Sitting of 5 November 2003

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

    Sony
    Huw Irranca-Davies: What recent discussions he has had with the management of Sony in respect of jobs in Wales. [135528].
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): I spoke to Sony's senior management in Bridgend last week. They assured me that they are still actively recruiting against a full order book. The plant in Bridgend has been upgraded to support digital operations, which will continue to play a key part in Sony's business worldwide.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will know that the commitment of Sony to my constituency over many years, in terms of both investment in the work force and investment in the wider community, has been substantial and much treasured. We are seeking to give reassurance to my constituents and those employed at the factory, and I believe that things will turn out very well for them. May I also thank my right hon. Friend for the personal interest that he has shown in this matter? That does not reflect the view of those who criticise him as a part-time Secretary of State; he has shown a full-time interest in this issue—by contrast with some Opposition Members who might have part-time contracts.
    Mr. Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I agree that Sony is one of the jewels in the crown of the Welsh economy. It is very encouraging that it is to go from strength to strength. It is particularly encouraging that it is investing heavily in digital technology, in which it is one of the worldwide leaders. My hon. Friend can be proud of that, as Sony is based in the Bridgend area.
    Mr. Mark Prisk: Despite the news from Sony, may I draw to the attention of the Secretary of State the report from the CBI in Wales, which says that the outlook for manufacturing jobs in Wales "remains bleak"? Does he agree?
    Mr. Hain: No, I do not, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is quoting the CBI accurately. If he looks at The Western Mail—a paper that I am sure is not on his regular reading list, since it is a Welsh paper—he will see that it reported yesterday that the manufacturing sector is growing at its fastest rate for almost four years. The truth is that employment across Wales has been rising, compared with the miserable Tory years of high unemployment. More jobs are being created in Wales now than for a generation, there are more business start-ups, and there is greater economic stability and optimism across the sector.
    Ian Lucas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Sony is not the only Japanese jewel in the crown in Wales? Within the last week, Sharp Manufacturing—another Japanese company—has decided to site its European production of photovoltaic cells in Wrexham. Is not that the real picture of Wales that we need to project to the outside world? What is my right hon. Friend going to do to promote the use of photovoltaic cells by industry and in the domestic sector?
    Mr. Hain: I was delighted to receive a delegation, led by my hon. Friend, of Sharp's senior managers, who are investing in this exciting new plant to create one of the leading manufacturing centres of photovoltaic cells in Europe. That is a sign that more and more companies—Japanese and others—want to invest in Wales, because they know that Wales is really buzzing economically. Its economy is going from strength to strength, and it is one of the fastest-growing regional economies in Britain outside the south-east of England. That is testimony to the excellent leadership being provided by the Welsh Labour Assembly Government and by the Labour Government here at Westminster.

    Waiting Times
    Mr. Peter Luff: What assessment he has made of the current waiting times for NHS surgical procedures in border areas. [135529]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): The waiting times figures as at the end of September 2003 were published last week. Across Wales, the target that no patient should wait more than 12 months for cardiac surgery has been consistently met, and the targeted procedure of orthopaedics also shows significant improvement on the long waiting lists.
    Mr. Luff: On the subject of The Western Mail—a very popular newspaper on this side of the House—has the hon. Gentleman seen the report in yesterday's edition of the attack by the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas) on the National Assembly, in which he accuses Ministers of putting "political correctness" ahead of patient care? Will it not be in the border areas of England and Wales that people will see the contrast between the English health service making scarcely any progress—despite massive sums of money being thrown at it—and the health service in Wales, which is actually going backwards rather than forwards? People will then realise what a cruel deception it is for Ministers to claim that they are running a national health service.
    Mr. Touhig: Nearly 200,000 more patients were treated in Wales than were treated in the year before the last general election. The NHS has treated 643,000 inpatients and 2.8 million out-patients. Waiting times are coming down. The key engines to drive forward improvement in the health service in Wales are investment and reform. This Government are putting in the investment, and the Conservatives are opposing it; we are tackling the reform while they oppose it. At the end of the day, the people of Wales will make the right judgment. The health service in Wales is safe in Labour's hands.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Does it not worry the Minister that although there has been considerable investment on both sides of the border, there is not the same enthusiasm for reform on both sides? Given the present rate of progress, within a year waiting times on the English side will be three times shorter than those on the Welsh side. Does the Minister consider that acceptable?
    Mr. Touhig: It is important to recognise, as my hon. Friend does, that the way to improve the health service in Wales is through investment and reforms. Our Assembly colleagues may be following a different path from us at Westminster in some instances, but that is perfectly valid. What is important is for the people of Wales to get a better deal from the NHS, and I believe they recognise that my Assembly colleagues' efforts are benefiting them in that regard. Working in partnership, the Government and the Assembly are delivering a first-class health service in Wales.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister will know of a new phenomenon in Wales—the list of people waiting to get on to NHS dentists' patient registers. May I suggest that the next time he talks to his Assembly colleagues, they discuss the possibility of introducing training grants that would enable dentists to engage trainees? Large swathes of Wales contain no NHS dentists, and many members of the profession have told me that training grants might be the solution.
    Mr. Touhig: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. My Assembly colleagues have, in fact, introduced a series of measures to attract dentists to Wales and expand NHS dentistry throughout the country. There is a basic £40,000 grant, as well as a £20,000 grant for the establishment of new vocational training practices, and there are also incentives to encourage dental graduates to engage in vocational training. I recognise that there is a problem throughout Wales, but I believe that our Assembly colleagues are working to solve it.
    Julie Morgan: Is my hon. Friend aware that the waiting time for heart surgery at Heath hospital in my constituency fell to less than eight months in September, with only six people waiting longer than six months? Will he join me in congratulating the staff on their hard work, which has produced such a big improvement?
    Mr. Touhig: Certainly. The Assembly has targeted a number of key areas in Wales that need improvement, one of which is cardiac surgery. Before the launch of the cardiac initiative in July 2001, 100 patients were remaining on waiting lists for more than 12 months; now no patients are waiting as long. That is testimony to the investment in the Welsh health service, and to the way in which it is responding to the priorities and requirements of Government and the Assembly
    Lembit Öpik: Is the Minister aware of the concern felt in the border areas, where we have not seen the impact of the investment that the Government claim to have made in the health service? Will he explain to our constituents why they must wait 15 months for hip operations simply because they are on the wrong side of the border? What plans has he to remove the differential in waiting times between England and, say, Powys?
    Mr. Touhig: I think that there are differences within Wales. Orthopaedics has been a key area of concern to my Assembly colleagues and, I know, to my right hon. and hon. Friends. I have discussed the problem with the Assembly Minister. 1As I said earlier, however, what is important is our investment and reform. As a result of that, there are now 30 per cent. more whole-time equivalent hospital consultants in Wales than there were in 1997, there are 5 per cent. more qualified nurses this year than last year, and there has been a 6 per cent. increase in the number of GPs over the last decade.
    If we are to improve the quality and delivery of the health service, we must have people in place. Only by investing and reforming will we achieve that—and I am afraid the Liberal Democrats do not have much of a policy in that regard.
    Alan Howarth: Has my hon. Friend noted that Gwent Healthcare NHS trust achieved significant reductions in waiting times this year for cataract, cardiac and orthopaedic surgery, thanks to tighter management and improved funding for clinical initiatives? Did he also note this morning's welcome announcement by the Assembly Health Minister of an extra £10.72 million in capital funding for additional orthopaedic capacity in south-east Wales?
    Mr. Touhig: I have noted both, and I welcome this morning's announcement. Like my right hon. Friend, I am a Gwent MP, and I know that there has been a problem in relation to orthopaedics in south-east Wales, but the Assembly is putting its money where its mouth is and introducing reforms, and I think that after a reasonable period we shall see a reduction in waiting times. We shall all welcome that.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: The Minister says that the National Assembly is following a different path, and it is, but it is a downward and slippery path. The number of people waiting for out-patient appointments in 1997 was 101,000. Today the figure is 224,000, with severe friction points on the border areas. Has the hon. Gentleman discussed with the Minister for Health and Social Services in Wales how well advanced Welsh

    783
    hospitals are in getting to grips with the impact of the European working time directive as compared with hospitals across the border?
    Mr. Touhig: I was not sure whether that was the hon. Gentleman's bid to keep his job in the shadow Cabinet, or his swansong. Time will tell. At least he has one thing in common with his new leader: they are both Welsh Tories who could not get elected in Wales.
    The investment and reform that we are putting into the health service in Wales are making a considerable impact. The routes that we are following to reform and change the health service in Wales are different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is perfectly valid to do that. I believe that our colleagues in the Assembly are making an important impact, improving the quality of the health service in Wales.
    Comparisons are bound to be made with the position in England. Such comparisons are perfectly valid and should be used as a way of jacking up and improving the quality of delivery in the health service on both sides of the border. The collaborative approach that we have with the Assembly is the right way to proceed. The hon. Gentleman may care to tell some of his colleagues in the other House, who are blocking essential reforms to the health service in England and Wales and challenging the devolution settlement, that they should come on board and start doing something to improve the health service in Wales, instead of whingeing about it.
    Mr. Evans: It is not my job I fear for but the jobs of those who work in the national health service in Wales. As the Minister knows, even though the European working time directive has not yet come in, six ambulances were forced to queue outside University hospital in Cardiff because it was full. One patient had chest pains, another had head injuries. Paramedics stated that it was the worst situation they had ever experienced. Is he proud that one of Wales's greatest exports is of patients across the border into England?
    Mr. Touhig: Those are crocodile tears for the health service. The hon. Gentleman's future leader recently called the health service a Stalinist creation. The important thing to remember is that, when the Conservative party was in government, it closed 70 hospitals.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister must give a reply and tell us about his stewardship, not about the Conservative party when it was in power.
    Mr. Touhig: I perfectly accept the point you make, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to clarify the comparison: 70 hospitals were closed, whereas 10 new hospitals are planned under a Labour-led National Assembly. The problems with the health service in Wales will not be resolved by a 20 per cent. cut in public funding, which the Conservative party is committed to. We are making a difference to the health service in Wales, but the Conservatives have no answers to the problems that it faces.
    Mr. Evans: It is not crocodile tears from me. Is it crocodile tears from the Minister's colleagues, the hon. Members for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas) and for
    784
    Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), who both have concerns about the state of the NHS in Wales? Will the Minister now apologise to the people of Wales for bringing the health service towards breaking point? Will he apologise to the people left stranded yesterday outside that hospital and those stranded on growing waiting lists? Will he apologise to the staff of the national health service, who have to put up with those conditions, and apologise to 92-year-old Evelyn Williams who, suffering from pneumonia and Alzheimer's, waited more than 30 hours on a trolley for a bed at University hospital last week? We used to have a national health service; now we have a national scandal. It is time the Government got a grip.
    Mr. Touhig: I am only sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the new leader of the Tory party, is not here—the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is certain to keep his job after that performance. The fact is that the Labour Government and the Labour Assembly are investing in the health service in Wales—80 per cent. more investment than when his party was in government. The recent budget announced by the Assembly shows an 8.9 per cent. increase in health and social care spending for next year.
    Of course, there are problems with the health service. It is a vast service. Anyone who uses it—I think that the hon. Gentleman has recently, as I have recently—has nothing but praise for those who work in it. No one believes that the health service is perfect in every way it delivers. What is important to those working in the health service and those who depend on it is that it remains free at the point of need. They know that they have a Government who believe in it, will invest in it and will improve it.

    Job Losses
    Angela Watkinson: How many employers in Wales are being forced to move their operations to countries such as—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Lady should make reference to Question 3.
    Angela Watkinson: If he will make a statement on recent job losses in Wales. [135530]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): I have had a rehearsal of the question from the hon. Lady. No, because employment in Wales has risen by 68,000 in the past year.
    Angela Watkinson: How many employers in Wales are being forced to move their operations to countries such as Malaysia, India and China to avoid the burden of regulation and taxation on businesses, and to avoid increases in national insurance contributions, and how many job losses have occurred in Wales since this Government came to power in 1997?
    Mr. Hain: The unemployment rate has nearly halved right across Wales, and employment is now at a very high level; indeed, as I said, there was a rise of 68,000 last year. We should look at the facts instead of the Tory

    785
    allegations. In terms of employment, the claimant count is down to 3.4 per cent.—the lowest figure since the 1970s—and economic activity is up by 3 per cent. Since the last general election. Wales has had more than 14 per cent. of the total number of jobs coming to the United Kingdom in the past year, compared with 12.6 per cent. last year. Wales captured 18.6 per cent. of safeguarded jobs, making it the top region in the United Kingdom. Yes, there is a churning, with jobs at the lower end of the manufacturing scale going to countries with cheaper labour costs, but we are attracting new investment and new jobs all the time.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is high time that Opposition Members of all political persuasions talked Wales up, rather than down? Is he aware that American business people told the Welsh Affairs Committee last week that, of all the regional development agencies, they enjoy the best co-operation with the Welsh Development Agency and the National Assembly for Wales? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again, I appeal for some quietness in the Chamber. Private conversations should take place elsewhere.
    Mr. Hain: Yes, Mr. Speaker, because my hon. Friend and other colleagues on the Labour Benches speak for Wales, but the Tories have nobody in Wales any more. That is why they are talking Wales down. In fact, Wales is doing better than for many years, and a lot better than it ever did under the Tories.

    Historic Towns
    Hywel Williams: What recent discussions he has held with (a) Cabinet colleagues and (b) the National Assembly for Wales regarding the condition of the built environment in historic towns in Wales. [135531]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues and Assembly Secretaries on matters affecting Wales.
    Hywel Williams: There is a huge and urgent need to repair buildings in my Caernarfon constituency and in Wales in general. In fact, a Welsh housing condition survey in 1998 put the bill at £1.1 billion—a bill that will be subject to VAT. Will the Minister press his colleagues for repairs to be subject to the same VAT rate as that to be levied on the 1 million-odd houses that his Government intend to build in London and the south-east?
    Mr. Touhig: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking the time to discuss this matter with me the other evening; indeed, I know from my own constituency casework the importance of the point that he makes. Arrangements with our European partners have allowed us to maintain a zero rate of VAT on a number of items, including children's clothing and footwear. On the wider issue that he raises, a review of the European
    786
    Union reduced rate provisions is currently under way, and the Government are committed to negotiating the best overall deal for the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: Will the Minister undertake to talk to his colleagues about, and do everything that he can to protect, buildings such as the Powerhouse, in Tonypandy? It is a very fine building which we need to protect, and it was the scene of the Tonypandy riots, with which all hon. Members will doubtless be familiar. Will he also look at the report by Aberystwyth university's centre for explosion studies, which considered how Guy Fawkes would have got on today, to see whether there are buildings in Wales that we should blow up?
    Mr. Touhig: I shall not be tempted down the road of demolishing buildings at the moment, but my hon. Friend makes an important point: Wales has a wonderful historic industrial heritage, and too often we do not do enough to protect and preserve it. Great houses and castles are being preserved across Britain. The industrial heritage of south Wales is vital in terms of knowing who we are, where we came from and where our future lies. My hon. Friend is right to make this point, and I support him.

    National Assembly
    Mr. George Foulkes: What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary on Lord Richard's report on the powers of the National Assembly for Wales. [135532]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): On numerous occasions.
    Mr. Foulkes: Since it is the House that will have to legislate on any changes, could the Secretary of State please tell us the exact status of the commission and to whom and when it will report? Given that it affects all parts of the United Kingdom, not just Wales, will the Leader of the House tell us when we can debate the matter on the Floor of the House?
    Mr. Hain: The National Assembly set up the commission and it is due to report in early spring next year. Its report will go to the National Assembly and the Welsh Assembly Government will consider it. No doubt representations will be made to us. If any changes are sought as a result of the Richard commission, my right hon. Friend is right that it will be for the House—obviously in partnership with the Welsh Assembly Government—to decide.
    Michael Fabricant: Should it not also be in partnership with the people of Wales? Will the Secretary of State for Wales now give an undertaking that, if the Lord Richard report states that the National Assembly should have increased powers, the people of Wales will be consulted through a national referendum?
    Mr. Hain: If the Richard commission were to propose tax-varying powers—as apply in Scotland, and the Scots held a referendum on that precise issue—Wales would have to hold a referendum. However, I can tell the hon.

    787
    Gentleman that the Labour Government will not support any increases in taxes of that sort for Wales— [interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again, there is far too much noise in the Chamber.

    Public Transport
    Ann Clwyd: What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales about the provision of public transport by bus. [135533]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with Assembly Secretaries about issues affecting Wales. The Assembly is allocating £8.5 million to local authorities this year to help boost the number and range of subsidised bus services, and to support community transport projects. That is in addition to their hugely successful free bus-pass scheme, which has opened up local travel opportunities for the over-60s and disabled people.
    Ann Clwyd: As my hon. Friend knows, there have been innumerable complaints about the unreliable and shoddy service provided by Shamrock to my constituents in the Cynon Valley—and it also applies to neighbouring constituencies. Given that the company—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is being unfair to the hon. Lady.
    Ann Clwyd: Given that my constituents continually complain to me—week after week, month after month—about Shamrock's unreliability, and that people in the local authority have also complained about the company, what can be done to revoke its licence in view of its inability to provide the service that the people of south Wales deserve?
    Mr. Touhig: I certainly recognise the importance of reliable transport and, more particularly, a reliable bus service. If an operator is not complying with its conditions of licence, that should be reported to the traffic commissioner for investigation. Where complaints relate to a service subsidised by a local authority, the council should also be informed. I can tell my hon. Friend that our colleagues in the Assembly are funding an officer of the National Federation of Bus Users, who will be happy to pursue complaints about particular local bus services. I would commend that course of action to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Roger Williams: Without a rural bus service, the closure of small rural schools will lead to a huge increase in private car usage on the school run. In that light, will the Minister support my and my hon. Friends' campaign to keep small rural
    788
    schools in Powys open—not only on account of their good educational record, but to ensure that journeys are shorter and that private car usage is not increased?
    Mr. Touhig: School closures will be a matter for the local authority, but I am aware of an early-day motion tabled by Liberal Democrat Members which deals with that matter. Clearly, public transport is important to rural schools. I shall certainly take note of the hon. Gentleman's point and draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friends.

    Economic Activity
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: What discussions he has had with National Assembly for Wales Secretaries concerning measures to increase economic activity in Wales. [135534]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): Regular ones. Wales saw the highest increase in the rate of economic activity of all the United Kingdom regions in the past 12 months.
    Mrs. Lawrence: My right hon. Friend will be aware that 600 jobs were lost in north Pembrokeshire when the former Tory Government closed down Royal Naval armaments depot Trecwn. The subsequent purchasers of the site have kept it idle for many years. The site has now been sold on to two companies with a proven record in commercial development and job creation. Will he discuss with the Assembly Secretaries ways in which those companies can be supported in recreating some of the jobs lost under the last Tory Government?
    Mr. Hain: I will certainly meet my hon. Friend and I will be happy to take forward that project. Throughout her constituency, more jobs have been created and employment is rising because of the excellent economic record of this Labour Government.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. [136363] Linda Perham: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 5 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Before I list my official engagements, I wish to pay tribute, on behalf of the whole House, to Corporal Ian Plank, who was killed in a coalition operation in Iraq on Friday. He was a greatly admired and widely respected member of the Royal Marines, and I know that the whole House will join me in sending our deepest sympathy and condolences to his family, friends and colleagues.

    789
    This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    Linda Perham: What are the Government doing to address the concerns of my constituents in Ilford, North about antisocial behaviour and, given the date, the misuse of fireworks in particular?
    The Prime Minister: The Anti-social Behaviour Bill will make a big impact, we hope, on antisocial behaviour in local communities by giving the police the powers that they need to tackle that menace. We welcome the new Fireworks Act 2003, which is on the statute book in large measure because of the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan). We announced this week that before Christmas possession of fireworks by under-18s in public places will be made illegal and possession of the largest and most powerful fireworks will be outlawed for all members of the public. Fixed-penalty notices will be introduced, with fines of up to £80, for people caught throwing fireworks in the street. In addition, we are considering several new measures in consultation with the industry and others.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith rose—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: My hon. Friends should have registered that vote last Wednesday.
    As the Prime Minister said, we learned overnight of the tragic death last week of Corporal Plank. Our thoughts are with his family, as once again we are reminded of the extraordinary sacrifices made by British servicemen and women, to whom we all owe a huge debt of gratitude.
    When I first faced the Prime Minister across the Dispatch Box we discussed the war on terror. The loss of life over the past week has brought that war into sharp focus. There are growing concerns that foreign terrorists—including, it appears, some British citizens—may be operating in Iraq. What information does the Prime Minister have about who is arming, funding and organising those groups, and what further action is being taken to disrupt their activities in Iraq?
    The Prime Minister: I gather that this will be the right hon. Gentleman's last Prime Minister's questions, so perhaps before answering that question I may say that whatever our differences—and there have been a few—I wish him well in the future and so does everyone on this side of the House—[Laughter.] Well, we do.
    In respect of Iraq and terrorism, I will give the right hon. Gentleman as much information as we have. There are essentially two groups of people conducting those operations in Iraq. One is made up of Saddam's supporters or former members of the regime, and the other is made up of assorted terrorist groups, some of whom have infiltrated Iraq since the coalition forces took control back in May. We are obviously doing everything that we possibly can to disrupt their activities, but the most important thing to remember is that the position is not the British and American and
    790
    other coalition forces versus the Iraqi people; it is the coalition forces and the vast majority of the Iraqi people versus those groups of former supporters of Saddam and terrorists. The truth is that we are trying to make that country better day by day and their entire purpose is to stop us.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I thank the Prime Minister for his kind words.
    Obviously, the objective that he has set out is to hand power back to the Iraqi people as soon as possible. I think that everyone would accept that enormous progress has been made, in difficult circumstances, towards setting up the Iraqi governing council. However, does the Prime Minister believe that it will be possible to hand over power to a civilian Iraqi Government while the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein remain unknown?
    The Prime Minister: We believe that that is possible. We think that the biggest inhibition will simply be the progress that we can make. It is worth pointing out that in addition to the American forces and the 10,000 British forces in Iraq, there are now 16,000 forces from other countries there. Several European Union countries are providing thousands of people who are helping with our efforts in Iraq. The main thing is to recognise that fantastic progress is being made in large parts of Iraq. For example, the coalition programme has cleared more than 14,000 km of the country's 27,000 km of canals. All 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are now open, as are nearly all primary and secondary schools. All 240 hospitals are open, as are more than 1,200 clinics. The distribution of medicines has risen from almost nothing to a current total of almost 12,000 tonnes.
    Six months ago, satellite dishes were illegal, access to information was strictly controlled and it was difficult for people to use the internet. I am told that today there are more than 170 newspapers—which is progress of a sort—and satellite dishes are freely available and widely used, as is the internet. The point is that there is no inhibition on the progress that we are making, in both political and economic terms, other than the small group of people to whom I have referred. As we know from our experience of terrorism, if such people are prepared to cause death and mayhem to wholly innocent people they can cause a lot of devastation and inhibit the progress that we are making. However, I think that the answer to the problem is implicit in the right hon. Gentleman's question, and I agree with him—it is to carry on making the efforts to make Iraq better.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister and I have spoken on a number of occasions about the dangers of rogue states, terrorist groups and ballistic weapons coming together. I have always agreed that the war on terror would be long and difficult and that there would be no easy victories. However, I believe that enormous progress has been made. In the past two years, the Taliban have gone from Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein has been removed from power in Iraq, even though we may not yet know where he is. Does the Prime Minister agree that in Afghanistan, Iraq, or

    791
    wherever else we have to fight the war on terror, we must finish the job we started or the terrorists will win in the end?
    The Prime Minister: I agree strongly with that, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the support that he gave for the action in Afghanistan and in Iraq. People should be very clear about why terrorist groups are now pouring into Iraq. If the coalition forces, together with the United Nations and the international community, can make Iraq better and expose the propaganda about us seizing the oil or desiring to destroy the Muslim population for the lies that it is, those terrorists know that that will send a signal across the world—not least the Arab and Muslim world—that will be enormous, tremendous and positive in its impact. That is precisely why those people are in Iraq at the moment. They know that this battle is not only about Iraq, but about whether we can establish a situation where Iraq becomes a prosperous, democratic and stable state. If that happens, it can act as a beacon to the rest of the world.
    Mr. John Denham: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the remarkable increase that has been achieved in police officer numbers, which has exceeded the initial target. However, does he share my concern that a significant part of an officer's career will be spent policing drunkenness in town and city centres on Friday and Saturday nights? As the alcohol strategy is finalised, will he look seriously at enabling local authorities and police authorities to raise a small statutory levy on licensed premises in town and city centres to pay for the costs of policing and ensure that other police officers can be out in the communities, where people want to see them?
    The Prime Minister: First, the whole House will recognise the concern that my right hon. Friend has raised. We have not said that we will go down the route of a levy, but I understand the argument that he makes. The Anti-social Behaviour Bill will give the police power to levy fixed-penalty notices, which is an enormous help to them. In the trial areas, it has been immensely effective in allowing them to control antisocial behaviour of the type that he describes. We will also have powers to close down premises that routinely give rise to drunken and disorderly fights outside. It is therefore important that we consider the full range of powers and make sure in particular that swift judgment can be exercised when a pub or club in the centre of town routinely causes absolute misery to the local inhabitants.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: May I also express my best personal wishes to the leader of the Conservative party? I want to raise an issue on which he and I share considerable common interests, if not common instincts: the Government's European policy. Yesterday, the Chancellor remarked that some of the measures in the proposed European Union constitution
    "would lead to tax harmonisation and a federal state in Europe".
    Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor?
    The Prime Minister: It is precisely for that reason that we are making it clear that there cannot be any tax harmonisation or abolition of the unanimity rule on tax. I said on Monday in my joint article in the Financial Times with the Estonian Prime Minister—[Laughter.] It is an important new alliance for us. I said:
    "Making everybody follow the same tax rules would quickly diminish Europe's competitiveness by killing jobs and stifling growth".
    I hope that what the right hon. Gentleman's words indicate is that he is on the same side as me in that particular regard.
    Mr. Kennedy: Yes indeed, but the Foreign Secretary keeps describing the proposed constitution—he has done so repeatedly in the House on many occasions—as a tidying-up exercise. Yesterday, however, the Chancellor warned that it could lead to fiscal federalism. With that difference of emphasis between the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor, with whom does the Prime Minister agree?
    The Prime Minister: Of course the European constitution is important. It is a very important document. The issue, however, is whether it alters fundamentally the relationship between the member state and the European Union. It is precisely because we are insisting that all the attributes of the nation state remain that we believe that we will get the right outcome for this country in respect of the negotiations now taking place in the intergovernmental conference. It is not merely us who think that. The House of Lords European Union Committee agreed with our view that
    "there is considerable reassurance in the draft Treaty for those who fear that the EU is becoming too like a State"
    and repeated its judgment of May this year that
    "it is clear that the balance of power is going to shift from the Commission to the Member States"—
    [Interruption]. The shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), is shouting out that he disagrees, but his position is well known: he wants Britain out of the European Union. The real issue is between those of us who believe that it is important to get the right result from this conference but that we should have Britain in Europe, and the significant part of the Conservative party who want Britain out of Europe.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will congratulate Cheshire police on their improved crime figures. Sadly, however, their hard work was damaged by the recent appalling actions at a training centre in Cheshire by racist police officers. Will he congratulate the chief constable, Peter Fahy, on the robust actions that he has taken and the letters that he has published in regional and local press, and assure citizens in this country, wherever they come from, that the racist elements in the police force will be rooted out once and for all?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the chief constable on his remarks. There are now more police officers in the Cheshire police than ever before, and I congratulate them on the work that they are doing. It is important

    793
    that at the self-same time as we join the chief constable in condemning absolutely and unequivocally the actions of the small minority who engage in racist or intolerant behaviour, we recognise that the vast majority of our police officers up and down this country do a fine job on behalf of all the citizens in their local communities.
    Ann Winterton: Is the Prime Minister surprised by the fact that the campaign for regional government, which was launched earlier this week by the Deputy Prime Minister, has been met by overwhelming opposition in the north-west, and by cross-party opposition too? Taxpayers know that they will have to bear increased costs with no increased powers or resources whatever, in addition to diminished democracy.
    The Prime Minister: The very simple answer to the hon. Lady is that there will be a chance for people in the north-west to express their views. Then, we will see what they really think and whether they believe regional government makes the north-west more accountable for the decisions that are taken there. That is why it is fair to do that.
    Ian Lucas: In the days leading up to Remembrance Sunday, does my right hon. Friend agree that now is the time to reaffirm our commitment to the generation who have given us so much? My constituent, Mr. Ken Mack, has collected a petition, with more than 11,000 signatures already, calling for greater security for elderly people in nursing homes and residential homes. Will the Prime Minister please reaffirm his commitment to that generation and ensure that sufficient resources are in place to give them the peace of mind that they deserve?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. He will know that care homes in Wales specifically are a matter for the Welsh Assembly, but I point out to him that in the past few years since this Government have been in power, we have increased funding for personal social services in Wales by something like 33 per cent. There are still, of course, pressures on social services and care homes, but it is precisely for that reason that we gave such a large amount of additional investment in the last spending round. Incidentally, all that investment was opposed by the Conservative party.
    Mr. lain Duncan Smith: I have asked the Prime Minister this question 18 times, and a fat lot of good it has done me over the past two years—but I am going to give it one more try. Why does the Prime Minister persist in denying the British people a chance to vote in a referendum on the European constitution?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the 19th time of asking will not do the right hon. Gentleman much good either. I have to repeat what I have said before. In my view, because it does not involve a fundamental change between the member states and the European Union, I do not believe that we should have a referendum on this issue. I also believe, as I think most people recognise,
    794
    that the real reason the Conservatives want a referendum is to campaign for a no vote as the first step to getting Britain out of Europe.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: This week, the Deputy Prime Minister announced three more referendums on regional government. That takes the total of referendums under this Government to 37 since 1997. Is the Prime Minister really telling all of us that an elected assembly for Hull or an elected monkey for Hartlepool are more important than an elected President for Europe?
    The Prime Minister: Regional government or, indeed, the mayor alters fundamentally the basis on which people are governed locally. However, I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman at least is entitled to ask a question about a referendum because he wanted a referendum on the Maastricht treaty—[Interruption.] Yes, he did, but some other people sitting quite close to him did not.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: And some other people sitting not too far away from the Prime Minister actually did, so he wants to be very careful about that. [Interruption.] Steady, Jack! Everyone except the Prime Minister admits openly that this constitution represents a fundamental change to the way this country is going to be governed. Even his Chancellor, writing in The Daily Telegraph of all papers, warns the Prime Minister about a drift to a "federal European state". I must say to the Prime Minister that, just between the two of us, I have a sixth sense these days about a leadership bid, so he should watch very carefully.
    The Prime Minister still persists in saying that the constitution does not change anything; it is just a tidying-up exercise. By common accord, for the last time, that is the reason why no one believes a word that he ever says any more.
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is interested in the answer, I shall give it to him. Of course it is true that if we were to go down the route of tax harmonisation and if, for example, tax rates were to be set by Brussels and defence was to be run by Brussels, that would be a different matter—it would be a fundamental change. However, that is not what the draft treaty says and it is certainly not what the outcome of the conference will be.
    The right hon. Gentleman says that no one other than myself believes that the issue will not fundamentally change the nature of the relationship, but I go back to what I said a moment or two ago. The House of Lords European Union Committee, which has Conservative as well as Labour members, said:
    "it is clear that the balance of power is going to shift from the Commission to the Member States".
    The whole basis on which he posits the case for a referendum is simply false. Let us wait and see what we get out of the intergovernmental conference, but if we do—as I believe that we will—protect our tax, defence and foreign policies, there will be no case for a

    795
    referendum other than the true case put forward by the Conservative party, which, as I repeat for possibly more than the 19th time, is to get Britain out of Europe.
    Mr. Graham Allen: On Sunday, there will be an especially proud group of men and women marching down Whitehall past the Cenotaph: the Suez veterans who will be able to wear their medals for the first time. I thank the Prime Minister for his personal intervention to enable the Suez veterans to have those medals. As he sees them walk by on Sunday, will he reflect on the very few remaining groups of people, such as those involved in the Arctic convoy and the Enigma project, who are still awaiting due recognition? Will he consider giving them some good news over the next year, just as he has thankfully given good news to the Suez veterans?
    The Prime Minister: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to all people who served, and gave their lives in many cases, in the first and second world wars so that this country could remain free and democratic. We owe them an immense debt of gratitude. We keep carefully under review the medals for various groups of veterans and I shall certainly pay attention to what he says.
    Richard Ottaway: Does the Prime Minister agree that people might have more trust in his Government if his fellow MPs practised what they preached? If he lived in Hackney, would he send his children to the local schools?
    The Prime Minister: First, it is for individual people to decide whether they wish to send their children to a private school or a state school. I believe that the most important thing for the Government is to make a significant investment in the education service of this country that will be used by the vast majority of parents. We can look at the hon. Gentleman's constituency and local education authority. There has been a massive increase in the money that we are giving to local education authorities. A massive amount of extra investment is going into schools and there are more teachers and more classroom assistants. That is the real commitment to state education and every single bit of it was opposed by the Conservative party.
    Mr. Khalid Mahmood: Will my right hon. Friend give the House a firm commitment on when he intends to end the import of and trade in illegally logged timber in the UK?
    The Prime Minister: At present we are working on, and we are obviously strongly committed to, tackling illegal logging and its associated trade. We are doing what we can within the European Union because it is there that we need regulations to deal with illegal logging and to develop agreements with timber-producing countries. They would deny access to EU markets for illegally logged timber from such countries, so I hope that we will see a result in the European Union Council in the coming months.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: If the Prime Minister refuses to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for
    796
    Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) in terms of his own children, will he tell the House what advice he would give to parents in Hackney who have deep misgivings about the quality of their local state schools?
    The Prime Minister: It is for individual parents to make up their minds about how to educate their children. It is not a good idea if the whole of the debate ends up being personalised around one Member of Parliament or another. I will tell the hon. Gentleman what I think. In Hackney, at the moment, there is one city academy and it wants to open new city academies. There are specialist schools throughout the country that are gaining superb results. The fastest improving school in the country is actually in the public sector and is in Tower Hamlets. I have to say to him that the real issue is not what comments we can make about this or that Member of Parliament's children, but our commitment to state education in this country when we know that for years, under the previous Government, state education did not get the investment that it needed. The truth is that over the past few years we have put extra investment in the schools, as the hon. Gentleman knows from his constituency. He should have the honesty to tell his constituents that he opposed every penny piece of that investment.
    Mike Gapes: Increases in police numbers and the number of community support officers, together with the growing use of antisocial behaviour orders, are very welcome, but can the Prime Minister explain to my constituents why some people with numerous convictions and some with bad character oppose vitally needed reforms of our antiquated criminal justice system in the other place?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that opposition to the Criminal Justice Bill is dropped when the measure returns to this House, because it is extremely important for this country. For example, it is clear that many juries should have greater access to information about defendants' previous convictions. Surely hon. Members on both sides of the House can agree that where there is evidence that juries have been interfered with in organised crime trials, the judge should have the power to put the right of jury trial to one side and try the case himself. Last year alone, there was a £9 million cost to the Metropolitan police for protecting victims and witnesses in organised crime trials. When the measure returns from the other place, I hope that we get a united House of Commons that reinstates it, because it is important for the future of criminal justice in this country.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Given the Government's commitment not to sell arms to countries that will use them for internal repression or external aggression, why do we continue to sell arms to Israel?
    The Prime Minister: We actually have one of the strictest sets of rules on the sale of arms of any country. It is important that we hold to that, whatever the country concerned, and we do, whether it is in respect of Israel or anywhere else. Across the European Union, Britain probably has the toughest inhibitions on the sale

    797
    of weapons. I do not believe that we should discriminate against any country. We should apply the rules fairly to all countries.
    Mr. James Plaskitt: With 130 more nurses and 30 more registrars and consultants, activity levels at Warwick hospital since 1997 are up by 45 per cent., and all waiting times are down. The management team tell me, however, that with increasing patient choice it is essential for them to begin the process of moving towards foundation status. Can my right hon. Friend tell me that we will continue with both the investment and the reform?
    The Prime Minister: We certainly will continue with both. I am delighted that there is so much additional activity at Warwick hospital. As my hon. Friend knows, the new state-of-the-art accident and emergency department that is under construction and scheduled for completion this autumn will be able to cater for more than 50,000 patients annually. Massive investment is now going into our health service. He is also right to draw attention to the fact that the arguments for foundation status come from the hospitals themselves and the staff in those hospitals—dedicated NHS people—who believe that the next stage of change is to give them greater freedom and greater flexibility. We will deliver both to them.
    Mr. Archie Norman: Is the Prime Minister aware of the very grave warnings given by the Royal College of Physicians and the British Medical
    798
    Association on the implications of the working time directive for the NHS next year? Specifically, one in five accident and emergency departments may have to close at night, two thirds of acute medical units are insufficiently staffed, and practitioners, such as the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor), forecast that smaller units in places such as Southport, Wakefield, Pontefract, Cheltenham and Hartlepool may have to close. Is it not common sense and in the interests of all patients to postpone implementation? If not, will the Prime Minister guarantee that none of those units will close as a consequence?
    The Prime Minister: The point the hon. Gentleman raises is important, which is why we have worked on it for many months to ensure that the impact of the working time directive is properly handled.
    As the hon. Gentleman knows, the directive originally came into force a long time ago—back in 1990, I think. It is important to recognise that we have a particular issue with junior house doctors' hours that means that we have to take great care with implementation, so we are in discussions with the European Union and with other partners. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman and, through him, to others that we will take account of the directive, but it is important to balance the clear need for doctors' hours to be reduced over time with the need to do so in a way that is compatible with the service.
    The hon. Gentleman will know from his constituency and others that there has been massive additional investment in accident and emergency departments in this country—about £150 million has been spent on A and E departments alone. That is reducing the time that people have to wait in them.

