what "new" evidence is. It is evidence that,
"was not adduced in the proceedings".
It ought to be made clear in the Bill that "new" evidence means fresh evidence, as it has always been known—namely, evidence that was not readily available to be used at the time by the party that now wishes to introduce it. Otherwise, the prosecution could, if someone has been acquitted, go to the Court of Appeal, apply for a re-trial and say that it wished to add new and compelling evidence that it had had at the time but the importance of which it had not realised until it had heard the defence.

707
The definition is far too wide. I hope that either the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, or the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, will push one or other of the amendments to a vote.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General give us a little guidance? Let us imagine a trial in which it is expected that the prosecution will be able to call six eye-witnesses to the event that forms the foundation of the trial. When the trial takes place, none of the six witnesses turns up, and the prosecution strongly suspects that they are being kept out of the way by the defendant. Some time later, the six witnesses turn up, present themselves to the authorities and say, "We were kept away by the defendant. We saw the crime being committed".
In such a case, there would be overwhelming justification for a new trial, following an acquittal. That certainly is not scientific evidence.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, is not that the position at the moment? Under current law, if a witness is kept away by a defendant and he is to blame, the Court of Appeal can order a re-trial.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I began by being attracted to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and to the way in which the argument was put by my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. I still feel that I would have expected, at first sight, to find such a provision in Clause 63.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, pointed out, there is a not dissimilar provision in Clause 64(2). However, will the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General say whether he regards the effect of Clause 64(2) as being as strong and effective as if the words suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, were inserted?
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I would support the making of Amendment No. 158A or, failing that, Amendment No. 159 for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. For two reasons, I do not agree with the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that the matter is covered by Clause 64(2)(c). First, Clause 64(2)(c) is only a factor to be taken into account in deciding where the interests of justice lie. The fact that the evidence was available could be overridden by the other factors, whereas, if we made the amendments that we are considering, there would be an absolute bar.
Secondly—it may be a technical point—Clause 64(2)(c) applies only if an officer or prosecutor fails to act with due diligence. What happens if an officer consciously decides not to call the evidence because it would throw some doubt on another side of his case? If he then loses and the man is acquitted, he might say, "I'll have another shot. This time, I will call that evidence, and I will run the risk". That is not covered.
708
The words used by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, are exactly the test that applies to the defence and, therefore, ought to apply to the prosecutor.
I am wholly against Amendment No. 158. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said that there were two circumstances—a confession and scientific evidence. I would have thought that there was a third—namely, evidence emerging that the defendant had conspired to procure evidence to get him off. If six people come along—this is not quite the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington—and say that they were induced into giving false evidence, that is such a circumstance.
The confession circumstance is more disquieting to the public. What happens if we have a man, such as— I think—Mr Haigh, who, after being acquitted of some murders, published a book saying that he had done them and, thus, made a lot of money? Surely, that calls for a re-trial. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that, if a fellow prisoner says, "He confessed to me one night", that may not be compelling evidence. That is dealt with further down. If, however, the confession is obviously true, it would be extraordinary to have an undesirable new practice such that, if a man had made a lot of money by confessing a crime, he could not be re-tried because that was not scientific evidence.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the amendments divide into two. The first, Amendment No. 158, deals with the sort of evidence that can get us to the starting block. As the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, rightly said, getting to the starting block with new evidence is only part of the test. It must be compelling and, indeed, new; I shall come back to the definition of that.
With respect, I wholly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that only scientific or confessional evidence could be covered. I do not see why it should be limited to scientific evidence. Many different sorts of new evidence could come forward, and some examples have been given in the debate. I need not go into the detail of those examples or enter into the debate, for example, between the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Waddington. The fact that people may come forward who are able to give important evidence, which tends to show the commission of a crime, is certainly not beyond human knowledge. There may be the discovery of physical evidence—for example, a murder weapon or something of that kind. Therefore, it is not right to restrict it to those two categories.
I also strongly disagree with the statement that confession evidence may not be very important evidence on which one can rely. In Committee, I gave the example of an extremely disturbing case in which a man hid the young woman that he had killed behind a bath panel and subsequently boasted—not just in his cell, but to a number of people—that he had committed the murder. It would be enormously disquieting to public confidence should such matters not be taken into account.
I entirely agree that it is necessary to determine whether a particular confession is compelling. Of course, there are cases in which confession evidence is

709
not, but that is the second stage of the test, and not the first. However, I would add that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was right to ask what exactly is meant by "scientific" in this context. I therefore resist the amendment. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is not in his place, I shall not go into the variance between us about the differences between admitting adultery and admitting murder.
I turn now to Amendment No. 158A, proposed by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, and Amendment No. 159, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, which have similar effects. Amendment No. 159 would restrict the evidence that the Court of Appeal could consider. It would mean that evidence, which might somehow have been discovered before the original trial, could not be regarded as "new" within the meaning of Clause 63. Therefore, the evidence would have to be entirely excluded from consideration by the Court of Appeal, which would lead to protracted arguments about whether a particular piece of evidence could have been discovered, regardless of its weight or its merit.
I hope that I do not take an unfair point if I draw attention to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, who, in putting forward his eloquent observations, used a different formulation. He used the formulation of evidence which was readily available, which is not the same as the test proposed in Amendments Nos. 158A and 159. There could be quite a significant difference between them. I draw attention to that simply because it indicates the kind of issue that there may be.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, is there really all that much difference between "readily available" as against,
"could not reasonably have been adduced"?
They both give a degree of discretion.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, there is; a difference. Evidence which is "readily available" is one thing. Evidence which is not "readily available" may still be evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could have been adduced or, "reasonably have been adduced", in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. It may be said that it would have been reasonable to use super-human efforts to find it if it was not readily available. That is an indication of the difficulty to which that gives rise.
Clause 63 gives a clear statement as to what constitutes new and compelling evidence by defining it as evidence which,
"was not adduced in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted".
That is a clear test. One then comes—and this is the way in which we have chosen to deal with it—to the test in Clause 64, which makes the issue of whether the evidence is likely to have been adduced, "but for a failure … to act with due diligence or expedition",
one of the factors to which the Court of Appeal must have regard.
710
The Court of Appeal must have regard in deciding whether it is in the interests of justice for the court to make the order. That is obviously the overriding and— I hope noble Lords agree—the right test of what is in the interests of justice. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, asked whether that is precisely the same as the effect of the tests proposed in Amendments Nos. 158A and 159. It is not. He used the word "effective". In my view, it is a very effective clause, but it is not an absolute bar. It would be wrong to think that it is. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, was right to say that.
Therefore, it is a factor. I do not say that it is a minimal issue; I have no doubt that it will be an important issue for the Court of Appeal to take into account. But it would be open to the Court of Appeal to say, "Having looked at all the circumstances, including the failure to exercise due diligence"—which may be gross or slight—"and having regard to the overriding interests of justice, it still remains in the interests of justice for the retrial to take place". There is a difference, which provides a very important safeguard, so that there is no encouragement to lax investigation.
There will be examples of evidence which had been discovered but the relevance of which only recently came to light—for example, new testing techniques, such as DNA. The provision must allow for DNA testing to constitute "new" evidence, even when the police may have had the sample for many years. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, picked me up on the expression, "new evidence comes to light". Of course, when using the expression, "comes to light", it depends which room one is talking about in which the light is shining. If the light is the original court, it was not within that light. Therefore, one must look at whose judgment is being considered. In using that expression, I obviously was not moving in any way away from the definition given in the Bill.
However, there is one circumstance to which I shall draw attention. It was picked up by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and we have given thought to it. I would have to read Hansard to be quite clear, but probably it touches on the example given by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. The Joint Committee pointed out that there could be circumstances in which relevant evidence was in the possession of the prosecution at the original trial, but it was not adduced for tactical reasons. That is rather different from the case where the evidence might have been discovered by the police or, perhaps, its significance understood. I can give the House an undertaking, which I have agreed with the Director of Public Prosecutions, that where evidence was not adduced for tactical reasons, it would not be right to use it as a basis for an application under Part 9.I hope that that will give some comfort. It will be reflected in guidance.
As regards other evidence, which is "new" within the terms of Clause 63, and compelling, it should be seen by the Court of Appeal and taken into consideration in determining the interests of justice. For those reasons, I resist Amendment No. 158, which would unnecessarily limit the definition of evidence which

711
could even qualify. For the reasons that I have given, I resist Amendments Nos. 158A and 159 because they would be too absolute a bar.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked whether his amendment had been overtaken by other amendments. I hope that he will at least understand why the Government take the view that although it is not identical in effect—I have made it clear that it is not identical in effect—there is important protection against his concerns about Clause 64.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I have taken into consideration the criticisms expressed by noble Lords and the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General in relation to Amendment No. 158 and I do not propose to press it. However, the distinction to be made in regard to Amendments Nos. 158A and 159 is between whether a new trial can be sought on the basis of fresh evidence, or whether a new trial can be sought on the basis that a prosecutor or officer made a mistake or failed to act with due diligence.
At the moment, if anyone approached the Court of Appeal to ask for fresh evidence to be introduced on behalf of a defendant, and said, "I am sorry, someone in the solicitors' office made a mistake and that is why the evidence was not called at the trial", they would be given very short shrift. Leave to appeal would not be granted. What the Government are seeking here is to introduce what appears to be a lower standard in relation to the position of the prosecution.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there are cases, such as those, for example, brought by the Criminal Cases Review Commission where, in the case of an appeal against conviction, the Court of Appeal is being asked to consider evidence which could have been put forward by the original team at trial? Indeed, incompetence on the part of the original team may itself form a ground of appeal.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, that is true; the ground of appeal would be the incompetence of the defence team. However, the position to which I referred was an application to introduce fresh evidence in an appeal.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am sorry. The incompetence on the part of the defence team may be precisely because it failed to adduce important evidence which would have secured the acquittal.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, it would require a little research to see whether that has ever been the case. I merely refer to fresh evidence which has to be evidence that was not, in the terms of Amendment No. 159,
"discoverable by reasonable and diligent inquiry before or at the proceedings",
712
in which a person was convicted. That is the position so far as concerns an appeal against conviction.
I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 158, but I give notice that, should the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, seek to press Amendment No. 158A, we shall support him. If not, we shall proceed with Amendment No. 159.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 158A not moved.]
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 41, line 40, at end insert—
"( ) Subsection (2) does not apply to evidence which was discoverable by reasonable and diligent inquiry before or at the proceedings in which the person was acquitted."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
4.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 159) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 88; Not-Contents, 188.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Maddock. B.

Alderdice, L.

Mar and Kellie, E. [Teller]

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Methuen, L.

Avebury, L. [Teller]

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Barker, B.

Monson, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Newby, L.

Biffen, L.

Northover, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Onslow, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Chalfont, L.

Rennard, L.

Chorley, L.

Renton, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Cobbold, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Roper, L.

Dholakia, L.

Russell, E.

Elton, L.

Sandberg, L.

Falkland, V.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Fearn, L.

Sharman, L.

Goodhart, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hamwee, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Harris of Richmond, B

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Stern, B.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hylton, L.

Strange, B.

Jacobs, L.

Taverne, L.

Joffe, L.

Tebbit, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Listowel, E.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Tope, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Tordoff, L.

Lucas, L.

Wakeham, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

McNally,L.

Walmsley, B.

713

Walpole, L.

Wigoder, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Weatherill, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Worcester, Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Acton, L.

Goudie, B.

Ahmed, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Alli, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Amos, B. (LordPresident)

Hanningfield, L.

Ampthill, L.

Harrison, L.

Andrews, B.

Haskel, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Hayman, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Higgins, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Attlee, E.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bach, L.

Hooper, B.

Barnett, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Berkeley, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hoyle, L.

Billingham, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Blatch, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Borrie, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Brookman, L.

Jones, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Burlison, L.

Kingsland, L.

Buscombe, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Byford, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Layard, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Carter, L.

Levy, L.

Christopher, L.

Lindsay, E.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Lipsey, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Liverpool, E.

Colwyn, L.

Lockwood, B.

Condon, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Lyell, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cox, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Crawley, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

David, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Desai, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dixon, L.

Marsh, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Donoughue, L.

Mason of Barnstey, L.

Dormand of Easington. L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dubs, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Elder, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mitchell, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Montrose, D.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord

Morris of Aberavon,L.

Chancellor)

Morris of Manchester, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Moser, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Moynihan, L.

Filkin, L.

Nicol, B.

Gale, B.

Noakes, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Gavron, L.

Palmer, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Parekh, L.

Glenloran, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Paul, L.

714

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Pendry, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Peston, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Stallard, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Powell of Bayswater, L

Strathclyde, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Swinfen, L.

Radice, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Rea, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Thornton, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Turnberg, L.

Rooker, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Ullswater, V.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Vinson, L.

Saatchi, L.

Vivian, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L

Waddington, L.

Sandwich, E.

Warner, L.

Sawyer, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Whitaker,B.

Seccombe, B.

Whitty, L.

Selsdon, L.

Wilcox, B.

Sharples, B.

Wilkins, B.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Simon, V.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.54 p.m.
[Amendment No. 159 A not moved.]
Clause 64 [Interests of justice]:
[Amendment No. 159B not moved.]
Clause 65 [Procedure and evidence]:
[Amendment No. 159C not moved.]
Clause 66 [Appeals]:
[Amendment No. I59D not moved.]
Clause 67 [Restrictions on publication in the interests of justice]:
[Amendment No. 159E not moved.]
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 160:
After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—
"OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH PUBLICATION RESTRICTIONS

(1) This section applies if—

(a) an order under section 67 is made, whether in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, and

(b) while the order has effect, any matter is included in a publication, in any part of the United Kingdom, in contravention of the order.

(2) Where the publication is a newspaper or periodical, any proprietor, editor or publisher of the newspaper or periodical is guilty of an offence.

(3) Where the publication is a relevant programme—

(a) any body corporate or Scottish partnership engaged in providing the programme service in which the programme is included, and

(b) any person having functions in relation to the programme corresponding to those of an editor of a newspaper,

is guilty of an offence.

715

(4) In the case of any other publication, any person publishing it is guilty of an offence.

(5) If an offence under this section committed by a body corporate is proved—

(a) to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or

(b) to be attributable to any neglect on the part of,

an officer, the officer as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

(6) In subsection (5), "officer" means a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body, or a person purporting to act in any such capacity.

(7) If the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, "director" in subsection (6) means a member of that body.

(8) Where an offence under this section is committed by a Scottish partnership and is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of a partner, he as well as the partnership shall be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

(9) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(10) Proceedings for an offence under this section may not be instituted—

(a) in England and Wales otherwise than by or with the consent of the Attorney General, or

(b) in Northern Ireland otherwise than by or with the consent of—

(i) before the relevant date, the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, or

(ii) on or after the relevant date, the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.

(11) In subsection (10) "the relevant date" means the date on which section 22(1) of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 (c. 26) comes into force."

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 160 on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 248 with which it is grouped
The Bill upon introduction contained a clause in similar terms to the one introduced by Amendment No. 160. It was removed when reporting restrictions for this part of the Bill were made dependent on an order of the Court of Appeal rather than applying automatically on the basis that contempt of court proceedings would be available to the court to deal with any breach of the restrictions.
However, further consultation with colleagues in Scotland has indicated that an order of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales cannot be enforced by means of contempt proceedings in the Scottish courts. This clause is therefore required in order to allow reporting restrictions to be enforced throughout the United Kingdom. Without it the restrictions would not apply outside England and Wales. That could lead, for example, to a Scottish newspaper publishing details of a suspect or a case which could prejudice a retrial. The new offence will apply throughout the United Kingdom and may be enforced in the jurisdiction in which a breach takes place.
Amendment No. 248 is a consequential amendment to ensure that the new clause—"Offences in connection with publication restrictions"—extends to Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as to England and Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 68 [Retrial]:
[Amendments Nos. 161 to 162A not moved.]
Clause 69 [Authorisation of investigations]:
[Amendment No. 162B not moved.]
Clause 70 [Urgent investigative steps]:
[Amendment No. 162C not moved.]
Clause 71 [Arrest and charge]:
[Amendment No. 162D not moved.]
Clause 72 [Bail and custody before application]:
[Amendment No. 162E not moved.]
Clause 73 [Bail and custody before hearing]:
[Amendment No. 162F not moved.]
Clause 74 [Bail and custody during and after hearing]:
[Amendment No. 162G not moved.]
Clause 75 [Revocation of bail]:
[Amendment No. 162H not moved.]
Clause 76 [Functions of the DPP]:
[Amendment No. 162J not moved.]
Clause 77 [Rules of Court]:
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 52, line 24, leave out from "(1)," to "may" in line 25 and insert "rules of court"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 163, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 164 and 165 to 167, all of which are tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Scotland.
The amendments are minor and consequential. Amendment No. 164 has the effect of ensuring rules of court can be made in connection with orders of the court relating to the imposition of reporting restrictions. Amendment No. 163 is simply a drafting amendment which makes the provision about rules of court less specific. We consider this to be a good idea in the light of changes being made in the Courts Bill.
As a result of the new clause we have had to amend the previous definition of "officer" to allow for a reference in the new clause to an officer of a company. Amendment No. 165 is necessary for that purpose. Amendments Nos. 166 and 167 arise because there is now only a single reference to the 1979 Act, which makes its inclusion in the definitions section unnecessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 164:
Page 52, line 26, leave out "66" and insert "67"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 164 A not moved.]
Clause 78 [Armed Forces: Part 9]:
[Amendment No. 164B not moved.]
Clause 79 [Interpretation of Part 9]:
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendments Nos. 165 to 167:
Page 53, leave out lines 3 and 4.
Page 53, line 9, leave out "1979 Act," and insert "Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2),"
Page 53, line 11, after first ""officer"" insert ".. except in section (Offences in connection with publication restrictions),"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 167A not moved.]
Clause 80 [Application of Part 9 to Northern Ireland]:
5 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 168:
Page 54, line 5, at end insert—
"( ) In section 67(10) after "enactment" in each place insert "(including any provision of Northern Ireland legislation)"."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 168, I shall speak also to government Amendments Nos. 169 to 173, 174 and 249, all of which are tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Scotland.
In the main, these amendments are technical and consequential and arise from the extension of Part 9 to Northern Ireland. They are entirely necessary to ensure that the provisions of Part 9 operate properly in Northern Ireland and in the same way as in England and Wales. In particular, Amendment No. 174 provides an important new clause.
Amendments Nos. 168 to 173 are to Clause 80, which deals with the application of Part 9 to Northern Ireland. The amendments address certain differences between the law of England and Wales and Northern Ireland and modify the operation of Part 9 in Northern Ireland. The amendments substitute the appropriate Northern Ireland references in terms of legislation and terminology to ensure that the provisions of Part 9 function correctly in the context of the Northern Ireland legal framework.
I draw attention to Amendment No. 174, which creates an entirely new clause. This provides the Secretary of State with an order-making power to apply any of the provisions under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 or the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 to the provisions of Part 9. As I am sure noble Lords will agree, this is an important provision. The new clause is necessary to ensure that the new and unique proceedings under Part 9 to the Court of Appeal will function as intended. This order-making power will allow the Secretary of State to apply any of the provisions of the Criminal Appeal Act to a proceeding under Part 9, if this is required, ensuring that the provisions of Part 9 will operate correctly in the event of unforeseen difficulties.
Amendment No. 249 provides change to the extent clause of the Bill, ensuring that the new clause will extend to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendments Nos. 169 to 173:
Page 54, line 6, after "68(1)" insert "and (2)"
Page 54, line 6, at end insert—
"( ) Section 68(6) has effect—

(a) as if any reference to a provision of Part 10 were a reference to any corresponding provision contained in an Order in Council to which section 310(1) applies, at any time when such corresponding provision is in force;

(b) at any other time, with the omission of the words from "unless" to the end."

Page 54, line 11, leave out "committed" and insert "returned"
Page 54, line 13, at end insert—
"( ) In section 71—

(a) in subsection (3), for "Part 4 of the 1984 Act" substitute "Part 5 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S. I. 1989/1341 (N.I. 12)) ("the 1989 Order")",

(b) in paragraph (b) of that subsection, for "section 34(7) of that Act" substitute "Article 35(8) of that Order",

(c) in subsection (6)—

(i) for the words from the beginning to "40(8) of that Act)" substitute "Article 38 of that Order (including any provision of that Article as applied by Article 41(8) of that Order)".

(ii) for "subsection" in each place substitute "paragraph",

(iii) in paragraph (e), for "subsections (7A), (7B) and (8)" substitute "paragraph (8)'', and

(iv) in paragraph (0. in the inserted paragraph (10A)omit "above",

(d) for subsection (7) substitute—

"(7) Article 41 of that Order has effect as if in paragraphs (8) and (9) of that Article after "(6)" there were inserted "and (10A).",

(e) in subsection (8)—

(i) for "Section 42 of that Act" substitute "Article 43 of that Order", and

(ii) for "subsection (1) of that section" substitute "paragraph (1) of that Article".

( ) For section 72(1) substitute—

"(1) In relation to a person charged in accordance with section 71(4)—

(a) Article 39 of the 1989 Order (including any provision of that Article as applied by Article 41 (10) of that Order) has effect as if, in paragraph (1), for "either on bail or without bail" there were substituted "on bail",

(b) Article 48 of that Order has effect as if for paragraphs (1) to (11) there were substituted—

"(1) A person who is released on bail shall be subject to a duty to appear before the Crown Court at such place as the custody officer may appoint and at such time, not later than 24 hours after the person is released, as that officer may appoint.

719

(2) The custody officer may require a person who is to be released on bail to enter into a recognisance conditioned upon his subsequent appearance before the Crown Court in accordance with paragraph (1).

(3) A recognisance under paragraph (2) may be taken before the custody officer.", and

(c) Article 132A of the Magistrates Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/1675 (N.I. 26)) does not apply.

( ) In section 72(2)—

(a) for paragraph (b) substitute—

"(b) detained in a place of safety in pursuance of arrangements made under Article 39(6) of the 1989 Order,", and.

(b) for "section 46 of the 1984 Act" substitute "Article 47 of the 1989 Order".

( ) In section 73(6)for "section 81(5)of the Supreme Court Act 1981" substitute "section 51(8) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (c. 23)".
( ) For section 74(4) substitute—
"(4) The court may at any time, as it sees fit, vary the conditions of bail granted under this section.""
Page 54, line 21, at end insert—
"( ) In section 77(3) after "enactment" insert "(including any provision of Northern Ireland legislation)"."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 173A not moved.]
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 174:
After Clause 80, insert the following new clause—
"APPLICATION OF CRIMINAL APPEAL ACTS TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER PART 9
Subject to the provisions of this Part, the Secretary of State may make an order containing provision, in relation to proceedings before the Court of Appeal under this Part, which corresponds to any provision, in relation to appeals or other proceedings before that court, which is contained in the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c. 19) or the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (c. 47) (subject to any specified modifications)."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 174A:
Before Clause 81, insert the following new clause—
"EVIDENCE OF BAD CHARACTER

(1) The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) ("the 1984 Act") is amended as follows.

(2) After section 82 of the 1984 Act (Part VIII— interpretation) insert—

"PART VIII A EVIDENCE OF BAD CHARACTER
82A BAD CHARACTER

References in this Part to evidence of a person's bad character are references to evidence which shows that—

(a) he has committed an offence, or

(b) he has behaved, or is disposed to behave, in a way that,
in the opinion of the court, would be viewed with disapproval by a reasonable person.

82B REQUIREMENT OF LEAVE

(1) In criminal proceedings, evidence of a person's bad character is admissible only with leave of the court, unless the evidence—

(a) has to do with the alleged facts of the offence with which the defendant is charged, or

720

(b) is evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution of that offence.

(2) This section does not apply in relation to an item of evidence if—

(a) all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible, or

(b) in the case of evidence of the defendant's bad character, the evidence is adduced by the defendant himself or is given in answer to a question asked by him in cross- examination and intended to elicit it.

82C NON-DEFENDANT'S BAD CHARACTER

In the case of evidence of the bad character of a person other than the defendant, the court is not to give leave under section 82B unless the evidence falls within section 82D or 82E.

82D EVIDENCE WITH EXPLANATORY VALUE
Evidence falls within this section if—

(a) without it, the court or jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case, and

(b) its value for understanding the case as a whole is substantial.

82E EVIDENCE GOING TO A MATTER IN ISSUE

(1) Evidence falls within this section if it has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which—

(a) is a matter in issue in the proceedings, and

(b) is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole.

(2) In assessing the probative value of evidence for the purposes of this section, the court must have regard to the following factors (and to any others it considers relevant)—

(a) the nature and number of the events, or other things, to which the evidence relates;

(b) when those events or things are alleged to have happened or existed;

(c)where—

(i) the evidence is evidence of a person's misconduct, and

(ii) it is suggested that the evidence has probative value by reason of similarity between that misconduct and other alleged misconduct,

the nature and extent of the similarities and the dissimilarities between each of the alleged instances of misconduct;

(d) where—

(i) the evidence is evidence of a person's misconduct,

(ii) it is suggested that that person is also responsible for the misconduct charged, and

(iii) the identity of the person responsible for the misconduct charged is disputed,

the extent to which the evidence shows or tends to show that the same person was responsible each time.

(3) In subsection (2)(d) "misconduct charged" means the misconduct constituting the offence with which the defendant is charged.

82F DEFENDANT'S BAD CHARACTER
In the case of evidence of the defendant's bad character, the court is not to give leave under section 82B, unless the evidence falls within section 82G, 82H, 821, 82J or 82K.
82G EVIDENCE WITH EXPLANATORY VALUE

(1) Evidence falls within this section if the following three conditions are met.

(2)The first condition is that, without the evidence, the court or jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case.

(3) The second condition is that the value of the evidence for understanding the case as a whole is substantial.

(4) The third condition is that the court is satisfied—

(a) that, in all the circumstances of the case, the evidence carries no risk of prejudice to the defendant, or

(b) that the value of the evidence for understanding the case as a whole is such that, taking account of the risk of prejudice, the interests of justice nevertheless require the evidence to be admissible.

82H EVIDENCE GOING TO A MATTTER IN ISSUE

(1) Evidence falls within this section if the following two conditions are met.

(2) The first condition is that the evidence has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which—

(a) is a matter in issue in the proceedings, and

(b)is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole.

(3) The second condition is that the court is satisfied—

(a) that, in all the circumstances of the case, the evidence carries no risk of prejudice to the defendant, or

(b) that, taking account of the risk of prejudice, the interests of justice nevertheless require the evidence to be admissible in view of—

(i) how much probative value it has in relation to the matter in issue,

(ii) what other evidence has been, or can be, given on that matter, and

(iii) how important that matter is in the context of the case as a whole.

(4) In determining whether the two conditions are met, the court must have regard to the factors listed in section 5(2) (and to any others it considers relevant).

(5) For the purposes of this section, whether the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful is not to be regarded as a matter in issue in the proceedings.

(6) Only prosecution evidence can fall within.this section.

821 EVIDENCE GOING TO CREDIBILITY

(1) This section applies only where—

(a) the defendant makes an attack on a person's character, and

(b) the effect of the attack is to suggest, or to support a suggestion, that the person has a propensity to be untruthful.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a defendant makes an attack on a person's character where—

(a) he adduces evidence of the person's bad character, other than—

(i) evidence that has to do with the alleged facts of the offence with which the defendant is charged, or

(ii) evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution of that offence,

(b)he asks questions in cross-examination that are intended to elicit evidence of the kind referred to in paragraph (a), or

722

(c) evidence is given of an assertion made about the person by the defendant—

(i) on being questioned under caution, before charge, about the offence with which he is charged, or

(ii) on being charged with the offence or officially informed that he might be prosecuted for it,

and the assertion is such that, if it were made in evidence, the evidence containing the assertion would be evidence of the kind referred to in paragraph (a).

(3) Evidence falls within this section if the following three conditions are met.

(4) The first condition is that the evidence has substantial probative value in showing that the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful.

(5) The second condition is that, without the evidence, the court or jury would get an inaccurate impression of the defendant's propensity to be untruthful in comparison with that of the other person.

(6) The third condition is that the court is satisfied—

(a) that, in all the circumstances of the case, the evidence carries no risk of prejudice to the defendant, or

(b) that, taking account of the risk of prejudice, the interests of justice nevertheless require the evidence to be admissible in view of—

(i) how much probative value it has in showing that the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful,

(ii) what other evidence has been, or can be, given on that matter, and

(iii) how important it is, in the context of the case as a whole, to prevent the impression mentioned in subsection (5).

(7) In determining whether the three conditions are met the court must have regard to the following factors (and to any others it considers relevant)—

(a) the nature and number of the events, or other things, to which the defendant's attack relates and of those to which the evidence in question (the responding evidence) relates;

(b) when those events or things are alleged to have appened or existed;

(c) how important is the defendant's propensity to be untruthful, and that of the other person, in the context of the prosecution case and of the defence case;

(d) in a case where this section applies by virtue of subsection (2)(b), whether or not the evidence intended to be elicited is actually given;

(e) how inaccurate the impression mentioned in subsection (5) would be;

(f) where the responding evidence is of a spent conviction, the fact that the conviction is spent;

(g) any risk that admitting the responding evidence would be confusing or misleading, or would unduly prolong the proceedings.

(8) Only prosecution evidence can fall within this section.

82J EVIDENCE TO CORRECT FALSE IMPRESSION

(1) This section applies only where the defendant is responsible for the making of an express or implied assertion which is apt to give the court or jury a false or misleading impression about the defendant.

723

(2) Evidence falls within this section if the following two conditions are met.

(3) The first condition is that the evidence has substantial probative value in correcting the false or misleading impression.

(4) The second condition is that the court is satisfied—

(a) that, in all the circumstances of the case, the evidence carries no risk of prejudice to the defendant, or

(b) that, taking account of the risk of prejudice, the interests of justice nevertheless require the evidence to be admissible in view of—

(i) how much probative value it has in correcting the false or misleading impression,

(ii) what other evidence has been, or can be, given to correct that impression, and

(iii) how important it is, in the context of the case as a whole, for that impression to be corrected.

(5) For the purposes of this section, a defendant is responsible for the making of an assertion if—

(a) the assertion is made by the defendant in the proceedings (whether or not in evidence given by him),

(b) the assertion was made by the defendant—

(i) on being questioned under caution, before charge, about the offence with which he is charged, or

(ii) on being charged with the offence or officially informed that he might be prosecuted for it,

and evidence of the assertion is given in the proceedings,

(c) the assertion is made by a witness called by the defendant,

(d) the assertion is made by any witness in cross- examination in response to a question asked by the defendant and intended, in the opinion of the court, to elicit it, or

(e) the assertion was made by any person out of court, and the defendant adduces evidence of it in the proceedings.

(6) Where it appears to the court that a defendant, by means of his conduct (other than the giving of evidence) in the proceedings, is seeking to give the court or jury an impression about himself that is false or misleading, the court may if it appears just to do so treat the defendant as being responsible for the making of an assertion which is apt to give that impression.

(7) In subsection (6) "conduct" includes appearance or dress.

(8) In determining whether the two conditions are met, the court must have regard to the following factors (and to any others it considers relevant)—

(a) the nature of the impression given by the assertion referred to in subsection (1), and how false or misleading that impression is;

(b) by whom and in what circumstances the assertion is or was made;

(c) the nature and number of the events, or other things, to which the evidence in question (the correcting evidence) relates;

(d) when those events or things are alleged to have happened or existed;

724

(e) where the correcting evidence is of a spent conviction, the fact that the conviction is spent;

(f) any risk that admitting the correcting evidence would be confusing or misleading, or would unduly prolong the proceedings.

(9) Where in proceedings before a magistrates' court—

(a) the defendant is responsible for the making of an assertion which is apt to give the court a certain impression about the defendant,

(b) the prosecution allege that the impression is false or misleading, and

(c) in reliance on this section the prosecution propose to apply for leave under section 82B to adduce or elicit evidence to correct the impression,

the court must first rule (without being given any details about the evidence) whether, however false or misleading the impression may be, it is unimportant in the context of the case as a whole for it to be corrected; and if the court makes a ruling to that effect, no evidence can fall within this section in relation to the assertion in question.

(10) Only prosecution evidence can fall within this section.

82K EVIDENCE GOING TO AN ISSUE BETWEEN CO-DEFENDANTS

(1) Evidence falls within this section if it has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which—

(a) is a matter in issue between the defendant and a co- defendant, and

(b) is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole.

(2) For the purposes of this section, evidence is not to be treated as having the probative value mentioned in subsection (1) by virtue of its relevance to the question whether the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful unless the nature or conduct of his defence is such as to undermine the co- defendant's defence.

(3) In assessing the probative value of evidence for the purposes of this section, the court must have regard to the factors listed in section 82B(2) (and to any others it considers relevant).

(4) Only evidence—

(a) which is to be (or has been) adduced by the co- defendant, or

(b) which a witness is to be invited to give (or has given) in cross-examination by the co-defendant,

can fall within this section.

82L Trying more than one offence together

(1) In section 5 of the Indictments Act 1915 (c. 90) (orders for separate trial etc) insert after subsection (2)—

"(2A) Where—

(a) a person is charged with more than one offence in the same indictment,

(b) the prosecution propose to adduce evidence which is admissible in relation to one of the offences but which, in relation to another, is evidence of the person's bad character and is inadmissible, and

(c) the person applies before trial for an order that the offences mentioned in paragraph (b) above be tried separately,

the court shall grant the application unless satisfied that trying the offences together would not prevent the defendant having a fair trial.

725

(2B) The reference in subsection (2A) above to evidence of the person's bad character shall be read in accordance with section 1 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (c. 16).

(2) In subsection (3) of that section, after "before trial" insert (in a case not falling within subsection (2A) above).

(3) Where in proceedings before a magistrates' court—

(a) it is proposed that the defendant be tried for two or more offences together,

(b) the prosecution propose to adduce evidence which is admissible in relation to one of the offences but which, in relation to another, is evidence of the person's bad character and is inadmissible, and

(c) the defendant objects before trial to the offences mentioned in paragraph (b) being tried together,

the court may order those offences to be tried together only if satisfied that doing so would not prevent the defendant having a fair trial.

82M STOPPING THE CASE WHERE EVIDENCE CONTAMINATED

(1) If on a defendant's trial on indictment for an offence—

(a) evidence of his bad character has been admitted with leave under section 82B, and

(b) the court is satisfied at any time after the close of the case for the prosecution that—

(i) the evidence is contaminated, and

(ii) the contamination is such that, considering the importance of the evidence to the case against the defendant, his conviction of the offence would be unsafe,

the court must either direct the jury to acquit the defendant of the offence or, if it considers that there ought to be a retrial, discharge the jury.

(2) Where—

(a) a jury is directed under subsection (1) to acquit a defendant of an offence, and

(b) the circumstances are such that, apart from this subsection, the defendant could if acquitted of that offence be found guilty of another offence,

the defendant may not be found guilty of that other offence if the court is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (l)(b) in respect of it.

(3) If—

(a) a jury is required to determine under seclion 4A(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (c. 84) whether a person charged on an indictment with an offence did the act or made the omission charged,

(b) evidence of the person's bad character has been admitted with leave under section 82B, and

(c) the court is satisfied at any time after the close of the case for the prosecution that—

(i) the evidence is contaminated, and

(ii) the contamination is such that, considering the importance of the evidence to the case against the person, a finding that he did the act or made the omission would be unsafe,

the court must either direct the jury to acquit the defendant of the offence or, if it considers that there ought to be a rehearing, discharge the jury.

(4) This section does not prejudice any other power a court may have to direct a jury to acquit a person of an offence or to discharge a jury.

726

(5) For the purposes of this section, a person's evidence is contaminated where—

(a) as a result of an agreement or understanding between the person and one or more others, or

(b) as a result of the person being aware of anything alleged by one or more others who are, or could be, witnesses in the proceedings,

the evidence is false or misleading in any respect, or is different from what it would otherwise have been.
82N ASSUMPTION OF TRUTH IN ASSESSMENT OF PROBATIVE VALUE

(1) Subject to subsection (2), a reference in this Act to the probative value of evidence is a reference to its probative value on the assumption that it is true.

(2) In assessing the probative value of an item of evidence for any purpose of this Act, a court need not assume that the evidence is true if it appears, on the basis of any material before the court (including any evidence it decides to hear on the matter), that no court or jury could reasonably find it to be true.

82O COURT'S DUTY TO GIVE REASONS FOR RULINGS

(1) Where the court makes a relevant ruling—

(a) it must state in open court (but in the absence of the jury, if there is one) its reasons for the ruling:

(b) if it is a magistrates' court, it must cause the ruling and the reasons for it to be entered in the register of the court's proceedings.

(2) In this section "relevant ruling" means—

(a) a ruling on whether an item of evidence is admissible only with leave under section 82B;

(b) a decision whether to give leave under that section;

(c) a ruling under section 82M.

82P RULES OF COURT

(1) Rules of court may make such provision as appears to the appropriate authority to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of this Act; and the appropriate authority is the authority entitled to make the rules.

(2) The rules may require a party who—

(a) proposes to adduce evidence of a defendant's bad character that is admissible only with leave under section 82B, or

(b) proposes to cross-examine a witness with a view to eliciting such evidence,

to serve on the defendant such notice, and such particulars of or relating to the evidence, as may be prescribed.

(3) The rules may provide that the court or the defendant may, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, dispense with a requirement imposed by virtue of subsection (2).

(4) If a party fails to comply with a requirement that has been imposed in relation to an item of evidence by virtue of subsection (2) (and not dispensed with by virtue of subsection (3)) the court may take the failure into account—

(a) in deciding whether to grant leave under section 82B; and

(b) where leave is given, in considering the exercise of its powers with respect to costs.

(5) The rules may—

(a) limit the application of any provision of the rules to prescribed circumstances;

(b) subject any provision of the rules to prescribed exceptions; and

(c) make different provision for different cases or circumstances.

(6) Nothing in this section prejudices the generality of any enactment conferring power to make rules of court; and no particular provision of this section prejudices any general provision of it.

727

(7) In this section—

"prescribed" means prescribed by rules of court;

"rules of court" means—

(a) Crown Court Rules;

(b) Criminal Appeal Rules; and

(c) rules under section 144 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 (c. 43).

82Q INTERPRETATION

(1) In this Chapter—

"bad character" is to be read in accordance with section 82A;

"criminal proceedings" means criminal proceedings in relation to which the strict rules of evidence apply;

"defendant" in relation to criminal proceedings, means a person charged with an offence in those proceedings; and "co-defendant", in relation to a defendant, means a person charged with an offence in the same proceedings;

"misconduct" means—

(a) the commission of an offence, or

(b) behaviour of a kind that, in the opinion of the court, might be viewed with disapproval by a reasonable person;

"prejudice", in relation to an item of evidence and a defendant, is to be read in accordance with subsection (2);

"probative value" is to be read in accordance with section 82N;

"prosecution evidence" means evidence which is to be (or has been) adduced by the prosecution, or which a witness is to be invited to give (or has given) in cross-examination by the prosecution.

(2) For the purposes of this Act, evidence carries a risk of prejudice to a defendant where—

(a) there is a risk that the court or jury would attach undue weight to the evidence, or

(b) the nature of the matters with which the evidence deals is such as to give rise to a risk that the court or jury would find the defendant guilty without being satisfied that he was.

(3) Where a defendant is charged with two or more offences in the same criminal proceedings, this Act has effect as if each offence were charged in separate proceedings; and references to the offence with which the defendant is charged are to be read accordingly.

82R MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

(1) In section 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1865 (c. 18) (witness's conviction for offence may be proved if not admitted)—

(a) for "A witness may be" substitute "If, upon a witness being lawfully";

(b) omit "and upon being so questioned, if".

(2) In section 1(2) of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 (c. 36) (restriction of privilege against self-incrimination where defendant gives evidence) at the beginning insert "Subject to section 6 of the Criminal Evidence Act 2001 (inadmissibility of evidence of defendant's bad character)".

(3) In section 16(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 (c. 37) (offences committed by person under 14 disregarded for purposes of evidence relating to previous convictions) for the words from "notwithstanding" to the end substitute "even though the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (c. 16) would not prevent the question from being asked".

82S REPEALS

(1) The common law rules governing the admissibility of evidence of bad character in criminal proceedings are abolished.

728

(2) The rules referred to in subsection (1) include any rule under which, as an exception to the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence, evidence of a person's reputation is admissible for the purpose of proving his character, but only so far as the rule relates to evidence of bad character.

(3) The following cease to have effect—

(a) section 1(3) of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 (c. 36) (which makes provision as to the questions that a defendant may be asked about his bad character in cross-examination);

(b) section 27(3) of the Theft Act 1968 (c. 60) (admission of evidence of previous convictions for theft etc to prove that defendant knew goods to be stolen).""