Road Traffic Regulations (Consultation) Bill
12.30 pm
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to create full statutory public consultation procedures wheresoever road traffic management schemes are proposed by local authorities.
Three hundred and eighty years ago a shaggy-haired troublemaker was arrested in the cellars beneath the House of Lords. Guy Fawkes and his gang wanted to blow up Parliament, but the Bill I present today is less dramatic: there is no gunpowder involved, no treason and—perhaps surprisingly—no plot. All I want to do is close a legal loophole and open up the process of democracy. My target—speed limits—might seem mundane, but the way in which speed limits are fixed has now become a muddle of paperwork. The process needs changing simply because it is out of date and denies local people any sort of intelligent consultation. My simple Bill would alter things for the better.
Back in 1984, Parliament passed the Road Traffic Regulation Act. It was the technical bible of its time, stating how speed limits were to be set, with the then Department of Transport in complete charge of all facets of the process. In the intervening 19 years, there have been unseen changes, usually made through secondary legislation—statutory instruments that, by their nature, are subject to little, if any, parliamentary scrutiny. As a result, power has shifted dramatically away from the current Department for Transport. The big local authorities now set most speed limits, and these days they rarely have to tell the Department what they are up to—in fact, in theory, they do not have to tell anyone much at all. The Department issues advisory circulars, but local authorities are left—rightly, in their eyes—to get on with it. It is the nearest thing to unfettered power that we have in this country.
All that a local authority with responsibility for traffic management—a county council, for example, although it could be another body—is obliged to do is advertise any proposed scheme in a local newspaper. Only one advertisement is required. The rules do not insist that it be carried on the front page; consequently, speed limit changes are always tucked away in regional newspapers, on the back page and in very small print. They are phrased in legalistic gobbledygook and are, for the most part, ignored or, worse still, totally misunderstood.
Local authorities do have a few legal obligations. They are supposed to consult the emergency services—after all, only the police have the power to enforce speed limits. However, there is no precise definition of "consultation". Details of speed plans and limits are usually sent to town and parish councils for comment, but the system is—dare I say it in this place—almost feudal. A bundle of official papers arrives on the desk of the clerk to the parish council: to his and most eyes, it looks like a fait accompli. Commenting or raising objections is not encouraged, and there is no legal arrangement for gathering any comments or, more important, for publishing them.
The catch-all phrase that we have all seen in so many statutory instruments and Department for Transport circulars is, "The local authority should consult as it sees fit." In other words, "Do what you like, chaps." That
800
shows a touching faith in human nature by assuming that local authorities always do the decent thing. The trouble is that they do not.
Twelve months ago, Somerset county council came up with a wide-ranging new speed limit policy. It may have been, and probably was, conceived with the very best motives, including road safety, in mind, but it has proved a failure. Somerset now has hundreds more signs costing thousands of pounds throughout the county. I am informed that even the smallest signs—those of 2 ft in diameter—cost £70 each. The total bill for council tax payers is already hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Unfortunately, many of those signs contradict one another. There is a village in Minehead with 14 new speed limits, each of them different, within less than 250 yd. The forest of ironwork is ugly and, more importantly, some of the speed restrictions are incredibly dangerous. According to the police, they are liable to cause accidents rather than prevent them. There is already hard evidence that they have caused accidents. Do not take my word for it. Leading members of the Institute of Advanced Motorists have said that it is true.
The real abiding sore is that local people were not consulted first. It is the issue that has generated more debate, cross letters and public anger than anything in which I have been involved in Somerset for years. It is all because of lack of consultation with the general public. Parish councils were sent copies of the plans, but several of them now believe that they were duped. The documents supplied by the county council were insufficiently detailed for any informed comment to be made.
The councillors who lodged objections or made constructive suggestions about the scheme were totally ignored. Other parish councillors, who lobbied the county council to introduce new schemes, were also ignored. The message is, "If you don't want speed limits, tough; if you do want them, tougher still." That strikes me as a funny old way to run a policy.
Consultation is a buzz word of the age. Every hon. Member, political party and public pronouncement trumpets the value of consultation. The trouble is that we do not spell out what we mean by it. My Bill does. I propose a legal requirement for consultation. County councils would be obliged to take town and parish councils into their confidence at an early stage. Any objections would have to be published by the county council in detail, including its reasons for accepting or rejecting them. They would be duty-bound to hold well-publicised public meetings to assess local reaction to proposals and to publish that reaction before the proposal is enacted.
These are not revolutionary ideas. Many progressive county councils across England and Wales have already adopted the approach. If others did, I and other hon. Members would not be being bothered—but they have not.
In this instance Somerset has got it wrong. The county council knows it arid it has admitted it privately. We now have to reverse the process before there are more injuries and trouble. After 12 months of speed-sign chaos, the county council is surveying public opinion. It has issued detailed questionnaires and invited people to give their views. Rightly, it has set up a commission to

801
enable that to be done. It is beginning to do the very thing that should have been done in the first place before the policy was enacted. However, we must remember that, regardless, Somerset is under no legal obligation to take a blind bit of notice of what is said, or even to publish the results after the horse-has-bolted consultation exercise.
That is why the Bill is necessary. It would stop what has happened in Somerset and elsewhere so that, anywhere in the country, people would rightly be consulted about their feelings. It would give town and parish councils a meaningful role in representing the views of local people; ensure that county councils come clean about their plans; guarantee that different voices are heard; help to prevent the introduction of costly schemes; save the taxpayer a great deal of money; and, above all, it would assist democracy. The National Association of Local Councils is backing it, as is the Campaign to Protect Rural England. The Bill is a simple, straightforward measure with a simple, straightforward purpose, and I commend it to the House.
12.40 pm
Mr. David Laws: I understand why the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) has introduced his Bill, but his conclusions are wrong, and there is a danger that it could end up as a bureaucrats' charter. Consultation on traffic schemes is a major issue in Somerset, not least because the county council, as he implied, has introduced many speed management schemes to reduce accidents in accident blackspots and improve road safety outside schools. In addition, many rural communities and parish councils are unhappy with the fact that, by default, the speed limit is 60 mph in those communities. We need to consider what sort of consultation we need before such schemes are introduced. Contrary to the hon. Gentleman's comments, those schemes are often extremely successful—many in Somerset have cut injury accidents by up to a third.
There is substantial consultation before such schemes are introduced. Indeed, when implementing traffic management improvements requiring traffic regulation orders, Somerset county council consults in accordance with statutory requirements and best practice. It follows prescribed consultation arrangements and provides a site notice, and there is an opportunity for people to make representations, which have to be considered before any traffic order is confirmed. When a new speed limit is going to be introduced to address a known accident problem, there is extensive consultation of all the relevant bodies and individuals before a local safety scheme is established.
That consultation involves parish councils, district councils, local county councillors, the police, emergency services and members of the public who are directly affected by the scheme. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, adverts are placed in the local press in accordance with statutory requirements. In addition, the assistance of parish councils, and the use of their notice facilities, is regularly sought. Indeed, when local communities press for road safety schemes in my
802
constituency, the criticism I often hear concerns the time taken to introduce them because of the consultation that has to take place.
The hon. Gentleman did not sufficiently highlight the fact that many of the schemes introduced by Somerset county council and, no doubt, other county councils are introduced at the request of parish councils. There is often a great deal of local concern about high traffic speeds and road safety outside schools.
The programme in Somerset was developed in response to countywide concerns about community safety and the impact of speeding traffic in settlements. The hon. Gentleman will know that there are 2,600 injury accidents on the roads in Somerset every year, and 45 fatalities. The measures put in place by Somerset county council are designed to make our communities safer, reducing the speed of traffic in settlements and the number of injury accidents. In view of those arrangements, it is difficult to understand how consultation could be further improved by any statutory requirement.
However, the county council recognises that not all highways authorities in other counties conduct the extensive consultations that regularly take place in Somerset. We can only assume that in his Bill the hon. Gentleman is seeking to make mandatory across the country the excellent best practice in Somerset. If he is trying to advertise the excellence of our consultation in Somerset and argue that it should he extended across the country, he will have our support, but I fear that his speech implied that we could end up with extra bureaucracy, more delay before the schemes are put in place and extra road safety problems and accidents. If that is what he is proposing, he will not have my support or that of my constituents. Such a proposal seems neither very conservative nor very sensible, and not in the interests of our constituents. Instead, it would be a bureaucrats' charter and delay useful road traffic schemes rather than ensuring that they were better.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Liddell-Grainger, Mr. Kevan Jones, Mr. Andrew Rosindell, Mr. Tim Boswell, Mr. Andrew Turner, Mr. John Burnett, John Thurso, Mr. David Clelland and Mr. Adrian Flook.

Road Traffic Regulations (Consultation) Bill

  ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATIONS (CONSULTATION)
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger accordingly presented a Bill to create full statutory public consultation procedures wheresoever road traffic management schemes are proposed by local authorities: 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 174].
  Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that I recall that rulings have been made from the Chair that votes should follow voices and that, particularly in the case of ten-minute Bills such as the one that we have just considered, it was not the done thing—I put it no more strongly—for people to seek to make a cheap speech opposing a Bill without following it by dividing the House. I do not

  803
  necessarily want you to make an instant ruling, but it would help the House to know whether that ruling is indeed still in force, or whether I can now speak against every ten-minute Bill and then not bother to divide the House.
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has a good reputation for dividing the House. I remember him doing so at 2 o'clock in the morning when I was a Deputy Speaker, and I was very grateful to him for doing so. We are all on a learning curve from time to time, and I say to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) that the next time he opposes a Bill, if he gently says no, it will allow me to express an opinion that the Ayes have it. He does not need to divide the House, but a voice should be heard when I invite the House to divide.
  Mr. John Bercow: Put it down to his inexperience.
  Mr. Speaker: We all have to learn—even the hon. Gentleman.

Opposition Day
[6TH ALLOTTED DAY] [2ND PART]
Opposition Day

  Decommissioning (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Speaker: We now come to the main business. I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  12.48 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move,
  That this House expresses its profound disquiet at the accounts given by the Prime Minister and by General de Chastelain on the issue of whether information on the latest IRA act of decommissioning, additional to that made public, was given by General de Chastelain to the UK and Irish Governments; believes that the credibility of both the Prime Minister and of General de Chastelain are of vital importance in the successful conclusion of the Northern Ireland peace process; and therefore considers it imperative that this matter should be clarified urgently and unambiguously.
  Let me start by dealing with the issue of bipartisanship. Over the past two weeks, every time we have raised the issue of the Prime Minister's assurance about the latest IRA act of decommissioning and the conflict between his own statements and those of General de Chastelain, or every time the Government have thought or feared that we were about to do so, a number of Labour Back Benchers, apparently entirely spontaneously, have started to talk about bipartisanship in terms such as "Wouldn't it be a good thing for Northern Ireland if the Opposition could only be bipartisan?"
  We have been a responsible Opposition on Northern Ireland, and we hall remain so. We support the Government entirely on their objectives and the Belfast agreement. We have always supported them on tactics when they have done what we thought were the right things. But one thing that the Government and even the Whips and spin doctors in No. 10 surely cannot expect us to do in any circumstances is to be party to a cover-up and acquiesce in a deception of the public. That would be a veritable perversion of bipartisanship. It would be the political class ganging up against the public whom we are all elected to serve. It would be to betray the most fundamental purpose of having a Parliament—to ensure honest and transparent government.
  Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: No, I will not. I am not going to give way to Labour Members at all, for the simple reason that only the Prime Minister can throw light on the questions that I am going to ask. The Prime Minister should be here in person instead of relying on proxies, whether ministerial or from the Back Benches, to try to defend him. Since he alone is in a position to answer these questions, I shall wait until he appears: if he has the courage to do so, I shall certainly give way to him.
  The problem that brings us to this debate is simply stated. On 22 October, the Prime Minister, speaking at

  805
  Prime Minister's questions about the previous day's act of decommissioning by the IRA, said of General de Chastelain:
  "He gives certain information—not the full information, but certain information—to us, as the two Governments. Although we are not at liberty to disclose that in formation without his permission, we are working hard to try to find a way in which we can do so, because I believe, on the basis of what we know, that people would be satisfied if they knew the full details."—[Official Report, 22 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 634.]
  There are two salient points about that answer that the House should note. First, there is the factual, or purportedly factual, statement that General de Chastelain gives, and on this occasion gave, certain information to the two Governments that he did not disclose and that the two Governments are not at liberty to disclose to the public. That is a matter of fact, and on it there was a very clear statement of fact by the Prime Minister. Secondly, there is the assurance, explicitly based on that information, to the effect that, if people knew the details that the Prime Minister knows, they would be satisfied. That is not a factual statement: it is an assurance based on a judgment. But, of course, if no additional information was available to the Prime Minister, that judgment could not in good faith have been made, and the assurance would be worthless, irresponsible and, worst of all, dishonest.
  I am afraid that the kernel of the issue that we all have to confront, whether we like it or not, is this: General de Chastelain has said, unambiguously and in every conversation that he has had on the subject over the past two weeks, that he does not give supplementary information to the two Governments and that he did not do so on this occasion. In other words, he has directly contradicted the factual statement made by the Prime Minister in the House on 22 October. He has repeated that at every possible opportunity, including in two extensive conversations with me.
  Let me read from a transcript of one such conversation that took place in a meeting in which I was not involved. Several people were present on both sides of the table. There is a formal record of that meeting, which was between General de Chastelain and members of the Democratic Unionist party. "PR" is Peter Robinson, the hon. Member for Belfast, East; "GDC" is General de Chastelain; and "DP" is Dr. Paisley, the hon. Member for North Antrim. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall place a copy of that record in the Library after I have spoken. I quote:
  "PR—Did you go beyond the descriptive terms in report or conference when talking to the PMs?
  GDC—I gave them no more detail than I have told you.
  DP—The governments have no more information on the last reports?
  GDC—Unless they are reading something else into the reports.
  PR—The 2 governments see certain things. They didn't see it from you?
  GDC—They have no more information than what was made public."
  In view of the importance of this matter, I shall repeat that last quotation from General de Chastelain:
  "They have no more information than what was made public."
  The House will be able to compare those words with the Prime Minister's words of the day before and the Wednesday after—21 and 29 October—which I have
  806
  already quoted. Let me quote and contrast what the Prime Minister said last Wednesday-29 October—at Prime Minister's questions. He said:
  "certain information was given to us by General de Chastelain and I had very much hoped that it would have been possible to provide the full information to everybody."—[Official Report, 29 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 300.]
  One could not have a more stark contrast or a more thoroughly documented conflict of words than that.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend was at Prime Minister's questions today when the Prime Minister said that he had extra duties in this House later today. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of those duties should have been to come here and listen to him? The Prime Minister is the only person who can respond, so surely he should be here now?
  Mr. Davies: I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend. A great many people throughout the country will think exactly the same and draw their own conclusions from the fact that the Prime Minister did not want to face up to the points that he knew that I was going to put to him.
  Kevin Brennan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although it is the hon. Gentleman's decision whom he gives way to, is it in order for him to accuse Labour Back Benchers of making orchestrated interventions on him, then to give way to a Member on his side of the House having said that he did not intend to give way at all?
  Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is trying to draw me into the debate.
  Mr. Davies: It is a great shame that Labour Members, in a mistaken attempt to put up a cloud of camouflage, should raise such completely bogus points of order. Every parliamentarian, whatever his party allegiance, should focus on this clear issue that goes to the heart of integrity in Government and truthfulness in this House of Commons. Labour Members are getting agitated because we have got to the kernel of the issue. The plain fact is that the Prime Minister and General de Chastelain cannot, unfortunately, both be speaking the truth. The House urgently needs to discover which one of the two it is.
  Helen Jackson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I not right in thinking that we have already debated this issue twice: first, in a statement made by the Secretary of State on 22 October; and secondly, on an urgent question, which you allowed almost a week later? We have had two debates, and there is no new material.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a debate on a substantive motion before the House: that is very different from a statement. The hon. Gentleman is in order; if he goes out of order, I shall soon tell him so.
  Mr. Davies: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  The Opposition are raising this issue and Government Back Benchers can think of nothing better to do than to try to distract attention with points of order. That speaks for itself. As for the hon. Lady's point of order, it was so spontaneous that she had to read it out.
  Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I have already explained why I will not give way to Labour Members on this occasion. The

  807
  matters that we are discussing are extremely grave, and only the Prime Minister is in a position to answer. When he comes here, as he should, I shall certainly give way to him.
  Mr. John Bercow: Notwithstanding the undoubted dedication to her duties of the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), is it not regrettable, even if unavoidable, that the Secretary of State is unable to be with us? Does not that underline the importance of the Prime Minister's making an appearance some time between now and the end of this important debate?
  Mr. Davies: I think that people will draw their own conclusions from the obvious discomfort of the Prime Minister's Cabinet colleagues and their desire to stay away from the debate. I have some sympathy with them in that regard, given the unpleasant reality that we all have to face.
  It is urgent that the House get to the bottom of this matter. It is clear that Labour Members do not wish to do so; that is the last thing they want. I intend to proceed, however. There are three reasons why this is so important, and I would have hoped that they would have been clear to everyone on both sides of the Chamber. First, General de Chastelain is a very distinguished public servant. He is a former chairman of the Canadian chiefs of staff, and a former Canadian ambassador to the United States. He generously agreed to give up what has now been several years of his life to preside over the Decommissioning Commission. As a public servant, he cannot defend himself in the media. It cannot be right that his veracity and reliability should be impugned without the case against him being examined very thoroughly indeed.
  The second reason goes right to the heart of the peace process in Northern Ireland, which must, if it is to be successful, include the completion of decommissioning. For that reason, it is very important that the Decommissioning Commission should be able to operate. That means that, like it or not, the paramilitary organisations and the people of Northern Ireland as a whole must have trust in it, and in the veracity of its chairman, General de Chastelain. There will be a considerable crisis if that trust disappears.
  The gravest, and by far the most important, aspect of this is a matter of fundamental constitutional moment. It is the issue of whether the House and the British public have been told the truth.
  Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the core problem is that General de Chastelain has now been put in the position of having repeatedly to deny that he has given more information to anyone else, and that there is an air of questioning about whether that is the case? The only person who can put that right is the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Davies: I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman. He and I share the view that this is an extremely important matter—I think that everyone would agree with that—and that the Prime Minister should have the courage to come to the House to give his own explanation.
  808
  None of us needs to be lectured on the importance of telling the truth in the House, and I am certainly not going to do that. None of us needs reminding of the occasions in our lifetime, if not our memory, on which it has been alleged that Ministers have lied to the House. I can think of only two in the last 50 years: John Profumo in 1963 and James Callaghan—now Lord Callaghan—over devaluation in 1967. In both cases, they used ambiguous phrases rather than directly contradicting the truth. Nevertheless, they both resigned. I simply ask the House what precedent we would be establishing if we were to decide here and now, in 2003, that the very issue of veracity was no longer worth getting to the bottom of, or that the penalty for lack of veracity was nothing at all.
  Finally, there is the important matter of the assurance that the Prime Minister gave. I shall quote him again:
  "I believe, on the basis of what we know, that people would be satisfied if they knew the full details."—[Official Report, 22 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 634.]
  That is a very significant assurance.
  Kevin Brennan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to question the veracity of the Prime Minister's statements to the House?
  Mr. Speaker: It is out of order. I would say to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) that he is getting very close to the wire. He is beginning to make accusations against the Prime Minister in a roundabout way. The motion does not attack the Prime Minister in the manner that the hon. Gentleman is adopting at the moment. I must tell him to be very careful about what he is saying.
  Mr. Davies: The motion, as your Clerks have always advised, Mr. Speaker, had to be phrased in a very neutral way, and I understand the reasons for that. The matter that I am raising is of enormous importance, and I have made it clear to the House on this and other occasions that I do not shy away from that importance. I have been very careful, however, to avoid unparliamentary language—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Of course it is a good thing to go to the Clerks for advice. That is important. The Clerks informed the hon. Gentleman that the motion had to be phrased in a neutral manner, but he must follow the sentiments of that motion. He cannot get away with saying that the motion is phrased in a neutral manner because the Clerks said that it should be, and then going beyond that neutrality.
  Mr. Davies: I understand, Mr. Speaker, and I know that you and the House will understand the position in which I find myself. I know that you will share the view of all parliamentarians that issues such as these have to be raised, and that they must be raised in a parliamentary fashion. I am certainly endeavouring to do that. However, the public who send us here would not forgive us if we round some procedural strategy for burying such unpleasant issues permanently under the carpet.

  809
  As I was saying, there is the additional, but certainly not unimportant, matter of the assurance that the Prime Minister gave to the House:
  "I believe, on the basis of what we know, that people would be satisfied if they knew the full details."—[Official Report, 22 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 634.]
  That is a significant assurance. The whole House will agree that anyone in a position of trust must be very careful about giving assurances; the greater the trust, the greater the responsibility. That applies throughout life, and in the professions. What would we think of a doctor who said, "I have examined this patient. I cannot describe his condition to you because of patient confidentiality, but I can tell you that he has not got an infectious disease", when he had actually never examined the patient at all, the assurance was worthless, and some decision, fatal to others, had been taken on the basis of it?
  What would we think of an accountant who said, "I cannot give you the balance sheet and profit-and-loss account of this company, because they are confidential, but I have examined the figures, and if you knew what I know, you would be happy to trade with it or invest in it", when actually he had never seen the figures, and his assurance was entirely bogus? What would we think of such a doctor or accountant? Would we think that they were fit and proper people to work in their chosen professions, and that they ought to remain in them?
  What about a Prime Minister who behaved in such a way? Would we think him a fit and proper person for that role? Does it matter whether the British people can trust their Prime Minister? Is it not vital that the House and the country know the truth?
  Kevin Brennan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has just implied that the Prime Minister's statements to the House were entirely bogus. Is that in order?
  Mr. Speaker: I do not wish to prevent the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford from speaking openly in the House, but if he wished to say the things that he was saying just now about the Prime Minister, he really should have put a motion of no confidence before the House. He has, however, put this motion before the House, and he is now going beyond the terms of the motion. I say to the hon. Gentleman again—I am giving him good advice—that he must be very careful about what he says from now on.
  Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you guide me, in accordance with precedent and advice that right hon. and hon. Members have received? I am among those who have received such advice. Can you confirm that it remains the case that, whereas to accuse someone of lying is unparliamentary, the suggestion that a right hon. or hon. Member might inadvertently have given credence to an untruth is entirely parliamentary?
  Mr. Speaker: There is nothing inadvertent about what the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford is saying before me. That is different, and I must tell him that it might come to the stage where I have to stop him.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Mr. Speaker, I shall continue to endeavour to avoid any unparliamentary language. I am familiar with the difficulty in which you find yourself, and I recall another famous precedent—that of Winston Churchill, who was once allowed to use the words "terminological inexactitude".
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. I have almost reached the end of my remarks.
  Does it not go to the heart of our democracy that the British people can always trust the office of the Prime Minister? That is surely a legitimate question for me to ask today, and a question that the public who send us here hope that we continually ask ourselves. The Prime Minister himself needs to clear this matter up. He needs to come before the House without delay to make a personal statement and to answer questions on it, so that we can lay this matter to rest, one way or the other, once and for all.
  1.9 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "notes the importance of confidentiality to effective decommissioning of weapons in Northern Ireland; expresses its gratitude for the professionalism of General de Chastelain and the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning; welcomes the further positive developments in the peace process set out by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in his statement to the House on 22nd October, including the calling of elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly on 26th November; calls on all parties in the House to engage constructively in furthering the peace process in Northern Ireland; and looks forward to further progress after the elections towards the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland on a stable and inclusive basis."
  Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Jane Kennedy: I will.
  Mrs. Lawrence: In the light of Opposition comments, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the amendment congratulates General de Chastelain on the professional way in which he is handling the issue in Northern Ireland?
  Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend is right. We can all read the amendment.
  We are always happy to discuss Northern Ireland issues in this place, but I have serious doubts about the appropriateness of the debate at this point and about what motivated the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) to table the motion. You will recall last week's urgent question, Mr. Speaker, during which you had cause—
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the Minister give way?
  Jane Kennedy: Let me make my point first. Then I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

  811
  On that occasion, Mr. Speaker, you had cause gently to chastise the hon. Gentleman for making a speech when he should have been asking a question. I recall the occasion vividly, as I replied to the question.
  It is a little like "Groundhog Day". I suppose I can take some comfort from the fact that although the hon. Gentleman has had two opportunities to make the speech we have just heard, it is unlikely—if the newspaper reports are correct—that he will have an opportunity to make the same points again from his current position. Let me add, however, that personally I wish him well in the forthcoming reshuffle.
  Members will have their own views on the wisdom—
  Mr. Davies: Will the Minister give way?
  Jane Kennedy: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a few moments, I will give way to him shortly.
  As I was saying, Members will have their own views on the wisdom of initiating such a debate in the middle of an election campaign in Northern Ireland. This is a time when the parties and voters in Northern Ireland should be discussing issues among themselves, and it is a time when many Northern Ireland Members would like to be out campaigning. As we are to have a debate, however, I think it right in principle for us here to show restraint during this period, and to avoid becoming part of the election campaign.
  It may interest the House to know that this morning the Conservative party launched its own Northern Ireland election campaign. Let me quote from its party political broadcast.
  "I'm asking you to cast your vote on the 26th November for the Conservative Party. We are the only one of the three national parties in the United Kingdom to take part in elections here".
  There we have it. The synthetic indignation to which we have been subjected this afternoon is all about a party political campaign cynically motivated to inspire today's debate.
  At this point I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Davies: I understand the difficulty in which the Minister finds herself. Hers is the unfortunate role of having to obfuscate and find complete irrelevancies.
  The Minister speculated aloud about my motives in raising this issue last week and again this week. Let me put her mind at rest: it has nothing whatever to do with my position in the Conservative party. I would do exactly the same from the Back Benches. I would think it the duty of any Member to raise the issue here if he or she were aware of the facts of which I have become aware as a result of my conversations with General de Chastelain, and of the other evidence I have given the House. That seems to me a fundamental duty. I would be failing in that duty if I suppressed the facts, and did not allow the House to focus on these vital questions.
  Jane Kennedy: I suppose we note the hon. Gentleman's comments; but I believe that the great majority of Members hope for a positive and constructive outcome from the election campaign which will lead to the formation of an inclusive Executive in
  812
  Northern Ireland. Indeed, I think that in principle that is the hon. Gentleman's position, but I must question—not for the first time—the maturity of his judgment in relation to what he seeks to achieve today.
  Lembit Öpik: Will the Minister give way?
  Jane Kennedy: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will make some progress.
  Lembit Öpik rose—
  Jane Kennedy: As I have said, I want to make some progress.
  The campaign unfolding in Northern Ireland is, in fact, focusing on the future, and I believe that in most respects it is predominantly constructive. From all or at least most quarters, we are hearing imaginative and hopeful comments.
  A cheap point was made about the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He is not here today, which is why I have the privilege of speaking. He is visiting Canada and the United States to communicate the real progress made in Northern Ireland—including the progress made during the last few weeks—and to thank the Governments and people of those countries for their positive contributions to the Northern Ireland peace process. In Canada, my right hon. Friend has seen the Prime Minister and other Ministers. High on the list of points he has made to everyone he has met there is the vital contribution of General de Chastelain, and indeed that of other Canadians who have been involved in the process.
  Since the general's name has been dragged into the debate and his credibility questioned in such a regrettable way by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, let me make it clear that we regard both him and his colleague Mr. Andrew Sens as men of vast experience and expertise.
  Lembit Öpik: Whatever the Minister may feel about the Conservative party's motives on this occasion, I must tell her that the Liberal Democrats share some of its concerns. This is not about the credibility or integrity of General de Chastelain. We need to clarify a point that confused not just politicians but many members of the public, who were given the impression that there was information in the Prime Minister's remit that had not been shared with them.
  Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his points later if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker. But I will come to them in a moment if he is patient.
  Most important of all, we regard the general and Mr. Sens as men of cast-iron integrity. Without that integrity, they would not have gained the trust that has been necessary for us to make the advances we have made in decommissioning. Here, as in other areas of life in Northern Ireland, we can advance only by developing trust and confidence. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford either has not recognised that or, if he has, thinks that the scoring of cheap party political points in

  813
  this place is more important than working together to deliver a more peaceful future and greater well-being to a part of the United Kingdom.
  Mrs. Lawrence rose—
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the Minister give way?
  Jane Kennedy: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman earlier and ended up regretting it, so I think I will give way to my hon. Friend first.
  Mrs. Lawrence: Does my hon. Friend recall that in a debate on Northern Ireland on 22 November 1999 the then right hon. Member for Huntingdon said "It looks as if we are finally looking towards a permanent solution in Northern Ireland. I fervently hope that that is the case"? Does my hon. Friend agree that that demonstrates a mature and bipartisan approach to the Northern Ireland issue, measured in terms of action rather than words?
  Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I regret what appears to be the Conservative party's present lack of a bipartisan approach.
  The hon. Gentleman wanted to intervene. I regretted giving way to him earlier merely because of the longwinded nature of his intervention, and the fact that he did not make any point worth making.
  Mr. Davies: I have already dealt with the issue of bipartisanship. As for the issue of confidence and trust, I entirely agree with the Minister. I said the same myself. It is because it is so important to restore confidence and trust, and because of the glaring discrepancy between the Prime Minister's remarks and the statements of General de Chastelain, that we need to clear the matter up. If the Minister wants to restore trust in the Northern Ireland peace process, let alone in this Parliament, she ought to contribute to that clarification by getting her right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the House as soon as possible.
  Jane Kennedy: May I respectfully suggest that the hon. Gentleman might like to take a pill, wrap a wet towel around his head, lie down in a darkened room, contain himself and deal with what are very serious issues without being histrionic.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: The Minister is talking about trust, and the amendment mentions General de Chastelain. The question that we are asking is: can we trust General de Chastelain? It is quite straightforward. Can we trust what he has said? She has to answer that, because either we can or we cannot. The Prime Minister has said that we can, but then General de Chastelain has contradicted him. That is part of a pattern that relates to the dodgy dossier, because Dr. Kelly had something very different to say. Will she answer that?
  Jane Kennedy: I am not sure that I would be allowed to follow the hon. Gentleman down that route given the terms of the debate, but I will answer those points shortly if I may make some progress.
  814
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford did not adequately address the issue of bipartisanship. Moreover, he is wrong, because he does not appreciate Labour Members' disappointment at the breach of the bipartisan approach. Previous Opposition spokesmen, of both parties, have not taken the hon. Gentleman's approach and they have followed, perfectly honourably, a policy of bipartisanship. That is not to say that they have refrained from criticising the Government, or failed in their duty to hold them to account, but they have acted reasonably and with judgment. That was a perfectly honourable role for the Opposition to take.
  Kevin Brennan: We do not doubt that the views of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) on Northern Ireland are sincerely and passionately held, but the real issue is one of tone. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the tone in which he has raised the subject in recent months that has led many Labour Members, completely independently, not through any orchestration, to question the manner in which he raises his sincerely held views?
  Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I believe that the approach of previous Opposition spokesmen served both Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole much better than the approach adopted by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford.
  As for the specific questions that the hon. Gentleman raised, let me make a preliminary point. Of course we do not seek confidentiality in respect of decommissioning. On the contrary, we believe that the greatest possible transparency is preferable. Following the IRA decommissioning of last month, there was constructive engagement on that issue. It did not result in agreement, but real progress was made.
  The hon. Gentleman needs to realise, however, that what we are talking about is putting arms beyond use by agreement. If the police find illegal weapons, they will, of course, seize them, and I expect that we would not have any difficulties about transparency, but that is not the situation that we are talking about. The process of decommissioning, which I believe the hon. Gentleman, as a declared supporter of the Good Friday agreement, must support in principle, involves the co-operation of the organisation doing the decommissioning. Strident statements in the Chamber about the terms on which it should be done do not help to bring it about.
  Judy Mallaber: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there has been no suggestion that there was no substantial act of decommissioning, which should be able to assist us in the positive process of getting a peaceful resolution in Northern Ireland? Can she confirm what was said and what the attitude was of the Taoiseach after his discussions with General de Chastelain?
  Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend makes two valid points. First, I am not aware of anyone questioning the fact that the act of decommissioning has been described as significant, and that the general's report indicated an event of significance for everyone with the interests of Northern Ireland at heart. Secondly, the Taoiseach confirmed that the sense that he had been given in his

  815
  conversation with the general about the scale and nature of the event was that it was greater than the description that the general was able to give in his statement and even in the press conference that followed, but I will develop that theme shortly.
  May I make some final points about the approach of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford? Quite apart from the possible impact of the hon. Gentleman's comments on Northern Ireland politics, I believe that he is attempting to drive a wedge between the two Governments, the Government of Britain and the Government of Ireland, and the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. His attempts are irresponsible in relation to the credibility of the commission, although I do not believe that they will damage it because the commission remains an extremely important part of the machinery that is designed to bring long-term peace to Northern Ireland. With the developments of the past few weeks, we have the prospect of a process that will put all IRA weapons beyond use. The commission would be the instrument of that historic transformation. Undermining General de Chastelain and the commission, which is liable to be the effect of the hon. Gentleman's behaviour, if not his intention, is profoundly damaging to prospects for advancing the peace process.
  Mr. Alistair Carmichael: May I say to the Minister in a spirit of bipartisanship that for the Prime Minister to say that he had been given information that General de Chastelain says he had not been given must inevitably undermine that process?
  Jane Kennedy: As I have said, the Government's view is that we would prefer the decommissioning process to be transparent. Therefore, it is a matter of regret that—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may just like to calm down a little and listen to my answer. It is a matter of regret that, because of the lack of transparency surrounding that event, we were not in a position to restore trust and confidence between the parties in Northern Ireland. May I address the point raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) by turning to what was said a fortnight ago at Hillsborough? We had an urgent question last week, in which I set all this out, and I will do so again.
  At Hillsborough on the afternoon of 21 October, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach were able to learn more about the decommissioning event than was set out in the statement issued by the decommissioning commission. That is not in the least surprising. The commission's statement was very short: a few lines. However, General de Chastelain and Mr. Sens gave a press conference afterwards. It lasted for about 15 minutes. I think that no one who was at the press conference, who saw it on the television, or who has subsequently read reports of it could deny that it added to their understanding of what was involved in the decommissioning event over and above the brief words of the statement itself.
  There were some extremely illuminating passages. For example, General de Chastelain described what might be included in various terms used in his statement. Mr. Sens commented that
  "the material we saw put beyond use this morning could have caused death or destruction on a huge scale if it had been used".
  816
  There is no doubt that such comments instilled a much greater sense of what was involved in the act of decommissioning than the mere words of the statement alone. In speaking as they did, General de Chastelain and Mr. Sens breached no confidences. They certainly set out no inventories.
  As I said, the press conference lasted for about a quarter of an hour. General de Chastelain and Mr. Sens were with the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, in advance of their press statement, for an hour or more. Therefore, it is perfectly understandable that, in the course of such a meeting, they developed a still clearer understanding than observers of the press conference were able to develop about what was involved in the IRA decommissioning act. As the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach made clear, they were not given the full information in the commission's possession. But they were able, as a result of what they had learned, to indicate with conviction that there had indeed been a substantial act of decommissioning. That was implicit in what the general and Mr. Sens said at the press conference, but it is hardly surprising that the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach had a still greater sense of the importance of the event—even than those who attended or saw the press conference. There is really no more to it than that.
  Mr.Beggs rose—
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Jane Kennedy: No, I shall not. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman several times during this debate, and in that regard I have shown more courtesy than he was prepared to show to my Back-Bench colleagues during his contribution. However, I shall give way to the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs).
  Mr. Beggs: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. Does she accept that the failure to disclose the detail on, and extent of, the decommissioning that has occurred to date can provoke thoughts of a similarity to the experience of Lord Saville at the Bloody Sunday inquiry? Lord Saville said to the IRA contact on decommissioning, Martin McGuinness:
  "Firstly you are depriving us of the opportunity of discovering the full facts and matters relating to Bloody Sunday, and secondly it will be suggested in due course, that if you are not answering these questions you have something to hide".
  Is there not the danger that General de Chastelain and the Prime Ministers are currently having similarly frustrating experiences in their contacts with IRA contact on decommissioning, Martin McGuinness? Is that not the reason for the confusion, or, indeed, do they all have something to hide?
  Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful point, and I shall respond in this way. I agree that the lack of transparency surrounding the event has led to the speculation now taking place. That is a matter of regret; however, it is part of the process. What we now want to see is further progress towards complete decommissioning of all weapons by all paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland.