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the length of my intervention on Amendment No. 174A will be in inverse proportion to the length of the amendment itself.
The noble Baroness said in Committee that the main purpose of the Government in introducing Part 10 was to clarify a complex area of law. Indeed, as long ago as March 1997, in the dying weeks of the previous Conservative government, the Home Office referred the whole issue of bad character to the Law Commission for mature consideration. The Law Commission took a painstaking four years to look at the matter. After exhaustive historical studies, numerous international comparisons and widespread consultation with both the academic community and the practising community, it published its report, entitled Evidence of Bad Character in Criminal Proceedings, in the year 2001.
With the report came a draft Bill. With one small exception, a consequence of a vote taken in your Lordships' House during the Committee stage, that Bill is identical to the amendment that we have tabled to Part 10.
There are two matters which concern us about Part 10. One is an issue which was touched upon in Committee. In Part 10, the approach of the Government is to introduce a general inclusionary rule for bad character evidence, subject to a discretion for the trial judge to exclude evidence of a particular sort in any individual case. The approach of the Law Commission, by contrast, is to provide a general exclusionary rule, subject to the judge including a particular item of evidence on the application of the prosecution.
The reason why the Law Commission took this view is expressed in Paragraph 6.65 of its report. It states:
"Not all evidence of bad character is relevant to the issue of guilt. The admission of irrelevant bad character evidence might not matter if it were not prejudicial; but often it is. It can lead to a person being convicted on inadequate evidence, or where the fact-finders are not in fact sure that the charge has been made out. Therefore, bad character evidence which is not relevant should in our view be excluded as a matter of course, not merely as a matter of discretion. We therefore favour a general rule excluding bad character evidence (subject to exceptions) rather than a general inclusionary rule subject to a discretion to exclude".
That is the view of the Opposition, to which I would add two things.
One of the important distinctions between the approach taken by the Government in Part 10 and our approach in this amendment is that, in the Government's version, the burden of proof will be on

729
the defendant to exclude bad character evidence, whereas in our version, the burden of proof will be on the prosecution to include bad character evidence, in effect reflecting the existing law. The other difference is that Part 10 permits the court in a far wider range of circumstances than our amendment to include bad character evidence. So much for our first main concern.
Our second main concern involves the question of propensity. In the Government Bill, as your Lordships discovered when we debated it in Committee, Clause 87(1)(a) states,
"the question whether the defendant has a propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged",
is a matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution. If we look at our amendment to the Bill, we see that exactly the opposite position is taken—that is, there are no circumstances in which propensity can be an issue in the case.
The Government's position in Part 10 is an ocean-going departure from the existing law. It has always been the case, so far, that bad character is irrelevant to the issues in the case. On the contrary, bad character refers to a fact that is not an issue in the case.
However many offences a defendant has committed of the same description, unless there can be a connection of the sort laid down by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern in DPP v P, bad character evidence is always going to be inadmissible. The similar fact exception provided for by my noble and learned friend is clearly laid down in our amendment.
Bad character evidence will always be inadmissible in circumstances where it simply suggests that an individual of a particular sort might be inclined to perform a crime of the sort for which he has been arraigned. That was well put in a decision by Lord Sumner in 1918, in a case called Thompson v King. Lord Sumner said that there was,
"all the difference in the world between evidence proving that the accused is a bad man and evidence proving that he is the man ".
What the Government want from their approach to propensity is abundantly clear and, in my view, profoundly pernicious, and makes a complete mockery of the presumption of innocence. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendment and subsequent amendments dealing with the same topic. I entirely agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said.
The Government sometimes seem to forget that rules have been developed over centuries, out of experience, by lawyers and judges who are not necessarily liberal in the sense that we would recognise it on these Benches, but nevertheless arc concerned with the protection of the individual, particularly in criminal cases. The rule that propensity should not be adduced in evidence to prove a criminal charge is deep within the common law of this country.
The Government are going entirely the wrong way about this. It would be fine if the Government's approach was to accept that it was for the prosecution
730
to apply to a judge to say that previous convictions, or a particular sort of behaviour on the part of the defendant, should put be before the jury, and for the judge to consider that application and rule upon it—as happens frequently at the moment. Instead, however, they are adopting a reverse framework or mirror image of such a provision, whereby it is for the defendant to raise the issue whether his convictions should go before the jury and it is for the judge to make a ruling on that. That applies not only to jury trials but to trials in the magistrates' court as well. As practitioners know, there is a considerable difference between an application made by the prosecution for leave to adduce evidence and applications made by the defence to prevent evidence being introduced. For those reasons, we support the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I support the amendment with more than that thin veneer of that superficial confidence that characterises most of my interventions. I do so because I have the Lord Chief Justice and all the judges of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division on my side. I refer to the memorandum deposited in the Library. The position is put quite typically in paragraph 13 on page 4, which states:
"The provisions as a whole are extremely confusing and will prove very difficult to interpret. They will result in lengthy arguments in court, more appeals and more scope for technical errors on the part of the trial judge that could give rise to convictions being overturned. Evidence that would previously have been considered neither admissible nor relevant will apparently be treated as both admissible and relevant".
That is, in substance, my overall basis for supporting the amendment, which has the imprimatur of the very detailed and lengthy report produced by the members of the body referred to, all of whom are extremely distinguished in their fields.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I add a word of support for the amendment. This is one of the most important points in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Kingsland suggested that many of the Government's proposals turn on their head the normal principles of criminal law. The principle that I was brought up on was governed by the particular thread that evidence should be admitted only if it was more probative than prejudicial. The Government's proposals do not stand that test.
I was watching television on Sunday morning when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was asked about the matter by David Frost. He said that in taking decisions about people, we take account every day of our judgment about their characters and track records. For me that is too broad brush.
As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, we are dealing with a specific area of human life—the criminal law—in which we have long taken the view that it is important to have specific and circumscribed rules of evidence. In part, that is affected by our ambivalent approach to juries. We would all retain the jury system for serious offences, but we do not

731
completely trust the system in the way it operates. We do not invite juries to give reasons, and many people would be horrified by the reasons that juries could give. Equally, we have always been careful to ensure that we do not put before juries material that might prejudice them but which did not have full evidential value. That principle should be fully maintained.
The balance is obviously not easy to strike, and I understand why the Government are looking for a wider approach. We all know of cases in which juries have acquitted and have then been outraged and distressed to hear that the accused has a string of convictions for similar offences. I do not believe that that is comfortable to any of us, but for me it does not justify tilting the balance so decisively the other way and running the risk that the accused will be damned by his past, even when the strict evidence of the offence is not strong enough.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, put the views of the judges. I return to the views of the institutions and organisations that are concerned to uphold, and experienced in upholding, the law. I refer to the Law Society, Justice, of which I am chairman, and the Bar Council. I shall content myself simply with quoting the evidence of the Legal Action Group. When considering the Government's proposals, the group said that they would,
"allow evidence of the defendant's bad character to be admitted more readily".
That is absolutely indisputable. The LAG continues:
"This may result in encouraging the police to focus investigations on people with previous convictions. We also believe that fact finders will be heavily influenced by information about previous misconduct, and that the presumption of innocence will be undermined".
That makes good sense to me.
We all recollect the damage that can be done to our system of law if it is shown to be unfair, and if there are wrongful convictions. We should give effect to the careful considerations of the Law Commission and think long and hard before we go further than that.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I rise to express my reservations about what the Government are doing. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, cited a number of organisations that have expressed at least some reservation about the Government's proposals. At worst, they have expressed hostility to the proposals. I therefore ask my noble friend, and she is a friend, what consultations have taken place with them? What have the Government done? The reservations which they have expressed are not likely to be conceded. Many practitioners also have expressed their concern to me. As a former practitioner myself, I am very concerned about what the Government are doing.
The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, has expressed in very clear terms the reservations of all those organisations. I cannot find anyone other than the Government and perhaps one or two others who support the conclusions that have been reached. The organisations cited include many of those who practise the law day in and day out. It is therefore incumbent on
732
my noble friend to consider what they have to say. It is a long time since I practised criminal law myself. My last case was in 1984, so it has been quite a long time. However, I think that the burden here rests very heavily on those who wish to change in a very marked way the law as it has stood for a very long time.
So I think that at the very least, between now and the next stage of the Bill, all the organisations that have expressed doubts about what the Government are proposing to do ought to be seen. Every one of them includes people with a direct knowledge of the law and how it operates. They represent people who defend people charged with crimes. They represent people who are concerned about the development of the law. It is therefore incumbent on my noble friend to convince not only those who have been against the change that the Government propose but also those who are concerned about the state of the law and what it should stand for in a democracy. It is very important that she should see them and try to convince them, if it is possible, that they are wrong. I think that she will not succeed.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I support wholeheartedly every word said by my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon and also what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. We discussed this matter at length in Committee. I do not propose to repeat what I or others said on that occasion. However, I think that I may have one new comment.
The Bill as drafted allows,
"evidence of the defendant's conviction for an offence of the same description, or of the same category, as the one with which he is charged",
to be put in evidence by the prosecution. I have no doubt that the Minister will say, "Yes. However, although it does not say that it is necessary to obtain the leave of the judge before putting any such evidence before the court, the defendant can make an application under Clause 84(3) that the court must not admit it if there is an application by the defendant to exclude it". So it will be admitted unless the defendant makes an application.
As has been said already, the Bill applies to the magistrates' courts as well as the Crown Courts. Many defendants are unrepresented and will not have knowledge of the fact that they have a right to make an application to exclude evidence that is about to be given. As noble Lords will know, once any evidence of a person's character is before a court it is inevitably bound to influence the court's views of his guilt or innocence of the offence with which he is charged. I do not think that it is sufficient to have a protection of that nature.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, at the very least, the possibility of applying Clause 84(3) should be put before the defendant in every such instance? Does he agree with that?
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I agree with it as it stands, but how will it be done? The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and I have both practised in the

733
criminal courts. At a particular stage, is the prosecution to say to the magistrates, "I propose to ask a certain question which requires your clerk to tell the defendant that he has the right, if he wishes, to object to that question which I am about to ask"? If so, what is the defendant to make of it? It would imply immediately to the magistrates that the man has a record which the prosecution wishes to put in. I do not think that it is practical for it to proceed in that way.
The only way that such a protection could proceed would be on a counsel-to-counsel bas;is and in the Crown Court, I assume. One would inform one's opponent of the intention to put in such evidence, although there is no requirement in the Bill to do so, and thereby give him an opportunity to object. However, surely it would be much more sensible to use the exclusionary rule whereby the evidence is not admitted unless the leave of the court is given.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have listened with great care to everything that noble Lords have said about the provisions. I listened also with a little pain. It is unusual for the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, to use such intemperate language. I think that he said that the Government's provisions are "profoundly pernicious" and that they make a "complete mockery" of and are "an ocean-going departure" from the current law. He sets his stall very high indeed. For the purposes of this debate, may I respectfully suggest to him that he has set it a little too high?
I have listened with care also to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. This is a very important issue which has been highly contentious in debate. I hope that I will be able to explain with greater clarity why, in some ways, we have departed from the regime or scheme advocated by the Law Commission.
I acknowledge and am pleased to see that by virtue of this amendment both opposition parties agree with us that the current rules in this area—which have been profoundly criticised by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice in 1993, the Law Commission report, Evidence of Bad Character in Criminal Proceedings and Lord Justice Auld's review of the criminal courts published in 2001—need to be addressed comprehensively. I hear too what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. I paraphrase his remarks. The thrust of his argument is that we trust juries but not that much and only in precise circumstances. I say right at the beginning that we do not accept that these provisions would lead a person to be damned by their past even when the evidence does not justify it. That cannot with propriety be said in relation to these provisions.
I hope that I shall be able to deal with the request of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis in relation to convincing the House of the propriety of our suggestion. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, that the position in the magistrates' court, as he will know well, is that if any defendant's liberty is, or may be, in peril, legal aid will be available. I refer also to the good offices of the magistrates' courts clerks, but I shall develop that further later because we are listening to what noble Lords have said and we have certain possible solutions.
734
We are in agreement that the current rules will not do, that they need to change and that a new provision needs to be put in place. Clearly, there is scope for argument on how exactly the rules should be reformed. The views expressed in the House today represent some of the many that have been expressed on this subject. However, there is a wide consensus that there must be some change, and that too has been reflected in our debate, in particular in Amendment No. 174A that has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
Before turning to the detail of that amendment, I should like briefly to address a related point. I am aware that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has tabled a number of amendments in this group that would have the effect of removing much of this part of the Bill but offer no alternative in its place. This would, in effect, leave the law very much as it is at present. I should like to say a few words about why we do not consider that that would be a satisfactory way to proceed.
As I say, widespread dissatisfaction has been expressed about the current law. It is plagued by complexity, having developed in a piecemeal fashion over the past century, leaving the rules scattered across statute and common law. This is undesirable, opening the way for inconsistent decisions and time-consuming legal arguments. It can also have a chilling effect on the application of these rules, resulting in evidence of bad character not being admitted even where it would be appropriate to do so. It was instructive that in Committee a number of noble Lords prayed in aid issues such as the inability to adduce evidence about acquittals as if that was the current law. I think that we dealt with that in Committee but we know that that is not the current law. Perhaps that evidenced the misunderstanding that many practitioners can have albeit that they practise in our courts on a daily basis. Noble Lords will be aware of the helpful paper circulated by the Association of Chief Police Officers prior to this debate in which it highlighted how the complexity of these rules can act to keep valuable evidence out of court. Moreover, the current rules offer scant protection for witnesses.
It is time, therefore, for a new statutory framework. That is the object of this part of the Bill. These proposals have given rise to a great deal of debate. Our intention has been to build on recognised concepts in the current law, but state them in a comprehensive and coherent fashion accessible to all and capable of straightforward application. Justice for All applies to victims, witnesses and the accused. This is not about securing convictions at the expense of the rights of defendants. Clear safeguards have been built into the scheme to ensure that the burden of proof continues to rest on the prosecution and that trials are conducted fairly. However, this is about ensuring that the rules are clear and facilitate the admission of evidence of previous offending or other misconduct where it is appropriate and safe to do so.
I turn now to Amendment No. 174A, which, when taken with other amendments in this group, would delete this part of the Bill and insert into the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 an alternative scheme for

735
admitting evidence of bad character. As we have heard, that scheme is, almost entirely, that proposed by the Law Commission in its 2001 report and which formed the basis of our own proposals.
In effect, this invites me to set out the key differences between our own proposals and those of the Law Commission. I am happy to do so. As I hope to demonstrate, the Government have drawn in good measure on the Law Commission's proposals—and many of the apparent differences are simply ones of structure. However, there are areas where we believe that it is right to go further, which I shall seek to explain.
Before doing so I should correct an impression that I am sure may have inadvertently been given by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that propensity was something which the Law Commission disavowed. The Law Commission was clear that evidence of propensity should not be excluded per se but admitted where it had a sufficient bearing on the proceedings. We agree with the Law Commission. Our provisions simply make that explicit. I invite the noble Lord's attention to page 50 of the Law Commission's report, Evidence of Bad Character in Criminal Proceedings, starting at paragraph 4.3. Your Lordships will see that it deals with the test in the leading authority in DPP v P and says that it is too vague. Paragraphs 4.7 and 4.8 deal with the evidence of propensity admitted as similar fact evidence. Pages 51 and 52 contain an analysis of the prosecution's failure to proceed in the case of B(RA). I respectfully suggest that it is wrong to say that the Law Commission felt that the measure should be excluded. I shall not read into the record the totality of the document but it benefits further careful consideration.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. In the draft Bill attached to the Law Commission's report one of the subsections which appears in my amendment states:
"For the purposes of this section, whether the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful is not to be regarded as a matter in issue in the proceedings".
I absolutely accept that there is an exception to that, which is the similar fact evidence exception. I could not have made that clearer in my speech. Indeed, I have the advantage of having my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern sitting behind me who made the leading judgment on similar fact evidence in DPP vP.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords—
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, may I just ask—
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course I shall give way but I remind the House that we are on Report.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I thought that the Minister was reading from passages in the report where the Law Commission described defects in the present law.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I was dealing with the point made by the noble Lord. He said—I shall be happy if he disavows it—that the Law Commission was suggesting that propensity per se should be excluded. It was clearly not doing that. That was my point.
The definition in proposed new Section 82A is almost identical to that recommended by the Law Commission and which also appeared, in substance, in the Bill prior to amendment in Committee. There are two minor differences.
The first is structural. The Law Commission preferred to include evidence of the facts of the alleged offence, and evidence of misconduct in its investigation or prosecution, within the meaning and definition of evidence of bad character. Most straightforwardly, such evidence would include in a burglary, for example, the evidence of eyewitnesses, forensic evidence and the like. Clearly, that is the central evidence in any case, and the Law Commission proposed that leave should not be required before it was adduced. The Government considered it more straightforward to say that such evidence simply did not come within the definition. However, the effect is the same: it is admissible without leave.
The second difference is more significant and reflects a difference between the proposal in proposed new Section 82A and the Law Commission, not between the Government and the Law Commission. The commission proposed that evidence that tends to show that a person has committed an offence or behaved in a particular way should be capable of admission. The intention was to cover evidence from which it could be inferred that a person had acted in a particular way, rather than that which showed it directly. In our view, that might include evidence on charges for which the defendant is concurrently being tried or for which the defendant has been acquitted. Such evidence is currently admissible, and we believe that it would be a grave mistake to suggest that it would not be admissible in the future.
It may be, in fact, that such evidence will be capable of admission under the definition as a whole. However, it is far from clear, and the omission of the words proposed by the Law Commission is likely to be seen as significant. The Government are, however, fully aware of the concerns that the definition has caused, which were explored fully in Committee. We are therefore willing to look carefully at how we define such evidence, to ensure that the Bill is apt to catch all evidence that should be subject to the rules in this part of the Bill—in particular, evidence which should properly be capable of admission—but does not include evidence which is too remote.
I hope that I can deal briefly with the provisions on evidence of a non-defendant's bad character. On those, there are no differences of substance between the Government and the Law Commission scheme. There is a slight structural difference, so that what appears across four sections in the amendment is dealt with in a single

737
clause in the Bill. We believe that that approach is more accessible. However, the circumstances and tests for admissibility are the same.
I shall turn to the admission of a defendant's bad character. The Government's proposals have been drawn substantially on the Law Commission's work and recommendations, although adopting a slightly different structure. For example, with one exception to which I shall return, the categories of admissibility set out in Clause 84 all appear in the Law Commission scheme. Both schemes apply a test that involves the weighing of the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect in determining whether it should be admitted. There is no dramatic change in the law there.
Much of the subsidiary material in Clauses 85 to 90 relating to the various categories of admissibility is drawn from the Law Commission s proposals. Examples are proposals on what should constitute explanatory evidence, the restriction on a defendant's adducing a co-defendant's record in relation to credibility, and the circumstances in which a defendant might give a false impression of himself that triggers admission of his record.
Noble Lords will also see that proposals made by the Law Commission on a range of procedural matters have been adopted. Those include: stopping the case where evidence is contaminated, in Clause 91; the assumption of truth when assessing relevance, in Clause 92; the court's duty to give reasons, in Clause 93; and the proposal for rules of court, in Clause 94. Indeed, the only proposal not adopted here relates to the question of severance. However, the test for the court to apply under the Law Commission's proposals does not differ substantially from that which applies under the common law and which will continue to apply.
It is also clear, however, that there are substantial differences between the Law Commission's proposals and those in the Bill. Perhaps the most significant of them is in our general approach to admission. The Law Commission's proposals are based on exclusion, but the evidence should not be admitted until a number of hurdles have been overcome. That was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford It is evident in the requirement that leave must be sought, and an enhanced test of relevance must be satisfied that evidence is not considered admissible if it does not pass an interests of justice test.
We know that proponents on one side say, "Everything in the clause is already in the jurisprudence, so it is not needed". On the other side, they say, "If everything is there already and we are not doing much other than extending it, why do the Government object to it being codified?". We need to signal that there has been a change, and the question is how we are to do that. It is our view that a more targeted approach is required, one of inclusion that makes it clear that relevant evidence is admissible. The law should therefore make it clear that the test should be whether the evidence is relevant, and then whether it should be excluded.
738
The prosecution must still show how the evidence is relevant to the case—that is, why it falls within one of the categories set out in Clause 84. Once it has done so, we believe that it is right to place the onus on the defendant to say why the evidence that the court has found relevant should be excluded. That is the case with all other relevant evidence that the prosecution wishes to adduce.
We therefore stand firmly behind the inclusionary approach adopted by the Bill. However, we recognise that there is a practical question of ensuring that defendants are aware in advance that their record might be put in evidence, an issue touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. That will enable an application to exclude to be made to the judge, to ensure that the court is in control of the admission of the evidence in those circumstances, as is appropriate. We are therefore prepared to consider whether a formal notice requirement should be introduced to meet the need.
Part of the drive for clarity and transparency, and ensuring that relevant evidence is admitted, is covered in Clause 84(1)(d), allowing a person's record for similar offending to be heard by jurors and magistrates. We shall have an opportunity to debate the matter more fully in a little while, but it was not part of the Law Commission recommendations and I therefore also mention it here. The provision is intended to create a presumption that the courts should hear of similar convictions of the same person. However, it is not intended that evidence should be admitted if too remote to have any probative value. That is why the category is subject to the exclusionary test in Clause 84(3).
We think that that is an important part of shifting the emphasis towards admitting evidence that is relevant unless it is not safe to do so.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I asked my noble friend whether she had consulted the organisations mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. She has not referred to that. She may be coming to it; I do not know. If not, why not?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, as the noble Baroness is dealing with the matter at the moment, I shall take the opportunity to ask whether she accepts a statement in the letter of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, dated 16th December 2002, to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. He said that, in the case of convictions,
"the starting point is that these convictions will always have some relevance to the issues in the case and it therefore creates a presumption in favour of their admission. However, this is not absolute and is subject to the discretion to exclude on the basis that prejudicial effect outweighs probative value".
She said it would be excluded if there were no probative value, but the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said it would be excluded if the prejudicial effect outweighed the probative value. Does the Minister accept that?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do and that is why I invite noble Lords to look at subsection