  817
  Attempts to play with words—to imply that people have been misled, in order to stir up distrust and suspicion—are going to advance nothing, and certainly not the prospects for a better future for Northern Ireland. They are highly irresponsible and will impress no one. We need to focus on the future. Real steps forward were achieved on 21 October. A speech by the leader of Sinn Fein referred to the
  "full and final closure of the conflict'".
  That speech was endorsed by the IRA. A third act of decommissioning by the IRA took place that was considerably larger than its predecessors, and the prospect was opened up of a continuing process of decommissioning to put all arms beyond use.
  On a political level, we saw engagement between Sinn Fein and the Ulster Unionist party of a kind never seen before. At least 15 meetings took place between those parties. They did not produce a resolution of the outstanding issues last month, but they are full of promise for the future. That is the advance that has been achieved in Northern Ireland, and the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have applied themselves to it extremely diligently. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, although he professes to be a supporter of the Good Friday agreement, has given the process no assistance at all. He has sought to impede it in various ways, in the hope of gaining some advantage here. Well, I am afraid that he has failed, and failed again today. After the election, we shall seek to advance the political process in Northern Ireland again. It will probably not be an easy road, but I am sure that the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will put all their effort into it.
  Judy Mallaber: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Jane Kennedy: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I am coming to the end of my remarks.
  Real gains have been made within recent weeks in the difficult and sometimes painful process of healing divisions in Northern Ireland. There is a constructive spirit abroad in relation to Northern Ireland affairs—in Northern Ireland and beyond. The Opposition have other preoccupations. I urge them to put them aside, and to play their part.
  1.35 pm
  Lembit Öpik: I should begin by making one thing absolutely clear to the Minister. She may question the motives of the Conservative party this afternoon, and speak long and hard about her dissatisfaction with what the h Dn. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) has said in the past about Northern Ireland. She will, of course, know that I have chosen many times to take issue with what I regarded as a cynical approach to Northern Ireland issues. Indeed, on many other occasions I have gone on the record in this Chamber as sticking up for exactly what she proposed; however, this is not one of those occasions. The Minister needs to understand that, regardless of what she thinks the Conservatives' motives are this afternoon, the Liberal Democrats share their concern about what happened in respect of the Prime
  818
  Ministers' comments and the information that lies behind them. So unless she wants to suggest that we are somehow in league with the Conservatives in order to score cheap political points, she will have to accept that there is a case to answer. I did not hear that answer in what she said.
  The issue of decommissioning, particularly decommissioning by the IRA, has been a thorn in the side of the peace process since the Good Friday agreement was signed—there is no question about that. The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, headed by General John de Chastelain, was set up in 1997 to oversee the destruction of paramilitary weapons. Since then, the general and his colleagues have worked in very difficult circumstances. Contact between the commission and the various paramilitary groups has often been infrequent, with different organisations breaking contact altogether with the commission at various stages in the past six years.
  We can all agree that, throughout that time, General de Chastelain and his colleagues in the commission have acted with the utmost integrity. So my first point is that there seems to be universal agreement in this Chamber—certainly among Conservatives, Labour Members and Liberal Democrats—that General de Chastelain has impeccable integrity. That is very important in terms of analysing the situation as a whole. Indeed, such integrity is vital to the success of the commission's role.
  My second point is that that integrity must be maintained. Trust in General de Chastelain must be complete in the eyes of the paramilitaries, in order that he can carry out his functions. The IRA views itself as a legitimate army. This is not the place to conduct a long monologue about the IRA, but in trying to understand its relationship with the commission we must recognise how it sees itself, rather than focusing on how others might choose to see it. I should make it clear that my party and I do not condone, and never have condoned, what the IRA or any other paramilitary group has undertaken in terms of violence and intimidation in the Province. However, as I said, it views itself as an army and does not believe that it has been militarily defeated. So, for the IRA, decommissioning its weapons has been a huge psychological step.
  For such acts to come about, General de Chastelain has needed to secure the IRA's trust, and I believe that he has acted impeccably in that regard as well. Of course, the commission also needs the trust of the public in Northern Ireland, so we must all recognise—I hope that this is a further point of agreement—that General de Chastelain must never be put in a situation that compromises his apparent integrity in his communications with the paramilitaries and, equally importantly, his integrity in the eyes of the general public.
  That leads me to the third, and crucial, element of today's debate. There simply would not be enough public confidence in decommissioning without an independent outside body to confirm that such acts had taken place. It is hugely regrettable that in recent weeks this delicate balance, on which we all seem to agree, has been called into question. In my judgment, the Prime Minister's intervention has added confusion, without doing anything constructive to help to resolve the issues. I listened to the Minister and her liberal criticisms of the

  819
  hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford. On this occasion, however, she is adding fog rather than clarity to events. I was waiting for her to explain precisely what the Prime Minister had in his possession in the way of information—not a guess or a judgment—to give him the extra confidence to make the claims that he did.
  Mr. Carmichael: Did my hon. Friend notice, as I did, that the Minister's words today were that the Prime Minister "had a sense" of what had happened, whereas the Prime Minister's own words were that he "had information" about it? Does my hon. Friend agree that those are very different things and that the circle will have to be squared if the Prime Minister's role is to be the subject of public confidence?
  Lembit Öpik: My hon. Friend gets to the very heart of the matter. It is not merely playing with words, because what the words imply greatly influences the perceived integrity of General de Chastelain. As my hon. Friend suggests, the Minister needs to explain, perhaps in her summation, why the Prime Minister used the word "information".
  It is also worth noting that, according to my recollection, Downing street backtracked to a certain extent towards the end of the week, and issued a statement that the Prime Minister's comments were an "informed guess", which further confused the issue. The Prime Minister has certainly not sought to back down and admit that he over-used the phrase "information" when it was only an informed guess. We therefore find ourselves in this quagmire.
  Kevin Brennan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the intervention of his hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) sums the matter up perfectly: he and his colleagues and Conservative Front Benchers are simply playing with words? The debate is all about semantics rather than about the real politics and the real issues that matter in Northern Ireland.
  Lembit Öpik: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman and I have never questioned his genuine interest in Northern Ireland, but on this occasion he has made an error. I have been the Liberal Democrats' Northern Ireland spokesman since 1997, and one thing that I certainly have learned is that sometimes words are absolutely crucial to the meanings, which then impact on actions taken in the Province.
  Kevin Brennan rose—
  Lembit Öpik: I would counsel the hon. Gentleman to ponder this question. If it turns out that there is an unresolved difference between what the Prime Minister seems to have said and what General de Chastelain seems to have said, does it not necessarily create instability at the heart of the decommissioning process and cause problems for those politicians in Northern Ireland who have sought to bring their sceptical colleagues along with them? On this occasion, the hon. Gentleman may be sincere in his intentions, but he could not be more wrong. It is not about semantics, but about facts.
  Kevin Brennan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. If it is not about semantics
  820
  and it is not simply a matter of playing with words and making a judgment about the Prime Minister's words, does the hon. Gentleman agree with Conservative Front Benchers' calling into question the integrity of the Prime Minister?
  Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman is trying to play word games with me. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, will know that Mr. Speaker called the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford to order on several occasions because he felt that he was implying that the Prime Minister had lied. I do not want to get into a debate about whether the, Prime Minister lied. However, I certainly feel misled—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I think that I had better make it clear that I do not believe that any hon. Member is going to use that expression.
  Lembit Öpik: I fully respect that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am bound to tell the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) that I am not accusing the Prime Minister of lying. It is a side debate and we could perhaps discuss it in a pub on another occasion. I want to stick to the focus of the debate. I hope that it is in order to say that I feel misled. I feel that there is an unresolved confusion between the statements of the Prime Minister and those of General de Chastelain.
  Kevin Brennan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) to say that he feels misled by the remarks that the Prime Minister made to the House?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I believe that the hon. Member is just about within the bounds of order—I put it no more strongly than that.
  Lembit Öpik: I am happy to be hauled up if I go beyond those bounds. Attitudinally, I have always regarded the Prim: Minister's intentions with regard to the Northern Ireland peace process as honourable, and I want to emphasise that this is not an effort at character assassination of the Prime Minister—absolutely not: it is an effort to get to the heart of the Northern Ireland peace process.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Lembit Öpik: I shall give way in a moment, but let me finish this point, so that we can move on from talking in detail about the Prime Minister. I do feel misled, and if I feel misled others who are involved in the peace process much more closely than I am will also feel it. The practical consequence of the problem could be observed in what the Ulster Unionist party did. My suspicion is that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was put in a virtually impossible position. It sounded to me as though the Prime Minister was implying that he had information that made him confident, but that he was not able to share it with anyone else.
  The substantial question for the Minister is whether she can clarify the confusion once and for all—[Interruption.] She says from a sedentary position that

  821
  she has already clarified it, but I am not satisfied that she has. The Liberal Democrats are not putting up any candidates in Northern Ireland and I do not particularly enjoy supporting Conservative Members on their motion, but my commitment to do the right thing causes me to press the Minister to explain once and for all exactly why the Prime Minister used the word "information" when, later in the week, Downing street said that it was only an informed guess.
  Angela Watkinson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the exact meaning of words is important in these matters, and that words such as "substantial" and "considerable", when used in statements about the decommissioning of arms, are extremely unhelpful because they are subjective and open to wide interpretation? That led to considerable misunderstanding and unease about what had happened. How can we ever be sure that decommissioning has been complete unless the exact wording is used?
  Lembit Öpik: Funnily enough, having criticised the Minister, I am now going to come to the Government's defence. In my judgment, the problem is not the vagueness of the wording on decommissioning. I acknowledge that I differ from the Conservative party on that matter. My view is that if we demanded more specific statistics, the IRA would probably not participate at all.
  Mr. Bill Tynan rose—
  Lembit Öpik: I shall give way one more time, but then I shall attempt to finish my speech.
  Mr. Tynan: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who, as he said, has spoken on Northern Ireland matters since 1997. He has gained a tremendous reputation for fairness in those matters, but does he not accept that it is a major mistake to be involved in discussions on the basis of the Prime Minister making one statement and General de Chastelain making another? How can the problems be resolved when both individuals are saying what they are saying at the present time?
  Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman correctly highlights the danger of discussing weapons on the basis of a single source. We have seen the consequences of that problem in debates on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and we can now see it in respect of Northern Ireland. However, there is one difference, which has already been established and which brings me back to my starting-point. General de Chastelain's integrity is not in question here. The Minister went to great lengths to reassure us that the general is telling the truth, and I believe that he is. If that side of the problem has been tidied up—unless the Minister wants to change her statement, I believe that it has—it leaves an unanswered question about the behaviour of Downing street and the Prime Minister.
  Various options are open to the Prime Minister to clear the whole thing up. We may have to recognise that General de Chastelain was not the only source from
  822
  whom the Prime Minister could have acquired more information. Perhaps he got it directly from Sinn Fein, perhaps from Gerry Adams, perhaps from the IRA. He may even have heard it in a pub. Perhaps he was walking through the beautiful fields of County Tyrone, saw some people digging a hole and went over to see what was going on. Perhaps he had an anonymous tip-off, possibly from the security services, or he saw satellite photographs. Perhaps he had a vision. Clearly, he acquired the information in some way.
  It would be helpful if the Prime Minister even said, "I did have more information. I cannot tell you from where I got it and I accept that I am asking you to trust me because I am the Prime Minister." That would be better than the present situation, in which we have had no clarification. My appeal to the Minister is to pass on to the Prime Minister a respectful request that he tidies up whether he meant to use the word "information" or not.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: The Prime Minister has already made it clear that he did not get the information in a vision or from the intelligence services. He specifically said in his statement that he got it after his conversation with General de Chastelain. That, therefore, puts all the pressure on him.
  Lembit Öpik: That is, sadly, the case, but I am willing to allow the Prime Minister the chance to display human fallibility. After all, he is not a saint, but he is a very decent guy. Even decent people make mistakes, so he could clarify the point without great cost to himself. He might suffer a little embarrassment, but he is big enough to survive that. We have rehearsed the issue enough now. If he meant to say "information", from where did he get it? If he cannot tell us the source, let him at least say so. If he meant General de Chastelain, let him confirm it: if he did not, he needs to explain to all of us that General de Chastelain had nothing to do with the extra information that he claimed to have.
  Mr. Carmichael: The Prime Minister's statements have not been satisfactorily explained, and he is the only person who can explain them satisfactorily. All that is needed is for the Prime Minister to come to the House and say, "I made a mistake and I said more than I should have done", or "The sense of what I said was wrong." If it comes to a straight choice between the Prime Minister's dignity and the integrity of the peace process, it must be made in favour of the latter.
  Lembit Öpik: My hon. Friend's comments speak for themselves.
  The Liberal Democrats tend to get annoyed by the phrase "bipartisan agreement", because we do not feel included. When the Minister regards the Conservatives dolefully, I would remind her that the Liberal Democrats have been good friends of the Government on Northern Ireland policy. I do not make lightly the strong criticisms that I have made today, but the bipartisan agreement seems to have gone one miserable step further. It now seems to exclude everyone except Sinn Fein and the Ulster Unionists from the discussions that took place in Northern Ireland—[Interruption.] Whatever the Minister's protestations from a sedentary position, I know that the Alliance party, the SDLP and others felt that the recent discussions were a two-party

  823
  show. They feel that if they had been present they might have been able to provide sufficient counterbalance to ensure that the momentum was sustained in the negotiations. I ask the Minister not to make that same mistake again.
  To exclude pro-agreement parties, such as the Alliance, from the negotiations was foolish. Those parties could have made a positive contribution and are still willing to do so, but the Government have squandered some good will by including two parties with a collective share of less than 50 per cent. of the poll. I ask the Minister to be much more respectful towards all the people represented by the other parties, because they form a majority of the electorate in Northern Ireland.
  Our amendment makes our position clear. On this occasion, we will support the Conservatives' motion, for the reasons that have been stated, but I do not do so lightly. Northern Ireland debates often reside on the periphery of mainstream political discussions covered in the papers, but unless the question that has been raised about the information claimed by the Prime Minister is clarified, there is every reason to believe that the issue will grow and grow, to the discomfort of the Prime Minister and the distraction of all of us who are interested in supporting the peace process in Northern Ireland.
  1.54 pm
  Mr. Iain Luke: I am glad to take part in this debate, and the Opposition are within their rights to have a debate on this matter. We should discuss Northern Ireland and the minutiae of the peace process at every possible opportunity, until lasting peace is achieved to the satisfaction of this House and the people of Northern Ireland. As a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I have just returned from a visit to Northern Ireland with other members of the Committee. We had a successful and calm visit, and it was good to see the ubiquitous fly posting there. We saw plenty of fly posting in east Belfast. I am not sure whether it is illegal there, but it is contrary to a byelaw in my part of the world. However, I was glad to see such activity because it indicates that the electoral process is under way. We should do all that we can to ensure that the election campaign proceeds peacefully and positively.
  Today's debate has concentrated on what the Prime Minister said or did not say, and the contribution of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) was not helpful. He took the opportunity to attack the Prime Minister as part of the United Kingdom political campaign, rather than to do what is best for the peace process in Northern Ireland. I can understand that. Indeed, I have many questions relating to that point, such as a query about the nature of the bipartisan process. I accept that the bipartisan process has collapsed and that we need to work hard on both sides of the House to re-establish it and to set out criteria on which it will work. If we learn anything from this debate, it should be that a bipartisan approach means that all the leaders of the major parties are represented at
  824
  meetings that discuss issues that may be resolved by confidential, bipartisan and private meetings, rather than on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. William Cash: The hon. Gentleman said that he is a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Does lie agree that it would be helpful for the Committee to clarify this issue, in the interests of the process, of the facts and of the elections, by having the Prime Minister appear before it to answer its questions in the proper environment?
  Mr. Luke: I am a relatively new member of the Committee, and that request should be put to the Chairman. I cannot decide what the Committee does on my own.
  Mr. Tony Clarke: Given the point made by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), does my hon. Friend agree that it would have been helpful if the Opposition had not initiated a debate on Northern Ireland on the afternoon that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is meeting, thus restricting participation in the debate? Could not the hon. Gentleman have discussed that with the Chairman, who is a member of his party?
  Mr. Luke: We do not live in a perfect world and Northern Ireland is not a perfect issue. The Committee is very concerned by the situation in Northern Ireland and I know that the Chairman and other members have expressed concern about the fact that they cannot participate fully in this debate because of their commitments later today. I hope that the Opposition will consider such issues in future so that members of the Committee may have the opportunity of a fuller involvement, including the Chairman, who has a long history of involvement in the affairs of the Province.
  Northern Ireland is an important issue and it saddens me that we are mired in an Irish bog of political partisanship. It is hugely important to return Northern Ireland to peace, prosperity and political normality, allowing its citizens to enjoy the everyday well-being that is accepted as a right by all the other citizens of the United Kingdom. Life can be hard enough for people in the area that I represent. The poorer estates face the same problems as those in Northern Ireland—illness, poor housing, poverty and crime. That is hard enough to cope with, but it is made worse by the fact that the paramilitaries control the culture, while politicians seem to be making no positive or progressive attempt to resolve the problems that people face. I can understand the despair felt by many people in Northern Ireland.
  We have a duty not to condemn the ordinary citizen in Northern Ireland to being mired in that bog. Instead of digging in deeper, we must do all that we can to pull people out and move the process forward.
  I began visiting Northern Ireland before I became a Member of Parliament. When I became a team leader and senior lecturer in further education, one of my first tasks was to go to Northern Ireland to recruit students to study at Dundee's educational institutions.
  Mr. David Trimble: The hon. Gentleman must have been desperate to keep those institutions open.
  Mr. Luke: I was successful in that endeavour, as Dundee has a strong and healthy Irish population. I

  825
  have seen a lot of progress in Northern Ireland over the past decade. Fewer people now come to Dundee to study, as they are happier to stay in the Province. The normalisation of the situation there has resulted in freedom from fear, and our hope is that that fear will be dispatched for ever.
  We should not be frightened by the peace process, which should be based on a bipartisan approach. The approach adopted by Nelson Mandela and his road to freedom is probably the best, given that reconciliation rather than retribution is the key. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) spoke about the secretive nature of paramilitary organisations. We should not push them back into their bunkers; instead, we should try to do all that we can to bring them out into the open. In the past, the approach of the International Independent Commission on Decommissioning has been a throwback to the old days of warfare and paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland. We should do all that we can to encourage the commission to speak more openly about what is going on.
  At last week's Northern Ireland questions I asked that the Government recommit themselves to two specific matters in relation to establishing a lasting peace settlement and securing positive arms decommissioning. I asked them to ensure that Sinn Fein/IRA made a firm commitment to giving up warlike activity for ever, and that, under the umbrella of the IICD, the Government took steps towards making decommissioning transparent.
  People in Northern Ireland fear that arms are not being decommissioned, and I can understand why. Until it can be stated that no more arms are available for use in military activity, people will not believe that decommissioning is complete. They will not accept it until they can see it in black and white.
  There is a problem with decommissioning, although the point is not what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did or did not say. We must get away from that and recreate a bipartisan approach. I commend the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. 'Trimble), who has done a great job despite the problems in his party. Most parties have problems, and what matters in the end is not the journey but the final result. The progress that has been made is shown by the fact that Sinn Fein as a party is becoming increasingly engaged in the political process.
  We need to achieve a positive result with decommissioning. A positive result: in the political process will have been achieved when Sinn Fein Members of this House take their seats. I have made that point before. I voted against the motion allowing Sinn Fein Members to use the House's facilities until they took the oath and engaged positively in the political process. When that happens, it will underline the fact that warfare in Northern Ireland has finished.
  Sinn Fein's engagement with the political process would be positive even if it pushed for reunification with southern Ireland. That is a legitimate political goal, although its popularity in the Province is debatable. If Sinn Fein Members took their places in this House, we could debate reunification here, and that would be a sure sign of Sinn Fein's commitment to the political process.
  826
  The Government extended to Sinn Fein the opportunity to use this House's facilities in the hope that that would begin the endgame in the peace process, even if the hon. Members involved did not take the offer up immediately.
  I do not want to make partisan or political points. I have visited Northern Ireland and been involved in my own community. I believe that everyone is entitled to a lead a peaceful existence. We have some way to go before that is the birthright of everyone in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said that he felt left out of the bipartisan approach. As a Back Bencher, I do too, although I suppose that I have more frequent access to Ministers than the hon. Gentleman.
  I support the Government amendment, but I hope that Ministers will go away from the debate determined to ensure that issues such as decommissioning are dealt with in a bipartisan manner. Because of their grievances, the Opposition have moved away from that goal, and I urge them to reconsider. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will take the initiative and invite the emerging Conservative leader to meet him and other major leaders to talk about what a bipartisan approach really is. We must make sure that we get the process on the road, with the support of the people.
  I accept that General de Chastelain has impeccable intentions. That is beyond question: his is a hard, long job, and we must support him in it. That means that we should not nitpick about the words used by him or by the Prime Minister. He has got something to say, and we must make sure that the senior politicians involved in the matter hear it. In that way, problems can be resolved and the process can keep moving. After 26 November, there will still be a long way to go. I hope that the situation in Northern Ireland will be much more normal at the end of the process, and that people will refrain from trying to make political points in respect of the role played by the Prime Minister in the UK context. We must ensure that, after 26 November, the First Minister is in charge of the Province, and able to make progress towards establishing the sort of civil society that people in Northern Ireland can be proud of.
  2.7 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: In her opening remarks, the Minister of State referred to the party election broadcast by the Conservative party. Unfortunately, I did not have the pleasure of seeing it, as I travelled over for this debate last night. However, I noted that she referred to a comment in that broadcast to the effect that the Conservatives were the only national party to contest the elections in Northern Ireland.
  I have a bit of information—if I dare use that word—for the Minister: among the candidates in the Northern Ireland election are people who are applying for membership of the Labour party. I look forward very much to those people being able, at the next election, to run under the colours that they want to run under, and not having to run under other colours. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
  Jane Kennedy: For the sake of clarity—and in case the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me—what I said was that it was the Conservative party that claimed that

  827
  it was the only one of the three main parties to field candidates in the election. The Conservatives were putting that forward as something worthy of support and note.
  Mr. Trimble: I take the Minister's point, although she did not dissent from the Conservative claim. I thought that I would be the bearer of information for her, so that she could appreciate the situation more fully.
  The Government lost me when I read the first line of their amendment to today's motion. The first line of the amendment states that it
  "notes the importance of confidentiality to effective decommissioning of weapons in Northern Ireland".
  As I said, the Government lost me with that line. I do not agree with that proposition. Furthermore, unless I am very much mistaken, there is no obligation or requirement of confidentiality in the decommissioning process at all. The legislation as enacted makes no reference to confidentiality as being required or desirable; it simply does not come into the picture.
  When we look at decommissioning schemes, which are made under the legislation, we see in the first scheme a reference to confidentiality. The relevant paragraph of that scheme, paragraph 26, states:
  "The Commission shall ensure that all information received by it in relation to the decommissioning process is kept confidential and that any records maintained by the Commission are kept secure. Disclosure of information received by the commission may occur where disclosure is necessary: for reasons of public safety, to confirm the legitimate participation in the decommissioning process by those eligible to do so, to fulfil the Commission's duty to report to the two Governments."
  One notes the reference to "duty to report" to the Governments. I always thought that such a duty was implicit in the legislation, and it is explicit in that scheme, and I would have thought it perfectly natural for the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning to give information to the Government that was not in the public domain. I would find no reason to quarrel with that.
  Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman go a little further down this route and say that he would believe that, in the circumstances, there was a statutory duty to report?
  Mr. Trimble: The phraseology of the scheme,
  "to fulfil the Commission's duty",
  seems to imply that, but I do not want to get into an argument about that. The point that I want to develop from that paragraph is that it attaches the confidentiality to all information received by the IICD. The importance of the paragraph therefore depends on what meaning one attributes to the word "received". The question then arises as to whether information that the Commission obtains by its own actions, through supervising or inspecting an act of decommissioning, is "received" within the meaning of paragraph 26. I think not. I make that point—the point could be argued—simply to say that I doubt whether, under paragraph 26, there is any duty of confidentiality on the commission with regard to decommissioning conducted under that scheme.
  828
  I turn now to the second scheme, which was made after the conference in 2001 at Weston Park. It has been the general assumption—it is purely an assumption, and it could be wrong—that such decommissioning that has occurred by republicans so far has been under the post-Weston Park scheme, and one assumes that that is why the scheme was made after Weston Park, because that was in the context of the IRA accepting for the first time, as it did in 2000 and 2001, that it had an obligation to decommission. There is no equivalent of paragraph 26 in the second scheme. The only reference to information in the second scheme is in paragraph 5:
  "The Commission may provide to a person who seeks it such information in relation to the making of arms permanently inaccessible or permanently unusable in accordance with this scheme as it considers appropriate."
  The second scheme therefore makes it absolutely clear that the commission may give such information about what has happened as it considers appropriate. As I suspect—although, as I say, I might be wrong—that the actual decommissioning is done under that scheme, it is clear on that basis that there is no obligation to confidentiality on he IICD at all.
  The question then arises: from where does the issue come? My understanding—I am open to be corrected—is that the question of confidentiality arose only in the circumstances leading to the first act of decommissioning. What I think happened on that occasion was that republicans said to the IICD that they would decommission only if the IICD agreed to keep all the details confidential. I suspect that the reason why republicans said that to the IICD was that they were very worried about the effects within their own ranks if it was known that they were engaged in substantial decommissioning of their weapons. That supposition is reinforced by the Fact that republicans have told their members a set of fairy tales about what has happened and what has not happened. One picks up comments from time to time from various sources as to what rank-and-file republicans have been told on that, and if Members wish to explore that matter further, I refer them to some of the articles in, for example, a dissident republican magazine called "The Blanket", which details some of the rumours that have been put about. I mention that simply to make the point that the republican movement is nervous about the impact of decommissioning within its own ranks.
  At the time that that first decommissioning occurred, clearly, we welcomed the decommissioning act, because it was something that we were told would never, ever happen, and the mere fact that it had happened and that the republican slogan "Not a bullet, not an ounce" had been discarded was significant. Even if it had only been a bullet or an ounce, it would have been significant and worth welcoming on that basis. In terms of the first event, therefore, the quantities and the methodology were of secondary importance to the fact that it happened. None the less, we expressed to the general our doubts at the time as to the wisdom of him accepting or imposing on himself this obligation of confidentiality. As it turned out, cur doubts were well-founded.
  When the second act of decommissioning occurred, its impact on the public, although I believed, and still believe, that it was substantial as well as significant, was nil, for exactly the reasons given by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (M r. Luke) in his comments. People

  829
  believe what they see, and what they know about, and are sceptical of those things that are referred to only in the most general of terms. A considerable degree of scepticism therefore existed with regard to decommissioning. If my supposition as to what happened with regard to confidentiality is right, I can understand what the IICD was doing. Clearly, it wanted more than one act of decommissioning, and it believed that by agreeing to confidentiality it was making possible a process that would lead to subsequent ones—I understand that.
  The point that I would make—and have made—to the IICD is that it underestimates its influence and the strength of its position. We are now in a situation in which those same republicans who, three years ago, were brought to the issue of decommissioning extremely reluctantly and nervously now realise that it is necessary for them to do it, and they want to do it to advance their political project. Their approach to decommissioning is not the same as it was three years ago, so the IICD's approach does not have to be the same either. It would be entirely open to the IICD in the present circumstances to say to republicans, "Look, we agreed to confidentiality then, but when you promised to decommission"—this is a significant: point to bear in mind—"you said that you would do it in a way to maximise public confidence." Building on that, it is perfectly open to the commission to say to republicans that to build public confidence now it must be done in a transparent way, and that it will not co-operate further in secret decommissioning. If it did that, it would be effective.
  We should be moving into open, transparent decommissioning to build confidence. Ultimately, the decommissioning process is all about a confidence-building measure. The point has been made repeatedly over the last few years that people can acquire new weapons and that decommissioning is not important. It is important in terms of getting rid of weaponry that otherwise might fall into the wrong hands or be used to harm persons, but its importance beyond that is in building confidence that people have given up violence permanently and are now committed completely and unambiguously to political and only political means. As a confidence-building measure, therefore, it is of no value if it does not create confidence.
  We have made that point repeatedly to republicans this year. We did so in the discussions that took place in the abortive attempts to advance matters in April and we have done so again in the past couple of months. On more than one occasion, I said to the republican movement, "If you are thinking of another secret decommissioning event, forget it. You'll only be throwing the guns away." I said it as starkly as that so that there would be no misunderstanding at all about the need for transparency on this occasion.
  Republicans agreed that there would be greater transparency—that was the term they used. Hon. Members and citizens of Northern Ireland will have heard Martin McGuinness's radio interview on the BBC more than a month or so ago in which he said that he accepted the points that had been made with regard to greater transparency and that he thought that the points that had been raised with him could be met. Therefore,
  830
  there was a clear expectation that there would be greater transparency, and I suppose republicans might now claim that there were a few extra words in de Chastelain's report. However, to think that those words amounted to greater transparency is simply plain daft.
  Republicans have done themselves and their credibility huge damage by not following through with greater transparency, particularly as we now have—thanks to General de Chastelain's verbal slip at the Hillsborough press conference—the confirmation that the IRA's contact person with the de Chastelain commission is Martin McGuinness. The person who agreed that there was an issue and thought that it could be dealt with is clearly also the person who said to de Chastelain, "No, you cannot say any more." The republican leadership will have to sort out that conflict.
  The contradiction between what Mr. McGuinness said to us and the public in Northern Ireland and what we must suppose he said to the IICD is a much greater contradiction than the one we are debating today. I shall come to that latter contradiction later. However, I must underline the fact that, in the background, is something that in terms of confidence, trust and advancing the process is hugely more important. Republicans and Mr. McGuinness will have to face up to that issue and, at this time, speak clearly and honestly and stick to the position that he sets out and not say one thing to us and a different thing to the IICD. That matter has to be resolved.
  For the avoidance of doubt—in case anyone thinks that the omission of this point is significant—I must also say that, as well as greater transparency, it is just as vital to us that it is clear that decommissioning is now an act of completion. It should therefore be not just another few steps along a process, but a situation in which the completion of that process is clearly there before us in the immediate future. That is just as important.
  I have dealt with the issue of confidentiality, because it is hugely important that the House realises that there is no requirement for confidentiality and that it is undesirable in terms of creating public confidence. We should have gone long past any prudential argument with regard to that. Until we do, we shall face considerable difficulties.
  I now want to deal briefly with a point that is contained in the motion. Hon. Members have said that there is a certain amount of confusion between what the Prime Minister and General de Chastelain said. There is confusion, but there is no absolutely necessary contradiction between what has been said. However, that all comes down to the question of what we mean by the word "information" and whether information can include the sort of comments made by Andy Sens in the press conference. We may find that one party is using the word -information" precisely and that the other is using it in a loose sense.
  We are all familiar with occasions when the Prime Minister, in his enthusiasm, has used words somewhat loosely and sometimes made commitments without taking full advice and without fully appreciating what he was making commitments to. That is precisely how the Government got themselves into a mess with regard to fugitives from justice, which other people call on-the-runs. The Prime Minister made commitments without

  831
  precisely understanding what he was doing. I am not suggesting that that is what happened in this case, but it has happened occasionally.
  Mr. Carmichael: I commend the right hon. Gentleman on his very fair analysis on the point of confusion. He is absolutely right. However, does he not agree that the person who could resolve the confusion is the Prime Minister himself? If he continues to fail to do so, that could be damaging to the whole process.
  Mr. Trimble: I understand that point. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my concern is for the public of Northern Ireland, who are confused. Even if that confusion were mistaken and even if the public did not fully appreciate what had been said, the fact that the public are confused is a good reason why the confusion should be clarified. To that extent, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments. However, I am slightly uneasy because, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) pointed out, information could have been received from a whole variety of sources, and that is another factor. I know that the Prime Minister said that he had received the information from the commission, but we are on the verge of sensitive issues. Therefore, a degree of care is clearly necessary.
  Although I agree that there is a degree of confusion between the general and the Prime Minister, the best way of resolving that is to deal with the much more important issue of transparency. If full details of what had been decommissioned had been coming into the public domain now and if an inventory had indicated what had been decommissioned, I do not think that anyone would have been scratching their head and wondering what the general or the Prime Minister actually meant. That is not an insignificant matter in itself, but the best way to resolve it is by going the whole hog and getting proper transparency on decommissioning. People would then be able to see whether it was significant.
  The Minister said that the Government believe in the greatest possible transparency, and I hope that they will be making that point to the IICD and pointing out the need for it. The IICD is the creature of the Government; it reports to them and it is there to see that Government policy, as it were, is carried through successfully. I am therefore quite sure that the IICD would pay close attention to the advice that it receives from the Government and I hope that they will advise it along the lines that I have indicated.
  I shall illustrate why I think we need greater information. I have mentioned public confidence and it is quite clear that there will not be public confidence until there is precise information. That is not just a matter of the public being ignorant or adopting an unreasonable attitude. Andy Sens said that the material decommissioned could have caused death and destruction on a huge scale had it been used. I do not demur from that. I am sure that he would not say that if he were not quite satisfied that it was true. However, let us suppose, for example, that what had been decommissioned was a series of home-made IRA mortars that had been manufactured for the purpose of decommissioning. Yes, Mr. Sens's comment would be true, but we would take quite a different attitude to
  832
  whether the decommissioning was significant if what had been decommissioned had been manufactured in the weeks and months beforehand.
  If I applied my mind to it, I could perhaps find other reasons to explain why substantial decommissioning would not build confidence in a commitment to exclusively peaceful means. Because of the way in which things might be arranged, acts of decommissioning will not be significant in building public confidence until they are sufficiently transparent to enable the public to be confident that people have crossed the Rubicon and left behind violence and committed themselves in the future to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. This example shows just how important it is to have full information on these matters.
  I conclude with a comment, although hon. Members must not think that it is just an afterthought, because it is highly important. We also need to see decommissioning from loyalist paramilitary organisations. Although there was a small token act of decommissioning by the Loyalist Volunteer Force many years ago, the mainstream loyalist paramilitary organisations need to address the issue. They should not sit back and wait, because as and when people become aware of the extent to which republicans have decommissioned, the anomaly of loyalists' failure to act will become more glaring and the pressure on them to make progress wit consequently increase. There is not the same political pressure on those groups, but I hope that the community at large and the Government and their agencies area putting considerable pressure on them. I simply underline the need for such decommissioning to happen, too.
  2.30 pm
  Mr. Bill Tynan: I thought at the beginning of the debate that it was going to be bad-natured and bad-tempered, because of the comments emanating from a those on the official Opposition Front Bench. I am delighted that the debate has become realistic and that hon. Members have covered issues that need to be covered. During Question Time today, the Prime Minister told us what was happening in Iraq and paid tribute to a young soldier who lost his life. The soon-to-be former leader of the Conservative party joined in those commiserations with the soldier's family. The fact that we are not talking about Northern Ireland and the peace process but navel gazing to find out what divides us, rather than unites us, epitomises our debates on Northern Ireland.
  It is interesting that there are three Scots in the Chamber. That is because we have an affinity with Northern Ireland, we recognise the problems that it has faced over many years and we have been party to finding a solution over those years. However, it is not so long since there was loss of life in Northern Ireland. Before I became a Member, I used to watch television with horror as it showed the bombings and murders that took place, and I wondered why we could not reach a consensus on Northern Ireland. The debate has shown us that the peace process has moved forward a long way. It has not moved forward enough to solve the problems, but there has been a real leap forward. I should have thought that it would be better today for us to discuss how to take the process further.

  833
  It is a daunting task to follow the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). He made arguments for taking the peace process forward and told us what was necessary to achieve that. Transparency on decommissioning in Northern Ireland is absolutely essential and we will have to face that fact if we are to have lasting peace there. I hope that we can unite to concentrate our minds on that, so that all parties in the House can move forward in that direction.
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said that he supported bipartisanship. I accept that. He said that responsible support for policies on Northern Ireland was important, and I accept that completely. However, he then spoke about deception and cover-ups. He gave an example o f a doctor who had not examined a patient but said that he had, and compared that to the Prime Minister's actions. That is the wrong way to conduct a debate on Northern Ireland at this time.
  The Prime Minister has made his position clear. Opposition Members say that they do not trust the Prime Minister but that they trust de Chastelain. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann spoke about how it is possible for the English language to be used so that information may be conveyed and understandings may be drawn from that, and we can all recognise that.
  Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the problem goes wider than Northern Ireland? The debate is especially significant because if the Prime Minister cannot clear up this piece of evidence, that has an effect on other questions such as those about Iraq. The answers that we hear today will have a bearing on such questions because we will find out the Prime Minister's modus operandi. The questions need to be cleared up because otherwise knock-on suspicions about other aspects of the Government's work will be created.
  Mr. Tynan: If something is to be cleared up, some confusion must exist. I do not think that there is confusion. The Prime Minister has made a statement and I do not think that there is any argument about what he said or about General de Chastelain's comments that he gave full information at his press conference. If one starts with a premise that confusion exists, it must be resolved, but if there is no confusion, there is no need to resolve it.
  Mr. Carmichael: May I remind the Eon. Gentleman of the words of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)? He said that there clearly was confusion on the streets of Northern Ireland. We cannot blame people in such circumstances, and the Prime Minister could easily clear up that confusion.
  Mr. Tynan: I interpreted the comments made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann about confusion as meaning that we did not have transparency in the decommissioning process and that people were not aware of what had been decommissioned. I thought that he meant that given those circumstances, it was important for the people of Northern Ireland to know
  834
  exactly the position to which the IRA had moved on the decommissioning process. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) has obviously decided to have his own conversation on the other side of the Chamber. That is my interpretation, and I am not asking for clarification of it from the right hon. Member for Upper Bann.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I have not been able to stay in the Chamber throughout the debate, owing to other business connected with the House. I understand that one of the difficulties surfaced yesterday in the court in Londonderry. The original interlocutor with General de Chastelain, Martin McGuinness, refused to answer certain questions because of an IRA honour code. Is it possible that the arrangements made by Martin McGuinness are casting a long shadow over the overall process, meaning that there is no transparency? There can be no transparency until folk go for the truth rather than the IRA honour code.
  Mr. Tynan: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands why I shall leave that question hanging in the air. I do not want to intrude on what has been said by Martin McGuinness or any other Northern Ireland politician who is not in the Chamber.
  Points have been made about the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. I am a member of the Committee, although I was not in Belfast over the past two days because I had business in the House. It is unfortunate that this debate is being held on a day during which the Committee is sitting. It is also regrettable that the debate is being held during the run-up to the elections in Northern Ireland on 26 November. Northern Ireland Members could have used their time better in campaigning for their points of view, so that they could retain seats in Northern Ireland.
  Neither the motion nor the amendment says, at any point, that we welcome decommissioning and the fact that the Assembly will be restored after 26 November. We need constructive cross-party support for a continuing peace process. It is vital that we join together. Once the debate is over, I hope that we can put it behind us and find solutions in Northern Ireland based on the transparency that is required to give people confidence in the process. We must remember that the people of Northern Ireland are the important consideration, not the political parties that make capital out of the misery in Northern Ireland. It is important that we move forward with a consensus. I hope that we all learn lessons from the debate.
  2.40 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: A former Member of the House, long since retired and departed, was charged with a public disorder offence when a student at Oxford and appeared in front of the magistrates. When the magistrate leant over and said "How do you plead?", he said "Not guilty." The magistrate said "So you're saying the police are lying?", to which, with the full confidence that we can marshal only when we are university students, the student addressed the magistrate and said, "Certainly not. You should well know there are five possibilities: I am lying; the policeman is lying; I am genuinely mistaken; the

  835
  policeman is genuinely mistaken; or, finally, that the two accounts, though seemingly contradictory, can be reconciled." The magistrate was wise in those matters. He said, "Guilty. Ten shillings."
  On the information in front of us, I disagree with the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan). There is a great difficulty in reconciling the two accounts. That has been the substance of the Opposition's charge on a matter that is of clear importance to Northern Ireland, but is also of great importance to the integrity of our proceedings. That is my first concern. Everything that now happens is questioned. There has to be authority in statements that are given on the Floor of the House of Commons. It would have been simple for the Prime Minister to put beyond doubt the actual situation. The ominous silence on that gives rise to grave suspicions. I do not wish to be derogatory about the Minister who is given the task of responding to the debate, but if she can address none of the central issues raised by every hon. Member who has spoken from the Opposition Benches, it will only act to underline the wider process in respect of the authority of what the Government say. This is an important debate for Northern Ireland, the House and, therefore, the people whom we represent.
  A while ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) took a courageous decision—I say that easily because I joined him in his decision—to vote against the then Government's conclusions on the Scott inquiry. Central to that were accounts of conduct to the House. In fact, Sir Richard Scott commented that Ministers had failed in their constitutional duty. He relied on the rules and guidance to Ministers that they should be frank, open and truthful to the House. We voted in support of that proposition. In a sense, that is the source of opposition and what we expect.
  A great journalist, Richard Norton Taylor, wrote perhaps the most distinguished book on the subject, called "Truth is a Difficult Concept". When the judge asked the civil servant who had been the Ministry of Defence's spokesman during the Falklands war for his evidence, the civil servant said, "Ah. Truth is a very difficult concept." That is what the public now think. That is what I think. The Government's attachment to truth is now so questioned that we cannot have confidence, not just in Northern Ireland matters, but in a much wider sphere. This country was committed to war, no less. That had to be on the basis of the attestation of the only man who could know about the dangers facing us. If that is questioned, as it is now, we are in deep trouble. As it stands, I do not think that there is a person in my constituency who can reconcile the Prime Minister's statements.
  2.46 pm
  Mr. Alistair Carmichael: It was not my intention to contribute, but I feel compelled to do so. It pains me to say that some of the opening speeches did not show the House at its best. We are, perhaps, ill-served by the terms of the Conservative motion, although that is not necessarily a criticism of the Conservative Front-Bench team. Mr. Speaker told the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) that his speech would have been more appropriate under the terms of a confidence motion. In that, as in all things,
  836
  Mr. Speaker was correct. However, such a motion is the nuclear option and I understand why the Conservative party chose not to pursue that route. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that the Prime Minister has ensured that the nuclear option is the only one left to the official Opposition and others who oppose the Government.
  I can improve little on the speech of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), whom I have the pleasure to follow. He was clear and succinct. The point is simple: the words that were used by the Prime Minister have created confusion. That confusion is damaging and needs to be cleared up. I heard what the Minister said today and have read what she said in the House before. It pains me as an admirer of the right hon. Lady that she did not acquit herself, or serve the House, well.
  Only the Prime Minister can clear up the confusion. He said previously in the House that he had information. The Minister said that he had a sense of the situation. With all due respect, those are different things. This is not semantics. Our ancestors had a sense that the world was flat. We now have information to prove that it is not. We have danced around the "L" word, as I shall call it in the interests of parliamentary language. I do not believe that the Prime Minister lied. He may have been a victim of some confusion in his mind in a way that he has been when asked about his favourite food or football team, but those are different and less serious matters. He may have used language that he should not have used. That has clearly led to confusion. I say in passing, I only have a sense that that is the case; I have no information to suggest that it is.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about the difference between the force of the words "sense" and "information". Does he agree, however, that it is a matter not only of different words and the different meanings they convey, but of the assurance that was based on them? An assurance based on a sense of something carries a different force from an assurance based on information about something. It was the latter assurance that the Prime Minister gave the House and the British public.
  Mr. Carmichael: Yes, I broadly agree with the hon. Gentleman's point which is the same as I explored in my intervention on the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). He made the important point, of which we in this House must not lose sight, that there is confusion among the general public, on the streets of Northern Ireland. Confusion within the House is no great novelty and is of no massive import; the place where the integrity of the peace process is at its most important is on the streets of Northern Ireland, which is why the confusion must be cleared up.
  Mr. Luke: The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was making the point that confusion and uncertainty arise less around the process itself, which people accept is under way and there has been significant decommissioning, than around the issue of completion. How do we know that all the weapons have been handed over and thrown away if we do not have at the end of the process completion that is transparent and clear? That is: he question we are all asking.
  Mr. Carmichael: I commend the hon. Gentleman on a brave attempt, but it is the same once as his hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) made. When the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) reads the Official Report tomorrow, he will realise that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann made his comments in the context of a discussion of the Prime Minister's words—in fact he stated clearly that the issue that he was debating during that passage of his speech was the confusion in the Prime Minister's terminology. The right hon. Gentleman rightly devoted a greater part of his speech to the broad issue of transparency, but the Hansard report will show that that was the case.
  The Minister of State, making the Government's case, said that the debate about terminology was an irrelevance. I do not think that that is true—confusion in the mind of the public can never be an irrelevance—but even if it is, it is an irrelevance that is having an effect and will not go away, an irrelevance that has given rise to doubt, which will snowball into disbelief if left unresolved. It is not often said that the House is a forgiving place, but I believe that if the Prime Minister came to the House and gave an explanation, in view of the prize to be won—the peace process in Northern Ireland—the House would be forgiving toward the Prime Minister. In the absence of that, the streets of Northern Ireland will be much less forgiving.
  We are dealing with a symptom of a far more profound malaise: the difficulties attached to the massive investment of political capital in the concept of decommissioning. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann spoke of the scepticism among the people, saying that people do not necessarily believe what they hear, but they do believe what they see. As long as they hear about decommissioning but continue to see acts of paramilitary beatings on their streets, the scepticism of the people of Northern Ireland will be entirely understandable and justifiable.
  Others have spoken of the need for transparency. I agree with them up to a point. It is desirable—indeed, essential—to maximise the transparency of the decommissioning process; however, we cannot hide from the fact that the very nature of the act of decommissioning means that it will always be opaque to a degree, or that to seek total transparency in decommissioning is to set ourselves up for failure. I say that as one who has always taken the view that decommissioning is something of a red herring in the overall process, and that what was always necessary is the sort of statement that we have ad in recent days from the IRA.
  Much has been said about bipartisanship—or, as we on the Liberal Democrat Benches see it, multilateral support for the peace process. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), let me make it clear that we shall continue to support the peace process. However, unless the confusion created by the Prime Minister is resolved, that process will remain damaged, and the damage will have been caused unnecessarily. That is to be deplored, and I believe passionately that it must be urgently remedied.
  2.56 pm
  Mr. Peter Robinson: I well understand why Government Members seek to dilute the importance of this debate, but this debate goes to the
  838
  heart of a crucial matter in British politics as a whole: the extent to which we are entitled to trust the Prime Minister.
  The central issue of the debate relates to decommissioning. Newspapers and others have made attempts to quantify what has to be decommissioned in Northern Ireland. I shall read out a list that was prepared by Jane's Intelligence Review, much of which was repeated in the Daily Mirror, The Guardian, The Irish Times, and Magill Magazine, which indicates the best estimate of what has to be decommissioned, about which the Prime Minister and General de Chastelain were speaking.
  It is believed that the Provisional IRA still holds 6,000 lb of Semtex explosive, 588 AKM assault rifles, 400 other assorted rifles, 10 general-purpose machine guns, 17 DShK heavy machine guns, three 0.50-calibre heavy machine guns, nine SAM-7 missiles, 46 RPG-7 missiles, 11 RPG-7 launchers, seven flamethrowers, 115 hand grenades, 600 handguns, 40 machine guns, 31 shotguns and 1.5 million rounds of ammunition. That list does not start to take into account the IRA's capacity to manufacture its own explosives and ordnance. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) referred to home-made mortars, and we know of the IRA's use of fertiliser to make explosives. Therefore, when a right hon. or hon. Member says in the House that at least there seems to be no argument but that what was put beyond use—whatever that term means—was "substantial", little definition is provided by the word "substantial". As General de Chastelain said to me, "One man's substantial may well be another man's insignificant." In reality, without an inventory of what has been put beyond use and the way in which it has been put beyond use, the word "substantial" holds little meaning for any of us.
  Many speakers have expressed the wish for the process to have been more transparent, but it was this House that passed the legislation—this House that refused to make the process more transparent, even though my colleagues and I asked for it to be more transparent. Indeed, we were vilified for doing so. I remember the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, who is now a great fan of transparency, telling us in the past that we should trust General de Chastelain. The right hon. Gentleman asked, did we not believe that eminent general when he said that items had been decommissioned? Now, the right hon. Gentleman himself does not trust the general sufficiently to leave it to the general's word alone. He now requires a transparency that on earlier occasions we asked for, but he did not.
  Of course there should be transparency. I even argue with the term "decommissioning". To me, decommissioning is either a voluntary or a forced act of handing over weapons to be destroyed. The IRA is trading weapons for concessions, which is something very different from decommissioning.
  There was a carefully laid plan and there were several steps in the choreography. The first step was that early in the morning the Prime Minister would announce that there was to be an Assembly election. In response to that, Gerry Adams was to appear on our televisions to use some carefully crafted language to tell us that the war was over. We were then to have an IRA

  839
  endorsement of Adams's statement, followed by General de Chastelain's statement, which was to be followed by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann telling us that he would behave himself in future and would not bring down the institutions if the IRA happened to carry out some terrorist activity. All that was to be followed by a statement from the two Prime Ministers. They were to outline the price that had to be paid for the IRA's endorsement of the process. That price was to be the giving of a free ticket to on-the-run terrorists. It was to be paid by removal of security installations from the border and elsewhere in Northern Ireland. It was to be paid also in that in two years policing and justice powers would be devolved to Northern Ireland to allow people such as Gerry Kelly, a convicted Old Bailey bomber, to become the Minister with responsibility for policing and justice. No doubt he would be the IRA's choice for the post of our justice spokesman.
  The Prime Minister played his part and called the election. Mr. Adams appeared on our television screens and with contorted language made it clear that the process would be conditional on the Belfast agreement's being implemented in the way that the IRA wanted. He made it clear also that further implementation was required. That was endorsed, not surprisingly, by the IRA as it was conditional.
  It was then that the general took the stage. He was working within the remit given to him by the House, by the Government and by their partner, the Government in the Irish Republic. He was acting within the terms of the arrangement that he had with the organisation with which he was dealing. The result was that he did not give the detail that the public in Northern Ireland wanted. I suspect that if he had given the detail the public in Northern Ireland would not have been satisfied. The sense that I have, to use a word that has already been expressed in the Chamber, after having met the general is that only a small proportion of the weaponry has been destroyed.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I have been listening with care to the hon. Gentleman's argument. Is it not a question of trust also, and the IRA showed that it did not trust the Prime Minister, because it held the general incommunicado? As a result, the decommissioning did not take place on the Monday. Instead, it took place after a statement had been made by the Prime Minister on the Tuesday morning.
  Mr. Robinson: I touched on that matter with the general. I think that logistically he had to make himself available somewhere in the Republic of Ireland before the event occurred. I assume that he was held by agreement by the Provisional IRA. It shows the tawdry manner in which the entire process has been undertaken. A covert operation was taking place and the general was put in that position.
  As for the issue of substance, I outlined to the general during our meeting with him what amounted to 1 per cent. of the intelligence guesstimate of the IRA's stockpile of weapons. Actually it was slightly less than 1 per cent. of it. I asked him whether he considered that to be substantial, and of course he did. If the IRA still holds 99 per cent. or even a percentage less than that of the weaponry that it had, we can set against that the
  840
  remarks that have been made by Andrew Sens that the IRA had handed over weaponry that could have caused death and destruction on a huge scale. I asked whether what the IRA still retains could cause death and destruction on a huge scale, and of course the answer was yes. Let us riot get the idea that the IRA has suddenly handed over its weaponry and that it is just a matter of someone publishing the inventory so that we might know the truth.
  According to reports from those who were standing outside Cunningham house, the headquarters of the Ulster Unionist party, as the general was on his feet, they were beating the walls in anger that they were not getting the detail that they required. If the community in Northern Ireland is confused about anything, it is about how the leader of the UUP could have 15 meetings with the leadership of Sinn Fein-IRA. One of those meetings lasted for between 12 and 14 hours. Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness were not tied down to the detail of what General de Chastelain would be allowed to say. That is bewildering. It is the most unbelievable folly that star negotiators in the UUP could sit for hour after hour working out all the choreography in the greatest detail, handing over statements one to the other, and not bother to ask what the general would be allowed to say.
  The requirements for greater visibility and how the IRA is saying one thing and doing another have little meaning in the community in Northern Ireland. That community just gasped in amazement at the breathtaking incompetence of the leader of the UUP and his fellow negotiators.
  For my part, I viewed the Hillsborough press conference and the exchanges that followed it as being of no advantage. I have a transcript of what the Prime Minister said at the press conference. He said:
  "It is deeply frustrating for this reason that obviously we are both privy as the two Governments to what the details"—
  not just information, and not the sense of it—
  "of the decommissioning were and I think it is, well it is more than a little frustrating frankly they are not able to be put out into the public domain where people can see them and where opinion and particularly unionist opinion here can make an assessment."
  Nick Robinson of ITN—no relation—intervened. He asked:
  "Are you saying that if people knew what you know about what the IRA have done in terms of decommissioning, they would have the confidence, and why can't we know what you know, is it because the IRA won't let us know, they won't give permission or is it because the general won't say?"
  The Prime Minister responded:
  "Well that is a very good point and let me explain it. Yes I believe if people knew the information that we have been told then yes they would have been satisfied."
  He went on to say:
  "It would be more than faintly ludicrous if we were in a situation where a substantial act of decommissioning had taken place, where the details"—
  again, "the details"—
  "are known by the two Governments and by the body in charge of the decommissioning but the public don't know."
  That is not a sense of it, not an informed guess and not a vision that he had somewhere on the road to wherever,

  841
  but the details given to him by the general. The Prime Minister added:
  "We do know a certain amount of the particulars, yes and those are important."
  When we heard those words I knew immediately that the Prime Minister was bluffing. I knew that because on several previous occasions when I met General de Chastelain he made it abundantly clear that the rules under which he was operating were that he would give only the written reports to the Governments and such general descriptive terms as he would give us, but would not give them the detail—the inventory—until the process of decommissioning had been completed. He had made that clear on the two previous occasions when we met him, and on the occasion to which I am referring he made it clear once again. The Prime Minister was attempting to convey the impression to the people of Northern Ireland, and particularly the Unionist community, that he had the detail of what had been decommissioned, and that if only they knew what he knew they would be satisfied that a major and substantial act had taken place.
  Mr. Cash: Is the hon. Gentleman certain that, despite the wording in the enactments on arms and explosives, the matters in question could in fact extend to other materiel that could be of great danger to the public?
  Mr. Robinson: The general, in his press conference, gave certain headings for categorising the various items that had been put beyond use. There is extensive weaponry in each of those categories which, as the commissioner Andrew Sens said, could lead to massive destruction and death in Northern Ireland. We are dealing with weapons that have killed thousands and maimed tens of thousands of people in Northern Ireland. This is not a semantic exercise. We are not just dealing with the niceties of the English language—we are dealing with weapons of death that have caused death and destruction in Northern Ireland. This is a serious matter, and if the Opposition had not tabled their motion, they would have been derelict in their duty to the community in the United Kingdom as a whole.
  In a meeting with General de Chastelain, the leader of my party, my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), other colleagues and I spoke with him for more than an hour and 10 minutes—longer, incidentally, than the time that the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach and the general spent together. The Prime Minister therefore had no time advantage to extract information. The extract from our meeting on our website at www.dup.org.uk gives a contemporaneous note of the issues that were raised, and shows that we dealt rapidly with all the necessary points and, I suspect, in much more detail than the Prime Minister did in the time at his disposal.
  When we made our contemporaneous note available, the Prime Minister's spokesman released a statement. Asked for a reaction on the Democratic Unionist party's assertion that General de Chastelain h ad told it that the British and Irish Governments did not have any information about the act of decommissioning further to that which was already in the public domain, the Prime Minister's official spokesman, according to a
  842
  report, pointed out that the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach had spoken to General de Chastelain for well over an hour—less than the time that we spent with the general. According to the report, the spokesman said:
  "The details of the discussions, as you would expect, were confidential. That said, the Prime Minister had told journalists…that although he might not know all the details about the act of decommissioning, he still had a better idea about it than the public."
  One can immediately see that, from the starting point of knowing all the details—and "if only the public knew what the Prime Minister knew"—the backtracking is beginning. Now the Prime Minister does not know all the details, but knows sufficient to have a better idea than the public. The weasel words from Downing street continued, but did not stop the public in Northern Ireland questioning the issue and did not stop the press probing it. When pressed overnight, Downing street was forced to make a further statement. A report said:
  "Government officials said that Mr Blair had been offering an `educated guess' and that confidentiality had not been breached."
  If the Prime Minister had said, "If you knew what my educated guess was, you would be satisfied," that statement might be believable. However, that was not what he said. Pointing to the detail available to him, he said: "If you knew what I knew, then you would be satisfied". We were told more about the educated guess by the Downing street spokesperson, who, according to a report, said that
  "it was possible to imagine a conversation in which the kind of thing which Commissioner Sens had been saying—about the damage potential of what was destroyed—would have allowed an `educated guess' or an 'informed judgment' which amounted to knowledge."
  That represents further backtracking on the Prime Minister's initial statement.
  Were the public misled? I suspect that some people over here may have been, but I do not believe that the public in Northern Ireland were misled by the Prime Minister, not because he did not attempt to mislead them, but because they have been caught by him before. He came to Northern Ireland at the time of the referendum. There was a 20 ft by 10 ft hoarding carrying five pledges to the people of Northern Ireland, and he got out his marker to sign it personally in the presence of the press and the television cameras. There were promises that there would never be anybody from Sinn Fein-IRA in government until violence was given up for good. Since then, we have had Colombia and Florida, as well as murders, shootings and beatings. One of the other pledges was that the prisoners would not get out until decommissioning began and violence was given up for good—that was another broken pledge. I do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland were going to be succoured by what the Prime Minister said, but there can be no doubt that he attempted to embellish the facts so that he could substitute them for information that was not available to him or the general public.
  The best that can be said for the Prime Minister in the circumstances is that the events were so choreographed that they resembled a west end stage production. He lost his grip on reality and allowed his stage character to replace facts with lines that better fitted the intended plot but departed dramatically from reality and left the truth lingering far behind. It was a deliberate attempt by the Prime Minister to bluff the public and convey the

  843
  impression that he had information which, if it was in the public domain, would have an altogether different bearing on people's understanding of what had just taken place.
  Our debate has given the Government the opportunity to do one of two things—either to make the Prime Minister's boasts stand up and show that he had the details, so the issue could be passed on to the general, or to retract them. When the Minister opened the debate, she did neither, and the public will reach their own conclusions.
  3.17 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackay: May I gently make an important parliamentary point to the Minister of State, the right hon Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) and the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), and urge them to take it on board? The Opposition strongly support the Belfast agreement, and have done so from day one, but we must always reserve the right, as I did when I was shadow Secretary of State, to speak out when we think that something is wrong, as that is essential to our parliamentary democracy.
  I have been distressed because at times the Government give the impression that if my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) and other Front-Bench spokesmen disagree with Government policy or suggest that something is wrong, they are behaving incorrectly. The correct way for an Opposition to behave is to point out when something has gone wrong. We try very hard indeed to ensure that there is a bipartisan policy, but that does not override the Opposition's legitimate duties, and I hope that the Government accept that. It is a bit strange to talk to the noisier Government Members about a bipartisan policy when Members such as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who were in Parliament in the 1980s and the mid 1990s, will remember Labour Members voting against the renewal of the prevention of terrorism orders year after year. When the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) took over as Leader of the Opposition and sacked his hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) as shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Labour moved to a position of abstention. That was a step in the right direction, but it was hardly bipartisan.
  I make no criticism of the Labour Opposition of those days for reaching a judgment, which I certainly did not share, that the prevention of terrorism orders should not be renewed and, later, for being doubtful about them and abstaining from voting. They should treat us in an equally adult way, but that that has not happened, especially in today's debate. It certainly did not happen when my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford asked an urgent question last week, which is a great pity.
  I should like briefly to speak to the motion, which I strongly support. I put it to the Minister that trust is essential in taking the process forward. Without trust, no progress will be made. We all know that trust is a precious commodity that is easily lost and hard to regain. After the Belfast agreement, I campaigned for a yes vote in the referendum in the Province with my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr.
  844
  Hague),who was then Leader of the Opposition, on the very day when the Prime Minister gave his handwritten pledges at the Balmoral show ground. Those pledges were impressive at the time, as they answered virtually every legitimate concern of the Unionist community. They allowed us as an Opposition to support the agreement fully and urge people to vote yes. As the hon. Member for Belfast. East (Mr. Robinson) said—I shall not repeat his comments, which were accurate—all too many of those hand written pledges have since fallen by the wayside. That hardly helps trust and confidence in the Province and it has led to many of the problems that we have subsequently faced.
  That makes it all the worse that, after the latest talks collapsed because of the lack of transparency in decommissioning, the Prime Minister should say at the Dispatch Box in Question Time, "If you knew what I've been told privately, you would be very happy that there had been ample decommissioning." It has been confirmed that that is not true. It gives me no comfort to be standing here telling the House that the Prime Minister said something that has turned out not to be true, but I have to say it, because General de Chastelain has confirmed it in conversations with a number of people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford and Mr. Robert McCartney, and in open talks with the Democratic Unionist party. Again, the trust of the British people and, much more importantly and specifically, people living in the Province, has been shattered.
  The process will not now move forward until after the Assembly elections later this month, but there will be no progress whatever if there is no trust in what the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and other Ministers are saying. Equally, Unionist politicians and their supporters in the Province will not be prepared to enter a power-sharing coalition and Executive after the Assembly elections unless there is very substantial decommissioning. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that decommissioning must be substantial among not only republican paramilitaries, but so-called loyalist paramilitaries. The Opposition have always stressed that those two things run in parallel. We will know that decommissioning is happening only if we can see it happening.
  There might have been a case for transparency in the early days; indeed, there probably was one, and we supported the regulations that ensured initial transparency. However, I would have thought that it was plain to everybody, including General de Chastelain and, more importantly, elected Ministers responsible for Northern Ireland, that power sharing could resume only if the new act of decommissioning was absolutely transparent and everybody could see what had been decommissioned. If there had been a substantial act of decommissioning, as I hope and as the Prime Minister led me to believe at the Dispatch Box, I would have urged all Unionist Members and all political parties in the Province to join a power-sharing Executive after the Assembly elections, but I cannot do so at the moment, because I have no more idea than you do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of just how extensive that decommissioning was.
  There is one aspect that I fail to understand, and Ministers have not given me an answer about it. Everything has been very carefully choreographed, and

  845
  funnily enough, I do not object to that as much as the hon. Member for Belfast, East did in an amusing section of his speech. I do not mind things being choreographed if they have been properly thought through and will lead to a logical conclusion. Everything was very carefully set up. There are two Ministers on the Front Bench, including the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree, who is particularly experienced and has dealt with Northern Ireland matters with distinction for several years now, and we also have a most experienced Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and a Prime Minister and advisers who have been taking a keen interest in Northern Ireland. With the help and encouragement of the Opposition arid all good men and women on both sides of the water, they have been trying to get a lasting settlement in Northern Ireland.
  I cannot understand, however, why nobody stopped and thought about whether decommissioning would be transparent. If anybody had asked that question, there is no doubt that Ministers would have answered as I would have done and said that, if the act of decommissioning is substantial—the key in deciding whether power sharing takes place—it must be transparent, as it will not be believed otherwise. How have we got into a position in which hopes were raised? Like many other hon. Members, when I watched events unfold on television in my office upstairs, I was excited and thought that Gerry Adams went a lot further in his speech than I had seen him go before. He appeared to come much nearer to saying that the war was over and that only peaceful means would be used in moving forward. I was excited and hopeful, and I expected decommissioning to match. The fact that it was not transparent ruined everything that had been so carefully set up. I am sure that Ministers had done hours of work, along with the Prime Minister, advisers and democratically elected politicians in the Province, but it all suddenly came to nothing.
  When the Minister sums up this useful debate, we have a right to an explanation of why nobody noticed the lack of transparency in what appeared to be a hopeful move forward towards a lasting peace and a long-term devolved Administration that would share power after elections. If we do not get an answer to that question, there will be all sorts of rumours and doubts in the Province and elsewhere, and when the elections are over and we are all trying to move forward to a power-sharing Executive and complete decommissioning, there will be no faith and confidence. That is essential today, so let us hope that we get a proper answer from the Minister.
  3.28 pm
  Mr. William Cash: The debate has been immensely important because it deals not only with the motion on the Order Paper, but the whole question of the degree of trust that we can have in the peace process and the prospects for a stable and secure Northern Ireland as it moves towards elections. As many hon. Members said, the context in which the debate takes place is in some ways even more important than the precision of the wording—which is not to say that that is not of vital importance.
  846
  There are a vast number of unanswered questions, and it would be a massive misconception to think that the debate will somehow resolve them. Some of the issues at the heart of these discussions correspond in a rather alarming fashion with those that we faced in relation to the tragic death of Dr. Kelly and the evidence that was given before the Hutton inquiry. As I explained in the debate last week, those unresolved questions affect our ability to get to the bottom of what has really been going on.
  It would be a vast mistake to underestimate the fact that words matter. In "Through the Looking Glass", Humpty Dumpty says to Alice: "Words mean what you choose them to mean. The question is who is to be master, that is all." The Minister tried to finesse the word "information" by introducing the idea of the sense in which it is used. When one reflects, however, on the distinction between the reality of such words and the confusion and uncertainty that they can generate in relation to Northern Ireland, it puts one in mind of the history of the Irish question and the frequency with which the misuse of words has led to difficulties that could otherwise have been avoided. I say that because for more than 150 years my own family have been directly involved in the Irish question as Members of Parliament. I recall the difficulties that arose over Parnell and the great historic events that have taken place. Much good progress has been made. That is why I pay tribute to Members who recognise that although we have to address this question as a matter of accuracy, so much is at stake that we do not want anything to disturb it.
  I do not need to go through wording that has already been exhaustively discussed, but the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) asked several questions that must be answered. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) raised issues about precision that require examination, especially his references to scheme 1, scheme 2, paragraph 25 and paragraph 5. Although those are technical points, they lie at the heart of the matter.
  A balance has to be struck between confidentiality, specific transparencies and the broader transparency of whether the Prime Minister, in making such statements not only outside but inside the House, finds that his words can be reconciled, not only with his own statements but with those of General de Chastelain. It is also a question of whether we will be able to restore respect for politicians. In the context of Northern Ireland, that has never been more needed than in the past 30 or 40 years.
  So what is to be done? Clearly, there is a contradiction—some may call it confusion—that cannot be left to rest. The reality is that there are options open to us. I have heard some hon. Members say that the Prime Minister should come here and make his own statement. I personally think that that is the most appropriate way of dealing with the situation. An alternative, which I mentioned in an intervention on the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke), is that the Prime Minister could appear before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and explain the circumstances under cross-examination. Another option is that he could go to the Security and Intelligence Committee. I went through the Intelligence

  847
  Services Act 1994 this morning: it applies to Northern Ireland. There are procedures in place. There are options, and ways of dealing with this issue.
  At the heart of the matter is a sense of the correctness of the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who set out the case in terms that occasionally caused a little disturbance. Sometimes, however, disturbance is necessary in order to get to the truth. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) caught the essence of the parliamentary nature of trust in the House and outside. In the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford, there are questions of integrity and truthfulness that have to be examined in this broad context. I had to ask in our debate last week on the question of a judicial inquiry: who is speaking the truth? Two members of the war Cabinet—I do not need to go any further down that route. The reality is that this is becoming a pattern of behaviour, and it is a matter of grave concern that we clarify matters and get these things straight.
  Lembit Öpik: Have we not established, unless the Minister says something different in her summary, that we all accept that General de Chastelain was telling the truth when he said that he had not provided any extra information? If that is the case, does that not beg a conclusion?
  Mr. Cash: The logic of the hon. Gentleman's speech and of what he has just said—I pay tribute to both—sums up the position, as did the exceptionally good speech of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). That question has to be answered. In fact, not a single person on the Labour Benches has attempted to rebut the substance of any of the points that we have made. They just want to move on; there is no reverse gear. That is the problem. But we cannot stay stuck in a situation in which there are matters of enormous importance not only to the House but to the whole process of obtaining peace and security in Northern Ireland, and then, in the fog of confusion that will arise, have to deal with the election. Imagine what would happen during the election if these issues were turned into soundbites, and we then found that there was no answer, no bottom line, and no ability to determine the truth when the electorate go to vote.
  I have in my hand the ministerial code, which is described as
  "A code of conduct and guidance on procedures for ministers."
  In the foreword, the Prime Minister says:
  "In issuing this Code, I should like to reaffirm my strong personal commitment to the bond of trust between the British people and their Government. We are all here to serve and we must all serve honestly and in the interests of those who gave us our positions of trust…I believe we should be absolutely clear about how Ministers should account, and be held to account, by Parliament and the public."
  Where is the Prime Minister today? He is not here to answer these questions. If he has a proper and sensible answer—[Interruption.] The fact is that the Prime Minister could clear this up, one way or another. Let us be in no doubt about that. [Interruption.] I hear from the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary that the Prime Minister has cleared it up. Is there anybody in the
  848
  House who believes that? Does any member of the public believe it? The Government Whip nods, so I know it cannot be true.
  That same code of conduct states that
  "it is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister".
  I look for an answer. I believe there is an answer. But Prime Ministers remain Prime Ministers only for as long as they keep the trust of the people, and therefore on this particular occasion it is a disgrace that the Prime Minister is not in the House to answer our questions.
  3.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Angela Smith): I apologise for not being present throughout the debate. I shall write to Members whose speeches I missed. I was at an event for the Tim Parry/Jonathan Ball trust; I am sure Members understand how important that was. I also apologise for the fact that I may not have time to respond to all the Members to whom would like to respond, although I shall do my best.
  At the outset of the debate, we doubted the wisdom of holding it at this time. Nevertheless, I am happy to acknowledge that we have heard thoughtful and interesting contributions. I believe that there is a great wish in all parts of the House—or almost all—for the decommissioning process to succeed fully, given that it is a key element of the completion of the transition of Northern Ireland politics to an exclusively peaceful and democratic basis.
  We have done the groundwork for that final transition. The progress made in meetings between the parties and with the Governments that preceded 21 October was extremely significant. As has been acknowledged, on that day we did not see the full sequence of events that would have made the extent of the advance clear, and opened the way to resumed devolved government after the election. We should all recognise, however, that the Sinn Fein leader's speech and the IRA's statement, accompanied by the act of decommissioning itself, constitute a clear indication that we are moving forward. We shall need to build on this after the election. But this is the kind of process that requires us to speak and act with judgment and restraint. Some Members recognise that: others, unfortunately, do not.
  In the future decommissioning process, we shall depend heavily on the Independent International Commissioning on Decommissioning. As my right hon. Friend the Minister stressed, we all owe a deep debt of gratitude to General de Chastelain, his colleague Mr. Andrew Sens and, indeed, his former colleagues Ambassador Johnston and Brigadier Nieminen. Their diligence and integrity have been manifest, and are a great asset for the future in Northern Ireland.
  Some Members have focused on the wider picture. Others—perhaps predictably, but regrettably—have insisted on continuing to play games with words in an

  849
  attempt to milk for some supposed political advantage the tireless efforts of the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach, General de Chastelain, Mr. Sens and the party leaders in Northern Ireland. We have seen a depressing performance from some quarters, and it was no less depressing for being thoroughly inept. It is not likely to persuade any impartial observer that there is any point of substance in the allegations that have been made.
  I consider this the low point of Opposition tactics in Northern Ireland in the present Parliament so far, and I hope it will turn out to have been the low point of the entire Parliament. I hope that the Conservative party will realise how few favours it is doing itself. [Interruption.] Conservative Members would do well to listen occasionally, rather than rattling and prattling on. What upsets my colleagues and me most is the danger posed and the damage caused to the peace process, and to the public interest of Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) should learn from your earlier rulings on his comments, Mr. Speaker.
  The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) referred to issues of inclusiveness. Devolved government was suspended last year because of a lack of confidence between two of the parties. The restoration of confidence between those parties is a key element in moving forward. The Government have facilitated that process. There have been a large number of meetings, which, despite Opposition Members' comments, have been extremely productive. However, we would not have made great advances in recent times without the support of all the pro-agreement parties. We should all pay tribute to all those parties, because their efforts have brought the process to this stage. For example, I highlight the commitment of the Social Democratic and Labour party to the policing process. Without its work, we would not be where we are now.
  Issues of transparency were raised by the right hon. Members for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), who was late to the debate, although I recognise his commitment to, and work in, Northern Ireland in the past. The statements by the leader of Sinn Fein and by the IRA were major steps forward and confirmed the commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means.
  The act of decommissioning overseen by the IICD was very welcome but, unfortunately, as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann stressed, it did not achieve the necessary degree of public confidence. The point was made forcefully that, a significant act of decommissioning having been undertaken, such confidence has not been achieved because of the lack of transparency. He said that he did not agree with the confidentiality. I understand his reservations but it has to be said that, without that confidentiality in the past, it would not have been possible to make the progress that has been made to date and that he and every other hon. Member welcomes.
  I do not think that it would be relevant now to go into the detail of the two schemes. Suffice it to say that we would want greater transparency. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, the greatest possible transparency is preferable.
  850
  The amount of detail that the commission discloses depends on its view of what is necessary in the circumstances to fulfil its duty. That is a judgment for the commission, and it is a difficult judgment for it to make. We must put our trust—even the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford has to do so—in General de Chastelain.
  A number of points and semantics were made by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). The Prime Minister and the Taoiseach were able to gain from their discussions with General de Chastelain a greater sense of the scale and nature of the decommissioning event than members of the public, who had to rely on the statement and the press conference. I fail to see why Opposition Members do not accept that and do not want to move forward from there.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) argued against confidentiality. He argued against much more as well, but it is election time—
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
  The House having divided: Ayes 186, Noes 332.