739
(3). It states precisely that. That is why Clause 84(3) is subject to the exclusionary text. The first question is: has the Crown satisfied the judge that it is relevant evidence? If it is relevant evidence, it should go in unless and until one looks at Clause 84(3), which asks whether it is more probative than prejudicial. Here the court gets the opportunity to have its say.
In relation to the comments made by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davies, noble Lords will know that through the process of the Law Commission Bill and this Bill there has been wide-ranging consultation. Indeed, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, will say, there has been vigorous lobbying in relation to all these matters. They have been taken into consideration not least because we have had the benefit of their being discussed in some depth in your Lordships' House. I know that our officials have had the advantage of responding. I cannot give the noble Lord a list of all those occasions, but I hope he will accept that we have had a fair opportunity to have recite of what the organisations have said and we have had a fair opportunity to have our say.
We recognise that concerns have been expressed both here and in another place about how the clause operates. We are therefore prepared to look further at the issue to see whether we might achieve our aims in another more acceptable way.
I want to highlight two further differences between the proposals in the Bill and the Law Commission's recommendations. The first relates to the defendant's shield. At present, this is lost if a defendant attacks the character of a witness. In those circumstances, evidence of his own record is admissible. The Law Commission proposes that this should be restricted so that only certain attacks trigger the loss of the shield. We do not believe that that is right—it is not what happens at the moment and we believe that it would be unjust to make the change.
Under the Law Commission's proposal, a defendant would be able to accuse a witness of lying or fabricating evidence without losing his shield. So the defendant would be able to do that with impunity. Such attacks should not be capable of being made with impunity. If they are, we risk exposing witnesses to far more frequent attacks in the courts, which will have the further effect of deterring people from coming forward to give evidence. The Bill's proposals, on the other hand, retain the full protection of the current law.
We have also restricted the categories to which the exclusionary test applies. We do not believe that it has a particular role to play, for example, in respect of explanatory evidence (Clause 84(1)(c)); or evidence to correct a false impression (Clause 84(1)(g)), where we have adopted different safeguards. In the case of explanatory evidence, that is already admissible under the current law and is indeed admitted even where it might be thought to be highly prejudicial; for example, evidence of sexual offending.
740
The test for explanatory evidence set out in the Bill is a high one. Once it has been met, we consider it is important that the court should have this information to perform its task effectively. We do not therefore provide for the exclusionary test to apply.
In relation to evidence admissible to correct a false impression, there are a number of safeguards to ensure that evidence is admitted under this head only where it is appropriate to do so and proportionate to false impression. I give an example of Clause 89(3).
I now turn to Amendment No. 188, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, on an issue raised in Committee. We offered to look further at this provision and table an amendment if required. Briefly, Clause 96(2) ensures that where evidence is relevant to charge A but not to charge B, it is not excluded from the proceedings for lacking sufficient relevance. For this reason, we consider that something along the lines of this provision is required. However, the concern has been raised that the court should be able to consider the prejudicial impact of the evidence on the whole of the proceedings.
We recognise that that is an important point and, on reflection, believe that Clause 96(2) can be improved in this respect, which is why I have tabled Amendment No. 189. This makes clear that Clause 96(2) does not apply to the operation of the exclusionary test in Clause 84(3) under which, therefore, the court will need to consider the impact of the evidence on the proceedings as a whole. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord that the substance of the concern has been met and that his amendment can be withdrawn.
As well as Amendment No. 189, I should like to move a number of minor amendments—Amendments Nos. 190, 191 and 241. These are consequential provisions which ensure that other statutory provisions are in line with the proposals in the Bill.
I have sought to outline the differences between the Law Commission's draft and this Bill because there may have been some fundamental misunderstanding. Our Bill is sound because it rests on the sure foundation of what was proposed by the Law Commission. Our proposals are aimed—and I believe that they succeed— at producing a clear, comprehensive, accessible statement of the law, drawing together well established principles of current jurisprudence and restating them in such a way as to ensure that the rules of evidence assist the search for truth in criminal trials. The proposal has succeeded in giving us a great deal more clarity.
I hope that when we come to the additional amendments we will be able to explore how, if at all, they can be better expressed.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her comprehensive reply—indeed, adapting her own expression, comprehensive and clear. The only difficulty I have is that on the two issues I raised in my opening—those of inclusionary versus exclusionary and of propensity—she has stuck to the text in Part 10.

741
There is an enormous difference between an inclusionary rule and an exclusionary rule. It affects the burden of proof and, in addition, in the version we have before us under Clause 84, in only three out of the eight categories is the defendant entitled to question the inclusion at all. In the other five categories, the inclusion is automatic. So it is not just a question of the reversion of the burden of proof; it is a question of whether the opportunity exists at all for the defendants to protest about the inclusion of bad character.
I turn to the question of propensity. I want to state again, as I did in the intervention which the noble Baroness kindly let me make, that the Law Commission's draft excludes propensity in its entirety as a matter in issue in the case. It is true that provision is made in the Law Commission's draft for similar fact evidence; but similar fact evidence is not an example of propensity. It is evidence which goes directly to the issue in the case. That could not have been made clearer by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern in the case of the DPP v P.
As your Lordships know well, the noble Baroness has sparkled in the manner in which she has promoted and protected the Bill. We can only speculate on what her real feelings are about some of the issues that it raises. Perhaps an expert cryptologist—my noble friend Lady Trumpington, for example, who long ago worked in Bletchley Park—might be able to discern between the lines what the noble Baroness really thinks. I know what she should think. She should think that Part 10 is an affront to the presumption of innocence. For that reason, I shall ask the House to divide on the amendment.
6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 174A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents. 182; Not-Contents, 111.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Addington, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Alderdice, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Chester, Bp.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Colvilte of Culross, V.

Ashcroft, L.

Colwyn, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Attlee, E.

Craig of Radley. L.

Avebury, L.

Crathorne, L.

Barker, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Biffen, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Blackwell, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Blaker, L.

Dholakia, L.

Blatch, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Brougham and Vaux. L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Buscombe, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Byford, B.

Elton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Falkland, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Feldman, L.

742

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Fookes, B.

Moynihan, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Neill of Bladen, L.

Freeman, L.

Newby, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Noakes, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Northbrook, L.

Glentoran, L.

Northover, B.

Goodhart, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Goschen, V.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Greenway, L.

Onslow, E.

Hamwee, B.

Oxford, Bp.

Hanningfield, L.

Palmer, L.

Hanson, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Higgjns, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Prashar, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Rees, L.

Hooper, B.

Rennard, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Renton, L.

Howe, E.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Roper, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Russell, E.

Hylton, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Jacobs, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Judd, L.

Sandberg, L.

Kimball, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Sandwich, E.

Kingsland, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Seccombe,B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Selsdon, L.

Lindsay, E.

Sharman, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Liverpool, E.

Sharpies, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Sheldon, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Lucas, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Luke, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Lyell, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Strange, B

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Stratchlyde, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Swinfen, L

Taverne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

MacLaunn of Knebworth, L.

Thomas of Gwydir,L.

Maclennan of Rogart,L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

McNally, L.

Tope, L.

Maddock, B.

Tordoff, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Ullswater V.

Mancroft, L.

Vinson, L.

Mar, C.

Vivian, L.

Mar and Kellie, E. [Teller]

Waddington, L.

Marlesford, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Marshall of Knightsbridge, L.

Wakeham, L.

Masham of Eton, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Walmsley, B.

Methuen, L.

Walpole, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Weatherill, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Wigoder, L.

Monson, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Montrose, D.

Willoughby de Broke, L

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Alli, L.

Bach, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Andrews, B.

Berkeley, L.

743

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Billingham, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Borrie, L.

Jones, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Brett, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Layard, L.

Brookman, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Burlison, L.

Levy, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Lipsey, L.

Carter, L.

Lockwood, B.

Christopher, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Marsh, L.

Crawley, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

David, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.[Teller]

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dixon,L.

Mitchell, L.

Donoughue, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Dubs, L.

Parekh, L.

Elder, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Erroll, E.

Pendry. L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Peston, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord

Plant of Highfield, L.

Chancellor)

Radice, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L

Rea, L.

Fitt, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gale, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Gavron, L.

Rooker, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Goudie, B.

Simon, V.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stallard, L.

Grantchester, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Harrison, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Haskel, L.

Thornton, B.

Hayman, B.

Turnberg, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Warner, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Whitaker, B.

Hoyle, L.

Whitty, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Wilkins, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.11 p.m.
Clause 81 ["Bad character"]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 174B:
Leave out Clause 81.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 82 [Abolition of common law rules]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 174C:
Leave out Clause 82.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 83 [Non-defendant's bad character]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 175:
Leave out Clause 83.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 84 [Defendant's bad character]:
[Amendment No. 176 not moved.]
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 177:
Leave out Clause 84.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 85 ["Important explanatory evidence"]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 178:
Leave out Clause 85.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 86 [Offences "of the same description" or "of the same category "]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 179:
Leave out Clause 86.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 87 ["Matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution "]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 180:
Leave out Clause 87.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 88 ["Matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant"]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 181:
Leave out Clause 88.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 89 ["Evidence to correct a false impression"]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 182:
Leave out Clause 89.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 90 ["Attack on another person's character"]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 183:
Leave out Clause 90.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 91 [Stopping the case where evidence contaminated]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 184:
Leave out Clause 91.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 92 [Offences committed by defendant when a child]:
Baroness Seccombe Baroness Seccombe moved Amendment No. 185:
Page 60, line 11, at end insert "in the following circumstances—

(a) the prosecution can show continuous or persistent commission of similar offences by the defendant since the time that he first committed them, or

(b) the defence has introduced evidence of the defendant's experiences before the age of 14."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am sure that many noble Lords will recognise the amendment from the Bill's Committee stage in this House. It concerns a matter that I wish to revisit today. I hope that I shall be forgiven for repeating myself, but I wish to make it very clear what we are trying to achieve with the amendment.
The clause repeals subsections (2) and. (3) of Section 16 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963. Those subsections concern offences committed by children and ensure that upon reaching the age of 21 individuals do not have earlier convictions taken into account in later trials. I stand by the assertions that I made in Committee regarding this clause and I repeat that, as currently drafted, it places an unfair burden on those who have, for whatever reason, made mistakes in the past. The clause deals with children who are under the age of 14 when t hey commit a crime. I am sure that we can all understand the reasons for not including any such matter in a trial which, in many cases, could take place years later.
I agree with many of the points made in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and I shall not use up the time of the House by repeating them, except to say that like the noble Baroness we are unsure what good the clause would do and what the Government could hope to achieve by its unamended inclusion in the Bill.
My amendment would ensure fairness by narrowing the instances in which evidence of a criminal record could be adduced to two specific categories. The first category is that only those who continually commit crimes throughout their youth would have their record put before a jury. Therefore, it would exclude those who had made an error and learnt a lesson. The second category is where the defence has introduced evidence of a defendant's record before the age of 14. The provision is similar to that of the current law on similar fact evidence.
I believe that this clause would not make a trial unnecessarily complex, as was suggested by the Minister. It would offer the Government a compromise between the current position and the amendment that has been tabled in the names of my noble friends Lord Kingsland and Lady Anelay and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which would leave out the clause altogether.
Those of us who are parents, and even grandparents, understand the temptations and situations that can beset children as they grow up. I believe that if they have genuinely turned their back on offending, it would be an intolerable burden to carry for the rest of their lives. It means that a conviction would never be spent, and I would hate us to legislate to that effect. I plead with the Minister to agree to the amendment. I beg to move.
6.15p.m.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I did not speak to this matter on the first occasion as I was not in the House, but believing, as I do, that it is the responsibility of the state to help and to support young people in trouble, I have always valued the protection given to children in the courts through the Children and Young Persons Act. I am disappointed that in the pursuit of convictions the responsibility that we have towards such young people, usually for the most part from very difficult backgrounds, is to be diluted.
746
Despite that and accepting that I would much prefer the whole of this provision to be struck out, I recognise that times change. In the area of child abuse and child sexual abuse, where I currently work, we know that without treatment young offenders will accelerate their behaviour. In the interests of other children and young people, the pattern of offending must be understood over time. That is why I support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, and hope deeply that the Government will be able to accept the circumstances given.
However, research shows that most young people grow out of offending behaviour and it would be helpful if the Minister could also give reassurance that there would be guidance on what would constitute persistent or continuous behaviour. Will that come from one of the departments—the Department of Health or LCD—or will we have to wait for case law? By saying that I recognise that this latter point assumes acceptance of the amendment, but it is such a good balance of justice and rights that I hope that the Minister will be able to do so in the interests of our young people and their future.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest that there is a misprint in the amendment, which no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would wish to correct. Surely it should read:
"the prosecution can show continual",
and not,
"continuous or persistent commission of similar offences".
It is difficult to commit offences continuously.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as on so many occasions, I respectfully agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, although I am sure that some defendants will try. I have listened with care to what the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, has said and what was echoed in support by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. These are important issues in relation to how we deal with children.
Section 16(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 represents an absolute bar on admitting evidence of a defendant's convictions for offences committed under the age of 14, in proceedings for an offence committed over the age of 21. Clause 92 proposes to lift that restriction.
However, that does not mean that such evidence will automatically be heard; far from it. The effect will be that these convictions will be heard only under the new rules set out in the Bill. Where those criteria are satisfied, including most importantly the requirement that the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect, they will be capable of admission. It does not mean that they must be admitted, but simply that they are capable of admission. That is the proposal in the Bill. It rests on the principle that evidence should be capable of being heard by juries and magistrates provided that it is relevant to the case and can safely be admitted.

747
I would like to echo a remark made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, in her contribution. We know a great deal more now about the pattern of offending behaviour. Regrettably, in certain specified cases it is important to know what has happened in the earlier years in order to be able better to understand how that ripened into behaviour in mature age.
Amendment No. 185 in the name of the noble Baroness recognises that Section 16(2) is a blunt instrument and proposes to lift the restriction in some circumstances but not in others. Our concern with the amendment is that anomalies will arise and that we will have added a further complex rule in an area of the law where greater clarity is required.
The amendment attempts to set out the kind of circumstances where a person's record of offending at a young age might have sufficient probative value to be admitted. We are not unsympathetic to the concern that this evidence should be admitted only where it will have a clear bearing on a case. However, we consider that there are difficulties in attempting to identify in advance all the possible situations where it may be appropriate to admit this evidence.
That is why we prefer the proposal that this kind of evidence should be subject to the careful rules and safeguards set out in the Bill. These are there precisely to ensure that evidence must be clearly relevant to be admitted, and to provide safeguards to protect the interest of defendants. These would ensure that offending that is too remote—for example, an isolated incident many years in the past—is simply not heard.
It is not, however, clear how the amendment would improve on the general scheme of the Bill. That would enable evidence to be admitted where it was relevant by showing persistent offending, or where it was evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant by introducing evidence of his experiences under the age of 14. But it would also enable evidence to be admitted in other circumstances where it was relevant; for example, if it bore a striking similarity to later offending. On the other hand, we accept that introducing new concepts, in the way the amendment proposes, would lead to complexity and legal argument about, for example, what exactly constitutes "similarity" for the purpose of identifying,
"persistent commission of similar offences".
The debate has certainly highlighted a range of concerns with the proposal to make these convictions admissible. The arguments were persuasively put in Committee and they have been repeated today. They are real concerns and the Government recognise that there are particular considerations with the kind of convictions and circumstances covered by Section 16 that do not apply more generally.
I am therefore prepared to look further at whether the approach taken in the Bill pays sufficient regard to those factors—I hope that will give the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, some reward for her proper persistence—and consider whether there is a better way forward that we might suggest at Third Reading. I cannot of course give a guarantee, but I can certainly
748
say to the noble Baroness that we think this issue is worth looking at. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I am very grateful for those words from the Minister. The best thing I can do is to thank her for that concern and to say that I very much hope that she can come forward at Third Reading with a proposal that is acceptable to the whole House. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 186:
Leave out Clause 92.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on behalf of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and other noble Lords who have put their names to the amendment I should like to move Amendment No. 186 to delete Clause 92 from the Bill. I shall not rehearse in great detail all the arguments put in Committee.
There were five major arguments: first, that there has not been adequate consultation about the effect of this issue on children; secondly, there was no call for it in the Auld report or the Law Commission report; thirdly, it is not relevant in the light of developmental changes in children to take away their protection from this kind of evidence of bad character being submitted; fourthly, it is inconsistent of the Government in the light of the call for a clean sheet for under-18s in the Home Office report Breaking the Circle; and, fifthly, doli incapax has already been eroded in Section 34 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, so that a 10-year old child is now presumed to be as criminally responsible as a fully mature adult. In such a case, surely, there is at least a need to take account of a child's vulnerability and lack of mature judgment by ensuring that the rules of evidence are appropriate when applied to children.
As my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew pointed out in Committee, most children who commit crimes are in some way disadvantaged or socially excluded. That is society's fault not theirs. It is also society's fault that when they demonstrate early offending behaviour we do not intervene early enough or effectively enough to address that behaviour and turn around that young life.
Given those two key ways in which society fails these young people, it seems perverse—one of the milder words I could use—to hold against them in later life offences committed in childhood, when they were being let down by the rest of us.
In Committee, the Minister told us that this measure was an attempt to simplify the plethora of rules governing the use of previous convictions and other misconduct. I believe that child offending is a complex matter and has complex causes. The law should be able to be sufficiently highly refined to take account of that and to deliver justice. There is no virtue in simplicity when it does not deliver justice.
The Minister, in rejecting the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, in Committee and again today, has talked about the fact that it would

749
introduce an unnecessarily complex series of restrictions to the admission of such evidence. The simple answer to the problem is to leave out the clause and to return to the status quo, imperfect though it is, and try to improve it through the Green Paper consultation which is currently taking place. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, very briefly and as a layman, I would like to support the amendment. I think there is a large amount of opinion in the country which believes that the age of criminal responsibility is too low. It is certainly lower than it is in many other comparable countries. It therefore perhaps should be raised. The situation would be improved if the amendment were to be accepted.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope that I have already made clear on speaking to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, that our view is that the general scheme in the Bill for evidence of bad character distinguishes properly between the evidence that has a bearing on the case that should be capable of admission, and that which should be excluded. We therefore consider that those provisions should apply rather than a restriction which gives rise to a number of undesirable anomalies.
I hear what the noble Baroness says about it being society's fault that young people offend. I cannot share that view. I accept entirely that many young people are placed in tragically deprived circumstances and that they succumb to bad behaviour, but by no means does every child who is so disadvantaged do that. If we say, as the noble Baroness does, that it is all society's fault, we fail to take into account that we all have a degree of responsibility for our own actions, even when we are small. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, as I have on many occasions, that the disadvantage that young people face must be addressed. They need succour, support, boundaries and assistance. With those elements in place, they have better opportunity to receive support for their good behaviour as opposed to erring in a way that we would all disapprove of.
Clause 84(3) provides a key safeguard for the admission of evidence of the defendant's bad character. We have also touched upon the courts provisions in Clause 84(4). Rather than go through all the reasons why I cannot agree with the noble Baroness, as I did in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, perhaps it will suffice to say that the Government recognise that there are particular considerations of the kind of convictions and circumstances covered by Section 16 that do not apply more generally.
I repeat, therefore, that we are prepared to look further at whether the approach taken in the Bill pays sufficient regard to those factors and to consider whether there is a better way forward that we might suggest at Third Reading. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel content to withdraw her amendment, notwithstanding that we have not on this occasion agreed on all fours.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for her response. However, perhaps I may respectfully correct the impression that she has gained of what I said earlier. I did not say that children's crimes are not their fault or that they are society's fault; I said that children who commit crimes are in some way disadvantaged and socially excluded, and that is society's fault. The fact that we do not intervene early and effectively enough is also society's fault; it cannot be the children's fault. I do not suggest that there is no fault associated with criminal behaviour.
Despite the warm words that the Minister has so kindly spoken on this amendment and the previous one, I am inclined to test the opinion of the House on this very important matter.
6.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 186) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 125; Not-Contents, 113.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Ackner, L

Hanson, L.