  Division No. 350]

  [3:47 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Cash, William

  Allan, Richard

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Amess, David

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Chope, Christopher

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clappison, James

  Baldry, Tony

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Barker, Gregory

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Collins, Tim

  Barrett, John

  Conway, Derek

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cotter, Brian

  Bercow, John

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Curry, rh David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Brady, Graham

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Brazier, Julian

  Doughty, Sue

  Breed, Colin

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Burns, Simon

  Evans, Nigel

  Burstow, Paul

  Fabricant, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Fallon, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Flight, Howard

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Flook, Adrian

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Forth, rh Eric

  Cameron, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  851

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Garnier, Edward

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gidley, Sandra

  Page, Richard

  Goodman, Paul

  Paice, James

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Paterson, Owen

  Grayling, Chris

  Pickles, Eric

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Greenway, John

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Randall, John

  Gummer, rh John

  Redwood, rh John

  Hague, rh William

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Hammond, Philip

  Rendel, David

  Hancock, Mike

  Robathan, Andrew

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Harvey, Nick

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Heald, Oliver

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Heath, David

  Ruffley, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hendry, Charles

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hermon, Lady

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Selous, Andrew

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Holmes, Paul

  Shepherd, Richard

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Howard, rh Michael

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

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Jack, rh Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Spring, Richard

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Keetch, Paul

  Steen, Anthony

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Streeter, Gary

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Stunell, Andrew

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Syms, Robert

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lamb, Norman

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Thurso, John

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Lidington, David

  Trimble, rh David

  Loughton, Tim

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Maclean, rh David

  Waterson, Nigel

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Whittingdale, John

  Maples, John

  Wiggin, Bill

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Willetts, David

  Willis, Phil

  Maude, rh Francis

  Wilshire, David

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Moore, Michael

  Young, rh Sir George

  Moss, Malcolm

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Angela Watkinson and

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Mr. Mark Field

  NOES

  Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Ainger, Nick

  Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Allen, Graham

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Austin, John

  852

  Bailey, Adrian

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Baird, Vera

  Dawson, Hilton

  Banks, Tony

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Barnes, Harry

  Denham, rh John

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Battle, John

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Beard, Nigel

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Bell, Stuart

  Doran, Frank

  Bennett, Andrew

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Berry, Roger

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Best, Harold

  Edwards, Huw

  Betts, Clive

  Efford, Clive

  Blackman, Liz

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Etherington, Bill

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Farrelly, Paul

  Borrow, David

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Fisher, Mark

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Brennan, Kevin

  Flint, Caroline

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Browne, Desmond

  Foulkes, rh George

  Bryant, Chris

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Burden, Richard

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burnham, Andy

  Gerrard, Neil

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Gilroy, Linda

  Cairns, David

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Grogan, John

  Casale, Roger

  Hain, rh Peter

  Caton, Martin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Challen, Colin

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hanson, David

  Chaytor, David

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Healey, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Heppell, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Cohen, Harry

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hinchliffe, David

  Colman, Tony

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cranston, Ross

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Crausby, David

  Hurst Alan (Braintree)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hutton, rh John

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Cummings, John

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  David, Wayne

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  853

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Merron, Gillian

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Michael, rh Alun

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Miliband, David

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Miller, Andrew

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Moffatt, Laura

  Kidney, David

  Mole, Chris

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Morgan, Julie

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Morley, Elliot

  Mountford, Kali

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Mudie, George

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Lepper, David

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Leslie, Christopher

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Organ, Diana

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Linton, Martin

  Owen, Albert

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Perham, Linda

  Love, Andrew

  Picking, Anne

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Plaskitt, James

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Pollard, Kerry

  McCabe, Stephen

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Pound, Stephen

  McDonnell, John

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  MacDougall, John

  Prosser, Gwyn

  McFall, John

  Purchase, Ken

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Purnell, James

  McIsaac, Shona

  Quin, rh Joyce

  McKechin, Ann

  Quinn, Lawrie

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Rammell, Bill

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  MacShane, Denis

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

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

  McWilliam, John

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Ruane, Chris

  Martlew, Eric

  Ruddock, Joan

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  854

  Salter, Martin

  Timms, Stephen

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Sawford, Phil

  Trickett, Jon

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Short, rh Clare

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Singh, Marsha

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ward, Claire

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Watts, David

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  White, Brian

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Soley, Clive

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Southworth Helen

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Squire, Rachel

  Wills, Michael

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Wilson, Brian

  Stevenson, George

  Winnick, David

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Woolas, Phil

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Worthington, Tony

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Straw, rh Jack

  Stringer, Graham

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Ms Bridget Prentice

  Question accordingly negatived.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes the importance of confidentiality to effective decommissioning of weapons in Northern Ireland; expresses its gratitude for the professionalism of General de Chastelain and the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning; welcomes the further positive developments in the peace process set out by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in his statement to the House on 22nd October, including the calling of elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly on 26th November; calls on all parties in the House to engage constructively in furthering the peace process in Northern Ireland; and looks forward to further progress after the elections towards the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland on a stable and inclusive basis.

Water Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 3)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading
That—

(1) Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Programme Order of 8th September 2003 relating to the Water Bill be omitted;

(2) proceedings on consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the following table, and each part of the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on the day on which those proceedings are commenced at the time specified in the second column;

TABLE

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

New Clauses and new Schedule relating to Part 1; amendments relating to Part 1.

5 hours before the moment of interruption.

New Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 2; amendments relatings to Clause 34, Schedule 1, Clause 35, schedule 2, Clause 36, Schedule 3, Clauses 37 to 56, Schedule 4.

4 hours before the moment of interruption.

New Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 3 (except new Clause and new Schedules relating to fluoridation), amendments relating to Clause 57, Clauses 59 to 85, Schedules 5 and 6, Clauses 86 to 98.

3 hours before the moment of interruption.

New Clauses and new Schedules relating to fluoridation; amendments relating to Clause 58; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules; amendments relating to Clauses 99 and 100, Schedules 7 to 9, Clauses 101 to 104.

1 hour before the moment of interruption.

(3) proceedings on Third Reading shall, so far as not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.—[Gillian Merron.]
4.4 pm
Mr. Bill Wiggin: It is a bad reflection on the House that we are even having this debate. We are all short of time—no one more so than the Minister, perhaps—and trying to cram as much as possible into our lives. But the use of guillotines to restrict debate is wrong and dumbs down the freedom of speech, passage of information and argument that we all value so highly—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Will hon. Members who are not staying for this debate please leave quickly and quietly? This debate deserves to be heard as much as any other.
Mr. Wiggin: All hon. Members make speeches, but if we try to go faster, we will reach the stage—I fear that we are there are already—where we are too busy to listen to other hon. Members' speeches. Perhaps this is a good moment to point that out, as one glance at the Chamber makes clear.
This programme motion is an affront. For that reason, if for no other, I shall urge the House to oppose it. However, we should oppose it for other reasons too.
856
It presupposes that the proposals on quarry dewatering, changes to the regulator, the ability to take possession of privately owned sewers and the regulation of water supplies are not sufficiently important to warrant more than a few moments of time each.
The proposals in clause 6 mean that we need to protect the British drinking water industry from environmental damage, as small unlicensed abstractors will be able to drill bore holes into the aquifer. That could damage the aquifer and cause contamination to bottled water. We argued that the Environment Agency should have powers to monitor environmental damage. Small, unlicensed bore holes must not be able to undermine a company's investment and sustainable development. The Environment Agency must be able to be alerted to any problems.
In clause 17, we believe that there should be a link between abstraction licence applications and planning permission. In that way, a business wishing to abstract water could take more than one course of action. Provided that it has planning permission, a business should be able to go ahead with abstracting water, as long as it is environmentally safe to do so.
Abstraction and impounding are issues of extreme importance, but the Bill is inadequate to secure the investor confidence needed by water abstraction businesses. I have tabled two new clauses and some new amendments in connection with abstraction, and I believe that having just one hour for the debate will be inadequate. Enough time must be provided for discussion of all the complicated matters to do with that special issue, on which the livelihoods of water abstractors depend. I have severe doubts as to whether one hour will be sufficient.
Mr. George Osborne: My hon. Friend is starting to set out a very persuasive case.
Mr. Eric Forth: But only starting.
Mr. Osborne: But only starting, as my right hon. Friend says. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) is talking about abstraction licences, and the relevant part of the Bill could have a huge impact on the quarrying industry. One hour is wholly inadequate for discussion of the many points that constituents have raised with many hon. Members, including me.
Mr. Wiggin: My hon. Friend is right, and I am grateful to him for drawing the House's attention to that very germane point. The size of the investment that firms must make in quarrying machinery, and the fact that it is impossible to quarry without abstracting water, mean that the Bill puts a heavy question mark over the future of the industry. It is very worrying that we will have so short a time for debate of such a crucial matter.
I know that the Minister has taken the trouble to meet quarrying industry representatives and that he has been sympathetic to their concerns. However, his sympathy and assurances are not enough. We need to have the

857
necessary undertakings written into the Bill, and there will not be enough time to make sure that that happens.
In addition, the Bill places time limits on licences. At the moment, licences will be certain only for 12 years. That is only one of the provisions that will undermine the key factor that is investor confidence. Although nearly all the costs involved in the water industry can be offset over a long period, that will be undermined if the Environment Agency can take licences away after just 12 years. In London, our drains, pipes and sewers were built by the Victorians, more than a hundred years ago. Water industry equipment is likely to last for a long time, but the Bill makes it difficult for investors to have the sort of confidence that they should have in such projects. The Environment Agency must be able to take into account the infrastructure costs and investments associated with abstraction and then make the decision on the life of the abstraction licence That gives it greater freedom to issue longer licences when it is safe, especially environmentally safe, to do so.
Three topics of great importance to the future of our water industry, not only for businesses but for the customer, are the regulator, discharge to water courses and consumer council publications. Again, allowing only one hour for discussion of those three detailed topics is insufficient. We want to address several concerns surrounding those topics, such as the regulators of the new water services regulation authority and access to information available to the new council, but I fear that we will be short-changed in the amount of time that we have to do that.
Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend is offering a probing analysis of the deficiencies of the Government's position. As he is renowned for his self-effacement, however, I would not want him to understate the case in any way. Will he therefore confirm, for my benefit and to provide elucidation to the House, that for a Bill with 104 clauses, nine schedules and an unpredictable number of amendments to consider, the Government propose a truly draconian truncation of the debate, which will allow three or four minutes to consider each clause? Will not that outrage the listening public as much as it outrages us?
Mr. Wiggin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In his usual eloquent manner, he states the case exactly as it is. I also hope that the listening—or watching—public to whom he refers are gripped by the very short debate, but, as he says, they will be disappointed.
Mr. David Heath: Is not Report supposed to be the stage at which those of us who have constituency interests have an opportunity to speak? As a Member with significant quarrying interests in my constituency, I want to contribute to the debate on the quarrying industry. I see clearly from this programme that I will not have the opportunity to do so—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]] Because the Front Benches will take the time.
Mr. Wiggin: I will do my best not to take too much time, to allow the hon. Gentleman to make the points that he wishes to make. The point that he has just made,
858
however, is true. He is right that the quarrying industry affects many constituencies and Members of the House, who will not have the opportunity to represent their constituents in the way that they would prefer. It is a draconian motion, as my hon. Friend described it.
Ms Joan Walley: Does the hon. Gentleman also accept that in relation to issues such as quarrying, talks are going on behind the scenes, through the Departments, with the various interest groups, to ensure that those issues are considered? That is an issue of concern, but it is being dealt with through the guidance.
Mr. Wiggin: The hon. Lady's point is extremely worrying. We are talking about what is written in the Bill. We are legislating for all quarrying participants and abstractors. We cannot do that through behind-the-scenes conversations. Even if we could do so, the Minister's assurances may not be there for ever: perhaps he will be promoted, perhaps he will disappear on one of his ghost ships—who knows? It is extremely worrying that the hon. Lady suggests even for a moment that we can legislate with behind-the-scenes chats. I find that most unworthy of her.
Ms Walley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is allowed to misrepresent what was said in that way. There was a genuine point—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should not try to pursue on a point of order what is in reality a matter of debate.
Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will give way if the hon. Lady would like to have another crack at trying to tell us that we should be legislating through behind-the-scenes chats.
Chris Grayling: Apart from the obvious issues in relation to the quarrying industry, large numbers of people in all our constituencies are looking to the House next week to debate properly the issue of fluoridation, which could undoubtedly fill an entire day of the parliamentary calendar were that opportunity to be made available. Does my hon. Friend agree that those people will feel profoundly let down by a Government who fail to make adequate time available for a proper and full debate of a major and important public health issue about which so many feel so strongly?
Mr. Wiggin: I agree with my hon. Friend; lie is absolutely right. I shall come to fluoridation in a moment, but the issue will affect every household in the country and particularly the people who have the young children who are most vulnerable to tooth decay. One may believe that fluoridation is the best way of tackling that problem or that other methods should be explored, but it is almost deceitful that such provisions should be slipped into the Water Bill. I accept the reasons given in Committee as to why the Government chose to behave in this somewhat underhand manner, but there will be a deficit in the length of our debate. No matter how much we would like to debate this provision in the Bill more,

859
there is another probably more sinister side to the matter. The decision on whether fluoride should be added to water will not be taken by us in the House. It will be pushed to the strategic health authorities, and that is a further derogation of our duty.
Mr. George Osborne: The votes on fluoridation will, unusually, be free votes for Opposition and Government Members. Does my hon. Friend therefore not agree that hon. Members may be more susceptible in those circumstances to listening to the debate and making up their minds rather than following a party Whip? Is it not then even more important that we have adequate time to hear all the arguments on fluoridation?
Mr. Wiggin: That is a tremendous point. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Furthermore, most hon. Members will have fairly open minds on this issue, particularly because the conclusions of the York report were so questionable. It did the work properly and suggested that there was a risk, but it said that further research needed to be carried out. The Government have failed to carry out that research and have proceeded with their legislative programme. That is astonishing. I agree that a great deal more time should be set aside so that we can obtain as much information as possible from the Government. They seem to be so confident that this is the best way to go ahead with mass medication that they have hidden it in the Water Bill.
Chris Grayling: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been seeking to avoid discussing this issue in public? Two weeks ago I was drawn at No. 7 in the list for DEFRA oral questions, but Ministers transferred that question because they said that this issue was not a matter for the Department even though it is the sponsor of the Bill. The Government are trying to avoid discussing a matter of such great importance.
Mr. Wiggin: I remember that my hon. Friend and I discussed this at length, because I was horrified by the way that he had been treated. He is right. I suspect that Ministers were frightened of him. I can think of no other reason why they should shy away from his incisive questioning.
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his customary generosity. Given that Ministers have a disagreeable habit of arguing in these circumstances that all the relevant matters have been exhaustively debated in Standing Committee, thereby justifying the circumscription of debate on Report, may I add ammunition to my hon. Friend's arsenal by making the point that some of us were not so favoured or fortunate as to be chosen to sit on the Standing Committee? That does not mean that we do not wish to inform the House of our views—if necessary, at appropriate length on Report.
Mr. Wiggin: My hon. Friend makes another extremely important point and I am very grateful to him for doing so. I suspect that, because he is such a tremendous debater, he will arm me with almost
860
weapons of mass destruction. I do not think that I would be too upset watching the Government crumble before him.
Mr. George Osborne: A 45-minute warning.
Mr. Wiggin: Indeed, a 45-minute warning.
On the time limit of licences, we must cover the 12-year problem and the presumption of renewal. The presumption of renewal is a key issue for those investing in quarrying and abstraction. Provided that they are not doing any damage, the Bill should contain a provision that gives them a proper presumption of renewal. However, it does not. There will be problems with those who wish to appeal, and difficulties arise because details of how compensation will be claimed have not been set out. We could have thrown a little more light on those issues on Report, and it is again a tragedy that there will be a shortage of time. In Committee, we said that the Environment Agency needs to take account of infrastructure, costs and investments associated with abstraction before making a decision on the life of the abstraction licence.
We should address the conduct of the regulator and discharge to watercourses. The functions of the chairman and chief executive of the new water service regulatory body should be separate to prevent one person from having too much power in the regulation of the water industry. Clause 98 must ensure that surface water is kept separate from foul water in calculations of sewage water capacity. When new sewers are built, proper calculations should be taken into consideration so that if flash floods occur, water has the proper facilities to run off. If sewers flood back, which they do at present, it causes horrendous foul flooding that is deeply upsetting to householders and causes much damage. That could be avoided with proper regulation, but the Bill represents a missed opportunity to do that.
Clause 83 addresses the important duty to conserve water and improve water efficiency. An amendment relating to that issue was tabled by Labour Members and we had an important debate. I hope that further such amendments will be selected by Mr. Speaker, but who can tell at this stage? The water conservation duties in the Bill are too weak, and I hope to strengthen them on Report. I hope that an hour will be sufficient to hold an in-depth and constructive discussion on how to ensure the future best efficiency of our water because, after all, we all want the best possible management of water. Unfortunately, I doubt that there will be sufficient time for the views of the number of hon. Members who are passionate about that to be heard. The matter is of interest to hon. Members of all parties who have said how keen they are for a duty to preserve water properly to be imposed on all office holders.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend touched on the structure of the regulator and regulatory methodology. Does he agree that we do not yet know whether the time available—an hour—to consider a range of subjects including the structure of the regulator will he sufficient? It was evident in Committee that the Government's proposals on the structure of the regulator were questionable, and the Government were questioned by not only Conservative but Labour Members. The chances of the Government

861
tabling amendments should be high, in which case we might not need to debate them at length. However, we did not have time to consider the impact of regulatory methodology and the regulator's regulatory impact assessments in Committee. Under the programme motion, there is a risk that we will riot reach those issues on Report either.
Mr. Wiggin: I agree with my hon. Friend, who was a huge asset to the Committee because his wide-ranging experience of the way in which such legislation should be written was crucial. Tragically, he is absolutely right about the lack of time to explore the issues that he mentioned. However, the situation is worse than that. We want to use the framework on which he touched to ensure that proper regulation will exist so that people will behave in the way in which the Government want rather than having to be punished and pursued after a transgression. It would be helpful for the Bill to include such a provision but, tragically, it will not.
Mr. George Osborne: Surely it is important to remember when considering the time allowed for discussing the groups of amendments that if there is a disagreement in the House and Divisions are called, that will eat into the debating time. In some cases, we might have only half an hour in which to discuss important issues.
Mr. Wiggin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am reminded that we do not know whether there will be a statement on Monday, which would also eat into the time allowed for the debate. I am glad to say that guillotines and knives are bad because all Conservative Members think that we need the opportunity to hold the Government to account. They are wriggling by moving such a programme motion. I am worried that issues such as fluoridation, which my hon. Friends touched on, will not receive more than two hours if we are lucky. The situation is absurd. The topic is controversial. Much doubt and uncertainty surrounds it. Fluoridation should be allocated much more time. It is appalling how the relevant clause has been pushed into the Bill without providing reasonable time for a quality debate.
Chris Grayling: Does my hon. Friend agree that we might ascribe honourable motives to Ministers if we were at a time in the parliamentary calendar—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We always ascribe honourable motives to all Members of the House.
Chris Grayling: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let me rephrase my remarks. Does my hon. Friend agree that Ministers' motivations in selecting the timetable might be more dependable were the calendar packed with business? As we saw yesterday and see today, many parts of the parliamentary calendar are allocated to Adjournment debates, for example. Does he agree that if Ministers wanted to make time available, it would be easy for them to do so in the next few days?
Mr. Wiggin: I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes his point most honourably. The speed at which the Bill is accelerating through both Houses is unseemly and does not do justice to the importance of the argument.
862
Other unanswered questions left over from the Committee will also need to be debated. The Minister was amenable in Committee, but even he will not have time during the two hours to cover all matters raised. In fact, when we debated fluoridation, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), responded—[Interruption.] It seems that fluoridation slipped into a DEFRA Bill. The Government have ensured that the lack of debate will prevent everyone from having their say, including the public. After all, we need to debate fully whether the public will get a proper opportunity to be consulted and have their say on what happens to them.
We need to thrash out how the Government will proceed with their intended agenda of introducing a registered poison into our drinking water while protecting companies through an indemnification policy instead of devolving the matters to local authorities, which are democratically elected and accountable, as opposed to strategic health authorities, which are not. Strategic health authorities are also not local, whereas local authorities are in touch with local people. All households should be consulted. It is vital that everyone in an affected area is not only presented with neutral in-depth information, but has the opportunity to have their say, perhaps in a referendum. That is not in the Bill. It is essential to cover that in a constructive debate.
Mr. George Osborne: As I said, my hon. Friend makes a powerful case for more time to be available to debate fluoridation. There are many things to consider, not just whether it is good or bad. I suspect many hon. Members on both sides of the House, not least on the Labour Benches, will be interested in making that argument. We also need to consider how fluoridation should take place and which body should be charged with the duty of determining public opinion in a particular area. Such matters cannot be debated in a maximum of two hours.
Mr. Wiggin: My hon. Friend is right. The questions on fluoridation that we asked in Committee were not answered in full. We were relying on the debates on Report to provide some of those answers. One question was the likely cost of indemnification. What will legal procedures cost? We have been assured by people who feel passionately about fluoridation that they will go to court because they believe that it infringes their human rights. I do not know whether that will happen for certain, but we need to know what it would cost. That alone will easily fill the time allowed, but we have only two hours for the whole debate.
It is strange that the Government have decided to take time to put the Bill through both Houses but failed to allow a full debate on all aspects of it. In Committee we hurried through as much as we could and, despite receiving many assurances from the Minister, we are now hurrying through the Report stage as well. It is easy to grow cynical in old age, but the method of legislating is not as thorough as it could be—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Methinks hon. Members do protest too much. We could do more to scrutinise the actions of the Government, especially a Government with such a large parliamentary majority, so we should we take a stand,

863
like Moses before the Red sea, and watch the Water Bill part before us into untimed portions, each to be fully debated by the House.
4.30 pm
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): I had not planned to say much during this debate, because the programme motion has already been debated and was agreed on 8 September. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) talks about parting the Red sea, but it sounds to me like he is lost in the bulrushes, so it might help the House if I clearly set out what has been agreed.
The motion does not alter the programme agreed by the House on 8 September, which is that the debate should last for one day, with the last hour reserved for Third Reading. The time allocated for debate on part 1, water resources, which includes quarry dewatering, will end at 5 pm. Debate on part 2, which deals with new regulatory structures, will end at 6 pm, allowing time to cover some of the points the hon. Gentleman raised. Debate on part 3, miscellaneous provisions, will end at 7 pm, which allows two hours to discuss fluoridation.
Chris Grayling: Has not the Minister experienced in his constituency the level of public interest in fluoridation? Does he not realise how many letters hon. Members have received on this subject? Does he not accept that many hon. Members will want to debate that subject? Does he not recognise that allowing only two hours is, to be frank, an insult to hon. Members on both sides of the House?
Mr. Morley: No, I do not accept that. I live in a fluoridated area and I have had no letters on the issue from constituents.
Mr. Paul Tyler: It is an anomaly that Report stage does not include a report. Will the Minister report to us how many new clauses, amendments and schedules were not properly scrutinised in Standing Committee? Is it not the case that Committee stage proved to be more controversial and more detailed than was anticipated back in September?
Mr. Morley: No, I do not accept that. Although I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the precise details off the top of my head, I can say that the Opposition parties felt that too much time had been allocated to discuss fluoridation in Committee, so, with the consent of the Committee, the three sittings allocated were reduced to two, which allowed us to take all the amendments and schedules, and finish them completely in the course of the Committee's sittings.
Mr. Wiggin: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Morley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will confirm or deny that my colleagues and I made every effort to take into account the Opposition's wishes when structuring the programme.
Mr. Wiggin: The Minister is right about fluoridation—we did manage to cover almost all the
864
issues associated with it. However, he is not correct about how much of the rest of the Bill was not covered, which was a significant amount. It is important that people know that the issues I touched on in the speech I just made were not covered in Committee.
Mr. Morley: Just about all the issues were covered—not all, and I do not pretend otherwise, but I have served on Bill Committees for many years, including under the Conservative Administration when there was no programming of Bills, and I think that we got through a greater proportion of the Water Bill than of many other Bills. The lack of programming under the Conservatives meant that big chunks of legislation were never reached, and Opposition Members should not forget that.
Mr. Bercow: The Minister is sniffily dismissive of the idea that fluoridation is a matter of public controversy. I put it to him, for the avoidance of doubt, that I have received a plentiful supply of letters on that subject from constituents, who would not accept his categorisation of the issue as merely one of health, but regard it as one of civil liberties. Furthermore, I remind him that consideration in Standing Committee is separate from and irrelevant to the question of hon. Members having a chance to ventilate their views on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Morley: That is why the largest chunk of the time provided on Report has been given to the issue of fluoridation, precisely to allow Members on both sides of the House to put forward their points of view. That is right and proper.
Following representations from the Opposition, we increased the number of sittings from nine to 11, and reached agreement on the programming. I have served in Committee on both programmed and unprogrammed Bills. I believe that if programming is addressed in a sensible and rational way, as is proposed, it guarantees that many of the important issues raised during this debate can be discussed in a way that hardly ever happens during consideration of un-programmed Bills. I am not criticising Opposition parties, which have been constructive in their approach to an important Bill that contains many important measures, which I think the House wants to support and which people want to see enacted.
4.36 pm
Sue Doughty: We, too, have concerns about the way in which the time for consideration of the Bill is being divided. One of the key issues is that even at this stage amendments are still being tabled. We are considering the allocation of time on Report and the grouping of amendments, yet we still do not know at what stage amendments will come before us for consideration and how much time will be needed to discuss them. If we end up with many amendments coming forward for consideration at the end of the Report stage, as often happens, we will not have adequate time to discuss them.
It is a good thing that the fluoride issue is not taking over the entire Bill. There are a great many important issues to be discussed, of which fluoride is one. However, we still question why such a vital health issue ended up

865
in the Bill. I understand the concern about the legality of putting fluoride in water and the water industry's concerns about where it stands on that, but it is a health issue. However, those are concerns that affect many constituents and there will not be much time to debate them.
There are strong consumer issues. We have heard about quarrying, which affects many constituents. That is a key factor. Many Members want to make representations about those issues on the Floor of the House, and we need time to consider them.
Liberal Democrat Members are tabling important amendments that address some of the key injustices—[Interruption.] For us, they are important amendments. People in the south-west, for example, are paying large water bills and high environmental charges. Those are the injustices faced by people in the area, who are on very low incomes. We debated those matters in Committee. Having listened to the issues raised, we felt that it was right to bring forward further issues, particularly given that they concern Members with constituencies in the south-west, who have strong interests in the area.
We have concerns about the debate on fluoride. When we debated the matter on Second Reading and in Committee, we found that there was a lack of good scientific information on human health and fluoride. We have tabled amendments that will enable us to discuss why such scientific information is not available. Such information should be collected year on year. There were a number of questions that no one could answer on Second Reading or in Committee, which we felt could be dealt with successfully during further consideration.
Mr. George Osborne: The hon. Lady is touching on one of the more constructive Liberal Democrat amendments that was tabled in Committee, which proposed an annual review of the impact of fluoridation in areas where it went ahead. I understand informally from members of the Government that they were quite sympathetic to the idea, but we never had a chance to discuss it. Under the programme motion, we may never get a chance to discuss it on Report.
Sue Doughty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. We were taken rather by surprise because we did not know when debate on the motion would take place. We were rushing round trying to find the Government's answers and who had written to whom. We still cannot find a letter that responds to the points that we raised. We knew that the Government said that they would respond to us. The letter may have arrived, but we cannot find it. In principle, we are not unhappy about grouping amendments, because it is important that we get to the end of the Bill and do not use the available time to discuss only half of it. We often discuss the initial clauses of a Bill for too long and fail to get to the end. It is important that we have time to do so. Many hon. Members want to speak on fluoride and quarrying, and it is a matter of grave concern that, once again, we are in danger of running out of time to discuss an important and wide-ranging Bill.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 181.

Division No. 351]

[4:40 pm

AYES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Ainger, Nick

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Allen, Graham

Dalyell, Tam

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

David, Wayne

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Atkins, Charlotte

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Austin, John

Dawson, Hilton

Bailey, Adrian

Dean, Mrs Janet

Baird, Vera

Denham, rh John

Banks, Tony

Dhanda, Parmjit

Barnes, Harry

Dismore, Andrew

Barron, rh Kevin

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Bayley, Hugh

Dobson, rh Frank

Beard, Nigel

Donohoe, Brian H.

Bennett, Andrew

Drew, David (Stroud)

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Berry, Roger

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Betts, Clive

Edwards, Huw

Blackman, Liz

Efford, Clive

Blizzard, Bob

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Borrow, David

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Etherington, Bill

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Farrelly, Paul

Bradshaw, Ben

Fisher, Mark

Brennan, Kevin

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Flint, Caroline

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Browne, Desmond

Foster, rh Derek

Bryant, Chris

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Buck, Ms Karen

Foulkes, rh George

Burden, Richard

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Burnham, Andy

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Byers, rh Stephen

Gardiner, Barry

Caborn, rh Richard

Gerrard, Neil

Cairns, David

Gilroy, Linda

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Goggins, Paul

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Caplin, Ivor

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Casale, Roger

Grogan, John

Caton, Martin

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Challen, Colin

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Hanson, David

Chaytor, David

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Clapham, Michael

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Healey, John

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Hendrick, Mark

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hepburn, Stephen

Coaker, Vernon

Hesford, Stephen

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Cohen, Harry

Hinchliffe, David

Coleman, Iain

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Colman, Tony

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Connarty, Michael

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Cooper, Yvette

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Cousins, Jim

Howells, Dr. Kim

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Cranston, Ross

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Crausby, David

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cruddas, Jon

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

867

Hutton, rh John

Organ, Diana

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Illsley, Eric

Owen, Albert

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Perham, Linda

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Picking, Anne

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Pickthall, Colin

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Plaskitt, James

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Pollard, Kerry

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Pound, Stephen

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Prosser, Gwyn

Khabra, Piara S.

Purchase, Ken

Kidney, David

Purnell, James

Kilfoyle, Peter

Quin, rh Joyce

King, Andy (Rugby)

Quinn, Lawrie

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Rammell, Bill

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Lepper, David

Leslie, Christopher

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Ruane, Chris

Linton, Martin

Ruddock, Joan

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

Love, Andrew

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Salter, Martin

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Savidge, Malcolm

McAvoy, Thomas

Sawford, Phil

McCabe, Stephen

Sedgemore, Brian

McCafferty, Chris

Sheridan, Jim

McDonagh, Siobhain

Shipley, Ms Debra

MacDonald, Calum

Short, rh Clare

McDonnell, John

Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

MacDougall, John

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McFall, John

Singh, Marsha

McIsaac, Shona

Skinner, Dennis

McKechin, Ann

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

Mactaggart, Fiona

McWilliam, John

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Mahmood, Khalid

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Soley, Clive

Mallaber, Judy

Southworth, Helen

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Squire, Rachel

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Stevenson, George

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Martlew, Eric

Stinchcombe, Paul

Meacher, rh Michael

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

Stringer, Graham

Merron, Gillian

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Michael, rh Alun

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Milburn, rh Alan

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Miliband, David

Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

Miller, Andrew

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Moffatt, Laura

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Mole, Chris

Timms, Stephen

Morgan, Julie

Tipping, Paddy

Morley, Elliot

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Mountfor, Kali

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Mudie, George

Trickett, Jon

Munn, Ms Meg

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

O'Neill, Martin

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

868

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Woodward, Shaun

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Woolas, Phil

Walley, Ms Joan

Worthington, Tony

Ward, Claire

Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

Wareing, Robert N.

Watts, David

Wright Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

White, Brian

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Wright, David (Telford)

Wicks, Malcolm

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Wyatt, Derek

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Wills, Michael

Tellers for the Ayes:

Winnick, David

Mr. Fraser Kemp and

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Ms Bridget Prentice

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Ancram, rh Michael

Gidley, Sandra

Arbuthnot, rh James

Goodman, paul

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Baldry, Tony

Grayling, Chris

Barker, Gregory

Green, Damian(Ashford)

Baron, John (Billericay)

Green Matthew(Ludlow)

Barrett, John

Grieve, Dominic

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Gummer, rh John

Bellingham, Henry

Hancock, Mike

Bercow, John

Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Blunt, Crispin

Harvey, Nick

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Hawkins, Nick

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Heath, David

Brady, Graham

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Hendry, Charles

Brazier, Julian

Hermon, Lady

Breed Colin

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Hogg, rh Douglas

Bruce, Malcolm

Horam, John (Orpington)

Burstow, Paul

Howard, rh Michael

Burt, Alistair

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Jack, rh Michael

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Jenkin, Bernard

Cameron, David

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

Keetch, Paul

Carmichael, Alistair

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Cash, William

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Chapman, Sir Sydeny (Chipping Barnet)

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Chope, Christopher

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Clappison, James

Lamb, Norman

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Lansley, Andrew

Clifton-Brown, Geoffery

Laws, David(Yeovil)

Collins, Tim

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Lidington, David

Cotter, Brain

Llwyd, Elfyn

Cran, James (Beverley)

Loughton, Tim

Curry, rh David

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Davies, Question(Grantham & Stamford)

Mackay, rh Andrew

Maclean, rh David

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Malins, Humfrey

Doughty, Sue

Maples, John

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Marsden, Paul(Shrewsbury & Atcham)

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Evans, Nigel

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Fabricant, Michael

May, Mrs Theresa

Fallon, Michael

Mercer, Patrick

Flight, Howard

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Flook, Adrian

Forth, rh Eric

Moore, Michael

Foster, Don (Bath)

Moss, Malcolm

Fox, Dr. Liam

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Garnier, Edward

Öpik, Lembit

869

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Steen, Anthony

Ottaway, Richard

Stunell, Andrew

Page, Richard

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Paterson, Owen

Syms, Robert

Pickles, Eric

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Portillo, rh Michael

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Pugh, Dr. John

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Randall, John

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Redwood, rh John

Thomas Simon (Ceredigion)

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Thurso, John

Rendel, David

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Robathan, Andrew

Tredinnick, David

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Tyrie, Andrew

Viggers, Peter

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Waterson, Nigel

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Roe Mrs Marion

Whittingdale, John

Rosindell, Andrew

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Ruffley, David

Wiggin, Bill

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Wilkinson, John

Salmond, Alex

Willetts, David

Sanders, Adrian

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Selous, Andrew

Willis, Phil

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Wilshire David

Shepherd, Richard

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Simmonds, Mark

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

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

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Young, rh Sir George

Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

Younger-Ross, Richard

Soames, Nicholas

Spicer, Sir Michael

Tellers for the Noes:

Spring, Richard

Angela Watkinson and

Stanley, rh Sir John

Mr. Mark Field

Question accordingly agreed to.

Vocational Education
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Gillian Merron.]
4.53 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): Generations of politicians, educationists and industrialists have grappled with the challenge of making vocational education a success. I think that all hon. Members would accept that they have largely failed. No single speech, policy announcement or reform of the system will be enough to meet that awesome challenge. This debate is important, however, because it will shine a light on the Government's view that high-quality vocational education is central to the future success of our country and expose the contrasting agendas promoted by the respective parties.
Ironically, there is significant consensus among Members on both sides of the House as to why vocational education matters. It matters because we will never have a fair society or a successful economy if our post-16 participation and attainment levels remain among the worst in the OECD. It also matters because there is a significant skills deficit at technician and craft level compared with France and Germany, and because young people need a variety of ways in which they can progress and achieve on their journey to the world of work and responsible adulthood.
Far too often, opinion formers and policy makers—of all political persuasions and none—have given the
impression that the only journey worth making is via the academic or conventional route. This Government's education reform agenda is about 100 per cent. of young people, not only the 50 per cent. who we want to access higher education by 2010. Vocational education matters because employers of all sizes in the private, public and voluntary sectors need well qualified young people. But, at the beginning of the 21st century, being well qualified must also involve possessing good communication, interpersonal, problem-solving, teamwork and leadership skills. In a dynamic global economy, adults can no longer count on one job—perhaps even two, three or four—for life. Lifelong learning must support anew concept, namely employability for life. Perhaps most importantly of all, today's young people are the parents of tomorrow, and educational failure fans the flames of low aspirations and inter-generational economic and social exclusion. These are all reasons why vocational education matters.
Let me take this opportunity briefly to remind hon. Members of the noble attempts that have been made through history to make a success of vocational education. In the 19th century, the state of vocational and technical education was repeatedly criticised, most notably in the Samuelson royal commission on technical education in 1884. The pattern of technical education that developed in the 19th century was institutionally marginalised from mainstream education. Whereas in France and Germany technical education was allied to general education, in Britain a divide developed between the two, separating skills and knowledge. The divide was cemented in divisions between Government Departments and agencies throughout the 20th century. The Board of Education, created in 1900, was to remain

871
separate—as the Ministry or Department of Education—from the Ministry of Labour and the Department of Employment for almost the entire century. The Departments were finally brought together into the Department for Education and Employment in 1995.
Despite the Education Act 1944—the Butler Act—which for the first time required local education authorities to provide further education, vocational and technical education failed to develop clear, high-standard qualification routes or institutions of study linked to schools and the labour market. Curriculum and qualifications authorities for academic and vocational qualifications, and funding channels for post-school education and training, remained divided.
The Manpower Services Commission was developed by the then Department of Employment. The MSC subsequently turned into the Training Commission and was then followed by the network of training and enterprise councils in the 1990s. The desire to improve links between schools and the world of employment led to the creation of the technical and vocational education initiative in the early 1980s. The TVEI saw significant investment in vocational school-based education—at its height, £141 million a year, using 1999–2000 prices as a benchmark. But Whitehall turf wars and the fact that the then Department of Education and Science was told of the initiative only at the very last moment—the mind boggles—meant that, while the TVEI was widely welcomed by schools, it had little impact on the thinking of the DES, and it was eventually phased out.
The Government do not intend to repeat the mistakes of history. Rather, we seek to learn the lessons of that history. We have charged Mike Tomlinson with the responsibility for leading a working group on 14 to 19 reform. The group, which we hope will produce its final report next summer, has been asked to address three main areas. The first is the need for a much stronger vocational offer, with a firm underpinning of general education. The second will involve ensuring that assessment within all programmes across the 14 to 19 phase is fit for purpose. The third is the development of a unified framework of qualifications suitable for young people across the whole range of ability.
Mr. Graham Allen: In my constituency, fewer young people go to university than in any other. In such areas, the vocational route is probably even more important than some of the university options that are currently exciting Members in all parts of the House. I hope that my hon. Friend will continue his good work, but will he also consider what is described as the navigation—the way in which people can move on from qualification to qualification? It is still difficult for young people to see a way forward into their 20s.
Mr. Lewis: I entirely agree. Our objective should be to help all young people enter skilled employment via either higher education or an alternative high-status vocational route. If we are to achieve that, we shall need the right provision in each area, especially for those over 16. That is why we have asked local learning and skills councils to conduct area reviews, so that each community has the right combination of institutions and we can deliver the progression route to all young
872
people. My hon. Friend has campaigned and crusaded to that end in his constituency, because he understands that the raising of aspirations is one of the greatest and most fundamental challenges facing many constituencies.
Over the past year, as well as asking Mike Tomlinson to look at education for 14 to 19-year-olds, we have published our proposals for the future of further and higher education, as well as our national skills strategy. We are establishing a number of building blocks to achieve long-term cultural change.
For 14 to 16-year-olds, we are introducing a new curriculum with more flexibility to create an individual learning programme. Eighty thousand 14 to 16-yearolds from 1,800 schools are participating in the increased-flexibility programme, which involves their spending a couple of days a week at school, perhaps a couple of days at college, and one day a week with local employers. Eight new GCSEs were introduced in September 2002: applied art and design, applied business, engineering, health and social care, applied information and communications technology, leisure and tourism, manufacturing and applied science. GCSEs in construction and the performing arts will be available from next year.
Subject to parliamentary approval, work-related learning will become a statutory requirement for all 14 to 16-year-olds next year, and in 2005–06 enterprise education will become part of the curriculum.
Connexions is now up and running in every part of England. It involves working with schools to ensure that young people have access to good-quality impartial support when making curriculum and career choices, and giving more intensive support to teenagers when serious barriers get in the way of their learning.
Post-16 modern apprenticeships have never been more popular. Notwithstanding the oft-repeated statement which may be heard when MPs meet business people or educationists—"It is a shame that we do not have apprenticeships any more"—we have a thriving apprenticeship system. A record 230,000 young people are undertaking modern apprenticeships this year. Nevertheless, we want that number to grow significantly in the years ahead. Working with employers sector by sector, we must improve completion rates. Although they are getting better, they are not good enough.
Mr. Phil Willis: Would the Minister consider paying particular attention to core skills? Surely they should be part of the main thrust of modern apprenticeships. Many young people are put off completing the work by an additional test.
Mr. Lewis: I agree that completion, as well as encouraging more young people to participate in the first place, poses a major challenge, but I believe that if we are to provide a high-status, meaningful option in the form of a modern apprenticeship, we cannot seriously suggest that those participating should not be able to demonstrate that they possess key skills. I acknowledge that the way in which the key skills component is delivered is important, but I do not accept the argument advanced by some that key skills are the reason for the

873
significant non-completion rate. The history of non-completion suggests that there is no direct correlation between it and the introduction of the key skills test.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: If the Minister thinks that there is no correlation with the external assessment of key skills, will he look at an alternative interpretation of why the completion rate is not as high as it should be: the absence now of a realistic option for young people to go for other training? In effect, therefore, they are being given no choice but to go into foundation modern apprenticeships, which they probably have no realistic likelihood of successfully completing.
Mr. Lewis: I think that a combination of factors leads to non-completion, and we need to be clear about that combination. For example, undoubtedly, some young people and employers decide not to proceed all the way through because their relationship is positive and the young person is earning a salary—a decision is made that there is no need to complete the apprenticeship. However, we recognised that there was a gap, which is why we have introduced the entry to employment scheme. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of that initiative, but this year a significant number of young people are choosing that option. They are the ones who are not ready to participate even in foundation modern apprenticeships. I would be delighted to furnish him with more details on the entry to employment scheme. It has filled the gap and addressed the problem that he rightly identifies: a cohort of young people who do not have the skills to enable them to commence even a foundation modern apprenticeship.
Jon Trickett: I, too, pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend is doing. In constituencies such as the one that I represent, a former mining area, with the lowest possible levels of education attainment, it is imperative that we get people to feel that high-quality, high-esteem qualifications are available as a route into work. However, does he not accept that we have mixed economy provision, which is complex and sometimes a bureaucratic nightmare? Will he address in particular the issue of blocks of money, which are made available by his Department for our institutions, being handed out, rather than subjected to competitive tendering among various providers? That is extremely unhealthy.
Mr. Lewis: The criteria must be quality and standards, and contractual arrangements must be made with those providers who can demonstrate that they have the capacity to deliver quality provision. In the context of modern apprenticeships, one of the criteria that we must set is that providers should support and achieve a much higher completion rate. Locality by locality, I expect local learning and skills councils to make decisions on contracting linked to standards, quality and clear outcome expectations. The reform of both further education and training provision through
874
the "success for all" reform and investment programme should get us to the stage that my hon. Friend wants us to reach.
Jon Trickett: It seems that in some areas we are in danger of creating a quasi-monopoly. I am thinking not only regionally and locally but nationally. Is there not a risk that we will put all our eggs in one basket, which does not necessarily drive up standards among provider institutions? Would it not be better to say that we will look for competitive tendering wherever that is feasible?
Mr. Lewis: We have made it clear that we see the mixed economy as part of the system that we wish to create in which competition exists between colleges and training providers in both the private and voluntary sectors. The central thrust of that system, however, must be quality. We know that, sometimes, competition is a powerful lever to guarantee quality. If my hon. Friend has some specific examples where he feels that monopoly provision is not supporting high-quality standards, I would be pleased to hear about them.
It is important to refer in the context of modern apprenticeships to the taskforce that has been created under the chairmanship of Sir Roy Gardner, the head of Centrica. Unfortunately, he is also the chairman of Manchester United plc—but that was not in the briefing when I agreed to his appointment as chairman of the taskforce. The role of the taskforce is not only to engage far more employers in offering places to young people on modern apprenticeships but to ensure that we have ready access to employers' views on where modern apprenticeships are working and where there need to be policy revisions to ensure that, sector by sector, we get the framework for modern apprenticeships right. Therefore, the taskforce is important.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). some 50,000 young people are participating in the entry to employment provision to which I referred.
All Members will accept that financial support is a very important factor in the choices that young people make. That is why we are incredibly proud of education maintenance allowances, which will be available nationally from September 2004. However, it is also important that we look at all financial support being offered at 16 to 19, so that we achieve cohesion and incentivise learning. We welcome the Treasury-led review in this area, and we have a particular interest in the impact on family means-tested benefits when young people participating in a full-time vocational college course are in receipt of a training allowance. We must ensure that the financial regime supports our objectives by encouraging young people to stay on, rather than encouraging them to drop out into low-paid, low-skilled employment.
Laura Moffatt: The Minister may be interested to know that the issues of quality and supporting students who go into further education, which we have already discussed, are very real ones for my constituents, especially the young people. Crawley college has just opened the Longley building, which is dedicated to construction services and will ensure that young people get the very best training. Such work offers them the prospect of support and superb training,

875
ensuring that our economy in the south-east is vibrant and healthy and can support all the industries that we so badly need. Does the Minister agree that we need to build up a picture involving all the relevant organisations—employers, learning and skills councils and colleges that are prepared to invest in their own buildings—to ensure that we can offer our students the very best?
Mr. Lewis: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend—it is essential that we tear down the barriers between the world of education and the needs of the labour market in every region and sub-region. Many colleges are responding by developing, through capital investment and revenue funding, provision that genuinely meets the skills needs of specific sectors and their regional and sub-regional economies. What is happening in the college mentioned by my hon. Friend is an excellent example in that regard.
We have also introduced foundation degrees. In 2002–03, 12,000 students were studying for such degrees; we anticipate that the number will increase to about 50,000 by 2006. In the recently published skills strategy, we announced a new entitlement to free learning for all adults in respect of the first level 2 qualification. We also announced our intention to lift the age cap on modern apprenticeships, and the creation of sector agreements, which will allow individual sectors to define the vocational courses that they will require to meet their future skills needs.
Central to delivering this extremely ambitious agenda will be our capacity to raise standards, to improve the quality of provision and to create a new culture of collaboration between institutions in every area. We now have 1,445 specialist secondary schools; by 2006, there will be 2,000. As Members are aware, specialisms include arts, business, languages, science and technology. The seeking of specialist status and the requirement for sponsorship and community engagement have built relationships between schools and employers that will offer new vocational opportunities to many young people.
Further education colleges and training providers are benefiting from the groundbreaking "success for all" reform and investment programme, which provides unprecedented levels of investment in return for a more demand-led, high-quality system. As was pointed out, we now have 251 centres of vocational excellence, and the number will increase to 400 by 2006. The centres are being developed in co-operation with employers, and subjects include construction, engineering, manufacturing, technology, information and communications technology, and tourism. Local learning and skills councils are conducting area reviews to ensure the right configuration of post-16 institutions, and to support progression and attainment in any community.
Mr. Allen: The learning and skills councils are obviously central to everything that my hon. Friend is trying to achieve, so will he ensure that they take into account the contribution that secondary schools can make? In my constituency. most kids see school finishing at 16. One way in which we can get young people to bridge into 17 and 18-year-old education is to have on-site—not comprehensive, but well defined—
876
facilities on each of the school sites. As I mentioned previously, some of the schools in my constituency do not achieve particularly high academic qualifications, but vocational education—perhaps sponsored by further education or badged by universities locally—could help youngsters to aspire to higher educational levels. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the Learning and Skills Council is fully aware that that is one possible route that it is able to fund?
Mr. Lewis: We have made it absolutely clear to the Learning and Skills Council that we do not have a one-size-fits-all national solution. What we want in every community is the most innovate and imaginative ways of supporting the maximum number of young people to progress and achieve in learning. We have also made it clear to the LSC that it has responsibility to engage with Members of Parliament, local councils and councillors to ensure that its decisions have the maximum possible support within local communities, and to tackle some of the fundamental structural problems that, over many years, have got in the way of achieving the aspirational agenda that we want. I urge my hon. Friend to join local learning and skills councils in ensuring that high-quality provision is made available in his area.
Mr. Allen: May I press my hon. Friend on site-specific or on-site provision at schools where children normally leave at 16? People want not to be told what should happen, but to have options. There seems to be a degree of reticence in respect of school sites with further education, university or other possibilities. Many children will not travel to an FE college and may feel inhibited about leaving their school and going to a sixth-form college, for example, but they could be nurtured from 16 into 17 and 18-year-old education by a teacher who knows them. If they go to an FE college, they may be one of several thousand sloshing through the doors who, although I mean no disrespect to FE colleges, are not given enough personal attention. Children will be one of many, which can lead to the sort of drop-out rates that were mentioned earlier.
Mr. Lewis: Let me be clear to my hon. Friend: there is a range of options to meet the objectives that I have set out. We have school sixth forms, sixth-form colleges, distinct provision within FE colleges, and post-16 provision located in the environment of a school where it is felt to be the most appropriate solution. We do not impose a one-size-fits-all model, but we do believe that it is right that local communities, in considering post-16 progression, reflect seriously on all the options.
Mr. Lansley: In the course of our discussions on the role and performance of regional development agencies, we examined their relationship with learning and skills councils. It seems clear that there is a discontinuity between the national governance of the Learning and Skills Council—and the sub-regional deliverers, the learning and skills councils in counties or unitary authorities—and the regional development agencies. The skills strategy published by the Minister's Department talked about the integration of learning and skills councils and regional development agencies. We can see joint working on the ground, but not how

877
integration will happen. How can the local partnerships that the Minister describes determine the shape of local provision in practice?
Mr. Lewis: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. By the end of this year, each regional development agency will be expected to produce proposals for an integrated approach to skills, with local learning and skills councils, Business Link and Jobcentre Plus. That is one response. I also believe that the new chief executive of the Learning and Skills Council is considering, as we speak, the appropriate relationship and structures to ensure that the council engages to maximum effect with RDAs. The concerns that the hon. Gentleman articulates are being addressed, and they need to be addressed if we are to stimulate the demand among employers and individuals for the skills that we want.
Mr. David Chaytor: My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) raised the question of choice and variety at the age of 16. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the dilemma is that in many parts of the country—if not most—colleges have better facilities for vocational education, but the schools have the advantage of loyalty from students? The key is the provision of comprehensive and objective advice about all the options available, so that young people are not influenced unduly by their attachment to their school, where the curriculum may not be appropriate, or by the attraction of the facilities at college, which might not provide the right context for their studies. What we need is good educational advice before the age of 16.
Mr. Lewis: I always agree with my hon. Friend from Bury—for obvious reasons. We are moving from a culture of competition to one of collaboration. That brings with it new challenges and dilemmas for policy and professional relationships, but it is the right direction to take. The impartiality of the advice, information and support given to young people about curriculum and career choices is important. That has to involve a partnership between the Connexions service and careers advice in schools. Increasingly, it must also involve employers going into schools and young people going out into the world of work. That will help to ensure that choices are made for realistic and practical reasons, rather than an outdated view of what certain industries can offer.
One concern in the past was that young people were steered in the wrong direction, which led to dropout and disillusionment and those young people never returning to education. Supporting young people to make the right choices is essential, but ensuring that we have the right provision is equally important to local communities.
Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend's relaxed and helpful style is creating a genuine dialogue in the Chamber, for which he should be commended. Sixteen-year-olds need advice, but it is also important for them to see their big brother, big sister or the kid down the road staying on at school on the same site. Better provision may be available elsewhere, but students face peer group
878
pressure. If a student's colleagues all leave school at 16, it may be seen as weird and unusual to stay on. That sort of pressure can be dissipated only by students seeing 17 and 18-year-olds from their street staying on at school on the same site, even if they are doing vocational education.
I thank the Minister for his generosity in giving way again.
Mr. Lewis: It is fair to say that I get the message. The causes of low aspirations are significant and deeply rooted. We have to challenge the low aspirations found in many communities in various ways: not least, we have to influence the attitudes of parents and families. We must bring a stronger cohesion to our actions in terms of adult learning and our school standards agenda. In my view, parents and grandparents who have gone back to learning are far more likely to support the educational potential of their children and grandchildren.
Mr. Kerry Pollard: My hon. Friend mentions aspiration, but a key group of Bengali and Pakistani students have lower aspirations than others. Are steps being taken to ensure that aspiration flows right through the system?
Mr. Lewis: I agree that we need a system that can respond appropriately to the needs of individuals in a way that has not been done before. We need that more personalised education response, but we also need a system that is sensitive to people's cultural and religious requirements and aspirations. In every part of the country, we are trying to provide educational institutions and services that can meet the needs of distinct local communities. That is why a national, one-size-fits-all approach is often not appropriate.
I must make some progress now, for fear that some hon. Members might lose patience, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) generously said about creating a dialogue in the Chamber.
I turn now to the higher education White Paper's relevance to vocational education. It outlines a vision of world-class teaching, learning and research, and places higher education institutions at the centre of innovation and economic regeneration. Throughout all the reforms that I have described, work force development is essential. That will involve the remodelling of the school work force, the professionalisation of lecturers and tutors in post-16 provision and higher education, and the creation of a cadre of excellent leaders and managers across all sectors. Perhaps most significantly of all, we are also committed to the most radical overhaul of vocational qualifications for adults ever. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, the Learning and Skills Council and the Sector Skills Development Agency are working together to create bite-sized courses and the principle of mainstream unitisation.
If we are to achieve our aspirations for vocational education, however, we cannot focus exclusively on providers. We must also find innovative ways of stimulating demand for learning among young people, adults and employers.
The LSC is working with key members of the new national skills delivery group to develop a common marketing and communication strategy to promote

879
vocational education. Learndirect has attracted 960,000 learners in only three years. The trade union learning fund and learning representatives have brought members and employers to the "learning table" for the first time. The employer training pilot schemes are offering advice and guidance combined with financial incentives to attract employers, especially small and medium-sized enterprises. As I said earlier, local RDAs and LSCs, Business Link and Jobcentre Plus and are working together in each region to minimise bureaucracy and maximise their cumulative impact on demand.
In addition, the Government are considering the extent of our influence as an employer, contractor and procurer of goods and services. I am in the process of conducting an internal review of education and business partnerships, and of our links with national voluntary organisations such as Young Enterprise, Business Dynamics and Trident to strengthen the dynamic that joins schools, colleges, employers and young people. Most importantly, we are committed to ensuring that by next year 85 per cent. of the UK work force will be covered by sector skills councils. At the moment, they are the missing piece in the skills jigsaw.
I turn now to Her Majesty's Opposition, and thus move away from the consensus that is beginning to develop in the debate. Last week, the quiet man said that there was no knight in shining armour waiting over the hill to ride to the rescue of his party. He was right about that. The emperor elect says that he has learned
"that winning the argument is not the same as winning hearts and minds."
That is an example of the Opposition's eternal arrogance. I assume that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) thinks that he won the argument over the poll tax or over his claim that the minimum wage would cost 2 million jobs. I have news for him, on both vocational education and higher education—his party is winning neither the arguments, nor the hearts and minds.
Conservative Members advocate the sheep and goats model of vocational education that has been a primary cause of our national failure in this area. They would determine that at 14 middle-class students took the "academic route" and disengaged working-class kids went vocational. They would create a two-tier system in which vocational was perceived as and became the inferior second-class option.
Mr. Graham Brady: Is the hon. Gentleman trying seriously to advance the thesis that the Government's policy of putting top-up fees on students is more popular than the Opposition's policy of scrapping fees? Does he not believe that we have won the argument on that, and have we not also won the argument on the Labour Benches?
Mr. Lewis: I am coming to that.
In higher education, the Conservatives would significantly reduce the number of young people having access to higher education and consequently cap the aspirations of many working-class and lower-middleclass families. Their claim to financial savings implies that their alternative vision of vocational courses would cost little or nothing. High-quality vocational
880
education, the best universities in the world and the maximum possible number of young people learning post-16 would not be viable under their dishonest financial support package. They also conveniently ignore the fact that credible vocational education can and should, in many circumstances, lead to higher education when young people want that, and that a significant part of achieving our 50 per cent. target for 2010 will be via vocational routes.
It is not a question of hearts and minds versus the strength of the argument. For 18 years, the Conservative party had a unique chance to prepare our country for the challenges of the 21st century. What was its legacy? It was millions of adults lacking basic literacy and numeracy skills; 37 per cent. of 11-year-olds being unable to read or write to the required standard; and antisocial behaviour and a lack of respect permeating much of our society. Thatcher's children are also the children of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe. Blair's children will benefit from sure start, universal nursery provision, infant class sizes of fewer than 30, the primary literacy and numeracy strategy, our focus on the early years of secondary schools, our national attendance and behaviour strategy, Connexions, secondary reform, a new 14 to 19 agenda, more adults in school and lifelong learning than ever before, modern apprenticeships and education maintenance allowances, and revitalised further education and world-class higher education—not to mention family support and financial help focused on eliminating child poverty and making work pay. That is the long-term change that we are making to the learning opportunities available to young people in our country.
Andrew Selous: I listened with interest and respect to the Minister until he went into slight ranting mode just now. Conservative Members would listen to him more closely if he were to acknowledge that under his watch not everything has been perfect: the proportion of GCSE vocational qualifications has fallen under his Government; and the proportion of people in learning and adult community enrolments has also fallen significantly. Perhaps he will come to those points shortly.
Mr. Lewis: I reject entirely the hon. Gentleman's assertions. If statistics are used out of context, they distort the argument. If it is being claimed that results for people taking GCSEs this year demonstrate that our educational reform agenda has not worked, I must point out that that takes no account of the fact that the young people taking GCSEs this year did not benefit from our literacy and numeracy strategy, our reduced infant class sizes, our early years of secondary school strategy and our 14 to 19 reforms. If we are to have an honest debate about the impact of cumulative educational reform, we must acknowledge that this Government's reforms for the long term are beginning to raise standards in our schools considerably, as is demonstrated by the improvement in literacy and numeracy at the age of 11.
Our ambitions for vocational education will not be realised easily. We are seeking not magic wands or quick-fix solutions but a long-term cultural revolution, which will tear down the barriers between the world of education and the world of work. That will create a climbing frame of opportunities for all our young

881
people, not a cul-de-sac or a one-way street for too many.It will ensure that lifelong learning is the powerhouse that truly extends opportunities to all, creating a nation that utilises the talents of all of our people so that we can be the best in the world.
5.35 pm
Mr. Graham Brady: Oh dear! The Minister started so well, but it all went horribly wrong towards the end. We were on the verge of having a sensible and serious debate, and it is rather sad that he went off message.
I am pleased to be here to open the debate for the Opposition, but I apologise for my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) who should be doing so. He could not get back to the House in time from an important engagement on similar matters in Manchester today. I know that he would wish to be here but, sadly, he cannot. However, I am grateful to have this opportunity, particularly as it could be—who knows?—my last appearance at the Dispatch Box. We can only wait and see.
Mr. Pollard: Shame.
Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
The Minister said that this was an important debate. It is important to employers, who need well qualified young people to come into the labour force, and to all our people, both young and old. At the beginning of his remarks, the Minister let out the guilty secret that he tried to conceal a little later. There is considerable consensus between the two sides of the House and among all parties on some of the objectives that we wish to achieve, even if we have differences of emphasis and view on how we wish to get there.
The debate is timely in the context of the national skills strategy that the Government have published, the Tomlinson inquiry and the lively and ongoing debate on the future of higher and further education and, in particular, the funding of it, to which the Minister alluded.
We have heard constructive contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and the hon. Members for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) and for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who commented on the dialogue that was developing. An interesting discussion started about the balance between providing vocational options in schools and doing that on other sites in colleges, and about how we can best move forward in a way that encourages the maximum number of young people to stay in education.
I should like the Minister to say a little more about that when he replies, particularly in the context of the flexibility pilots that have been proceeding. Those pilots are entirely welcome and have begun to show some positive outcomes. He will know, as I do, that people in the schools and colleges involved have real concerns about how the pilots can best be developed and what the appropriate funding streams will be, so that the vision of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North can be realised, with more facilities for over-14s and over-16s offered in schools. How can we enable people in schools
882
to experience a proper mixture of vocational and academic options? I hope that the Minister will return to that point and give the House the benefit of his thoughts on the matter.
There is a broad consensus about the nature of the problem that we face in this country with regard to skills and vocational education. The Minister went through some of the details of the background but we remain today in a relatively poor position in comparison with our main competitors in developing non-academic skills. Some 28 per cent. of British people are qualified to apprentice, skilled-craft or technician level, as against 51 per cent. of the population in France or 65 per cent. in Germany. More than 13 million people of working age lack basic qualifications. As the Minister neglected to mention in his closing remarks, 80,000 children are, according to Ofsted, currently being failed and, very largely, by our education system.
Mr. Lansley: In the context of the important debate about productivity, does my hon. Friend agree that if one compares the UK with France and Germany, the deficiency is not the proportion of students in degree-level education but the proportion who are developing intermediate skills, which are essentially skills related to national vocational qualification level 2 or 3?
Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend is right, and his point is crucial to the debate about the balance between the need for higher and further education and how we should advance the cause of improving the population's skills for the benefit of the work force and employers. The Government have set an arbitrary 50 per cent. target for young people going into higher education, although during Education questions last week, I noted that the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education suggested that the figure was between 40 and 50 per cent, which sounded like backtracking or a slippage of the target.
There is a discrepancy between the estimate of the need for graduate skills made by the Department for Education and Skills and that garnered by the Department of Trade and Industry. I received a written answer from the DFES last week stating that 65 per cent. of graduates are engaged in jobs that require a graduate qualification after three years in their careers. However, the week before that, I heard that research undertaken on behalf of the DTI through the national graduate tracking survey suggested that when graduates themselves are questioned after three years in their careers, only 48 per cent. say that they are in a graduate job. There is a real imbalance between the two Departments, so perhaps there is a lack of joined-up government. Of course, the figures go to the heart of the validity of the Government's 50 per cent. target and the question of how we should best move higher and further education forward.
The Government's target of 50 per cent. participation in higher education is only one example of the British tendency to undervalue the vocational and practical. Similarly, we saw an increasing tendency for the fields of study in polytechnics to become more theoretical and academic. That was not only a British phenomenon. We often hear Germany's experience of vocational education held up as a beacon, but the education in German polytechnics became less technical and more

883
theoretical and academic. That was dealt with in Germany through the creation of universities of applied science, which is an interesting model that has borne some fruit—it is certainly popular with German employers.
My hon. Friend referred to the productivity gap between this country and our competitors, which is inexorably linked to work-related skills. If we do not get our approach on such skills right, we cannot hope to reduce that gap. The UK's gross domestic product per head is below the European Union average and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average. Our gap between France and Germany becomes wider if we use the measure of GDP per person hour worked, which shows that we are working harder and for longer hours to make up for difficulties faced by members of the work force who lack skills that could increase productivity.
The picture is not all bleak, because some excellent vocational education is offered in this country. The Minister will recall his recent visit to South Trafford college in my constituency during which we saw airline cabin crew learning their trade, and students learning catering skills to a superb standard—he and I were privileged to sample their work later in our visit.
There are, however, gaps and shortcomings in the provision of vocational education. The Minister acknowledged in a written answer on 16 September the need to do more if we are to revitalise and expand apprenticeship programmes. There are also problems with the delivery of guidance, which has been mentioned. The Connexions service is far from universal in providing the necessary guidance to young people. The problem will be compounded by the introduction of greater flexibility at key stage 4. If we are to offer a greater number of different routes to young people at the age of 14, the challenge is to get it right when we guide them through the options so that we ensure they do not take a wrong turn, which could cause difficulties for their career throughout their working lives.
Foundation degrees must be developed with the involvement of both employers and colleges. Ministers need to be clear that the degrees are of value. They are not a shortcut to achieving the Government's target of participation in higher education or a rebranded higher national diploma.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry has joined us. I am only sorry that he was not here an hour or so earlier.
Concern is always raised when Ministers spend large sums on advertising, as they have for foundation degrees. It has not been possible to open a magazine or newspaper in the past couple of weeks without seeing glossy full-page advertisements. As they do not impart much information about foundation degrees, one is tempted to wonder whether Ministers are worried about the content of what is on offer. Conservative Members are more interested in the substance of the policy than the advertising budget.
The Government's record on adult skills was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). It leaves something to be desired. The sinking of the flagship
884
individual learning accounts was strangely omitted from the Minister's list of Government initiatives. That resulted in the loss of a considerable sum—
Mr. Tim Boswell: £100 million.
Mr. Brady: So £100 million was lost through the incompetence displayed when the policy was introduced. We were promised that the policy, central to improving adult skills and learning, would be reintroduced in short order.
Mr. Pollard: A propos the ILA, its withdrawal was the result of a fraud committed on an ever-increasing scale. It had nothing to do with the way in which it was administered by the Department for Education and Skills.
Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the point. Surely the problem is that Ministers should have implemented the scheme properly by providing proper safeguards against fraud. Instead, it was set up in a way that was wide open to fraud. They also ignored warnings and indications of difficulties for far too long before they acted.
Mr. Pollard: The ILA was worth £200. It would have cost much more to ensure that it was not abused. The problem was caused by Jack-the-lad coming along and abusing it.
Mr. Brady: If the hon. Gentleman thinks it is so obvious that the scheme could never have worked because it was too expensive to proof it against fraud, why does he think that Ministers in his Government were incapable of seeing the blindingly obvious when they introduced the scheme?
The Government's record on adult skills is not one of which they can be proud. Government targets push the learning and skills councils' budgets into providing for 16 to 18-year-olds and for basic skills at the expense of adult skills. That will affect the ability of colleges to meet local skill needs and demand from employers and employees for part-time courses.
What does business need? That was summed up by the British Chambers of Commerce which said that it wants
"young people to receive education and training, not education or training."
It backed that up with comments from 36.4 per cent. of respondents to its productivity survey earlier this year who cited the lack of available skills as a barrier to improving their business performance. The notion of education and training is at the core of our challenge in schools and colleges. Next week in Committee we will debate changes to the key stage 4 curriculum, which may bring welcome flexibility, space for training and work-related learning. However, the changes risk narrowing the curriculum, potentially restricting pupils post-14 to a choice of only one modern foreign language and only one of the humanities. It would be a tragedy if, in trying to provide greater flexibility and space in the curriculum, Ministers created a system within which our young people are offered less choice and a less broad curriculum. Ministers must persuade the House that they will not allow that to happen.

885
The Engineering Employers Federation is one of many organisations to have highlighted the importance of the vocational route being given equal weighting to the academic route. The federation also voices concern about the adequacy of guidance—a point touched on earlier—and says that there is a need for work-based learning that
"energises and excites students and does not drain them of enthusiasm for continuing to higher levels of study."
What would we do differently? The Minister gave a caricature of the Opposition's policies and record. We are committed to a major expansion of skills education, available to young people earlier than it is now. We will work to increase the involvement of industry in the design and outcomes of courses and qualifications. We are committed to raising the status of skills education, which can be achieved only through rigorous and relevant courses leading to high-quality qualifications. We have made clear our belief that the emphasis on increasing the numbers of people in higher education—the 50 per cent. target—is not appropriate, as it exaggerates demand for graduate-level qualifications and diverts attention from the real skills crisis in our country. We want to widen choice and diversity in schools through our school passport and to allow more technical schools to grow. We will attach new priority to adult education, which has declined markedly in recent years, with enrolments down by more than 15 per cent. since 1996.
We join the Government in our mutual ambition to see a renaissance in skills education in our country, but we shall constructively oppose the Government when we see them failing, or showing signs of taking the wrong turning and letting down our young people.
5.52 pm
Mr. Kerry Pollard: I shall be extremely brief, as we have little time.
There is a critical skills shortage—especially in the south-east; there is no doubt about that—in all sorts of professions and trades. In my area, it takes a year and half to get an appointment with a speech therapist and the therapy that many young children need. That is unacceptable. We cannot get plumbers or bricklayers, either, so we need to increase their number. That is one aspect of the problem.
Another aspect, which no one has addressed, is prison education. If we are to reduce the prison population and stop prisoners reoffending, as about 75 per cent. do, we have to educate them and give them vocational skills. There are some excellent examples of this, and I shall cite two. One is found in Feltham young offenders institution, where the Ford Motor Company is offering apprenticeships to young guests. They are trained to maintain motor cars; the training continues after their sentence ends and they are then offered a job by the Ford Motor Company. That is an excellent scheme and we should set up more like it. The second example is that of Transco, which in two prisons in England is training gas fitters, giving people skills so that when they get out of prison, they can get a job, raise their aspirations and expectations, and perhaps not reoffend.
886
I am pleased that the Select Committee on Education and Skills has at last decided to consider prison education—it is long overdue. I know that the Minister and his colleagues will welcome that work. Our Government are doing good things to tackle the skills shortage, but we need to accelerate the process.
5.54 pm
Mr. Phil Willis: First, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having to leave the debate early. I have already apologised to both Front-Bench Members.
This has been a most interesting debate, if only because of the revelation that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and Baroness Thatcher share the same children. I find that an intriguing prospect. We now know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman got up to during the night.
I thank the Minister for finding the time to introduce this timely debate. It gives us the opportunity to consider what stage the Government have reached with their skill strategy, where they want to go and what has been left out for the next general election. It is timely in another respect, too. I am rather sad that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) is not in his place, because the Select Committee on Education and Skills has decided to conduct a year-long inquiry into the skills strategy. We support that decision and hope that the Committee will take the Government to task on many of the things that they are doing.
Few would deny the statistics that Members on both Front Benches have given during the debate. Indeed, those statistics have constantly been brought to the attention of the House. They show just how far behind Britain lags in its skills agenda. To be 25th in a league table of 29 industrial countries for 17-year-olds in further education or training is not something that any Member should be proud of. To be 13th out of 22 for 16year-olds gaining the equivalent of five good GCSEs is another indictment of not only the present Government but the previous Government. Most worrying, perhaps, is that according to Chris Humphries of the national skills taskforce, by 2010 about 65 per cent. of jobs will require at least a level 3 qualification. At present, only about 38 per cent. of our workforce has that level of qualification, compared with 73 per cent. in Germany.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has disappeared, having made three speeches. I know that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) is incredibly committed to the whole of the education and skills agenda. The idea that we need either more level 2 or level 3 skills, or more graduates, is wrong. It is fundamentally flawed. Indeed, evidence from the recent report by Professor Machin of the London School of Economics, commissioned by the Department for Education and Skills, shows that higher academic qualifications have robust productivity effects, at both national and regional levels. Professor Machin's interesting piece of research demonstrates that by comparison with investment at any other level, it is graduates who add to our productivity and competitiveness, and to the earnings of the nation as a whole.

887
For Liberal Democrats—and, to be fair, for the Government—it is a question not of either/or, but of whether we need both approaches.
Andrew Selous: I wonder what the hon. Gentleman's response would be to the figures of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), which showed that about 48 per cent. of graduates felt that they were not in graduate-level jobs three years after starting work. Does that not suggest that quite a few graduates have taken courses that have not best equipped them for the work that they have gone into?
Mr. Willis: I know that the hon. Gentleman, too, has an avid interest in educational matters, but his conclusion from the statistics to which he refers is flawed. If we are saying that the only value of having a degree and having gone to university is that of immediate employability prospects, we have missed the point.
All the independent evidence demonstrates that a graduate education is not only about economic wellbeing; it is also about social well-being and health—a graduate is likely to live longer. It is sad that after three years some people feel that they are not in a job for which their degree has equipped them. One would hope that, as they progress through life, they will see the broader values of their education.
My son graduated two years ago and is currently travelling the world. When he returns, he will probably have to start in a job where he does not have the equivalent of a graduate salary. So be it, but I hope that the whole experience will benefit him.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman intervened, because I wanted to speak briefly about Conservative policy. What saddens me most is the fact that it is populist, appears to involve no additional cost and, moreover, would seriously undermine Britain's competitiveness and the social and economic well-being of our citizens. The thrust of the policy—this is surprising for the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West who, for the moment, is Front-Bench spokesman—is "education for the best and skills for the rest". The Conservatives want bright middle-class children to go to academic schools and continue to take the traditional path to university.
Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Willis: May I just finish this point, and then the hon. Gentleman can get excited?
Bright middle-class children would go to academic schools, preferably grammar schools, and continue to take the traditional path to university. The rest would have an increasingly substandard vocational education and would become plumbers. I use the term "substandard" because the idea that high-quality vocational education can be offered on the cheap is nonsense. The figures that Professor Barr gave serve as an analysis of Conservative policy. He said in his report that
"good vocational training has significant costs, which these proposals totally ignore."
Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair to me. He and I have debated the future of secondary
888
schools, particularly the question of selection, often enough for him to know that my passion for grammar schools derives from the fact that they offer opportunities to working-class children, who are too often deprived of such opportunities. The Minister snorts, but he had the opportunity to attend a grammar school, as did many Government Members. That opportunity is no longer available. Conservative Members want access, whether to old-fashioned grammar schools or to independent education, which in too many areas is available only to those who can afford it. It should be more openly available, regardless of people's means or income. That would help many Labour Members out of their embarrassment as well. I hope, however, that the hon. Gentleman accepts that he has done me an injustice.
Mr. Willis: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I have done so, but I do not believe that I have. It is surprising that since John Major left Parliament, not a single Conservative Member— this will apply also, I suspect, to the new Front-Bench team—has said openly that they want a grammar school in every town. What happened to that policy? If' the hon. Gentleman believes that we should have grammar schools, he should tell the public to put their crosses against the candidates representing a party that wants to bring secondary modern schools to Britain. Nobody has ever beaten a path to my door to say that they want a secondary modern school for their children. It would be a great peril to go down that road.
To be fair to the Conservatives, at their party conference in October they sought to put more flesh on the bones of their policies. The proposal to provide vocational education from age 13 onwards is interesting, but there would not be a single extra penny for that policy or for all the new schools, based on the model provided by the charter school movement in America, that would be required. All the money would have to be found from existing resources. If that is their policy, the Conservatives should be upfront about it. Vocational education from level 2 to postgraduate level is infinitely more expensive to provide than academic education. Funding a PhD in sociology costs about a fiftieth of funding a PhD in chemistry or engineering. We must therefore be honest about policies when we publish them.
On current trends, 450,000 students with the equivalent of two A-levels would not have a university place under the Conservatives and would have to get vocational experience elsewhere. The cost runs into billions of pounds. It is not small beer, but a massive bill, and the Conservatives must work out how to pay it if they are to be credible.
The biggest flaw in Conservative thinking is that removing the aspirations of working-class youngsters and the feeling that they can go to university does the whole process a disservice and puts us back to the pre-Robbins days of 1963, when only privileged youngsters from a privileged group of schools could go there. I trust that Conservative Members will rethink that policy.
I am pleased that the Minister dealt with the 14-to-19 agenda today. We are all waiting for the outcome of the Tomlinson inquiry, but there are already worrying contradictions in what Ministers say. How can we encourage schools and colleges to co-operate on individualised vocational programmes, possibly

889
involving employers, and end age-related testing, but hang on to central targets and league tables that use GCSEs as the main tool of institutional assessment? Those two polices are totally at odds.
When we do not know the outcome of the Tomlinson inquiry, why are the Government going ahead with area reviews and the learning and skills proposals for a new framework of schools and colleges in the areas covered? Why take that approach before we know the thrust of a policy on the basis of which we have agreed to proceed? Why do we have a Connexions service—this point was made earlier—that concentrates on the less able from the end of level 3, and not the gifted? We cannot have a curriculum that is open to all and offers a vocational option as well as an academic one if we simply allow schools to channel students through a particular route.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), who has left his place, was leader of Leeds city council when I was a head teacher in the area. He knows only too well that that is the divide that arose—a divide between schools with sixth forms and the further education college sector. I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) about that issue. I do not believe that offering young people quality post-16 experiences in FE colleges so that their communities see that they are getting such experiences will mean that those young people say "That is not for me." The opposite is the case: we want students to stay on wherever they can, and they should have quality facilities.
Mr. Brady: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but does he agree that the involvement of colleges with schools in providing some vocational education on school sites, perhaps from the age of 13 or 14, can be a very effective way of improving the vocational offer and building up a relationship between those colleges and schools?
Mr. Willis: I have no problems at all with that approach. Indeed, it is Liberal Democrat policy that independent careers counselling should be provided from age 14 onwards. Such advice should be independent of the school and any other institution. Furthermore, funding should follow students from that point onwards, and that arrangement should be flexible enough to allow students to build up their prospects, including the school, FE college and workplace. That should enable us to encourage students from 14 onwards to have some aspirations and a sense progression, and to pursue mixed routes. If that all takes place on the school site, I will be delighted. Equally, I will be delighted if it occurs from 14 onwards on a college site. If students wish to pick and mix—if the House will pardon the expression—I shall also be pleased.
The Minister will be aware that we have acknowledged, as I do today, the genuine effort that he has made to come frequently to the House to tell us about how the skills programme is developing and to allow us to debate it. None the less, we have consistently signalled to him the inherent dangers of developing separate skills and academic pathways. The danger is
890
that that will perpetuate a system that the Conservatives have now made their official policy by providing education for the best and skills for the rest.
The Government are falling into the trap of facing two ways at once on education and skills. When I attend conferences on skills, the focus is on the White Paper, "21st Century Skills: Realising Our Potential"; the inspiration is eastwards, across the channel to Germany and France; and the challenge is to increase the stock of vocational level 2 and 3 qualifications at all costs. When I attend conferences on higher education, the focus is on the White Paper, "The Future of Higher Education"; the inspiration is westwards, across the Atlantic to the United States; and the challenge is to increase the stock of level 4 qualifications at all costs. The problem is that there are two White Papers, not one, in circulation; and the result is confusion on the part of schools, colleges, training providers and universities. We cannot go on debating the human capital policy of this nation when the fault line between skills and higher education is so deeply obvious.
The inconsistencies are there for us to see. Let us consider, for instance, the skills gap. The skills White Paper says that too few people have associate professional, technical and higher craft skills at level 3. Its solution is more advanced modern apprenticeships and vocational level 3 programmes. The higher education White Paper also says that we have a shortage of people with associate professional, technical and higher craft skills. It uses exactly the same language, but its solution is foundation degrees. So we have the absurd situation whereby two separate funding agencies, the Learning and Skills Council and the Higher Education Funding Council, fund two different products—level 3 qualifications and foundation degrees—and seek to solve the same problem, which in most instances will be delivered in the same further education colleges.
I hope that the Minister will take those remarks in the spirit in which they are intended, because it is a genuine issue that needs to be grasped. It is vital that we view the skills White Paper and the higher education White Paper together. I hope that he will prepare a strategy paper that allows the House to debate how those two aspects can come together, and that the Select Committee on Education and Skills will take the same approach when it begins its inquiry in January.
The centrepiece of the skills strategy is the skills alliance—or the Soviet central committee, as it has been dubbed because of its extreme complexity. Our concerns, however, are linked not so much to the national arrangements but to the sector, local and regional arrangements. At the launch of the skills strategy, I said to the Secretary of State that it would require a PhD to fathom out the roles played in the structure by the 47 local learning and skills councils, the nine regional development agencies and the proposed network of 25 sector skills councils. There seems to be utter confusion about the arrangements, with providers, especially further education colleges, not knowing which way to turn. Given that half of all vocational qualifications—some 550,000 per year—are delivered through FE, that FE provides 200 million days of adult training to British industry every year, and that the FE colleges link up with, on average, 500 firms each, we owe the sector some clarification about the local and regional arrangements.