Addington, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Harris of Richmond, B. [Teller]

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ashcroft, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Attlee, E.

Hooper, B.

Avebury, L.

Howe, E.

Barker, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Blaker, L.

Hylton, L.

Blatch, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Kimball, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Kingsland, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Buscombe, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Byford, B.

Lindsay, E.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Luke, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lyell, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Chester, Bp.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Clement-Jones, L.

L.

Colwyn, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Crathorne,L.

McNally,L.

Cumberlege, B.

Maddock, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Dholakia, L.

Mar, C.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Falkland, V.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Feldman,L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Fookes, B.

Monson, L.

Fowler, L.

Montrose, D.

Glenarthur, L.

Moynihan, L.

Glentoran, L.

Newby, L.

Goodhart, L.

Noakes, B.

Goschen, V.

Northover, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Hamwee, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Hanningfield, L.

O'Cathain, B.

751

Onslow,E.

Shutt of Greetland,L.

Oxford, Bp.

Skelmersdale, L.

Palmer, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Patten, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Rennard, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Renton, L.

Tope, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Tordoff, L.

Roper, L.

Ullswater, V.

Russell, E.

Vinson, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Vivian, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Waddington, L.

Sandberg, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Walmsley, B. [Teller]

Seccombe, B.

Walpole, L.

Selsdon, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Sharman, L.

Wigoder, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Sharpies, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ahmed, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Grantchester, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Greengross, B.

Andrews, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Harrison, L.

Bach, L.

Haskel, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hayman, B.

Berkeley, L.

Hogg of Cumbemauld, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Billingham, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Blackstone, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Borrie, L.

Hoyle, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bragg, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Brett, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Brookman, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Burlison, L.

Jones, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Carter, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Chandos, V.

Layard, L.

Christopher, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Lipsey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lockwood, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Crawley, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

David, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Masham of Eton, B.

Dixon, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Donoughue, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mitchell, L.

Dubs, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Elder, L.

Nicol, B.

Erroll, E.

Parekh, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Pendry, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

(Lord Plant of Highfield, L.

Chancellor)

Radice, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Filkin, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Fitt, L.

Rooker, L.

Gale, B.

Sawyer, L.

Gavron, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Simon, V.

Goldsmith, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Goudie,B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

752

Strange, B.

Warner, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Weatherill, L.

Thornton, B.

Whitaker, B.

Turnberg, L.

Whitty, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 93 [Assumption of truth in assessment of relevance or probative value]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 187:
Leave out Clause 93.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 94 [Court's duty to give reasons for rulings]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 187A:
Leave out Clause 94.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 95 [Rules of court]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 187B:
Leave out Clause 95.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 96 [Interpretation of Chapter 1].
[Amendment No. 187C had been re-tabled as Amendment No. 191ZA.]
Amendments Nos. 188 to 191 not moved.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 191ZA:
Leave out Clause 96.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 97 [Armed forces]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 191A:
Leave out Clause 97.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 98 [Statements and matters stated]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 192:
Leave out Clause 98.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is rather a strange situation because the main provision was deleted on the last occasion. We received—and I have lost it among the myriad papers—a statement from the office pointing out the oddity that a main clause had been deleted and subsequent clauses depending on the main clause had remained in the Bill. That was not the only example. There was a clear lacuna that required clearing up. To remain consistent with what this House decided on the last occasion—to delete the main provision saying that hearsay should be allowed—I accordingly move to delete the dependent ones. To remind your Lordships about how

753
we came to remove the main one, I referred again to the paper by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, which is deposited in the Library and which bore the support of all the judges in the Court of Appeal criminal division. Paragraph 23 on page 7 states:
"What happens now in civil proceedings is that a judge has a general discretion to determine how matters are to be proved. The judge has to exercise the discretion in the interests of justice. He is assisted in doing this, because the probative value of the evidence depends upon its nature and source. If it is not first-hand evidence, then it has the disadvantage that it has not been tested by cross-examination. Whether this matters depends on the circumstances".
I stress what follows:
"If we have got to the stage where it is considered that it is safe to allow juries to hear hearsay evidence, then we must be accepting that they can be trusted to use that evidence in accordance with the directions of the judge. Instead of the detailed and complex provisions which are contained in Chapter 2, what is needed is a simple rule putting the judge in charge of what evidence is admissible and giving him the responsibility of ensuring that the jury use the evidence in an appropriate manner".
It was on that basis that the main provision was removed, and I now seek to get the Bill into an intelligible form by deleting the minor planets circulating around the globe that has now gone. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 192A and 192B in my name. The purpose of my amendments to Clause 99 is to deal with the definition of fear. The conditions set out in subsection (2) that would permit evidence to be given in a statement as opposed to orally include the condition,
"that through fear the relevant person does not give ‖ oral evidence in the proceedings, either at all or in connection with the subject matter of the statement, and the court gives leave for the statement to be given in evidence"
My amendments attack the definition of fear in subsection (3), which states that,
"'fear' is to be widely construed".
I have no idea what that means. Fear is fear. I seek to exclude the words,
"is to be widely construed and (for example)"
so that the subsection reads:
" 'fear' includes fear of the death or injury of another person".
My second objection is to the words "or of financial loss". Fear, widely construed, of financial loss could mean that a witness refuses to come to the court because, he says, he will lose a day's pay. It is as simple as that. What sort of financial loss do the Government have in mind, if it is not the loss to the witness of some financial gain that they might otherwise have received? I await the explanation.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the debate covers two clauses: Clause 98, which defines the type of statement that will be covered by the scheme, and Clause 99, which makes provision for a statement to go in, if the witness is unavailable to give evidence. Noble Lords will know that we spent considerable time on those clauses in Committee.
754
It is important that the new scheme should be clear, not just about the circumstances in which an out-of-court statement will be admissible, but about the circumstances in which a statement would be considered hearsay. Clause 98 provides that clarity and limits the hearsay rule to circumstances in which the dangers associated with hearsay evidence arise—for example, circumstances in which there is a danger that a statement may be deliberately misleading. Therefore, under subsection (3), the hearsay rule would apply only if it were the purpose of the person making the statement to cause someone to believe that the matter stated was true or to act on the basis that it was true.
Clause 98 will overturn the ruling of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House in the case of Kearley in 1992, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, indicated. Many of your Lordships will be familiar with the case in question. Evidence of 10 or so requests for drugs made at the defendant's house by callers on the telephone and in person was held, by a narrow majority, to be inadmissible hearsay, when tendered to prove that he was dealing in drugs. Such evidence—asking for "K" and requesting drugs—was said to have contained what is known to lawyers as "implied assertions", adduced to show that "K" was a drug dealer.
I have no doubt that it was an extremely difficult case, in which the committee was concerned to ensure fairness to the accused. However, the decision has caused much confusion and some injustice in cases involving implied assertions because, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, pointed out, in dissenting from the ruling,
"Any action involving human activity necessarily implies that the human being had reasons and beliefs on which his action was based".
We recognise that it is an immensely difficult area of law, but I say, with the greatest respect, that it is illogical to exclude all implied assertions during a criminal trial, particularly those in which the risk of fabrication is low. Additionally, it is difficult to distinguish an implied assertion from direct evidence. In Scotland, as in many other common law jurisdictions, such statements have never been excluded under the rules of evidence. We are not aware that any problems have arisen as a result.
I turn now to Clause 99, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before the noble Baroness moves on, will she explain how the clauses, which were dependent on the clause that was struck out, can stand on their own? They were all meant to be dependent on the general proposition that the House removed.
I remember clearly that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, having spoken about the case to which the noble Baroness referred, was one of those who voted against the main clause permitting the hearsay. I do not have the old, unamended Bill before me, so can the noble Baroness remind us how the clause read?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I regret to say that I do not have the old clause with me either. I have the new version of the Bill. Regrettably, I cannot assist the noble and learned Lord. I could try from memory, but I am terrified that I might fall into error. I know that, given the noble and learned Lord's usual acuity, that is an error that I dare not commit.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, in those circumstances, will the noble Baroness agree to an adjournment, so that we can see what the position is? The House ought to see the words that it deleted. They represented the entitlement, so to speak, for the clauses to follow.
I think that something is being hurriedly provided.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I would not suggest that it is necessary to adjourn. The clauses are not dependent on the removal of the other, over-arching clause. They stand on their own, and that is why we can bring them back. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, nodding vigorously in support of that assertion, so I know that I am on fairly sound ground.
I now have the Bill. Chapter 2 relates to hearsay evidence. The bit that we deleted was Clause 107, headed "Admissibility of hearsay evidence". It read:
"In criminal proceedings a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings is"—
the word "admissible" is struck out—
"as evidence of any matter stated if, but only if".
If I have read the clause rightly, that it is how it will now read. The clause that we are debating can be debated in this form without difficulty. I hope that that explains the situation.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I must ask the noble Baroness to read it out. The Explanatory Notes, which have been helpfully provided to me, read:
"Subsections (1)—(3) set out the circumstances in which a statement which is not made in oral evidence during criminal proceedings can be used as evidence of the facts stated within it".
If the noble Baroness has before her, as I believe that she has, the terms of what was struck out—Clause 107—will she read it out? The beginning of the clause indicates that what follows is due to the authority given by that clause.
7 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I did read out the beginning. I am happy to read it out again, for the assistance of noble Lords. Under the heading "Admissibility of hearsay evidence", Clause 107 read:
"In criminal proceedings a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings is—
it read "admissible"—
"as evidence of any matter stated if, but only if
and then set out paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d), which provided the basis on which it would be dealt with. Subsection (2) went on to say:
"In deciding whether a statement not made in oral evidence should be admitted under subsection(1)(d), the court must have regard to the following factors (and to any others …)".
At paragraphs (a) to (i), the Bill sets out those factors.
756
Clauses 98 and 99 can stand alone. As your Lordships will know, Clause 98 was entitled, "Evidence to correct a false impression"; Clause 99 was entitled, "Attack on another person's character". That is the way it is dealt with. I hope that all noble Lords present follow why there is a distinction to be drawn between those issues with which we have already dealt, and the parts with which we have not.
With your Lordships' leave, I shall reply to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in relation to Clause 99. The clause sets out the categories under which out-of-court statements will be automatically admissible because the witness is unavailable to give evidence. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf—as mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, on previous occasions— has concerns with the approach that we have adopted. He has suggested that something simpler is needed, akin to the civil rules of evidence. The Government are always willing to listen to suggestions for improving the clarity and effectiveness of legislation. We also agree that the courts should have greater discretion to admit hearsay. However, a complete relaxation of the hearsay rule, as in civil proceedings, would be appropriate for criminal cases.
Therefore, if Parliament were to decide not to codify those categories, the courts, in their appellate capacity, would be bound to develop rules on these issues. Practitioners would have to become familiar with relevant and possibly complicated case law. That approach also assumes that there would be little conflict with the authorities in such cases. It is an assumption which we do not believe we could safely make, given the problematic way in which that area of law has evolved so far. Thus, there are arguments against the uncertainties of a wholly discretionary approach and in favour of a code which seeks to build on recognised categories in current law, but stating them in a comprehensive and coherent fashion, accessible to all and capable of straightforward application, seems to be one of the measures for which a number of people have been crying out for a long time.
Clause 99 also makes provision for the use in evidence of an out-of-court statement, with leave, where a witness is frightened. Amendments Nos. 192A and 192B seek to remove part of the definition of "fear" and the example of financial loss. The wording of the clause is in terms used by the Law Commission in their draft Bill and reflects its conclusion that the courts should have a wide discretion to admit statements where witnesses are frightened to give evidence.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, queried whether use of the term "widely construed" has statutory precedence. A search of legislation has not identified anything similar, but it would still be desirable to retain it. Without it, witnesses may not receive the protection which we would want to provide. For example, an elderly or vulnerable witness, who has a brick thrown through the window because he or she is co-operating with the police, may not face a threat to their life. But the court should be able to look at "fear" through the eyes of the witness and should have a wide discretion to admit an out-of-court statement where it is in the interests of

757
justice to do so. Perhaps I may make it clear; this is not about losing a day's pay to go to court, as alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. It is about genuine fear.
Let us take a case, for example, involving the robbery of a local corner shop where the shop owners are threatened by a local gang. If they give evidence in court, the gang will ensure that their customers never buy from them again. Their entire livelihood and all that they have worked for is at stake. The effect of the amendments would mean that the courts would be able to hold that financial loss was not what was intended to be covered by Parliament. Their statements would be inadmissible even though it may be in the interests of justice for them to go in. That is highly undesirable: the reluctance of witnesses to give evidence through fear is a serious problem for the criminal justice system, which I know that the noble Lord acknowledges. The courts should not be prevented from admitting a statement from a frightened witness where it is in the interests of justice just because it is unclear whether it is the right type of fear.
With those comments, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his amendment and that noble Lords will feel content that Clauses 98 and 99 should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, in view of the apparent absence of any concurrence from either Opposition, I shall not seek to divide the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 99 [Cases where a witness is unavailable]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 192A and 192B:
Page 63, line 18, leave out from ""fear"" to "includes" in line 19.
Page 63, line 19, leave out "or of financial loss"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not press Amendments Nos. 192A and 192B in the light of the explanation given by the Minister and the narrowing of the categories in which "fear" is to be construed.
[Amendments Nos. 192A and 192B not moved.]
[Amendment No. 193 not moved.]
Clause 100 [Business and other documents]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 194:
Page 64, line 20, leave out from "not" to "or" in line 21 and insert "obtained pursuant to a request under section 7 of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these are minor consequential amendments to take account of the repeal of Section 3 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act. Amendment No. 194 updates the reference to Section 3 of the 1990 Act to refer to Section 7 of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003. Noble Lords will know that that Bill has now received Royal Assent. Amendment No. 196 deletes the consequential amendment to Section 3 of the 1990 Act contained in Clause 119(2) of the Criminal Justice Bill.
The remaining amendments in the group are mainly technical consequential amendments to take account of the way the Crime (International Co-opsration) Act
758
and this Bill interrelate. Amendments Nos. 243 and 245 make minor corrections to errors in the repeals Schedule. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 104 [Multiple hearsay]:
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 195:
Leave out Clause 104.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 195 seeks to leave out Clause 104, which concerns, and is entitled, "Multiple hearsay". Noble Lords will remember that in Committee, an amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, the then Clause 107, entitled, "Admissibility of hearsay evidence", was removed from the Bill. That vote left the present Clause 104, entitled, "Multiple hearsay" in an uncertain position, which appears not to fit with the rest of the Bill.
In Committee, the dangers of hearsay were clearly laid out. We heard how a single hearsay may be inaccurate, misguided or even fabricated, how it is difficult to challenge and how it cannot be tested on oath; essentially, that hearsay is a highly flawed source of evidence. Multiple hearsay takes that one step further. All the hazards exist, but are accentuated.
The Government's proposals to relax hearsay laws or what, in my non-legal terms, amounts to second-hand information, caused widespread concern among many Members of the Committee. Easing the admissibility of third, fourth or fifth-hand information, which is what multiple hearsay truly represents, surely exacerbates that concern further. For all those reasons, the relaxation of the multiple hearsay admissibility of rules is undesirable. As we heard in Committee, under present regulations multiple hearsay is not admissible as evidence in criminal courts except in exceptional circumstances. The noble Baroness discussed in Committee (at col. 1132 of the Official Report on 18th September) the most common example of its use in the criminal court, when she said that Section 24(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 already allows the admissibility of multiple hearsay in business documents which have passed through the hands of several people. We felt that her dismissal of our argument against multiple hearsay on the grounds that this would also lead to the loss of the provision before us bordered on the illogical, bearing in mind that Section 24(2) is a unique exception—I should say "an unique" exception—to the rule and is not in any case one that we wish to displace.
It is not this small and even insignificant clause with which we have issue, rather it is the approach of the Bill to make the criminal law in these circumstances similar to civil law, where all evidence is primarily admissible and then sifted for relevance. That is what we wish to displace.
Many noble Lords will have received the briefing from Liberty, which emphasised:
"The criminal law is not the same as the civil law because there is not the same sanction. The convicted defendant in a criminal trial faces loss of liberty and there is a strong likelihood of miscarriages of justice occurring if hearsay is relaxed".
In our view, the presumption should be not towards accepting potentially unreliable evidence; the ensuing pitfalls have been spelt out repeatedly. Multiple hearsay should be admissible in criminal courts only under very limited and regulated circumstances and, as a natural consequence of "admissibility of hearsay evidence" at Clause 107 being struck from the Bill. Clause 104 in the present Bill should suffer the same fate.
Meanwhile, the world has been moving on. I thank the noble Baroness for the meeting she had yesterday evening with my noble friend Lady Anelay and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, to discuss the revised government proposals for multiple hearsay. I apologise to the noble Baroness for not being able to be present myself.
The Government have now put forward a proposal to redraft Clause 104, and part of that redraft appears to be acceptable. We accept that new subsections (1)(a) and (b) codify the existing practice regarding the admissibility of multiple hearsay. We also accept that the Government have made a constructive attempt to draft the third part of the new clause, subsection (l)(c), to cover those exceptional circumstances in which a court may decide to admit multiple hearsay in other cases.
However, the problem is that this first attempt on the part of the Government to redraft the exceptional circumstances case is too vague and needs to be more narrowly drawn to be acceptable. I understand that the Government have agreed to look again at the redraft of Clause 104 and that, as a consequence, agreement may be achieved on this matter.
I invite the Minister to set out the Government's case in her response and confirm that the Government are prepared to continue discussions about the redrafting of Clause 104, along with their revised proposals, if any, for single hearsay—old Clause 107. If the noble Baroness is able to satisfy us on those two points, I can signal now that we shall not seek to divide the House on Amendment No. 195. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I have already spoken at length about the fundamental objection to multiple hearsay. If multiple hearsay is to be used as evidence of the facts, then it is impossible to challenge it.
I shall not weary the noble Baroness further because she knows of my objection. I also thank her for our discussions this morning. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, could have attended the meeting if he had known about the change of time. I look forward to a fruitful outcome of those discussions.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for the co-operative way in which they have addressed these issues. These meetings undertaken by all sides have proven to be very fruitful, providing an opportunity for us better to explain to each other the differences that were made clear in Committee. So I can make the confirmation indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, in moving the amendment.
760
The purpose of Clause 104 is to limit the circumstances in which an out-of-court statement will be admissible when it is considered to be multiple hearsay; in other words, it is there to prevent so-called "tittle-tattle" going in as evidence.
I am very sympathetic to the concerns that the rule, as it is currently expressed in the Bill, is difficult to understand. I have been persuaded by noble Lords that the clause is insufficiently clear, but removing it from the Bill entirely would have the effect of leaving no rules to govern admissibility of multiple hearsay, thus leaving it subject to no safeguards at all. I know that noble Lords join me in not wanting that as a consequence.
In other words, by removing the clause, it would become possible for a chain of out-of-court statements to go in as evidence where each statement in the chain qualifies for admission in its own right, such as when a statement made by someone who has subsequently disappeared includes details of a statement made by someone who has died. We are, I believe, all agreed that multiple hearsay of this kind is inherently more dangerous and unreliable than first-hand hearsay, where the speaker has personal knowledge of the fact stated.
Clause 104 is taken from the Law Commission's draft Bill on hearsay. As noble Lords know, that reflects the commission's conclusion that most multiple hearsay is too unreliable to be admitted as evidence, but some of it can safely be used, such as when it is in business documents, while some should be admissible where it is sufficiently reliable and would prevent injustice
The problem with the clause appears to be that the circumstances in which this would happen are not expressly stated. I recognise that this would make it difficult for practitioners to operate the scheme. We have therefore been giving some thought to how we can redraft the clause to achieve greater transparency so that everyone can understand when it could be admitted. Such a clause would also reflect appropriate safeguards in relation to the admissibility of this kind of hearsay. I propose to bring forward a revised clause at Third Reading with the aim of trying to address the concerns expressed by noble Lords. I shall let noble Lords have sight of it in advance; that is, as soon as it is made available to me.
This revised clause will make clear that Clause 99, which allows evidence to be admitted where a witness is unavailable for good reason, will not operate to allow a chain of such statements to be admissible. However, where the hearsay is admissible in a reliable form, such as in a business document or in a previous statement of a witness who is in court to give evidence and can therefore be questioned on the statement, we consider that the evidence should be admissible.
In the light of that reassurance, I hope that your Lordships will feel content to let Clause 104 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness. She has certainly fulfilled all that I asked for in my remarks. We look forward to hearing about the progress of further discussions on the redraft. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 119 [Repeals etc]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 75, line 1, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 125 [Purposes of sentencing]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 77, line 32, leave out "must have regard to" and insert "is under a duty to consider"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now return to what is now Part 11, covering all the issues around sentencing. In Clause 125, the Government propose to set out in statute the purposes of sentencing. The clause states that the court must "have regard to" those purposes when it comes to deal with an offender. My amendment would change the words "have regard to" to,
"is under a duty to consider"'.
I note that my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow is in his place. The reason I tabled this amendment was as a result of listening carefully to my noble friend's contribution in Committee. I thought that it was important to return to the comments he made on that occasion. My noble friend said:
"No part of the clause says what weight is to be given to any of the particular purposes of sentencing. One might perhaps say something like, 'have in mind the following purposes of sentencing', or, 'must be aware of the following purposes of sentencing', rather than, 'must have regard', which implies that any sentence must meet all those six purposes when they may in some cases be self-contradictory".—[Official Report, 6/10/03; col. 47.]
I agree.
As my noble friend said, the Bill gives no guidance to sentencers as to how the various factors are to be weighed, especially where they may be in conflict. The implication of the words "have regard to" is that any sentence must meet all six purposes which, in practice, may be impossible. That is why I have brought forward an amendment which makes it clear that the purposes of sentencing in the Bill are to be considered by the courts but that they are not under a duty to meet all of them in any particular case.
The Minister said:
"It is right that, when a sentencer comes to consider the sentence, all those factors are born in mind".—[Official Report, 6/10/03; col. 49.]
If my amendments are accepted, the purposes of sentencing would still have to be born in mind, as the Minister requires, but the potential difficulty of the words "have regard to", to which my noble friend Lord Carlisle drew attention, would be removed.
If the Government are minded to reject my amendment today, I suggest that they may need to spell out to the House in some detail how they propose that sentencers should approach the task given to them under Clause 125. That request is also made by Justice in its briefing to the House. What should sentencers do when they are of the view that one or more of the purposes are in conflict?
As I said in Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor stated at Second Reading that,
"It will be up to sentencers to determine what weight to accord to each in a particular case".—[Official Report, 16/6/03; col. 561.]
If that is the Government's approach, why can it not be made clear on the face of the Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, Amendment No. 179A is grouped with the amendment. We were much impressed by the representations made to us by the Prison Reform Trust. The proposal to define the purposes of sentencing in legislation is the cornerstone of the sentencing framework and obviously requires very close scrutiny.
The construct in Clause 135 provides for a "pick 'n' mix" approach to sentencing, with no single underpinning philosophy coming to light. As such, it will prove over reliant on a mass of guidance in its search for coherence and consistency. We much prefer the model outlined in the Halliday report, which referred to the "desert" theory. This emphasises the need to link severity of punishment with seriousness of offence and culpability of the offender so as to be proportionate and commensurate. The desired outcomes of consistency, and therefore fairness and justice, dominate in this model. Fixing levels of severity in relation to levels of seriousness is a very key issue.
Justice has also made representations to us on this issue. It said that the Halliday report noted these findings and others and also noted the weakness of the evidence in favour of the incapacitative effect of sentencing, and hence the proposal that neither deterrence nor incapacitation should be relied upon as a justification for sentencing.
Our proposal would retain the primary overall aim of the youth justice system—the prevention of offending by children—while reinforcing and clarifying the necessary safeguards for children and better compliance with children's human rights obligations. If accepted, the amendment would ensure that, when passing sentence, the courts would have regard to the welfare of the child in order to best respond to their vulnerability. Those are the reasons for the amendment.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, my noble friend said that the amendment was based on something I said in Committee. I am grateful to her for that comment. I am afraid that I cannot now bring to mind immediately what I said in Committee, but it is clear—and this is what I must have said—that the matters referred to in Clause 125(1) can be self-contradictory. It is wrong that the court "must have regard to", for example, the punishment of offenders because that may be contradictory to being required to have regard to the reform and rehabilitation of offenders and the court could be drawn in two different directions. I suggest that it would be better if the word "must" should be discretionary or replaced by the word "may", as the amendment proposes. I hope I have correctly repeated what I said in Committee—my noble friend will tell me— and I therefore support the amendment.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, from my memory, the noble Lord has correctly repeated what