891
It is not only the FE sector that is confused. This week, the CBI and the Engineering Employers Federation complained that bureaucracy is hampering plans to improve the skills work force. The Education and Skills Committee says that it will examine the roles of all the bodies involved in the skills alliance. I wish it luck, because there are now so many of them that it would take not this Chamber but the dome to fit them all in to discuss the issue.
The Government seem to be riding three horses at once. One minute, they believe in a local bottom-up education and skills strategy led by local learning and skills councils. The next, they believe in a sector-driven education and skill strategy led by the new, evangelical sector skills councils. Then, they believe in a regional approach driven by the regional development agencies and regional chambers of commerce.
The skills White Paper is fast becoming a classic Whitehall fudge. The Government must choose between local, sectoral and regional approaches to the commissioning and delivery of this strategy. The Liberal Democrats believe that the regional approach is the right one. We also believe that the Learning and Skills Council should be regionalised and merged with the RDAs, and that, when regional government comes on board, it should be subject to democratic accountability through the regional assemblies.
We accept that the Minister has made great play of working with the business community and talking about voluntarism. He does not want any sort of statutory intervention, so far as business is concerned. However, his colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seems to have a different view, in that he talks about post-voluntarism. Will the Minister explain to us what that means? Is the Chancellor talking about incentives via tax credits, match funding, national insurance rebates or even business rate rebates, in relation to delivering skills? If so, let us engage with him on that. Or is there an agenda to examine statutory licences to practice, statutory training levels and subsidies, and a statutory right to time off for study at level 2? If that is the agenda, I think that we ought to know about it before the general election, so that it can become part and parcel of this debate.
I applaud the Minister for coming to the House yet again to allow us to debate the skills strategy. We remain supportive of the Government's vision, and we are prepared to offer constructive support for what the Minister is trying to do, but action is needed if disillusionment is not to set in across the whole sector.
6.16 pm
Mr. John Horam: I have never heard the Minister speak before, because I am not a regular attender of these debates, but if I may so, his speech was curiously schizophrenic. He started with some rather thoughtful remarks about vocational education, but his speech suddenly descended into a sort of rabble-rousing rant. If there had been a rabble to rouse, I could have understood that, but his tone was not entirely appropriate for the Chamber at this time, deep into a Wednesday evening when the business is relatively light and there are not many attenders, especially on the Government Benches. I felt he rather let the side down.
Unfortunately, the Minister seemed to infect the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who went off in a rather similar vein about
892
Conservative party policy. That was interesting, because the Liberal Democrats claim to be the most effective critics of the Government these days, yet all that they seemed to be doing on this occasion was attacking the policies adumbrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's speech was in contrast to the magisterial approach of my hon. Friend, who made a rather modest attempt to say that he might not be on the Front Bench after the reshuffle that will presumably take place this weekend. He did not do himself justice; I am sure that he will be there for a long time to come, whether in this particular job or another one. He certainly got the better of the argument between the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the Minister.
Leaving aside that rather curious aspect of today's debate, I believe that there is a danger that we might begin to regard vocational education in the same way as we view motherhood and apple pie. We all subscribe to it in a broad, non-political and rather bland way. If I were someone who worked in that sector, I would be wary of politicians bearing gifts. My experience gives me a second sense that these things sometimes do not work out quite as well as we hope they will.
There is a contrast between this debate and the much more heated debate that is taking place on higher education, in which we hear of Government revolts against their own policies. I am not sure which debate I would prefer to be in. Higher education is debated with great passion inside the parties and across the Chamber, whereas this subject—apart from the lapses that I have mentioned—seems to attract broad consensus. There is an old Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times." I am sure that people in the higher education sector would be able to relate to that. Perhaps they would prefer to be somewhere in between the bland approach to vocational education and the rather hyper approach that we have adopted towards higher education.
I must agree, however, with the thrust of the points made about the value and importance of vocational education, and the extent to which standards have fallen in this country over the decades. The Minister himself spoke of a time back in 1880. The old Liberal party may have had a role in those days, before successive Labour and Conservative Governments took over. It is true that current standards do not meet the aspirations and needs of the country.
I want to say something about the Government's policy, and about the concern that it has prompted in further education colleges. More than 50 per cent. of all vocational qualifications—more than 550,000 annually—are awarded via colleges. Between 1997–98 and 2000–01, 2 million were awarded in that way, while 233,000 were awarded through employers. I am indebted to the Association of Colleges for those statistics.
We all know the value of further education colleges in that context. I also welcome, with some reservations, the package the Government put together last November, a year ago. It has been widely welcomed by colleges of further education, but they are concerned about a number of matters. They feel, for instance, that many

893
qualifications are very inflexible, as is the way in which they are funded, and that there should be a more modular approach.
I am indebted to the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). Bury seems to have something of a hold over this subject, which is interesting. It must have an excellent college of further education. Anyway, the hon. Gentleman tabled an early-day motion, which I think I signed. It made the point rather well. It
"urges the Department for Education and Skills, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and the Learning and Skills Council to implement proposals in the interim skills strategy which…give colleges greater ability to develop bespoke"—
"bespoke" is the crucial word—
"training and flexible qualifications with simplified assessment systems so that they can equip more individual learners and employers with the skills they need in the modern economy."
That goes to the heart of the matter. As a matter of practicality, we need more flexibility and a more bespoke approach. I hope that the Government will heed that.
In the more sane and rational part of his speech, the Minister spoke of employers' reluctance to send people on vocational training courses. He made some sensible remarks, and I applaud the measures he said the Government were adopting to encourage employers to take the initiative. Too many employers are not sending people on such courses, often for ridiculous short-term reasons. They may feel that they will lose them to other companies, for instance.
Friends and colleagues involved in further education often mention another factor—the excessive bureaucracy that still accompanies all these measures. I recently received a letter from a constituent who works in further education. He wrote
"We continue to experience excessive bureaucracy. The way in which we are expected to bid for additional project money and the constant auditing of how resources are spent creates…additional cost. There is a commitment nationally to reduce bureaucracy, but we are not yet seeing any evidence of this on the ground."
That is the problem. Moreover, the Association of Colleges regretfully reports that only 3 per cent. of its members think that the Learning and Skills Council represents real value for money. That disturbing statistic reflects the bureaucratic approach that the LSC has somehow not yet managed to overcome.
Let me now make a point that I have made before. I rarely speak in debates on this subject, but I have spoken before of the Government's reluctance to consider including lecturers in further education colleges in their starter homes initiative. Under that initiative, which I believe has been retitled the home buy initiative, key workers are given help with housing, but FE college lecturers have always been excluded.
Mr. Brady: While my hon. Friend is on the subject of the key teacher home buy scheme, he may also wish to comment on evidence that I elicited from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the form of a written answer. I was told that the loan would be considered a taxable benefit. According to an answer from the Department for
894
Education and Skills, it would be means-tested according to the total family income of the teacher involved.
Mr. Horam: I am very interested in that because I am about to lead a delegation of colleges to see the Minister for Housing and Planning to discuss precisely those issues—I think that we have a date now: 4 December. I am conscious that, while a commitment in principle has been made, which I welcome, to include FE college lecturers in the scheme, the details are not yet clear. If my hon. Friend is right, that is a point that I would like to take up with the Minister on behalf of college lecturers.
At the moment, college lecturers are clearly at a disadvantage compared with teachers. Once there was not that amount of competition between schools and FE colleges to recruit staff, but now there is severe competition. They are all scrimping from the same pool. Colleges should not be disadvantaged compared with schools. They already suffer from many disadvantages in recruitment terms, about which we should be concerned.
I would like the Government to take on board the three issues that I have raised—bureaucracy, the attitude of employers and the need to help them to recruit properly. I hope that the Minister will respond to those points when he replies to the debate.
6.26 pm
Mr. David Chaytor: I commend the work that has been done on the skills strategy by my hon. Friend the Minister, and particularly his commitment to bridging the vocational-academic divide. I know how strongly he feels about that. Indeed, that sentiment is reflected in his commitment to prepare the White Paper and implement its recommendations.
I listened to the remarks of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), particularly the quotation from my early-day motion. I thank him for his support. I also listened carefully to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who said that he was offering constructive support to the Government. If I were on the front line with him and that was what he meant by constructive support, I would be a little nervous. However, he made one or two important criticisms to which should like to come back.
The Minister and I share adjacent constituencies and we have the joint privilege of representing a local authority that has a national reputation for high educational standards, although it is my particular privilege to represent the constituency in which the major further education facilities are located. I think that I can say without fear of being challenged that Bury, North is now the further education capital of the United Kingdom. The level of investment in new facilities, the level of increase in revenue, the improvement in the quality of education and the increase in the number of staff in the further education sector in Bury, North are some of the biggest tributes to the Government's commitment to lifelong learning that one could offer.
It is important that we are having this debate, because vocational education is a matter of enormous significance that should have a regular allocated slot in

895
the parliamentary calendar. After all, we have an annual debate on agriculture and one on fishing, but there are far more people working in further education than in agriculture or fishing these days. It seems reasonable therefore that we should have an annual debate on vocational education and training and further education.
Given the comparatively small number of hon. Members present, I am struck by the stark contrast between FE and vocational education and HE and academic education. The big controversy in education policy at the moment is related to HE, which has dominated our education system for half a century or more. If we were debating tuition fees, there would be more than a couple of handfuls of hon. Members in the Chamber. That is an important point to note. The Government have, rightly, done more than any Government to try to redress the balance of investment and political attention to the advantage of the further education sector, which educates the overwhelming majority of school leavers. That means a necessary shift in the balance away from the university sector. What we are discussing today, however, is linked to the question of financing universities, tuition fees and top-up fees. It is particularly striking that the per capita investment in each FE student is some 20 per cent. less than in each HE student. That really makes the point for the Government's policy on tuition fees.
Dr. John Pugh: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the distinction between higher or academic education and vocational education is somewhat spurious, given that some of the most oversubscribed courses in HE—those in medicine and law—are essentially vocational?
Mr. Chaytor: I agree completely—indeed, I have made the same point on many occasions. I come back to my starting point: this Government have done more than any other to try to bring together the academic and the vocational into a seamless range of provision. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to stress the vocational nature of some very prestigious university courses. We must get away from a concept that has divided our education service and our society; indeed, the Conservatives' policy on HE finance draws that point to our attention more than ever before. In arguing that we cannot have so many people in universities, and that we should abandon the 50 per cent. target, they are really trying to turn the clock back and to build a divide, at a very early stage, between the sheep and the goats. At the beginning of the first decade of the 21st century, this country does not have the luxury of dividing people into sheep and goats at birth, or at the age of five, 11, 16 or 18. That is why a coherent and integrated post-l6—preferably, post-14—policy is needed.
I want to draw attention to the enormous step forward that the White Paper has taken in the financing of vocational education. There is the introduction of education maintenance allowances, which will go nationwide; the introduction of the education grant for adults post-19, which is being piloted; the development of employer training pilot schemes, which, as I understand it, are being carefully evaluated with a view to going nationwide; and the introduction of a commitment to free tuition for level 2 courses. All are
896
important developments that represent a significant shift in educational opportunity for people who, historically, have been denied such opportunity. The Government are making the central point that, if we want a nation that can compete effectively in the modern world, and in which every individual has the opportunity to develop their full potential, we must invest equally in all individuals, rather than making arbitrary distinctions between those who will receive an academic education with a higher per capita investment, and those who will be sidelined into vocational training.
I know that time is short, but I want now to offer some constructive support for, and criticism of, the White Paper. I want to pick up on the comments of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, and to discuss the organisational structures that we have inherited and are trying to shape into the delivery mechanism for the White Paper's policies. The combination of the sector skills councils, the 47 learning and skills councils and the increasing involvement of the regional development agencies presents a confusing picture. I have made that point to the Minister privately, so I know that he is aware of it, but I want publicly to reiterate the overriding importance—this is also the view of a growing number of people—of streamlining our bureaucracy for the delivery of vocational education, and of bringing together previously separate bureaucracies, organisations, quangos and agencies. If this policy, in which we have invested a huge amount of political and financial commitment, is going to succeed, we cannot afford to see it hit the rocks because of bureaucratic obstruction.
In my many years of experience in vocational education and training, one difficulty has been that the debate has focused on the delivery mechanism. What has been left out in that is the concept of the curriculum. Whether we have good access to high-level skills, whether we have motivated young people and adults, and whether we develop a lifelong learning culture all greatly depend on what people are learning.
I conclude by returning to the early-day motion—I must confess that I had forgotten about it, but it was obviously a good one and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orpington for reminding me of it—and focusing on the curriculum. The White Paper says that we need an adult curriculum in bite-size chunks, and we are now starting to talk about a modular curriculum.
I know that the chief executive of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, Ken Boston, feels passionately about that issue and I would urge the Minister to read his article published in The Daily Telegraph on 8 October. I realise that that newspaper is not often in the vanguard of progressive educational thinking, but on this occasion it provided Mr. Boston with a platform to make a telling point. In the article, he said that, in Australia—where he comes from—
"the schools most successful in attracting students into vocational education are those that shape their curriculum, according to the age of the students, on the basis of the national training packages. These are unitised, credit-based, industry-derived training programmes that specify knowledge, skill and competencies at successive levels of qualification within each vocation."
He went on to say:
"My experience has been that the presence of teachers with similar inspirational qualities is critical to the attraction and retention of young people to vocational education in schools."

897
It is a matter of curriculum, of quality teachers and inspirational teaching. The real point is that we cannot afford to leave that to the post-19 phase. That is why I am excited by the proposals for 14 to 19-year-olds in the work of Tomlinson and others. If we are going to bridge the academic-vocational divide, we have to get a unitised, credit-based curriculum in our schools.
It is an enormous irony of our education system that the elite and those who find it easiest to learn—undergraduates and, increasingly, postgraduates in universities—are completely used to a unitised, credit-based system. It is accepted as an effective form of motivation. Yet those who are less well motivated and find it more difficult to learn are expected—and have always been expected—to follow courses that continue for one or two full years. It is hard for certain young people and adults to maintain a strong level of commitment over that period of time.
I conclude with a plea to the Minister. Yes, we have to get the bureaucracy right and streamline the organisation, but let us not he obsessed by organisational matters. Let us focus on the quality of teaching and on the curriculum. Let us ensure that we have a seamless policy, starting at 14, with a unitised, credit-based curriculum. I believe that that is the single most important factor that will encourage more of our young people to continue their education and training beyond the age of 16, beyond 19 and throughout their lives.
6.38 pm
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I shall endeavour to be brief, although perhaps I shall not be able to match the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard).
The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) suggested that his constituency was the further education capital of the United Kingdom without contradiction, but I am sure that South Cambridgeshire can compete, not least with the presence of Hills Road sixth-form college, which has the highest academic standards of any FE college in the country, and Long Road sixth-form college. Homerton college also makes an important contribution to teacher education, so South Cambridgeshire is certainly up there and bidding against the claims of Bury, North.
I do not want to dwell on higher education, not because I do not have anything to say on the subject, but because I suspect that there will be other and better opportunities to discuss it at greater length. There is a risk of losing sight of some of the particular issues that could usefully be discussed this evening. I shall touch on a few.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) mentioned the important issue of productivity, and the Trade and Industry Committee has considered with great care how productivity can be stimulated. It is not enough to say simply that the composition of skills between this country and others differs, and that that explains the productivity gap. That is part of the explanation, but the differences between this and other countries are complex. Nor is it true to say that if we spend more money on education, we will
898
automatically see an improvement in productivity. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) misrepresented the Conservative party's approach, as the key point is not simply that we have too few people with intermediate skills—with the implication that we have too many people with degrees. The point is that we have far too many people with a lower level of skills.
The Minister said, rightly, that we should consider whether qualifications are fit for purpose, but quality education—vocational or academic—is all about fitness for purpose. It is about ensuring that students, of whatever age, pursue courses and qualifications that are fit for their purposes. The Minister reminded us—as if we had forgotten, and I do not think we had—that people can progress to degree level by a vocational route. That is true and, therefore, it ill becomes the Government to set an arbitrary 50 per cent. target for participation in higher education, when people reach different levels of education through various mechanisms. In many instances, they take a more vocational route that is based substantially in further education or work in the early days. It is the nature of the Government's problem that they have directed people into university courses, when the further education route might have been better for them.
Modern apprenticeships are at the heart of the vocational route. As the Minister suggested, I shall look at the entry to employment scheme and how well it bridges the gap that otherwise might force people into foundation modern apprenticeships. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough mentioned the external assessment of key skills and the desirability of the incorporation of that into the NVQ structure. Many employers certainly find that the bureaucracy and the time lost from work when those on modern apprenticeships go off for external assessment is a deterrent.
However, at the same time, we should compare our system with the German apprenticeship system—as the Engineering Employers Federation did in its helpful document, "Bridging the Continental Divide". In Germany, the general and technical competencies are the subject of external testing and examination. That is important, because we need to make a distinction between those occupational aspects that are practical and can be examined and assessed as people do their work in their workplace, and technical competencies that should be assessed independently to boost the value of the qualification if the young person moves to other employers. Not all examination and assessment should be brought into the workplace.
The EEF document also referred to research produced for the National Institute Economic Review in 2001 by H. Steedman, which shows that the comparison between Germany and this country is still a testing one. It states that
"overall, a young person who completes an apprenticeship in the German system would be able to meet the standard for a British NVQ3 in the same occupation. However, a young person with a British apprenticeship and NVQ3 would not be able to reach the standard required for the German system's general and technical education requirements."

899
We must bear that in mind when we talk about NVQ3, because we tend to believe that it is of a comparable standard to apprenticeships in other countries. If it is not comparable, we have to make sure that it becomes so, as that is what employers are looking for.
I listened with interest to Irena Grugulis of Bradford university on a radio programme the other night. I confess that I had seen no reference to her report previously, although I understand that it was published in the British Journal of Industrial Relations in September. It deals with the contribution of NVQs to the growth of skills in the UK. Her analysis suggests that NVQs do not attract the support from employers that they should. I do not know whether that is true, but I subscribe heartily to her prescription that there should be a much stronger industry and employer-led element in the structure of NVQs.
I end with a final, short point. I mentioned the structure of the relationship between LSCs and RDAs, but the matter goes much wider. There is a vast range of business support structures in the skills and training arena. The skills strategy has tried to resolve the question of how businesses relate to all the many organisations and opportunities by saying that the principle should be that there are no wrong doors. The implication is that skills and training are located in a world of virtual reality, where every door opens out on the right location.
However, I do not think that the real world works like that. If there are too many doors, brands, initiatives and structures, employers will simply walk away. We must ensure that the path is clearer and better organised, so that businesses can have confidence in the structures and the qualifications that are provided. Matters must also be kept simple, so that businesses can know how to proceed. For example, they must know that Business Link will get them to the training opportunities that they need for people entering employment through apprenticeships and the like. That is also important for raising the skills level in employment in places such as South Cambridgeshire, where there are relatively few people without jobs who want, and are able, to enter employment.
Raising the overall level of skills, principally among people who are in employment, is critical to our long-term economic performance. To make that happen, we must work primarily through the business community.
6.47 pm
Andrew Selous: I want to start by referring to a document published by the EU social fund, which I came across in my work as a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. It assesses the labour market skills of the different countries in the UK, as they affect economic performance.
Two comments stick out. According to the report, the UK has
"Poor basic skills amongst a significant proportion of the workforce"
and
"Low educational attainment levels and participation rates in lifelong learning."
Just about every speaker in the debate has acknowledged that that is the position of the UK in relation to our European counterparts. There is no
900
doubt that the solution to those problems lies in our schools first of all, where a proper basic level of education must be provided. The next step is to ensure that there is effective and relevant vocational and technical training.
I want to pay tribute to the excellent Dunstable college in my constituency, and especially to its new director, Chris Vesey, who recently took over. That FE college runs highly innovative courses at a number of sites around my constituency, and it works extremely well with schools and the nearby Luton university. It has also been instrumental in helping to establish the new learning warehouse that is to open in Leighton Buzzard. That innovative and exciting venture will enable people in full-time work to access vocational training in the evenings or at weekends.
I also pay tribute to my local university, which is pioneering vocational higher education in a number of fields, with a large number of students coming into it much later in life. It is definitely aiding the economic development of my area.
Over the past few years, in certain respects we have gone slightly backwards in relation to vocational education. There have been 190,000 fewer enrolments in adult and community learning courses since 1996, and the vocational proportion of GCSE-equivalent courses has fallen since 1997—worrying factors about which the Government should not be complacent.
It seems to me that the challenge is to try to maintain the enthusiasm that children have when they start school, and to try to keep that throughout their education. It often starts to tail off at around the age of 13, when a large number of children perhaps find that the curriculum is not meeting their interests and aspirations, which is why my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) is going in the right direction with his proposals to make technical and vocational education open to people from the age of 13 and to set up new types of schools that focus on those areas. I also hope that those schools and colleges will look at what are often called the "soft skills", which are important in terms of getting people into work. When the Select Committee has looked at employment matters, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), who also serves on the Committee, seems to agree, we have found that those skills are particularly important in terms of getting people into work. People's ability to go through their daily routine and to get on with others is often critical to moving them nearer to the labour force, getting them into work and helping them to stay there.
If we are to help people later in life and to help people to work to a later stage in their lives than many people who retire in their late fifties and early sixties, vocational education has a great role to play, particularly for people who have been in stressful manual occupations. A great role exists for FE and vocational training to help those who want to continue working and supplement their retirement income to move into less stressful work, rather than continue in work that they find physically demanding and extremely draining.
I know from meeting my local FE providers that the different funding streams are a great source of concern, and I know about the difficulties between the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the Learning

901
and Skills Council and the skills alliance. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) summed up the problem well when he said that there is a difference of approach, whether it is a local, sectoral or regional one. We must sort out which one we use. My preference would not be the regional route, because time and again I have seen that areas such as mine, which do not have major towns, lose out. I would like the local and sectoral route to be used.
It is worrying too that so many FE colleges do not feel that the LSC offers them good value for money. As we heard earlier in the debate, if only 3 per cent. of colleges believe that they are receiving good value for money, that is indeed a problem. A quote comes to mind that I heard yesterday from Sir John Bourn, the Comptroller and Auditor General, in respect of the Government's approach to the private finance initiative and the complexity of vocational funding in this country:
"Out of complexity comes confusion and out of confusion comes chaos".
Sadly, that refrain applies to a number of the Government's different programmes.
Finally, I want to mention the question of foreign languages, about which I am concerned. Recent Government announcements will reduce the amount and extent of foreign language training. Before I became a Member of the House, I worked for a company that had its headquarters in Germany, and it was noticeable that almost everyone whom I dealt with in the German headquarters spoke fluent English. In a world in which we need to trade abroad to survive, we neglect foreign language skills at our peril. I urge the Government to consider the consequences of that for Britain as a trading nation.
6.55 pm
Mr. Ivan Lewis: With the leave of the House, may I first say gently to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) that people are sensitive to the use of the term "schizophrenic"? I understand that he has been a Labour Member of Parliament, a Social Democrat MP and now a Conservative MP. I am not sure that he should label me in that way in that context.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) that Bury college of further education is a centre of excellence. It may be in Bury, North, but many of the students and staff live in Bury, South. I urge Mike Tomlinson to take seriously my hon. Friend's points about curriculum and qualifications when he considers the future of 14 to 19 education.
On a personal note, I hope that the hon. Members for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) and for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) are still in their posts next week. I genuinely mean that. I hope that they will still be able to participate in these debates. There is much consensus on vocational education, but the sheep and goats model emanating from the Conservatives is clear. It is clearer than ever before that their higher education policy is driven by political opportunism and not the needs of the country or the needs of young people.
Mr. Brady rose—
Mr. Lewis: I agree entirely with the comments. of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley)
902
about productivity. Yes, we need skills, but innovation, capital investment and leadership are among several other factors. Although it is right for us to create as simple a system as possible for employers to access, the idea that they would go through one door is simply not true. That is why we must ensure that, whichever door employers choose to walk through, they receive the same advice and information and get the training when they need it.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) raised a number of important issues. He expressed concerns about the relationship between regional and national, but he obviously has not heard what we have said about the regional skills alliance. He seemed to dismiss the importance of the national delivery partners coming together, which is important. We must remember that employers choose to network in very different ways. Some identify with their region, sub-region and local high street and some clearly identify with the sector of which they are members. When influencing demand, we have to have an approach that is sensible nationally and that takes account of regional and sub-regional issues.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) mentioned the importance of prison education. He will be glad to know that, over the next three years, we will make a record level of both revenue and capital investment. We are going through a new contracting process to ensure quality provision in prison education and we are creating new positions of heads of learning and skills councils in every institution. We are also bringing together vocational training and education in prisons.
The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) paid tribute to his local colleges and talked about modern foreign languages. Forcing young people who do not want to do modern foreign languages to study them is not the answer to the problem of our country genuinely needing people with those skills for our economy and place in the world. That is why we are determined to drive the teaching of modern foreign languages down to primary level so that children enjoy learning them. That will become a natural part of their early-years development and they will be positively keen and enthusiastic to develop those language skills as they get older.
The Tories are fond of citing figures for adult and community learning. Let us be clear that there has been a reduction in enrolment in adult and community education, but the greatest single reduction was between 1996 and 1997 when 170,000 fewer people enrolled in adult education colleges. [Interruption.] Some 170,000 fewer people enrolled in adult education courses under the Tories. Although there has not been an improvement in the position, the number has stabilised in recent years. The Tories should not quote distorted and disingenuous facts if they want us to believe that they are somehow a changed political party.
I believe that vocational education is central to the future of our economy and our society. If we want a socially just and economically successful society that competes internationally—
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Mr. Speaker: We now come to motions Nos. 5 to 7. If it is convenient to the House, I shall take them together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Amendment) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 22nd October, be approved.
  That the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections and Periods of Suspension) Act 2003 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 2696), dated 21st October 2003, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd October, be approved.
  That the Northern Ireland (Date of Next Assembly Poll) Order 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 2697), dated 21st October 2003, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd October, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Restricted Growth
  7 pm
  Mrs. Patsy Calton: May I present a petition signed by 6,776 people and collected by members of the Restricted Growth Association?
  The petition states:
  To the House of Commons
  The Petition of the Restricted Growth Association
  Declares that there is stereotyping of and discrimination towards people of Restricted Growth.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons support members of the Restricted Growth Association in their efforts to end the general stereotyping and discrimination directed towards them.
  And the Petitioners remain etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

Post Office Network (Isle of Wight)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
7.1 pm
Mr. Andrew Turner: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the chance to speak about the post office network on the Isle of Wight. I am glad that the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services is in the Chamber. I was pleased to welcome him to my constituency last Friday and I am sure that he saw a little of it, although it was not at its best, given the weather. I assure him that it hardly ever rains on the Isle of Wight—he picked the one out of 365 days when it does.
I want to cover three issues and make one suggestion. First, I do not believe that the Post Office has clear criteria for distinguishing between urban and rural post offices, and neither has it clear criteria for closing post offices under the urban network reinvention scheme. It merely seems to ask, "Who wants the money," and puts forward a post office for closure. I shall illustrate that by reference to Gurnard post office.
Secondly, there has been a continual diversion of business from sub-post offices, which is shown by the difficulty that people have obtaining Post Office card accounts. I shall illustrate that by reference to Wroxall post office. Thirdly, there is no clear joined-up thinking among different Department of Trade and Industry sponsored businesses, which I shall illustrate with reference to Pan post office. My suggestion, in case I do not have time to come back to it, is that the Minister should implement recommendation 18 of the document "Counter Revolution" as quickly as possible to make post offices government—and perhaps even local government—general practitioners.
Recently, Parkhurst, Haylands and Tennyson road, Cowes, post offices have been closed. A second round of consultation has begun on the closure of Gurnard, Oakfield, Avenue road, Sandown, and Pan post offices. The clerk to Gurnard parish council, Mr. Rusty Adams, wrote to me saying:
"Gurnard has been lumped together by the Government's Countryside Agency into what is known as the Cowes Sprawl and so the Post Office has been classified as Urban, when it is quite obviously in a Rural area. This is totally unacceptable and a nonsense to anyone who knows the Isle of Wight, as Gurnard is the Government's ideal example of a close-knit Community in its own right and happens to be geographically totally separated from Cowes."
Gurnard has a population of 3,500 and its nearest available alternative post office is 1.2 miles away along hilly terrain. I contacted the local rural community council, which told me:
"By no means is Gurnard an urban area. It is most definitely rural".
It said that a rural community is defined as one with a population fewer than 3,000. The clerk to the parish council tells me that Gurnard's population is about 3,500. According to the 2001 census, however, the population is 1,696. It depends on what boundaries of the village are adopted, whether it is an enumeration district or the whole parish.
The South East England Development Agency tells me that it recognises communities of 10,000 and under

905
as rural. The Government's rural White Paper gives the figure of 20,000. The Minister advised me, I think in a parliamentary answer, that the appropriate figure was 10,000. Why is Gurnard being considered for closure, especially when the nearest alternative is 1.2 miles away? Why is Oakfield being considered when the nearest alternatives are half a mile away and 0.7 miles away, again along hilly terrain? Both post offices that are proposed for closure have parking facilities. Those that are to remain open as an alternative to Oakfield, which are only about 300 yd apart in Ryde, have no adjoining parking facilities. Can we have clarity of criteria?
I am also concerned about the diversion of business. Customers and post office employees are confused about the introduction of Post Office accounts and the payment of pensions and benefits into building societies. The chairman of the Isle of Wight County Federation of Women's Institutes, Joan Finch, told the Isle of Wight County Press that she feared the flow of business to the post office had been reduced due to people getting their pensions paid into their bank accounts or building societies.
If it were as easy as Ministers appear to think it is to open a Post Office card account, there would be no problem, but the Wroxall post office has given me no fewer than 10 examples of people who have encountered difficulties. It tells me that they are a mere snapshot so there could be many more. I will not read them all out. A lady with a daughter who has learning difficulties contacted the freephone hotline two months ago to find out about the Post Office account and to explain her daughter's difficulties, but she still has not received a reply. A lady in receipt of one benefit was sent a letter by the Department for Work and Pensions saying she was entitled to another benefit. When she phoned to tell it there was an error, the DWP said that there was not. Later, having given her the second benefit, it told her she was not eligible for the benefit and was in arrears with the DWP.
An 84-year-old woman who applied for a Post Office account was sent a letter from Jobcentre Plus about changing to direct payment. One person was told she could not be an agent for both her husband, who is a pensioner, and a parent, because no one could be of pensionable age and still have a living parent. Someone else who used all three of her Christian names was told that she could have only one name on the card. When she rang the helpline and said that she could have as many names as she wanted at a bank, she was told that she should go to a bank.
I do not expect the Minister to respond to those examples specifically, but they illustrate repeated complaints that I get from sub-postmasters about the difficulties they encounter in helping people to open Post Office card accounts. Someone told me that one post office has lost 230 transactions a week as a result of people not claiming their pension or child allowance and 200 transactions a week because of the loss of the key meter service. For a different post office, that amounts to a gross loss of £700 a week.
One problem is that child benefit appears quietly to have been removed from the Post Office. People are
906
getting letters that tell them in small print in the third paragraph to
"give us the details of the account you'd like your"
child benefit to be paid into. It goes on:
"You can use an existing account at a bank or building society if you have one, or if you are claiming tax credits and have already chosen an account for that, you may wish to use the same account. If you don't have an account, or want to keep your Child Benefit separate, the leaflet sent with this letter gives you details of the accounts you could open—including new types of accounts at a bank, building society or at the Post Office".
It does not say that one can open a Post Office account even if one has a bank or building society account. I think that that letter is misleading. For the Minister's information, it is from Jim Harra, the director of the Child Benefit Office, is dated 28 October last year, and was sent to a lady in another constituency.
I raised with the Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), the removal of key meter accounts from post offices, which is a means, albeit unintentional, of diverting business from post offices. I did so after visiting Chale Green post office. The hon. Gentleman responded:
"It appears in this case that Scottish and Southern Energy believes it can cut costs by choosing Paypoint, which competes with the Post Office in providing services such as bill payment. As Mr. Turner"—
he means Mr. Whitney, who is the postmaster—
"says, it appears that the Post Office will not allow Paypoint to site equipment in its outlets. In these circumstances, the charging facilities will have to be sited elsewhere."
Other than the post office, there is no shop in Chale Green. The nearest commercial outlet is Chale filling station, about a mile away. The White Mouse is a wonderful pub, but it does not have a post office in it and is not used to having a key meter site.
Last year, when I was undertaking my mobile summer surgery, I drew up outside Pan post office on a Tuesday morning and was amazed to find 40 or so local people, led by David Boulton and his daughter Trudy Boulton, who are users of Pan post office and were concerned that the key meter was being withdrawn from it. According to the ACORN—a classification of residential neighbourhoods—system, Pan's residents are
"Type 45…Likely characteristics…low income council neighbourhoods…concentrated mainly in Merseyside. 34% of the population of Liverpool is in this ACORN Type."
Well, quite a lot of the population of Pan is, too. The description continues:
"They are also found to a lesser extent in the major conurbations, central Scotland and parts of Wales."
For some reason, the classification does not add, "and in Pan", but there we are. Tony Cockburn, one of only three Labour councillors in my constituency, represents Pan; he is an excellent local councillor. The census figures show that 40 per cent. of Pan's population have health that is only fairly good or not good; 26 per cent. suffer limiting long-term illnesses; 47 per cent. are economically inactive, of which 9 per cent. are permanently sick or disabled and 9 per cent. look after a home or family: 44 per cent. of the population have no qualifications; 9 per cent. of households are headed by a lone parent with children; and 35 per cent. do not have access to a car.