763
he said in Committee. However, I do not agree with him. It might be easier if the House could take as read the comments I then made in order to avoid noble Lords having to hear them all over again.
Amendment No. 197 seeks to make what, at first flush, appears to be a minor drafting change to the clause setting out the purposes of sentencing. It would place any court dealing with an offender in respect of his offence under a duty to consider the purposes of sentencing. The current drafting which sets out that a court "must have regard" to these purposes is considered to be preferential because it is consistent with the drafting of other provisions in Part 11 of the Bill and has a certain synergy. For example, Clause 154(1) states that in sentencing an offender every court must have regard to any guidelines which are relevant to the offender's case.
I hear what is said about the difference between the conditions and that they may pull in different directions— but that is what judgment is about. If one of my noble friends was on the Back Benches now—I do not see him in his place—he would say that this is typical of a lawyer's "on the one hand and on the other hand". He is always seeking a one-handed lawyer. The court will have to take into consideration different features and factors which may pull in different directions and come to a conclusion as to how they can be balanced.
Amendment No. 197A, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, repeats an amendment tabled in Committee which seeks to replace the purpose of punishment with one which refers to the holding of offenders to account for their offences. I understand the genesis of that from the Prison Reform Trust. I hope to be able to explain why the Government believe that what is in the Bill suffices.
I hope the House will forgive me if I reiterate that we prefer our drafting because "punishment" is a better recognised and more widely used definition of one of the purposes of sentencing. We also believe that it better conveys that sentencing is about the loss of liberty, property and other rights and freedoms and that it is necessary to achieve crime reduction, the rehabilitation of offenders and reparation. Indeed, the goal must be to achieve punishments that work as well as they possibly can in terms of crime reduction and the satisfaction of victims and communities. The word "punishment" achieves that in a better way.
With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord, with his usual understanding and good grace, will not press the matter further.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for elaborating on the explanation she gave in Committee and adding very effectively to it. I certainly accept her assurances in this regard although I still agree with my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow that it will be very hard for sentencers to balance this "on the one hand and on the other hand" factor. It will be a matter of judgment.
764
I am not too surprised that my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow was not able to cast his mind back immediately to the beginning of October to recall his words. The fault is all mine—when we talked earlier today about how far we might get, I gave him what can only be called, in colloquial language, duff information, because we did not expect at that juncture to reach sentencing. However, we have gone like an express train today and have therefore reached this part of the Bill. Those who attack lawyers for going on endlessly were wrong on this occasion. My noble friends were succinct to the point of virtue, so we got further than the Government expected. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 197A not moved.]
Clause 126 [Determining the seriousness of an offence]:
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 197B:
Page 78, line 35, at end insert—

"(6) Treatment of previous offending as an aggravating factor under subsection (2) is to be interpreted as permitting the imposition of a more demanding sentence within the band of community or custodial seriousness, but it does not permit—

(a) a current offence that is, on its own, defined as "not serious enough" to warrant a community disposal to become suitable for a community sentence;

(b) a current offence that, is, on its own, defined as "serious enough" to warrant a community disposal to become suitable for a custodial sentence;

(c) a current offence that is already "so serious" or defined in statute as requiring sentencers to pass a custodial sentence to increase the length of the custodial sentence that would otherwise be passed."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had a considerable discussion on this amendment at an earlier stage. I do not object to raising some of the issues again because the impact of sentencing on the prison population is considerable.
There is a grave danger that the content of the clause will lead to a major and costly escalation in severity of sentencing. This is contrary to the other sections in the Bill where it is specified that only the current offence should be used to determine whether an offence is serious enough to warrant a community disposal or so serious that only a custodial sentence is justified.
In addition, the generic community sentences introduced by Chapter 2 create a risk that sentencers will be reluctant to make repeated use of community sentences for the same offender. This could considerably shorten the path to prison for many moderately persistent offenders whose offences would not otherwise justify a custodial sentence. Our amendment is designed to rectify this situation. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, in dealing with Amendment No. 197B, it might help if I briefly explain the purpose of Clause 126 and how it is intended to work.
We have made a clear policy decision to move away from the current position in which the court is simply required to take into account any previous convictions

765
to the position set out in this clause, where recent and relevant previous convictions must be treated as aggravating factors.
Persistent offenders must know that they will be dealt with progressively more severely each time they offend. This does not mean that wildly disproportionate sentences will result. Sentencers will, of course, operate within the principle that the severity of the resulting sentence should reflect the seriousness of the current offence. The clause simply modifies the proportionality principle so that previous relevant offences can act as an aggravating factor.
I remind the House of what quite often happens. You look at the maximum sentence and then ask what discounts should be given because of the factors in the case, so down it comes. We are saying that because we are creating a new fabric around the sentencers so that they can use those sentences more flexibly, it should be understood by defendants who come before the court that the court will try to target their offence and the offending behaviour, the root causes underneath it, and will work with them. However, if they do not respond in a positive way, the court has an option to treat them progressively more robustly if circumstances demand. However, that does not mean that sentencers should be able to use the full panoply of sentencing tools available to them under the Bill as previous convictions lead them progressively up the sentencing scale. So while custody and longer periods of custody are not intended to be the immediate impact, instead the courts could put together a variety of different interventions as part of a community sentence or impose a suspended sentence. They may well need to move between sentencing bands, and Amendment No. 197B would prevent them from doing so.
That flexibility will, we hope, inure to the benefit of the defendant, who has to have this behaviour addressed. However, noble Lords should be reassured that the Sentencing Guidelines Council is required, under Clause 152(7), in drafting guidelines to include criteria for determining the weight to be given to any previous convictions of offenders so that they will set out in guidelines the extent to which the severity of sentence could increase in relation to what the previous convictions were and the nature of the current offence. We therefore do not set out any restrictive criteria in statute, as proposed in the amendment. It will be up to the Sentencing Guidelines Council to spell out the effect of the principle in Clause 126.
With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied that if the court feels in all the circumstances of the case that a proper, targeted community sentence is justified within the meaning of these provisions, it will have the opportunity to impose that. We said earlier that community sentences can be targeted at different forms of offending behaviour, and I am sure the court will be able to take those factors into consideration when deciding whether it is or is not appropriate to mark the increasing seriousness of offences by using or not using community sentences.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and thank her for her explanation. Although
766
I may not win the argument today, I am seriously concerned about the prison population, particularly our young people. Perhaps in six or eight months' time I will get up again and say that I said so. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I believe that noble Lords taking part in the Unstarred Question have been given revised timings for speaking, should they wish to avail themselves of the extra time.

Political Coverage by the Media
7.36 p.m.
Lord Patten Lord Patten rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the range and quality of the coverage of political events by the media, in particular by the BBC, are satisfactory.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am extremely glad of the opportunity to ask this Question tonight, and extremely grateful to those noble Lords who have decided to take part in this short debate, although it is lengthening slightly, thanks to the progress of business.
The Question for the Minister is whether the Government feel satisfied with the standards of reporting of what they and other politicians of all parties do in the United Kingdom. I am sure that the Minister shares with me the feeling that a high standard of political reporting and analysis is vital to the health of our democracy and essential to the channels that inform governed and government, helping to bind us all together in mutual understanding, even if not in actual agreement much of the time.
Yet I also feel, among many people of all parties and none, a growing sense that the aggressive, sometimes antagonistic and scoop-driven style of political journalism that we now have does not add very much to human understanding. There is the feeling that this hardly encourages a dash to the polls, although I certainly do not blame all voter apathy on the media.
Only in September, in this respect, there was a handsome mea culpa by the right honourable Tessa Jowell when she wrote in the New Statesman:
"We made repeat announcements of the same initiatives. We favoured some journalists; we briefed anonymously;"—
There is a serious sin. She continued,
"we were insufficiently respectful to Parliament".
That is an even more serious sin.
That was very honest of her, but that same right honourable Lady has the very challenging task of the oversight of the one media body where your Lordships have some legitimate direct interest—the BBC.
The strictures that I have made about the BBC are not only related to that body. They are certainly shared by many in the journalistic world, yet we have put the BBC into a peculiar position. In a free society, if we do not like the coverage offered us by the myriad of modern media outlets, we can listen, view or read something else. The unique exception in the western world is the BBC, which holds us in a form of broadcast serfdom. Of course, it can be turned off—no one has to listen or view—but it still has to be paid for through the BBC poll tax.
If I want to educate or irritate myself by reading a left-wing view, I can buy the Mirror or the Guardian. If I want to wallow in comforting right-wingery, I can go out and buy the Mail or the Telegraph. But, by comparison, if I turn on any news channel in this country, such as ITN, or any news channel in the United States, for that matter, it never enters my head for one moment to consider the likely politics of the broadcaster. There is one exception to that—the case of the BBC.
There are two reasons for that. The first is the fiscal compulsion that underpins the organisation, which is now becoming abhorrent in a free society. The licence fee also has regressive effects in a free society. Why should someone in a tower block be forced to pay for something that they do not want? That seems to me fundamentally wrong.
I am not being malicious in saying that the second reason is that the BBC has, little by little over the years, developed its own view of the world. That view happens to mean that the BBC has become more and more institutionally left-wing. Not for one second do I mean that it is far left or loony left—it is a kind of inside liberal left. That is where I would place the BBC's cast of mind. That is not because of entryism or some political plot or the goings-on of any government. It is perfectly natural for any media outlet over the years to develop its own identity, persona and cast of mind. It is a natural law of journalism, broadcast or print. The BBC might just as easily have taken a different turn and ended up a right-wing kind of organisation, or a Liberal Democrat kind of organisation. I do not blame anyone for that—it has just happened.
In saying that, I do not criticise any individual. That is for two reasons: first, because I am naturally charitable and do not want to upset anyone. However, it is widely recognised that journalists—whether left, right or centre—despite very often using the fiercest criticism as a tool of trade, are an exceptionally thin-skinned bunch when the weapon is turned on them. They are likely to reach for the smelling salts at the mildest remark, let alone criticism, of anything that they do as journalists. I hasten to add that my noble friend Lord Marlesford is an exception to the rule; he was a complete paragon in everything that he did when writing in the Economist and elsewhere.
Secondly, I believe—and it is from this belief that I speak—that there are a lot of excellent journalists in the BBC. I had better declare an interest: I know and like a number of them. I do not want to shock my own noble friends on these Benches, but I have been to their homes and they have been to mine. I hasten to say that there will be no outing of anyone tonight and no collateral damage done to their BBC careers because of me. However, that said, I can think of no senior BBC figure who is known privately as being right of centre. If by saying that I have misjudged anyone in the BBC's political firmament, perhaps they will out themselves in due course. I shall leave that to them.
Deliberately, the BBC has developed a real view on the world—aka an editorial slant, just like any tabloid. I happen rather to like tabloids. Its news and analysis is now driven by the scoop and largely motivated by the exclusive. Sadly, some of those exclusives are sometimes based on surveys that the BBC has itself commissioned. One might talk in the literal sense about making up the news rather than reporting it. I do not believe that the relentless pursuit of exclusives by the BBC is at all consistent with the role of public service broadcasting. That vital sense of fairness is lost, and I believe that is probably already gone.
An editorial stance, let alone partisanship, should not be paid for from the public purse. Can the governors do anything about that? The answer is no, although we should certainly be grateful for what they have tried to do. They have an impossible task, as they do not have the powers of non-executive directors but are expected to defend their men and women through thick and thin while, at the same time, acting as a form of self-regulator. In its turn, that is a form of muddled corporate governance hybridity, flying full in the face of any modern approach to corporate governance itself. One simply cannot superintend an organisation such as the BBC, with its sprawling news empire of 3,500 people, and with no editor-in-chief to be answerable for what is carried on the BBC news. There is no such man or woman. One simply cannot superintend such an organisation with a form of corporate governance that is so anarchic, out of date and unfit for purpose.
In conclusion, my view is that the BBC is no longer a national institution. As a matter of editorial policy, it has deliberately ditched its role of wanting to be part of our national glue while continuing to depend on national funds. It is now just like any other broadcaster, and it is none the worse for that—it is not in any sense meant to be a critical remark. It is just like any other broadcaster, save for it being a pensioner on the public purse.
I only wish that, 20 or 30 years ago, someone had issued a stern warning to the BBC along the lines of that recently given at the end of October by the head of the Civil Service, Sir Andrew Turnbull. In a speech that he made, with the characteristic discretion of the upper mandarinate, to the Portuguese Civil Service, offshore in Lisbon on 22nd October, Sir Andrew was blunt. He said that there was a risk that our bureaucrats could lose their reputation for political impartiality and integrity, which,
"once lost would be very difficult to revive".
The BBC demonstrates just how easily that can happen. I hope that the BBC is disestablished as soon as possible, at least with regard to news and political reporting, in the interests of fairness to the people of this country.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Parekh: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for proposing today's timely and topical debate and for his interesting and somewhat polemical speech.
Our media are a mixed bag. Our quality press and the BBC are world class and inferior to none, but our tabloid press leaves much to be desired. It has little interest in major political events of the world and, when it condescends to take notice of them, the coverage tends to be sensational, personalised, shallow and designed to serve a narrow ideological and political agenda. Since the tabloid press reaches nearly 80 per cent of our population, its poor quality is a matter of legitimate public concern. However, having said that, I should like to concentrate on the high standards of the quality press and of the BBC.
With all the limitations to which I shall return, there is much to be proud of in our media. By and large, they provide reasonably accurate information, and in-depth analysis of political events. Some of their columnists are knowledgeable, well read and capable of taking detached and long-term perspectives on day-to-day events. Our newspapers cover a fairly wide range of ideological positions, and the biases of one are countered by those of the others.
Even the most ideologically biased newspapers generally take care not to cross certain limits, and they have columnists representing different points of view. Let us take for example the coverage of the recent war on Iraq and its aftermath and compare it to what happened in the United States. Anyone who has closely followed the American print and visual media, as I have, both as a distant observer and as someone who was privileged to lecture at Harvard and Yale, is struck by the one-sidedness of the coverage of those events in the United States. In the name of patriotism almost all dissenting views were marginalised and suppressed. Demonstrations against the war were ignored altogether or covered in an extremely partisan manner. Columnists and commentators who dared take a critical view were calumniated and even dismissed. Many sensible Americans, legitimately proud of their democratic culture, began to ask why it had become so vulnerable and fragile. Some even talk of intellectual and moral suffocation. Not surprisingly, quite a few of them turned to the British liberal press for information and ideas and envy the robustness of our public culture.
They were particularly impressed—if I may say so, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Patten—with the quality of the coverage on the BBC. The BBC never lost its balance and objectivity. Even when the country was involved in a war, the BBC insisted on checking its facts independently rather than rely on the reports of the embedded journalists working with the coalition
770
forces. It also continued to ensure that the institutionalised public space that it represents is available to critical and dissenting views. The Hutton inquiry was another excellent example of the independence of the BBC. Despite its initial misjudgment, the BBC ensured that it was able to stand up to the Government, rightly or wrongly. More importantly and more impressively, it was just as critical of its own management and the heads of the sections involved.
While, therefore, there is much to be proud of in our media, there are obviously certain limitations. I want briefly to refer to five of them by way of illustration. First, the range of the coverage of political events even in the best of our media is considerably limited. Many parts of the world including the great developing countries such as India and China barely receive sustained attention. They are noticed only when there are natural disasters or incidents of extensive civil violence. We know very little of the big debates taking place in these countries; nor do we know much about the background to the events of civil violence that are reported.
Secondly, the quality of analysis in much of our media also needs to improve. Our columnists are almost all journalists who have to write against pressing deadlines, who are not always expert in their respective areas and are often unable to bring well-thought-out historical and philosophical analysis on daily events. Here we may have something to learn from the French and the German newspapers and television. There it is quite common for academics, experts and senior statesmen to be regular columnists in national newspapers or to comment from time to time on important national events. I am therefore particularly disappointed and rather surprised that a debate on as momentous an issue as the European Union and the new constitution has received very little contribution from historians, philosophers or political scientists.
Thirdly, there is little significant contribution from the ethnic minority columnists and writers. As a result, large sections of our society remain voiceless and feel alienated from the democratic culture of our society. Ethnic minority writers and others have unique experiences and perspectives and our political life is the poorer for their marginalisation. If nothing else, they will at least ensure that the media do not talk about ethnic minorities, wittingly or unwittingly, in a degrading and patronising manner.
Fourthly, even in the quality press there is a tendency to push the views of the proprietors and to allow them to impose their ideological and political agenda on the country. Sometimes this tendency by the proprietors to use newspapers to promote their ideological position is subtle. On other occasions it is too blatant to go unnoticed. This undermines public trust in the media and corrupts the wellsprings of our democratic culture. The one way to counter this tendency would be to regulate the ownership of the media and to ensure that the ownership remains diversified. Another way is to hold the media accountable to a public body.

771
We certainly have the Press Complaints Commission, for which there is much to be said, but, sadly, it is too weak and too dominated by the editors to perform its task properly. It would therefore help, I think, to establish an independent institute whose job it would be to monitor the media, correct errors of fact and judgment, expose their biases and challenge their views. Even if the institute, independent of government, has no legal teeth, the very fact that a respectable body passes strictures on the media or the television should be able to exert a determined influence.
I turn, finally, to the BBC. The BBC, I think, and I say so in great humility, is a wonderful institution. It is rightly cherished and it commands far more public confidence than any newspaper, or even all the newspapers in our country put together. It should obviously therefore not allow itself to get into the Gilligan-type situation when its judgment was suspect and when it acted too hastily to defend its reporter. It should therefore take a careful critical look at itself and its procedures, and I gather that it is doing so already. It might in this context think of an ombudsman or a neutral complaints authority, like the Police Complaints Authority, to which disputes involving the BBC can be referred.
In any case the Government should keep their hands off the BBC in its daily management. The fate of our democracy is too important to be left to the forces of the market. We know that from the sad experience of the United States. We need a public medium, publicly accountable and set up by the public. The BBC, with all its limitations that I pointed out earlier, is as good an institution as I can imagine.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for instituting this debate.
When considering the media, I think first about an issue of which I have some little personal knowledge, and then I look at what the media say about it. On 16th October 2003 there were three local government by-elections in the North of England: in Mixenden in Halifax, in Lanehead in Burnley, and in Great Horton in Bradford. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Patten, I am concerned about the far right. Several of us were aware that the BNP would show some interest in those three local authority by-elections. It had won Mixenden in January 2003 and the seat in Burnley in May 2003. The Mixenden by-election—a council seat in Calderdale, where I was a member until May—was caused by the death of Stephen Pearson, who had been a colleague of mine, and was fought by his widow, Jennifer Pearson. I was involved in that. Understandably, Jennifer was given a great deal of help.
I was surprised, therefore, when the day before the election, one of my noble friends said to me, "I see that you're going to lose that seat in Halifax". I said, "Why do you say that?" He said, "The article in today's Daily Telegraph. You're not going to win". The headline said,
772
"School Governor on course to win seat for BNP".
It took two reporters to give us that story. I said, "Don't worry; all will be well".
I was there at the count and had the pleasure of seeing the ballot papers. As I was at the count, I did not hear the 10 o'clock news on BBC Radio. However, my noble friend Lord Greaves, who was in his hospital bed at the time, was firmly fixed to Radio 4 and listened to the 10 o'clock news. After the 10 minutes of news, there was a studio discussion on why the BNP were going to win two seats, in Halifax and in Burnley, that evening. Happily, during the course of the programme, they were able to interrupt to go over to Halifax to get the result. Jennifer Pearson polled 1,210 votes; the BNP 801; and others rather less. The BNP did not gain the seat.
What was the reaction in the studio? The presenter said, "What's gone wrong? The BNP were very confident. What's gone wrong?" He did not know how to handle it. Happily for the presenter, the Burnley result came a little later, long after that paper had gone to bed. The Liberal Democrat candidate in Burnley polled 1,070 votes, Labour 463, the BNP 357 and other candidates rather less. Therefore the BNP lost the seat. Teletext covered both results, although I think that it was set up for other reasons.
I said that there was a third by-election in Bradford. There was no BNP candidate because something went wrong with the nomination papers. Even the Yorkshire Post did not record the result, which was a Labour gain from the Conservatives that meant that Labour became the biggest party in Bradford, rather than the Conservatives. One would have thought that there was a little news value in that. Of course the result was never covered by the London Daily Telegraph. Although it had spent a lot of time telling us what was going to happen the day before, the real result was never given to the readers.
We need more serious reporting. The Daily Telegraph story did not even state that there were any other candidates, let alone their names. We need less guessing. The media ought somehow to get rid of preconceived notions and report and consider facts. The problem is that there is no follow-through. What is the point of starting a story and giving people certain information and then not going through with it?
8.2 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Patten for introducing this debate with such accurate eloquence. He may be aware that I introduced a similar debate on 11th March last year, which repays study now in the wake of the events being examined by the Hutton inquiry. As I said in that debate, broadcasting bias is often in the eye of the beholder and it is especially difficult to prove when it exists. Several series of programmes have to be recorded, transcribed and analysed by an objective mind. Even then, the written text will not reflect the tone in which a question may have been put, so painstaking cross-referencing between the recording and its text is sometimes necessary.

773
As far as I know, only one area of the BBC's political output has been thoroughly analysed over several years: its coverage of our relationship with the European Union. I referred to that in my debate on 11th March last year and again at Second Reading of the Communications Bill on 25th March this year. I shall not repeat all that now: no doubt the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will be pleased to hear that.
Lord McNally: My Lords, he is not alone.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I feel sure that he is not alone.
Suffice it to say that through our research unit, Global Britain, the noble Lords, Lord Harris of High Cross and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and I have now commissioned 12 independent reports into series of the BBC's EU coverage. The main reports run to some 750 pages, supported by several thousand pages of background analyses and transcripts. The reports and summaries can be found on the www.globalbritain.org website; their conclusion is simple and clear. The BBC is heavily biased in favour of our continued membership of the European Union and permits virtually no debate about whether we should leave it, despite the significant strand of public opinion that believes that we should.
That is particularly reprehensible and treacherous when we are under the shadow of the Giscard proposals for a new EU constitution, which would make this country entirely subservient to the corrupt octopus in Brussels. The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, listed leaders of thought who have not given the subject the attention that it deserves; I venture to add the BBC to that list.
However, the BBC website is running a question and answer section on the proposed constitution. I have time to give your Lordships only one of its more beautiful answers. It states:
"Giving EU law supremacy over national law sounds more radical than it is. This clause writes down what has always been the case. And its application is limited to an area of policy where the Union has 'competences conferred on it'. If member states could at the same time pass their own contradictory laws, there would not be a Union at all".
So that is all right then, according to the BBC.
The BBC's news and news-related coverage stands accused of bias in several other areas. It is held to be biased against Israel and in favour of the Palestinians; in favour of immigration and asylum on almost any scale and against those who fear the results of too many unskilled foreigners coming to live here; and against our glorious history and culture and in favour of any other view that discredits the good that we have done over the centuries. Also, of course, it is deeply antagonistic towards the United States of America, ignoring all the sacrifices that that great country has made for the world—in particular, for Europe. In fact, the BBC fell out with Mr Blair only when he did a wicked right-wing thing by joining Mr Bush in his liberation of Iraq.
774
In other words, the BBC is hopelessly and uniformly politically correct. It simply cannot understand a view, let alone encourage an open and honest debate, on a subject that clashes with its leftish, liberal, bien pensant culture. It thus abuses its charter, its guidelines, its public service remit and its licence fee. To many of us, that is a great pity, because much of what it does outside the realm of politics is excellent and we would not want to lose it.
I end with two observations, the first of which I have made before, which is that the governors of the BBC should have more independent help to insist that the BBC's management starts to take a balanced approach to the kinds of issues I have mentioned, and there are others. At the moment the governors are advised by employees of the corporation who owe their careers to the management whom they are unlikely to criticise, and so, indeed, they do not. The governors are controlled by the management when it should be the other way round.
Secondly, a practice has grown up over the past 10 years whereby news correspondents and other commentators give their views on the subject in question along with their reporting of facts. Those views, of course, resonate the views of the BBC itself. I understand that that is partly because of the pressures of 24-hour news reporting and partly because the BBC wanted to make its news coverage more readily accessible. Be that as it may, it has now become very difficult for listeners and viewers to separate fact from the BBC's opinion on any matter. I feel sure your Lordships will agree that this confusion is not what the BBC was set up to perpetrate. Here again the BBC's management should be controlled by the governors.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and I put forward some suggestions as to how that might be achieved during the Committee stage of the Communications Bill. We suggested that those who advised the governors might be employed by separate trustees, or perhaps that the governors should set up a sub-committee from among their number to oversee their public service remit. After all, they have an audit committee, why not a public service committee? The Government dismissed those ideas at the time but I still believe that it is essential for the governors to be advised independently of management. I have to say that there are a large number of people in the BBC who agree with me very much. I hope that the Government in the wake of the events leading to the Hutton inquiry may now give that proposal some serious thought.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking my noble friend Lord Patten for giving us a chance to discuss these matters. I have one or two interests to declare. I am an independent national director of Times Newspapers, which means The Times and The Sunday Times. In that role I have absolutely no responsibility whatever for editorial content. Indeed, it would be wholly inappropriate for me at any stage to seek to influence it. The real purpose of having independent national directors of those particular papers—which dates back to the days when

775
the Thomson empire had those papers long before Mr Murdoch took over—had always been to protect the editors against the proprietor, should that be necessary. In the time that I have been an independent national director that has not proved necessary, so my duties have been fairly light although very interesting.
I was a journalist for the Economist for some 16 years and the lobby correspondent for the greater part of that. I also did quite a lot of broadcasting at one time for the BBC, both at home and on the World Service. In the few minutes of your Lordships' time that I shall take, I want primarily to talk about the BBC. I want to make the very important distinction, which has been made many times before, between a public service obligation and a purely commercial obligation. It is that which separates the BBC from the rest of the media. The BBC is financed by a licence fee which, as someone said, is paid whether people want to pay it or not. That brings certain obligations. The first obligation is accuracy, the second is balance and the third is objectivity. I do not believe that the BBC always fulfils those obligations.
The BBC often has its own agenda—it is easy for any organisation to start to have this—which becomes very apparent. Sometimes the views of individual people on the BBC become apparent. As your Lordships will know, the point about the Economist newspaper is that, with the exception of surveys, none of us ever got a byline. That does not mean that the Economist is sound on everything—many things that appeared in it when I was there I regarded as unsound and there have been many since—but it does mean that it is less likely to produce zany one-off personal views because there is a certain collective ethos which means that things are thought through and talked through very carefully. That is much more difficult in the case of the BBC because by definition anyone broadcasting has a byline; they are the person speaking at the time.
I suggest that one of the BBC's problems at present— it ought to be able to deal with it fairly easily—is to see the difference between a presenter of a programme and a commentator. Of all people the presenter of a programme should be wholly anonymous in terms of his or her views.
I was fortunate enough—privileged—for three and a half years to be a civil servant in the 1970s. I was subject to all Civil Service rules, but I was a political appointee of the Heath government at the time. I can honestly say that in that time I really did not know the political views of any civil servants with whom I dealt. I was obviously dealing with the then head of the Civil Service, Sir William Armstrong, and the secretary of the Cabinet, Sir Burke Trend. My particular job was mainly involved with the Central Policy Review Staff under Lord Rothschild.
There is a very big tribute to be paid to the Civil Service for its genuine impartiality. That is something that the BBC should seek. It can perfectly well differentiate itself from the commercial media, which are there to make a profit and sell papers, channels or
776
whatever. It is perfectly justified for them to take any line that they wish. That simply is not true of the BBC. We somehow need to get more objectivity.
I do not think that there is a tremendous party-political bias in the BBC. One reason for that is that we have a largely conservative Government and a largely conservative Opposition, which means that the party-political clash is far less nowadays, certainly in doctrinal terms, than it used to be. However, an agenda emerges, and the BBC wants to watch very closely against that.
I shall not follow completely the rule of my noble friend Lord Patten in not naming anyone, as I would like to name one journalist—a former colleague of mine—who is an example of real objectivity. I have known him a very long time, and I happen to know a lot of his views. I refer to Andrew Marr, the political editor of the BBC. I am absolutely astonished at how enormously informative he is. If anyone fills the three criteria of accuracy, balance and objectivity, it is he. A number of others whom I will not mention could seek to emulate that.
There are moments when the BBC has a role in the national interest, and I shall tell one story that dates back to the Falklands War. I did some broadcasting on the domestic political implications of the war, and I remember arriving at Bush House to do some on the World Service late at night after there had been a big row in the House of Commons about certain aspects of the war. I was going to be a commentator after the news broadcast, and there was quite some excitement in the newsroom outside the actual studio. I gathered that a report had just come in that the QE2, which was steaming towards the Argentine with many thousands of British troops on board, had been sunk.
I remember very well the little dialogue that went on between the producer of the evening and other people in that part of the room. "Where did this news item come from?", he said, and was told that it came from Madrid via New York. "Right", he said, "we are not going to broadcast the enemy's black propaganda", and of course the item was not referred to. That was absolutely right in every sense.
Part of being a public service medium means that there are certain national obligations. I do not say that criticism should not be expressed, but it is very important not only that the BBC avoid having an agenda, but that it should be constantly aware of the need to give a fuller account than anyone could expect tabloids to do. It worries me if I hear the BBC hype up the news, as it often does. It treats it as drama, perhaps trivialising really serious subjects. That is not its job. Its job is not to seek ratings, but to perform a public service.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for giving us the opportunity to speak in this debate. Many before me have spoken eloquently about the BBC. On the whole I shall not speak about it, other than to say that the focus on the BBC and its credibility and impartiality is

777
incredibly important for one other reason. The BBC World Service, to which reference has just been made, is a major influence in the lives of many who support the ideals found in this House and the other place. The local, internal and domestic credibility of the BBC could affect that for the worse, which is all the more reason to debate the topic.
Perhaps I should confess what is not quite an interest but is a link, in view of the remarks that I will make in my few minutes. When the noble Lord, Lord Patten, was Secretary of State for Education and I was Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools and in the process of creating Ofsted, he never communicated with me through the media—through leaks, hints or spin. Rather we spoke or he wrote. That was done in openness and honesty and I would commend it. It was the relationship that perhaps led to creating an institution that still plays an important role in this country. The reasons for making that point plain will become apparent in a moment.
One premise in the discussion has been, as a starting point, that perhaps the Government and the media— or the BBC as one very important element of the media—are too far apart and that they communicate by megaphone and loud hailer; and that they are too much inclined, therefore, to misunderstand, attack and have separate agendas that do not fit together.
An alternative premise I put to your Lordships is the opposite: that perhaps they have been too close to one another; that the apparent rows have the intensity of family quarrels rather than of opposite parties pitching from different and distant standpoints. I should add in passing that it is said most murderers are known to their victims. The greatest violence and the greatest rowing tends to come where relationships are very close.
There is early evidence that others have worried about that. Your Lordships may recall that when the Independent newspaper was created, its first editor, Andreas Whittam Smith, decided to play no part in the Lobby system. Perhaps that was too early, but it expressed a concern and a worry—the one I am expressing today. At the time, to adapt a phrase, "C'elait magnifique, mais ce n 'etait pas la guerre". But he did make the point that the dangers of collusion and over-familiarity between journalists and politicians are real and perhaps lead to internecine strife in due course. Perhaps, of course, the Lobby system and the subsequent industry of unattributed briefings was simply the government trying to be helpful—perhaps. I am inclined to say, "Pull the other one".
I point to two complementary problems; because this is a two-sided issue. It is not merely a matter of asking whether there is something wrong with the media; it is the relationship with politics that concerns me. On the one hand, it seems to me that there has been a wish on the part of government and governments, not least the current Government, to manage the news; to set the agenda in news terms and perhaps to manipulate. It appears in a number of ways; for instance, the timing of stories. There has to be a string of good -news stories coming out in due order—which will be next week's
778
and which for the week after. There is a release of stories to journalists—favoured journalists—but on what kind of basis? The implicit discipline or threat in that was the one to which Andreas Whittam Smith was pointing us those 20 years ago. There are the briefings, the counter-briefings, the announcements made perhaps by the "Today" programme rather than in the Houses of Parliament. It really will not do.
I make the point because it is a two-way issue. It is politics and the media; it is not simply what is wrong with them. There is the attempt—and it is understandable but none the less not to be encouraged—to control the news. And we see the extremes that goes to in dictatorships in proletarian states. We are not in a totalitarian regime; we are in a very different regime and so there are counter-balances to that. However, it is a tendency for which one must always watch.
On the other hand—and this has been well encountered today—there is the preoccupation of the media with the story rather than with the report. Always there has to be a story, whether it is about by-elections in the North of England or whatever. How many of us have been asked to give comment perhaps to a television crew? One is asked five questions but one knows which one is the predetermined question to which they want a particular answer. The story has been written and one's comment will slot into that part of the production that is already in process.
There are two sides to that and the dangers of over-familiarity between politics and the media ought to be sounded once again as an issue. There have grown up partnerships or unholy alliances that perhaps do not help because each one seeks to manipulate the other.
Reference has been made to the head of the Civil Service, who spoke—I was going to say "off-stage" but perhaps in the Portuguese proscenium—about the importance of an independent Civil Service. Nowhere is that more important than in the government information services. I believe that an issue arises here in relation to the wholesale changes in personnel that took place in the summer of 1997. That cannot be allowed to be a running pattern that dictates the way in which the media are dealt with by the Civil Service. The dangers of losing professionalism are very great. I wholly applaud what Sir Andrew Turnbull said about the importance of an independent Civil Service, not least in this area of life.
I speak here not as a mainline politician, nor as a card-carrying member of the National Union of Journalists; on the other hand, I want to represent a view held by many outside these Houses and many who are not directly involved in the media. If we were to come to distrust wholesale what is said either by politicians or by senior figures in the media, democracy would be the loser.
8.26 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for initiating this debate. The contributions have indicated how wide-ranging it could become. I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, in his remarks other than to echo his hope that when the

779
Government appoint the new head of the information service, which is promised to be separate from the political role occupied by Mr Campbell, we shall demonstrate a new attitude towards it. As for Sir Andrew Turnbull, I hope that he shows as much enthusiasm for a Civil Service Act at home as he appears to have done in Portugal.
In this debate, we could cover the commercial press, the behaviour of the print media and a variety of other topics. Whenever the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is in the fray, I am always tempted to mount a spirited defence of the European Union, although I am also a critic of many of its aspects. That is the nature of debates, which tend to put us in opposite corners. The same applies to the BBC.
This evening I want to be a candid friend of the BBC. However, I cannot begin on that without commenting on what I considered to be a brilliant analysis of the present political situation by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. The relations between the Conservatives and the Government remind me of the Dorothy Parker assessment: they go through all the political emotions from A to B.
With regard to the role of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, as an independent director of The Times, I am sure that he was slightly amazed this morning that The Times missed the boardroom coup that took place in our largest subscription television company. I should have thought that appointing the 30 year-old son of the chairman would have deserved the coverage given to it by the Guardian and the FT, which both made the story their front-page lead, whereas The Times put it on page 21 under the announcement of a new non-executive director. But perhaps that is not so surprising because, as we know, The Times supported the Iraq war, as did the other 274 independent editors over whom Mr Rupert Murdoch has some influence.
As to the experience of my noble friend Lord Shutt, I can only echo one of my own. Last May, I appeared, along with Michael Howard, on the BBC programme covering the election results. The usual BBC pundits were there and they started to discuss an opinion poll taken the previous day which showed an impending disaster for the Tories. It would undoubtedly have meant that Mr Iain Duncan Smith would be out of a job the following morning. Unfortunately, the local election results started to come in showing modest gains for the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, gains of a considerable nature for the Conservatives. That did not stop the assembled pundits continuing to discuss the poll. Determined attempts by both Mr Howard and myself to try to discuss the results were rebuffed by the Dimbleby in charge—there is always a Dimbleby in charge on such occasions. Perhaps they thought they had a scoop in predicting the departure of Mr Iain Duncan Smith. That evening they left one sore future leader of the Conservative Party.
I want to concentrate on the context in which BBC charter review will take place. A recent study by the University of Cardiff showed that about 70 per cent of the population now rely on radio and television as their main source of news. A similar percentage trust
780
broadcasters to tell them the truth. In contrast only 10 per cent expect certain national tabloids to tell them the truth. That background caused the Puttnam committee to recommend that there be a public interest power in legislation with the aim of the,
"promotion and maintenance in all media, including newspapers, of a balanced and accurate presentation of the news, the free expression of opinion and a clear differentiation between the two".
The Government, in their wisdom, have chosen to leave press regulation in the hands of the industry's own watchdog, the Press Complaints Commission. The jury is still out on whether its chairman, Sir Christopher Meyer, can instil in his flock any sense of urgency in mending their ways or a realisation of the dangers for a newspaper industry that is either ignored or mistrusted by the public at large. In any other sector that would be seen as a recipe for terminal decline.
That is why the future of the BBC is so important, not only to broadcasting, but also to our cultural identity and to the effective workings of our democracy. In 1997 Patricia Hodgson, who will shortly retire as head of the Independent Television Commission, said:
"The communications system we as a society choose and the quality of the content it carries will be an important influence on the social values and concerns of the communities of the 21st century".
The important part of Patricia Hodgson's statement is that the shape of our broadcasting system is what we as a society choose. There is a concerted attempt to imply that we are now in the grip of global market forces and unstoppable technological change which removes all power from Parliament and people to decide. That is not so. If we as a people wish to retain the BBC as the iron pole around which we construct a large, independent, high-quality public service broadcaster, we have the power to do so.
We have only to look at the United States, where market forces rule, to see the "Foxification" of news, or at Putin's Russia, or at Berlusconi's Italy, where undue political influence is put on broadcasters, to see the dangers that lie ahead. In the face of those threats there are many who are willing to fight for the BBC. No one should worry about an occasional public spat between the BBC and the Government of the day. A sweetheart relationship between No. 10 and Broadcasting House would be far more damaging to the public interest.
My main criticism of the BBC's political coverage is its paucity of ambition. For fear of losing the ratings war, political coverage is shuffled to the margins of the schedules or ghettoised in specialised channels. A public service broadcaster spending public money cannot live by ratings alone. There must be a commitment to educate and to inform in the mainstream and at peak time. A BBC that leads the process of political involvement would be far more valuable than one that tries to match the ratings of "Pop Idol".
A BBC that restored "Panorama" to prime time with a budget to match; which repeated "Newsnight" the following morning to catch the day time audience; which introduced a television version of "Yesterday in Parliament"; which gave serious coverage of the European and Scottish Parliaments and the regional

781
assemblies and made a serious attempt to show how the political process works; and which stopped dumbing down "Question Time" and perhaps took a youth version of it to sixth forms would at least show that it was willing to take politics to the people—in other words, to educate and to inform. If half the effort had gone into presenting politics as has gone into teaching us to garden, cook or make-over our homes perhaps we would not have such an ill-informed electorate as we are in danger of having.
The battle can still be won. At every national or international crisis not only Britain, but the world turns to the BBC. It is one of the strongest and most trusted brand names in the world. Today it carries its message not only on television and radio, but online in 43 languages on the world's most trusted website. In particular, in the middle of the last century the words, "This is London calling the world" meant something. It meant, "This is the BBC telling the truth". That is the heritage we are defending. Let us not learn the hard way the warning about high standards that comes from one of America's most distinguished broadcasters, Ted Koppel. He said that if they are once abandoned,
"it will not then be possible to reconstitute what is so easily destroyed".
8.35 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I too am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Patten for introducing this debate. The debate is timely and one of great importance.
The media face more challenges than ever before. During the past 10 years the media have changed enormously—the way we speak to each other and obtain and access information have changed beyond all recognition. A question however remains: are the media responding effectively to these changes in relation to range and quality of coverage of politics and grasping the many opportunities that the multi-media world offers?
We are fortunate to enjoy a free press in this country. It is of central importance to our political and social culture. As there is no requirement of impartiality placed upon the press with regard to political reporting, other than that of general law, we expect the newspapers to express political opinion and to offer a wide and varied range of political views.
However, the subject matter covered by the press has changed in recent years, resulting in less comprehensive and more sensational coverage of political activities. The problem appears to be that the media have been gradually trivialising cultural and social values. Celebrity news is given an unprecedented prominence throughout our press. In one of the Sunday tabloids last week, the change in leadership of Her Majesty's Opposition was given the same level of coverage as the possibility that Victoria Beckham may not want to live in Madrid with her husband, David Beckham. The message portrayed to the electorate is that political events are inconsequential in comparison with celebrity news.
782
The position in relation to broadcasting, however, is different from that of the press. The Communications Act imposes statutory obligations on commercial broadcasters to ensure that they provide high-quality coverage of national and international events. The BBC has similar requirements imposed by the charter and agreement. The importance of these obligations has become particularly evident in recent months during the Hutton inquiry, following suggestions of BBC bias.
This is not the first time that these issues have been debated in this House. This issue of impartiality and fair and well informed debate on news and current affairs was discussed at length during the passage of the Communications Bill. I would like to reiterate the position that was expressed on all sides of the House during the passage of the Bill, which of course is now an Act. It was that,
"public service broadcasting… provide[s] a primary means by which the electorate educate themselves in the process of government and the legislature".—[Official Report, 1/7/03; col. 797.]
Public service broadcasting is the most important tool through which the public can access impartial and balanced information on current newsworthy events. So it is particularly important that public service channels remain politically independent and unbiased.
The importance of political independence in news reporting has been discussed at length over the past few months. The media must ensure that they fulfil their role as guardians of the public interest rather than acting as political players in their own right. Political bias is a difficult issue to address as bias itself is a subjective concept. One party will always believe that a story may not have portrayed them as favourably as it could have done.
Recently, however, concern about political bias in news reporting appears to have deepened. A number of noble Lords have expressed considerable concern, including of course my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who is as tenacious as ever on the subject of bias and political correctness.
Perhaps I may quote from a recent article written by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, in a recent edition of the British Journalism Review, where he discusses the consequence of "unembarrassed bias" in news reporting, particularly evident in America during the Iraq war:
"The refusal to interrogate and contextualise events, thoughtfully, as they happen, combined with the erosion of impartiality in the name of politicised agendas can only be very unhealthy".
The implication of political bias has been raised recently with reference to BBC news reporting. The BBC, more than any other broadcaster, must be perceived as independent from political intervention. Its commitment to impartiality and objectivity should be clear and unequivocal.
The question of political bias will be inevitable to an extent at the BBC because the mechanism of accountability—that is, the appointment of the board of governors—is covertly political. I note noble Lords' remarks that the governors are controlled by the

783
management when it should be the other way around. True political independence would be facilitated by ensuring independence from the Government by implementing a transparent mechanism of accountability, which would dismiss any accusations of institutional bias. The BBC must be brought fully within the remit of Ofcom to ensure that it is made independently and externally accountable. A recent report, Guardians of the Airways, published by Conservatives for Change, reiterates that position:
"The BBC's response to a summer which has seen it placed under unprecedented pressure will be crucial in ensuring that it regains the trust of viewers and that it meets the requirements set out in its own Charter and Guidelines…It is to be hoped that the BBC has a capacity for self-renewal sufficient to allow it to recover from its current crisis and play the crucial role in British and international broadcasting for which its history and its resources equip it".
We welcome the commitment made by the Minister in September that the charter review process,
"will be wide ranging and encompass extensive public consultation".
As my noble friend Lord Marlesford stressed, the BBC's public service obligations differ from those of purely commercial broadcasters; however, it is inevitable that the BBC will be subject to commercial pressures within the broadcasting industry. The increased diversity of choice encourages competition between individual broadcasters, and the temptation to chase ratings with populist programme schedules must be discouraged. My noble friend Lord Patten referred to the relentless pursuit of exclusives by the BBC. I agree entirely with the observation by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, of the BBC's paucity of ambition with regard to political coverage.
That said, the BBC has recently undertaken a comprehensive review of its political programmes in an attempt to,
"attract new viewers to political programming and the democratic process".
The findings of that report reflect the growing apathy towards politics displayed by younger members of the electorate. Although the traditional programmes remain largely unchanged, new programmes such as the "Politics Show", which has an average audience of approximately 1.5 million viewers, aim to engage and to educate a younger audience. The BBC's attempt to widen the scope of its political programming must be welcomed. That change, in addition to the alternative channels now available, such as BBC Parliament, Sky News and the ITV News Channel, can only contribute to raising political awareness.
We must take advantage of the increased opportunities that the new media environment offers. New techniques for disseminating political information must be encouraged. I particularly like the "MiP files" on the Children's BBC website, which encourages children to participate in political debate and to identify their Member of Parliament.
The problem appears to be that the electorate do not believe that political events have a direct impact on them. That must be addressed and remedied to facilitate
784
political understanding and inclusion by all members of society. In addition, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, that the relationship between politics and the media begs many questions. Indeed, many are turned off politics by that relationship—one that creates so much distrust.
We must do our utmost to ensure that political events are covered by a diverse range of media and to the highest standard that we have come to expect in this country. We must continue to protect and encourage political independence and impartiality in our broadcast media— a worthy challenge. Debates such as this are crucially important to continue to nudge the media and the politicians to play the game and to play it fairly. I thank my noble friend for this timely nudge.
8.46 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I join all noble Lords who have spoken in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for introducing this debate. It has brought forth a series of extremely interesting speeches from widely diverse points of view. In so far as the speeches are relevant to the forthcoming consideration of the BBC's charter, in the charter review, about which I will say a little more in a moment, I will see to it that the speeches are fed into the consultation process. Clearly, we have had a range of well informed and penetrating comment this evening.
My only regret is that, after having heard so many interesting speeches, I will have to make a very boring speech. The very fact that the charter review process is about to start, added to the arm's length relationship that we have with the BBC, the limit of government comment on the BBC and other broadcasters and the fact that the Government have taken a principled stand against regulation of the print media, mean that there is little that I can say in response to the particular comments. I would love to give other examples—which I could easily do—to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, of inadequate media coverage of political events in my part of London. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that there are many occasions when prejudgment by editorial staff of what they think will happen blinds them to what is actually happening. I am afraid that that happens far too often. My remit in this debate, however, is to be as boring as I can be and I shall proceed to do so.
I start by talking about the charter review process. The Secretary of State has already announced that the charter review process is about to be under way. The review will be wide ranging with full industry and public consultation, and we both hope that it will be characterised by a vigorous and open debate. A consultation document will be issued before the end of the year outlining the main issues. The evidence for the charter review will include Ofcom's review of public service broadcasting, Philip Graf's review of online services, the forthcoming review of the BBC's digital TV and radio services and other strands of work. As is known, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, has been appointed to give independent advice throughout the process. A Green Paper will be published around the end of 2004 drawing on that sequence of reviews, consultation and analysis followed by a White Paper with considered

785
recommendations to be set before the public. The whole process will be complete well before the charter expires in 2006.
The Government are committed to ensuring that we retain a strong BBC, independent of government. Having said that, if I say anything that indicates the attitude that the Government will take on the issues that will undoubtedly be raised in the course of the charter review, that would be a mistake. It is self-evident that we must remain open-minded and, in the jargon phrase, in listening mode.
The existing situation with the BBC and its existing governing instruments should be set out from the Dispatch Box. The Royal Charter and the agreement place broad obligations on the corporation in respect of the number of television and radio services, objectives, programme content and standards. Within that framework, detailed decisions on programme content are a matter for the BBC; they are not matters on which this Government or previous governments have ever expressed views.
The agreement contains specific requirements on the BBC to provide comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the United Kingdom and throughout the world. I am grateful in particular to the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, and my noble friend Lord Parekh, for their tribute to the World Service and to the BBC's online services throughout the world.
The BBC must treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality in its news services and in the more general field of programmes dealing with matters of public policy or industrial controversy. It must publish a code of guidance saying how it will meet those obligations—the BBC's producer guidelines. The regulators—now, the ITC and the Radio Authority, but, from 29th December, Ofcom—place a similar requirement on other public service broadcasters for due accuracy and impartiality.
It has been said that there has been a reduction in the coverage of politics by the BBC. I challenge that. The BBC's political programmes unit, based at Westminster, provides eight hours a week of regular live television programmes on BBC1 and BBC2 and similar amounts on radio. That is in addition to programmes such as "Question Time" and the "Politics Show" and the digital channels, BBC News 24 and BBC Parliament.
When we talk about the coverage of public policy issues, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, rather than with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who referred to the pressures of 24-hour news coverage. It is good that we live in a multi-channel age. It is good that people can receive news 24 hours a day on BBC News 24, Sky and ITN. It is good that over 50 per cent of the population live in multi-channel homes, as the channels are now more accessible and available. That means that there has been significantly increased viewing of news programmes. The variety of points of view available within the general principles of impartiality that I explained strikes me as significant progress in the way in which politics is viewed in this country.
786
I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, should repeat his attack on what he calls an ill informed electorate. I think that we have a rather well informed electorate in many ways, and it is sophisticated enough to reject attempts to manipulate it.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I do not want to take the Minister's time. Did he not read the Whitaker's Almanack survey yesterday? It showed that only half the electorate knew what the Deputy Prime Minister did. Does that not surprise the Minister?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that John Prescott would be rather pleased at that figure. I can think of many deputy Prime Ministers in previous administrations whom nobody could name, let alone starting to describe what they did.
I do not have time to cover the new provisions in the Communications Act 2003. Only the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe—I thank her for it—took the trouble to talk about the Communications Act and the effect that it will have. Clearly, the conditions on the licences of public service channels to secure that programmes on those channels include news and current affairs, and that the time allocated to the broadcasting of news is in appropriate proportion, are important safeguards, which I think were universally accepted as the Bill went through Parliament.
It is a requirement that programmes must be of a high standard covering both national and international matters. News programmes should be broadcast at intervals throughout the day. The times at which news and current affairs programmes are to be broadcast should include an appropriate amount of peak viewing times.
Ofcom must consult with the channel provider before determining the proportion of broadcasting time to be allocated to news and current affairs programmes and what constitutes a peak viewing time. Somewhat to my surprise, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, expressed the view—in advance of the consultation process—that the BBC should be brought entirely under the remit of Ofcom. She is fully entitled to that view; I shall be interested to see whether the Conservative Party's official evidence to the charter review expresses that. Many Conservative speakers have spoken in favour of the governance role of the BBC. I hope that there will not be a split on that matter.
In my final couple of minutes, I turn to the issue of press regulation. Here, again, I have nothing interesting to say. The Government strongly believe that a press free from any interference from the state is fundamental to democracy. For that reason, we would not seek to intervene in any way in what a newspaper chooses to publish—or not to publish.
As an individual, I am very tempted by some of the views expressed today. But from the Dispatch Box I must say that newspapers are written for their readers. Readers, including Members of this House, should, as Members have tonight, let newspapers know their views on the coverage and editorial slant on a whole

787
range of issues. The letters pages of our newspapers, and the rather welcome innovation of readers' editors in many of our better newspapers, show that there is no shortage of people wanting to give their opinions.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, and my noble friend Lord Parekh, self-regulation of the press, through the Press Complaints Commission, is preferable to any statutory control. That does not mean that we are uncritical of the Press Complaints Commission, where there is scope for improving its system of self-regulation. But that should be achieved by changes to the code of practice, which we continually urge upon it. We recently made suggestions about improvements that it might consider, but how they are taken forward is for the
788
Press Complaints Commission to determine. Any departure from that would be interference from the state, which would be an abuse of democracy in this country.
I am sorry that I am unable to give the 20 to 30 minutes speech that I would have liked in response to the many interesting points made. I repeat my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for introducing the debate.
House adjourned at one minute before nine o'clock.

Sexual Offences Bill [H.L.]
Bill returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; it was ordered that the Commons amendments be printed.
  Northern Ireland Railways: Templepatrick Station
  Northern Ireland Railways: Templepatrick Station
  Northern Ireland Railways: A D Little Review
  Northern Ireland Railways: A D Little Review
  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Cory Report
  Cory Report
  East Belfast: Bus Lanes
  East Belfast: Bus Lanes
  Northern Ireland: Schools Using Renewable Energy
  Northern Ireland: Schools Using Renewable Energy
  Northern Ireland Parades Commission
  Northern Ireland Parades Commission
  North/South Ministerial Council: Budget 2003–04
  North/South Ministerial Council: Budget 2003–04
  East Belfast: Community Infrastructure
  East Belfast: Community Infrastructure
  East Belfast: Connswater River
  East Belfast: Connswater River
  East Belfast: Housing
  East Belfast: Housing
  East Belfast: Urban Development Grants Funding
  East Belfast: Urban Development Grants Funding
  East Belfast: Belfast Regeneration Office Funding
  East Belfast: Belfast Regeneration Office Funding
  Northern Ireland: Commissioners for Employment Tribunals
  Northern Ireland: Commissioners for Employment Tribunals
  Belfast Education and Library Board: Ulster Scots Support
  Belfast Education and Library Board: Ulster Scots Support
  Northern Ireland: Education for Mutual Understanding and Cultural Heritage
  Northern Ireland: Education for Mutual Understanding and Cultural Heritage
  Northern Ireland: Hare Coursing
  Northern Ireland: Hare Coursing
  Belfast Agreement: Human Rights
  Belfast Agreement: Human Rights
  Global Fund for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria
  Global Fund for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria
  House of Lords: Political Affiliations of Hereditary Members
  House of Lords: Political Affiliations of Hereditary Members
  Afghanistan: UK Support for British and Afghan NGOs
  Afghanistan: UK Support for British and Afghan NGOs
  Teachers: Training for Driving School Minibuses
  Teachers: Training for Driving School Minibuses
  SchlumbergerSema
  SchlumbergerSema
  Religiously Aggravated Offences: Prosecutions
  Religiously Aggravated Offences: Prosecutions
  Departments of State: Staff in London and the South East
  Departments of State: Staff in London and the South East
  Civil Service: Permanent Staff
  Civil Service: Permanent Staff
  ISAs and PEPs: Taxation Changes from 5 April 2004
  ISAs and PEPs: Taxation Changes from 5 April 2004
  ONS: National Accounts Revisions
  ONS: National Accounts Revisions
  Income Tax: Overpayments and Tax Codes
  Income Tax: Overpayments and Tax Codes
  TV Licensing: e-mail Address
  TV Licensing: e-mail Address
  Long-term Care: Regulation of Funding Market
  Long-term Care: Regulation of Funding Market
  Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
  Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
  Regulations: Cost to Business
  Regulations: Cost to Business
  Energy: Security of Supply
  Energy: Security of Supply
  Renewables Obligation Certificates
  Renewables Obligation Certificates
  National Probation Service: Staffing
  National Probation Service: Staffing
  Prisoners: Transfers between UK Jurisdictions
  Prisoners: Transfers between UK Jurisdictions
  Immigration Removal Centres: Visiting Hours
  Immigration Removal Centres: Visiting Hours
  Zimbabwe: Removal of Failed Asylum Seekers
  Zimbabwe: Removal of Failed Asylum Seekers
  Asylum Seekers: Withdrawal of Support on Failure of Application
  Asylum Seekers: Withdrawal of Support on Failure of Application
  Questions for Written Answer: Reply Times
  Questions for Written Answer: Reply Times
  Genetically Modified Crops: Farm Scale Evaluations
  Genetically Modified Crops: Farm Scale Evaluations
  Sheep Scab
  Sheep Scab
  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Bovine Tuberculosis: Findings of Independent Scientific Group
  Bovine Tuberculosis: Findings of Independent Scientific Group