907
An elderly couple on the estate—Mr. and Mrs. Crutcher of 114 Furrlongs—write:
"Regarding the proposal to close PAN ESTATE POST OFFICE, are you and the powers that be fully aware of what this will mean to partly handicapped 85-year-old people who rely on the P.O. for pensions and paying Council Tax, Rent, Water Rates. Many people like my husband and I have not got a Bank account so we rely on the P.O. I have lived on the estate for 40 years, without these problems.
The Council are talking of building more houses in this area; without a P.O. young and old are going to realise a P.O. is essential. Each time we get the Bus to Newport, it costs 80p return each. I cannot go to the Newport G.P.O. as I can only walk a few steps on crutches. My husband is unable to drive owing to a heart problem."
That letter illustrates the concern on the Pan estate about the closure of the post office, which is run very effectively by Jean Sampson. We believe that the closure has been advanced by the withdrawal of the key meter scheme. Pan post office is located within the Costcutter store on Royal Exchange—the name of a street in Pan. The store is run by Mr. Paul Brett, who has done all in his power to keep the post office open.
Following the reply that I received from the hon. Gentleman, I received letters from Dave Barnes of Ofgem, from the Post Office and from Energywatch. about the withdrawal of the key meter scheme. Ofgem wrote:
"The decision on which payment outlets are used is a commercial one for companies. Outlets are operated through post offices, newsagents, convenience stores and garages. Many of these local outlets operate as agents for PayPoint or Pay Zone. which compete with post offices for this business. However, some existing agents could not or did not want to provide the PayPoint service, among these being the post office at Chayle Green, Isle of Wight."
It was not that they did not want to; it was that they were not allowed to do so.
Mr. Jim Green, the head of Consignia Utilities Markets, told me that
"Being aware of the arguments behind our current policy you will understand that we have to consider the viability of the network as a whole, so that occasionally difficult decisions have to be made in relation to a single Post Office branch in order that Post Office Ltd. may continue to offer integrity of service across all our branches nationwide. I am therefore afraid that we have no room for manoeuvre in this case."—
that is, to allow the post office to run PayPoint instead of key meter. Mr. Stephen Reid, chief executive of Energywatch, tells me that Scottish and Southern Energy
"advise us that it has already withdrawn the above services having tried to get the PowerPoint facility into the exact same premises—at Costcutter—which houses the post office…However, we have noted that Consignia Royal Mail, which is in direct competition with PowerPoint, has objected to this facility and thus 'blocked' this initiative."
Those are two businesses sponsored by the Minister's Department with a panoply of regulatory and watchdog organisations, such as Ofgem, Postwatch and Energywatch, which seem incapable of realising the damage that they are doing to the Post Office network.
I will not go on at great further length, but I thank the Minister for writing to me on 24 March as follows:
"Post Office Limited agents can install unbranded PayPoint terminal in their private businesses but cannot use these for products or services that compete with those offered by Post Office
908
Ltd. Electricity Key recharging falls into this category. This restriction is an essential element in protecting the viability of the Post Office branch network as a whole."
That does not wash with residents on the Pan estate. Mr. Alan Young, director of corporate communications of Scottish and Southern Energy, writes that SSE discussed providing an unbranded service at Pan post office with Post Office Counters Ltd. to try to take this forward
"but regrettably they declined to co-operate with this option."
As late as 5 June, April Groombridge of the network development, a department of PayPoint, offered a PayPoint terminal to Paul Brett at Pan's Costcutter store, but as far as he knows he is still not able to have one. He says:
"The post office at Pan is profitable at the present time because my wife and I have always kept the office's costs very low (never increasing them), never taking on anything that would be to the financial detriment of the Post Office (refusing Pay Point, cash machines, etc, advertising and promoting the Office every three weeks for the last three years and investing heavily in our business."
He feels let down. He writes:
"The Post Office and Labour Government should realise that of any Office in the Newport area, including the General Post Office, Pan Sub-office has the potential to remain profitable, in what we know are difficult times for the Post Office."
My concern is that the post office network is not being properly exploited. It would benefit from the Government's general practitioner scheme. It would certainly benefit if local government used it more, as it would benefit if utilities used the network more. The utilities went to PayPoint from key meter because the promoters of PayPoint were able to invest in the replacement of electricity meters in people's homes, and the Post Office did not have the capital available to do so. That has led to the danger faced by Pan post office and a number of the rural post offices on the island that are not covered by the urban network reinvention scheme.
I am concerned that the Post Office is promoting the closure of post offices at random in urban areas depending not on need and not on geography but on the willingness of the sub-postmaster or sub-postmistress concerned to retire. That is a wholly arbitrary and unreasonable basis on which to hand out Government money— taxpayers' money, money from the people—in the very communities that are being affected by these closures.
7.20 pm
The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on securing this debate. I thoroughly enjoyed my visit to his constituency last Friday, the weather notwithstanding—it was sunny for a fair part of the day, but wet for the rest. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the issues that he has raised this evening. I fear that I may not be able to cover all of them, but if I cannot respond fully now, I shall write to him.
I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we are firmly committed to maintaining a viable nationwide network of post offices, which are an extremely important focal point for the local community, particularly for people who do not find it easy to get

909
around. I can also give him an assurance that everybody who wishes to continue to receive their benefits in cash from their local post office can do so. That has been a given in the introduction of direct payment, which is currently under way.
Recommendations in the widely welcomed report of the performance and innovation unit in 2000 formed the basis of our policy on the post office network. The Government accepted all the PIU recommendations, including the recommendation that, should the Post Office decide that fewer post offices were needed in some areas, the Government should consider providing funding to ensure that the sub-postmasters affected could be compensated adequately for the loss of their business. I think that that is fair. The hon. Gentleman suggested that it was a misuse of public funding, but I do not think that it is. The value of post office businesses has declined in recent years for a variety of reasons that I shall come on to. Many people who have run those businesses have worked hard for a long time, and we took the view that it was appropriate for them to be compensated fairly if their business closed under the programme. Last November, following parliamentary approval for the funding, Post Office Ltd. initiated its programme for urban post offices.
There are nearly 17,000 post offices around the UK—more than all the banks and building societies in the country put together. Tellingly, there are more than 1,000 urban sub-post offices with at least 10 other post offices within a mile. There is simply not the business to sustain so dense an urban network, and sub-postmasters have been finding it increasingly difficult to earn a reasonable income from their business. The great danger facing the Isle of Wight and elsewhere if nothing had been done was an unmanaged decline in the network, with urban post offices closing haphazardly and serious gaps in the service opening up. However, there is a properly managed process for the Post Office to configure its network to meet the needs of the communities that it serves and fit the level of business going through the network. Two thirds of the urban population live within half a mile of two or more post offices, many of which are struggling. The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters has supported the process because everyone accepts that we need a properly managed reduction in the number of urban post offices so that the network can have the viable and successful future that we all want.
There are many reasons for the decline in post office business, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the trends that have led to those problems are long-standing in nature. For example, more than 43 per cent. of benefit recipients already choose to access their benefit payments via bank accounts, compared with 26 per cent. in 1996. The traditional business on which post offices have depended in the past has been declining. That is why it is so important that we have been able to invest an enormous amount—£500 million—to equip every single post office in the country, including all those
910
on the Isle of Wight, with technology to support banking services. That opens up a new market for post offices that can give them the prospect of a successful future. I am very encouraged by some of the changes that we have seen as a result of that investment, and I think that they augur well for the future.
The hon. Gentleman was especially concerned about the criteria for including particular offices in the urban reinvention programme, as opposed to rural post offices, which are outside it. Post Office Ltd. analyses an area as either urban or rural on the basis of whether the branch in question is located in a community of more or fewer than 10,000 inhabitants—the figure that he correctly quoted from my letter to him. The Post Office adopted that broad definition in autumn 2000, when the Government placed on it a formal requirement to maintain services and prevent avoidable closures in the rural network. We have seen a dramatic reduction in the number of closures in the rural network as a result.
The Post Office has carried out detailed planning to establish which branches are classified as rural and which are classified as urban. It has developed a sophisticated geographical mapping computer model that measures population in terms of contiguous or very close agglomeration. Where a number of villages or small communities adjoin one another or a larger town and the aggregate population exceeds 10,000, the model reflects that fact and classifies the area as urban. I can well understand that customers using the Gurnard branch think of themselves as a distinct and separate community, but given the concerns expressed about that branch, the Post Office has rechecked its analysis and confirmed its classification of the office as urban on the ground that it is located within the contiguous population area of Cowes. That is consistent with the approach adopted nationally to classify the entire network. In arguing against at least some aspects of the proposals that have been made for urban offices on the Isle of Wight, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is on strong ground on that particular point. However, he was on stronger ground in making another point, which he may want to take further. I shall return to that point in a moment.
Initially, closure proposals under the Post Office Ltd. programme were focused on single offices known to be most at risk of closure because of poor viability, in order to minimise the possibility of unplanned and unmanaged closures occurring and gaps opening up. However, the company accepted that there was a lot of uncertainty about the future shape of the network and it has now undertaken to produce its proposals on an area-by-area basis using parliamentary constituencies or groupings of constituencies. Postcomm has commended Post Office Ltd. for that response, as has the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. Producing proposals on an area-by-area basis, as has now been done for the Isle of Wight, means that everyone can see what the end point will be and gives a clear view of the level and location of service provision at the end of the programme. I understand that, in order further to minimise uncertainty, Post Office Ltd. will bring the whole programme forward by a year, so it will all be over by December 2004.

911
Every proposal is subject to public consultation, and the consumer watchdog Postwatch has a very important role. The hon. Gentleman did not mention Postwatch. but it is consulted on every proposal and is monitoring the programme as a whole. I met Postwatch representatives recently to discuss how that is going, and it is working diligently on the matter. Given the new area basis to which I have referred, Post Office Ltd. has agreed with Postwatch to extend the period of public consultation, which was formerly a month for each closure, to six weeks for the area as a whole. It is important that those who are concerned about certain elements of the proposals for the hon. Gentleman's constituency should take them up with Postwatch, which will want to satisfy itself about them. As he knows, the closing date for representations is 2 December, so there is still time to do so.
912
The hon. Gentleman may have an alternative proposal—perhaps that one of the offices should be retained, while another that is not in the frame for closure should be closed instead. If so, I encourage him to draw it to the attention of Postwatch.
My time is rapidly running out, but I want to make one last point. The hon. Gentleman said that one of the offices proposed for closure is 1.2 miles from the nearest post office. The objective of the programme is to ensure that at least 95 per cent. of the urban population will be within a mile of their nearest post office.
The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Eight o'clock

Preamble
[MR. JOHN MCWILLIAM in the Chair]

Forensic Science Service
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]
9.30 am
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I am grateful to have secured this debate, because the subject is of special importance today, and I thank the Minister for being here to respond. I know that he is used to these early starts, but I am none the less pleased that he has taken the trouble to turn up. I am also pleased that we have an hour and a half to debate the subject; it means that all Members will be able to have their say, and that we can do justice to the subject.
On 17 July, the Home Secretary announced that he wished the Forensic Science Service to change its status from an executive agency to a public-private partnership. Put simply, that would mark the privatisation of the service. As the forensic science laboratory at the Washington hall site in Chorley employs 240 people, I have a direct interest in the matter. However, I also share the general concern about how privatisation would affect a highly skilled work force that serves five police constabularies with a dedication and commitment to the public sector ethos that is second to none.
Many well-known cases have been dealt with at the Chorley site, and it has had great success over the years in helping to put criminals behind bars. It has always been at the leading edge in solving crime, and some of the nastiest and most horrendous murders have been solved through the work of that laboratory. It is important to stress that while science has progressed and new DNA techniques are available, the Forensic Science Service throughout the country has always been at the forefront. We should remember that many of the cases and crimes that took place long ago are still on the shelf, and could be solved as science moves on. It is important that we have an in-house service to help us solve them.
David Taylor: As my hon. Friend says, the present service is in-house. Does he believe, as I do, that selling the Forensic Science Service is likely to raise prices in the medium and long term, that it will discourage police authorities from using its facilities, and that the introduction of competition will introduce yet more bureaucracy into a service that is already over-burdened with it?
Mr. Hoyle: I could not agree more; my hon. Friend is spot on. I shall stress those points later in my speech.
Having met the staff at the Chorley laboratory, I know their strength of feeling and their opposition to the Government's plans. In fact, 140 employees took time out of their busy schedules to attend a meeting during the lunch hour to air their strongly held views. The meeting had to be held in two phases because the room was not big enough, such was the strength of feeling.
260WH
Before I go into detail about the opposition of staff, trade unions, MPs and members of the public, I shall deal with the timing of the announcement. I have a science laboratory in my constituency, but although I was informed that an announcement was to be made, I learned the news from a local radio station. I wrote to the Home Secretary on 29 July expressing concern, but no apology was made in the Minister's reply on 28 August, and none has been made since. That is not acceptable, and I believe that my colleagues will think the same.
The Home Secretary made his announcement on 17 July, which was, coincidentally, the day that Parliament went into recess, leaving a void before the subject could be properly debated in the House. Other MPs with laboratories in their constituencies were treated the same, with no letter or telephone call from the Home Office. Will the Minister comment on how he feels constituency MPs have been dealt with, and how he will deal with future issues affecting constituency MPs? It is important that Ministers take the trouble to communicate. The Minister involved was not the Minister who is present today, but I hope that he will take that point on board. In cases that directly affect constituency interests, we should be told what is about to happen.
I have a number of concerns and questions about the privatisation of the Forensic Science Service. Following the independent review conducted by Robert McFarland, it was decided that the FSS should change its status from a trading fund to a public-private partnership. The reason given is that for the FSS to remain competitive, radical change is needed to allow it to make the best use of rapidly advancing science and technology to reduce crime and deliver safer communities. We are told that in the face of competition from the private sector, the FSS faces substantial risks if it remains a trading fund, with a sustained and accelerated loss of market share. That is questionable, and I ask the Minister where the evidence for that idea is.
Last year the FSS had a turnover of £140 million and returned a profit of more than £10 million. With 2,603 employees, it is regarded across the globe as a world leader and is at the cutting edge of technology and of solving crime. From that £10 million profit, £5 million was invested in new computers and £5 million went into the Treasury coffers. It is important to stress that. The money is circulated: the Treasury put money into the police force, which puts it into the FSS, and any profits return to the Treasury. The money is circulated, rather than greedy shareholders taking it out of the system.
Diana Organ: What extra profit do the Government expect the Forensic Science Service to make, other than the £10 million that it made last year, which, as my hon. Friend said, was reinvested in the service with a little take from the Treasury? Do they hope that the service will make more profit in future?
Mr. Hoyle: My hon. Friend is right; the profit made goes back to the Treasury and the taxpayer reaps the benefit. The proposed change would involve the establishment of a private company, with shareholders who will want a return on their investment.
Jon Trickett: Is my hon. Friend aware that the National Audit Office recently produced a report on the Forensic Science Service? That report went to the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member. The NAO is not known for producing glowing reports on public expenditure, and as a member of the PAC, I often see its withering criticisms of particular organisations. However, the NAO report did not find anything uncommercial about the way in which the service is operated, but found it to be a model of a competitive and efficient public sector service. Would my hon. Friend pass on my congratulations, along with his, to the staff involved?
Mr. Hoyle: I absolutely agree. Who better than a member of the PAC to point out that the proposal is not the best way forward or the right model to use? That model is discredited, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend has brought that fact out today. We are discussing not only jobs, but the wasting of taxpayers' money.
Robert McFarland's report on the FSS states:
"The FSS can take particular credit for:
Its response to the significant increases in demand for forensic services over the last decade;
The development of the forensic applications of DNA, and the setting up and managing, with the Association of Chief Police Officers…of the NDNAD"—
that is, the national DNA database—
"and
Pioneering new ways of working with and in support of the police."
All that is being put at risk.
The FSS is doing a pretty good job on what matters, which is solving crime and putting criminals behind bars, so my second question is: how will competition improve the service provided to the police? Robert McFarland states that
"the emergence of a fully open and competitive market has been constrained by what the private sector saw as the entrenched monopoly of the FSS."
If we sell the service to one company, the danger is that that company then becomes a monopoly. Or are we going to split each regional centre into different companies with different shareholders? Will they share information? Why should they? Why should they allow their financial success to be given over to a competitor? However, if information is not shared, the only winner will be the criminal. This is a criminal's charter; we will not be able to solve crime, because each company will be driven by the need to raise money for shareholders. Many questions need to be answered.
It is interesting that reviews of the proposals are being conducted. I am pleased that the Public Accounts Committee is to report, and I am sure that the Minister knows that the Science and Technology Committee will produce a report in the New Year. It has many worries, which include the key question of who will train future scientists. We currently have success because in-house facilities allow scientists to develop specialist knowledge. For certain crimes, only a few scientists have the appropriate knowledge. Will any one company train those people? No one can tell me that each company will cover all the areas—arson and gun crime, for example. Specialist scientists currently deal with each niche area,
262WH
but certain crimes may be committed only rarely, so will each company hold on full pay a scientist to specialise in them? I doubt that. What will happen if there is an increase in demand? How many companies will want to enter the market? There is a lot for the Minister to think about.
Considering the way in which we are moving, we must address the big issue. Why do we believe that competition is necessary, especially when it comes to putting criminals behind bars? Competition is not needed for that—the Government are simply being driven by their belief that what they are doing is right.
How will competition operate? Will the seven laboratories throughout the UK compete with each other, or will the service belong to one company? If so, competition will have to take place on the basis of cost, but how can costs be cut in such important and delicate work, which needs time to ensure that the answers are right? We are talking about people's liberty, and about putting people behind bars.
Jon Trickett: My hon. Friend is talking about the cost to the public purse. Does he know that the FSS is proposing to make a significant number of people redundant? That redundancy programme is really about preparing for privatisation. It will cost at least £6 million, and that cost will fall on the taxpayer rather than the private firm, when it is finally privatised. Is my hon. Friend surprised by those costs? Money is being taken from the work of detecting criminals to pay for making people redundant.
Mr. Hoyle: I am not surprised, and I do not think anyone will be shocked, by that. The shock is that we are willing to make people redundant in the hope that we can attract someone to take on the service and then deliver a profit for shareholders. That is a great worry. Why should we use the taxpayers' money to stop the detection of crime?
The only person to gain from such measures would be the criminal, who may go undetected, as work may not be conducted properly, or at all, because of an unwillingness to undertake unprofitable work. That is clearly intolerable and cannot be allowed. The debate also has an ethical aspect. Which private entities will be allowed a share in the FSS? Perhaps drug companies or insurance companies will be allowed a share. Could there be a conflict of interest in the work conducted?
As a Government, we pride ourselves on trying to modernise and improve services, and on looking for new ways to improve them. That is an admirable aim and a great objective, of which new Labour can be proud. However, the present proposal is nothing new. Similar proposals were put before Conservative Ministers in the 1980s, and were rejected. The dogma driving privatisation is now 25 years old. We are stuck with old ideas and old methods. Nothing new is coming out. We must have moribund ideas if we have to go back to the failures of the 1980s. We should learn the lesson of

263WH
botched privatisations—of which I am constantly reminded every time I travel by train from the north-west.
Diana Organ: Does my hon. Friend agree that the privatisation of the FSS could be a privatisation too far for this Government, as rail privatisation was for the Conservative Government?
Mr. Hoyle: Absolutely. I cannot disagree.
The trade unions representing forensic scientists, Prospect and the Public and Commercial Services Union, have made their opposition known. In addition, the Police Federation also opposes the Government's plans, and issued a statement saying:
"We are fundamentally opposed to profit being made from policing and are concerned that as provider competition is introduced, bureaucracy will increase in a police service already overburdened with it."
David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend accept that the logic behind such privatisation could be extended to privatising scene-of-crime investigations, and even the CID itself at some future date? The CID could become the Chorley Investigations Department of Pinkerton's, or something similar.
Mr. Hoyle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the danger is that we do not know how far the move could be taken. That is the big question. The measures are the thin end of the wedge. We have heard, "Don't worry, it will only go so far," before, but things soon spread. Who knows—will the proud Lancashire constabulary be walking around with "Group 4" on their sleeves? At least we do know that the criminals might get away. The danger is that there will be no such thing as a sell-off too far. If we allow FSS to go, everything else may follow. I think that that is everyone's worry, and that is why I am pleased to see so many hon. Members here.
I think that when we talk about such matters, we should listen to the trade unions. I am not talking about the old 1970s dogma, but about modern trade unions with modern practices, that wish to represent their members in the best possible way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Like Prospect?"] Yes, unions such as Prospect and PCS.
As I said, a statement was issued that stated that the police were fundamentally concerned, and that they were bothered about being over-burdened, and about where the service will be. I would be grateful for the Minister's views on the comments made by the Police Federation, and it is important that he responds to that point.
I put my concerns about quality of service, the provision of a 24/7 capability, high standards and research and development to the Government, and received a ministerial reply in a letter dated 16 September, saying that those matters would be considered as the restructuring process took place.
It is a long time since September. I would have thought that those points would have been considered by now, and we would have the information. I am not saying that the Minister should have the information today, but I think that he ought to let MPs and colleagues with an interest in the FSS labs know the
264WH
answers. We received a delaying letter—I can understand that, but enough time has now been spent waiting. We ought to receive another letter soon, unless the Minister has the information.
I would like to know whether there is any further update on research and development work. Part of the argument is that the labs need new investment, but why not take that out of the profits being made, rather than using money from the private sector? The taxpayers' money is there. We might as well use that as give it to shareholders, who will make an even bigger profit. We all want the FSS to remain a world leader; we cannot allow its position to be jeopardised.
The 24-hour, seven-day-a-week cover is an essential part of the service, although no doubt unprofitable, because of the labour-intensive nature of the work. Providing a 24/7 service loses money, so what guarantees can be provided that the service will not be reduced and adversely affected by privatisation,? Unfortunately, criminals work 24 hours, seven days a week, and we need a service to deal with that. That is where the cost cutting could take place, which is a worry. I do not think that anyone wants that. When a crime needs to be solved, we do not want someone to say, "By the way, can you wait until Monday? We don't work Sundays any more." We must stress the importance of 24/7 cover and the fact that keeping it in-house ensures that the service will always be on hand.
The Minister has made it clear that the DNA database will remain in the public sector. Again, I seek assurances that the data will remain strictly confidential and will not be threatened in any way by the changing status of the FSS if the proposal goes ahead.
I oppose the Government's plans, as do the staff and unions who work in and with the FSS. Until the concerns that we have outlined have been answered, I shall remain opposed to the plans and unconvinced that we shall see a change for the better, rather than another botched privatisation. I am worried about that, and I stress the need to recognise the credentials of the people who work in the service and their dedication to it, which others are willing to put at risk.
9.51 am
Colin Burgon: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing the debate. We have worked together on this issue for a couple of months, and in some respects I hope that we soon become redundant in that capacity. Indeed, following the extremely powerful case that he has advanced today, I have a feeling that we may be able to pack our tents and leave the battlefield fairly soon, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley said about his visit to the laboratory in Chorley, because I made a visit to Wetherby, which I shall deal with as I develop my argument.
When the Government, extremely foolishly, introduced proposals to privatise the Forensic Science Service, they unwittingly helped me to expand my knowledge base—I know that they are a lifelong learning Government. They helped me to expand my knowledge of a service that many millions of us take for granted. One of the seven labs that my hon. Friend

265WH
mentioned is based in my constituency, at Wetherby. I must admit that I had only a general knowledge of the work that it carried out, so I determined to learn more about the service and the people who work in it, and I have been tremendously impressed by their attitude and professionalism.
That process of finding out and talking to people has confirmed in my mind that the Government's proposals are ill thought-out, and will be very damaging if allowed to proceed. The job of MPs is to examine proposals rigorously, even if they are introduced in a recess and seem to have been smuggled out to avoid conflict—and if proposals are flawed, dangerous and mistaken, MPs must say so openly.
When we consider the scope and scale of the work carried out by the Forensic Science Service, we soon realise that it is a tremendously important organisation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley strongly argued. It is central to the investigation of crime and the prosecution of offenders, and it contributes to deterrence and to the prevention and reduction of crime. The facts and figures for the service are truly impressive. My hon. Friend gave a few, and I shall back him up. The service employs more than 2,000 people, of whom more than 50 per cent. are trained scientists, and many are world authorities in their field. It deals with more than 100,000 criminal cases a year, and examines more than half a million items per year, principally for the 43 police forces in England and Wales. It also deals with the Crown Prosecution Service and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, and provides services to businesses both in the UK and abroad. It invests about £3 million each year in the vital area of scientific research.
David Taylor: My hon. Friend mentions the international role of the FSS. Is he aware that there is no nation on the planet whose FSS or equivalent is in the private sector? Does that surprise him?
Colin Burgon: I would have been surprised before I examined the issue, but now I am not. My hon. Friend is correct. Perhaps new Labour is trying to break into a new area, and say, "We're the first Government to deliver"—
David Taylor: Pioneers get all the arrows.
Colin Burgon: Indeed—but I hope that we can turn that particular drive today.
The FSS pioneered the use of DNA, and set up the world's first national criminal intelligence DNA database. Those facts are so impressive that in 1999 they moved a Labour Home Office Minister to say:
"We have a forensic service which we are proud of and it is widely regarded as a market leader in the way it meets ever demanding challenges. Its contribution is key to the delivery of justice."
I hope that the present Minister will associate himself with those remarks and acknowledge the high standing and effectiveness of the FSS, for I know him to be an open and fair-minded person. That would strengthen our argument.
Diana Organ: Is my hon. Friend aware that the forensic science service of our closest neighbour, the
266WH
French, is nowhere near as developed as ours in terms of the work that can be done on DNA? I was involved with the case of a family whose daughter, Joanna Parrish, was murdered in France, and the British Forensic Science Service was asked to help in doing the DNA work required to find the murderer. That shows what a world leader our forensic service is.
Colin Burgon: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is right. I believe—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the weapon used in the recent assassination of a leading Swedish politician was also sent to Britain for analysis.
I hope that the Minister will recognise the strength of the case for keeping the FSS within the public sector, and find the points I now intend to put forward unanswerable, even with his great intellect. My opposition to the public-private partnership option also uses the acronym PPP, because I have practical, political and philosophical objections to the direction in which we are going.
On a practical level, we are told that the service needs investment. In the meetings that I attended the figures given, even by Ministers, were a bit vague. However, I have seen the figure of £30 million mentioned, which would principally be used to upgrade the seven laboratories. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley pointed out, £30 million does not seem a massive sum, when set in the context of the huge Home Office budget. Will the Minister comment on that?
Furthermore, as a Minister from the Home Office admitted to me in a written answer, the service generated some £10 million in profits returned to the Government last year. Moreover, I am informed that £10 million was invested in upgrading its computer programmes. In the light of those figures, the case for privatisation makes no financial sense. I am particularly concerned, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), about "fattening up" the service for privatisation, by using public money for a series of redundancy payments.
I believe that privatisation will destroy the morale and cohesion of those who work for the FSS. We should never forget that its highly trained and committed staff are its most valuable and prized asset. The potential loss of terms and conditions built up over the years cannot help but undermine morale. I have spoken to people at the FSS who share that view, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley has, too. I ask the Minister to comment on pension rights, which are tremendously complex and can be skated over too easily—although I am sure that he will not do that. I also ask him to comment on the danger of a two-tier work force if privatisation goes ahead.
In West Yorkshire, a vigorous debate is being conducted in the columns of the Yorkshire Evening Post on funding for our police service. Again, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley that charges to the police for forensic science services will automatically increase with privatisation as companies seek to secure a commercial rate of return on investment for shareholders. That follows as naturally as night follows day. The public will end up paying for privatisation,

267WH
either because the police service will aim to pass on increased charges through council tax, or because it will be minded to refer less work in an attempt to keep down rising costs, which in turn means that fewer criminals will be caught—a virtuous circle, some might argue.
It is nonsense to argue that the FSS is under pressure from vigorously growing private sector competitors and should therefore be privatised. Even if we entertain this dream world of marketisation and competition, the arguments in favour of privatisation do not stack up. Given its current market share of 90 per cent. plus, the FSS will dominate the sector if it is privatised, and it could act as a virtual monopoly. We must admit that there is no such thing as perfect market conditions and, to be frank, I do not think that a Labour Government should expend its energies chasing after the mirage of a perfect market economy.
I fear that the FSS will be hobbled in any privatisation process. The so-called small dynamic providers will be allowed to cherry-pick, and the FSS will be left with the less profitable areas. In addition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley said, it will be required to provide a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week on-call system, with which the other competitors will not be saddled.
Given the central importance of the FSS to the Government's strategy on crime and the workings of the criminal justice system, the Government will have to address any financial problems faced. In short, although the service will be privatised, public money will be used to construct a safety net, thus ensuring ultimate protection for the private sector, as we have seen with the railways and air traffic control.
Ministers will have to answer on a subject over which they have little control—a situation that we are seeing more and more. We shall get all the political downside, without the political control. I hope that the Minister will agree that the public have a great deal of trust and confidence in the FSS, which privatisation will undermine. The FSS has grown organically alongside our police forces, and can quickly mirror and adapt to changing patterns of public practice. Privatisation will break the vast number of organisational and personal links that help the two services to work together efficiently, and the public will inevitably suffer.
I oppose privatisation also because boundaries must be drawn between the public and the private sector. This proposed privatisation illustrates the lack of confidence in the public sector ethos shown by some elements in the Government and the people who advise them. I have no problem with the notion that the private sector can deliver many things, from coffee to cars, perfectly acceptably, but I cannot accept the idea, which some of our colleagues accept too readily, that the private sector is inherently superior in every sphere of human activity.
We must remember that people are not defined solely as consumers; they are also citizens, which we as Labour politicians will ignore at our peril. I have talked to staff at the Wetherby laboratory, and am convinced that most of them value the fact that they work within the public sector, are supporters of the public sector ethos and are committed to it. They are not convinced that privatising their work will make them more efficient and
268WH
deliver better outcomes—a view that I share. They are working in a service that is already successful, by any standard that one could wish to apply.
Dr. John Pugh: The hon. Gentleman has outlined his philosophical objections to privatisation. Does he agree that this is an attempt to privatise a service that the Government cannot allow to fail in any circumstances? That is always a mistake, in principle.
Colin Burgon: That is why I made the point about the safety net. As with the railways and air traffic control, the so-called risk takers in the private sector have a safety net under them. The perfect market conditions in which such forces are supposed to flourish will never be created.
Finally, I urge the Minister to give this matter more thought and to look for a solution that involves working with a committed staff through their two trade unions to maintain the Forensic Science Service as a leader in its field, and to ensure that it is constantly open to innovation, responsive to its customers, and a model of an effective public sector organisation.
I hope and pray that the Minister gives a positive response. I do not want to get involved in a fight over this, and I know that several other Back Benchers feel the same. However, if we have to fight, we will be thoroughly committed to carrying the fight through.
10.6 am
Mr. David Borrow: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing the debate. A considerable number of my constituents are employed at the laboratory in Chorley, which my hon. Friend has discussed at some length. Many of them have contacted me in the last few weeks, both in writing and in person. Before that, I did not know much about the Forensic Science Service, except what I had seen on television about the forensic science course at the university of Central Lancashire, which had been the subject of a series of television programmes over the past six to 12 months.
When my constituents contacted me, I was struck by the extent to which they were committed to public service. We must recognise that people sometimes choose to go into the public service rather than join a private sector employer. Often, they accept that the pay and conditions may not be as good, and the financial rewards may not be as beneficial, as they would be in the private sector, but working in the public service gives them other benefits, such as job satisfaction and a sense of working for the wider community.
I do not necessarily oppose the idea of private sector involvement in public services. Some 20 years ago, the Labour party was, or was perceived to be, ideologically opposed to the private sector. For my party, the public sector was good and the private sector was bad, whereas the Thatcher Government believed that the private sector was good and the public sector was bad. Then, in the late 1980s, I remember attending meetings and listening to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, as he now is, who advocated involving the private sector with the public sector to improve services.

269WH
I start from the position of not being ideologically opposed to that, but I question whether I should ask those of my constituents who have committed themselves to public service within the public sector to work for a private or public-private organisation. For that to have to happen, there must be an overwhelming need. The question is whether what is suggested will work and whether the need is important enough to justify the change, which will disrupt the lives of people who have given many years of service in the public sector. Should we shift them against their will into the private sector, with all the stresses and strains that that will bring? The case for that has not yet been made.
In a letter to me, the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety stated:
"We are committed to ensuring FSS continues to be able to remain a world class leader in the development and delivery of forensic science."
There is nothing in that sentence to indicate that the organisation is failing, or that it is not delivering a first-class service. Yesterday I received a letter from a constituent, who said:
"The FSS has assisted internationally in setting up forensic laboratories in Lithuania, DNA databases in Poland, Romania, Kuwait and New Zealand, and winning against European competition a contract to work with Czech police. It led the investigation into Bosnian war graves. This international reputation could be put at risk, if privatisation fails."
We are considering an organisation that, by any measure, is successful; it has a wonderful international reputation. Its trading company makes a profit, of which part is invested and part goes back to the taxpayer.
I have in my office a sack of letters to constituents who have written to me on the issue; they will go out after the debate, and I shall include a copy of the Hansard report of it. I hope that by then a proper case will have been made as to why the change is necessary. The correspondence that I have received so far does not make the case, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will provide persuasive arguments as to why the policy of the Home Office is correct.
I am prepared to disagree with constituents if I believe that the Government's policy is correct, and will argue for it. However, in this case I have been given no answer on any point that I have raised that I can take back to my constituents. I am not ideologically opposed to the involvement of the private sector in delivering a public service, but no case has been made. It is crucial, before we put at risk the good will—
Mr. Hoyle: My hon. Friend, with his background of working in the public sector, will be aware that in certain cases, that sector is needed. Does he agree that the short-term gain that might come from this proposal will be the Government's long-term loss?
Mr. Borrow: The proposed public-private partnership may be driven by short-term financial difficulties, or requirements placed on the Home Office in order to get investment into the service; I can understand why there might be pressure from the Treasury on the Home Office to do that. However, in five years' time when major
270WH
things have gone wrong with the FSS and there have been failures in investigations, we do not want to find ourselves, after the event, holding a Select Committee inquiry into the failure of a privatised FSS. No Government would want to risk putting themselves in that situation. The danger is that if this is botched, or driven through simply to meet short-term financial needs, we shall have made a bad decision.
If there is a strong long-term case for a change in the structure and organisation of the FSS, we can debate it and see whether there is merit in it. So far, the Government has made no such argument. There needs to be an overwhelming case for change before we disturb an organisation that has given excellent service, has an international reputation and employs hundreds of dedicated professionals committed to working in a public service, and before we put at risk any of their livelihoods and pensions, as the change could do. I look forward with great interest to the Minister's comments, and I hope that he will give all of us some satisfaction, and something that I can take back to my constituents.
10.13 am
Jon Trickett: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not having given much notice of my wish to speak. Like other hon. Members, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) for having called for today's debate. It is important for a number of reasons.
Before I speak about the FSS, I shall take hon. Members back to the summer months, before the Conservatives' little local difficulties with their leadership, which I predict will continue once they have the leader who looks likely to be selected, or elected—[HON. MEMBERS: "Crowned."]—or crowned. At that time there was some debate about the state of the Labour party, and I predict that that debate will reemerge. Another point that was made—
Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Jon Trickett: Let me just finish what I was saying. I apologise for being provocative about a matter that is not on the agenda, but I wanted to make the point.
The debate at that time, which I predict will reemerge, was on the hypothesis—I put it no stronger than that—that a gap was opening up between the Government and the party and its supporters, which began to be articulated around the managerialism of Ministers, rather than the values that our Government are meant to embrace. With the FSS we are faced with a managerialist decision, which is detached from the values that the Government are meant to espouse. However, before I address that matter I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Brazier: To bring us back to the subject of the debate, may I point out that the person to whom the hon. Gentleman referred as our new leader considered a proposal very similar to this one when he was Home Secretary—and firmly rejected it?
Jon Trickett: I am sure he did, but as that person is committed to tax cuts, it will be interesting to see which cuts in the police service and the criminal justice service generally he intends to implement instead.

271WH
I want to address values and managerialism, because when the decisions that are taken are detached from the ethos that we espouse and seek to represent, they can be understood only in managerial terms. I am afraid that the decision that we are discussing is a managerial decision, but it is also flawed on managerial grounds. I shall explain why in a moment.
As for the values that determine the way in which the Government move forward, there is nothing wrong with being pragmatic within an overarching set of values, but nor should we run away from the word "ideology", because that was what motivated many of us to become politicians—a belief in a particular kind of nation, which was not the kind of nation that we inhabited at the time. Personally, I do not think that there is anything wrong with ideology, but one of the values that I would have thought we would want to espouse is modernity, and modern public services, which must be well invested in and efficient. Nobody has ever said that the FSS is inefficient or lacking in modernity.
Beyond the value of modernity, however, are the values of public service. Hon. Members have referred to the strong public service ethos that runs through all the Labour party's thinking. It is true that none of us nowadays believes that the whole of society should be state owned, which would be a preposterous thing for us to propose in a modern United Kingdom. However, it is clear that some services—the criminal justice system is such a service par excellence—should be in a not-for-profit environment. A body concerned with the identification and capture of criminals, and their imprisonment and punishment, should be dedicated to the public service, and retain a strong public service ethos.
That ethos is strongly felt by the people who work in the forensic science laboratory. They spend their lives attempting to produce evidence that identifies criminals and eventually results in their imprisonment. I defy the Minister, intelligent as he is, to explain where in our core values as a Government or as a movement the decision we are discussing is located. As I have said, it is a managerial decision, and in managerial terms it is flawed. The key issue is that nowhere else in the world is the forensic science service privatised and, more importantly, separated from the police function in such a radical way. That information comes from paragraph 1.7 of the National Audit Office report, to which I referred earlier, which clearly indicates that no other country separates forensic science to the same degree, making it a distinct agency, never mind privatises it.
When I asked the leading executives in the FSS whether any comparable country had suggested privatising its forensic science service, Dr. Werrett told me that not even the Bush Administration were prepared to go that far. Indeed, they were not even prepared to privatise DNA testing. Nowhere in the world has the forensic science service been separated from the criminal justice service. Even New Zealand and Australia, which have occasionally had fairly reckless right-wing Governments, have not done that.
The reasons are fairly obvious. Separating the service destroys the command structure that is needed to operate effectively to identify criminals. That is why, traditionally and universally, apart from in this country,
272WH
the two services have been integrated. The police service is in charge of the Forensic Science Service for simple, logical, management reasons.
The NAO report to which I referred contains an interesting description of an initiative—in Leeds, of all places. My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) represents one of the constituencies involved. I come from Leeds originally and I lived there all my life until I became a Wakefield MP. I am still interested in Leeds. In an interesting experiment, Wetherby forensic science laboratory seconded back into the police force the scientists who assisted in BRIL—which stands for burglary reduction in Leeds—an initiative designed to defeat burglary. It resulted in a 247 per cent. increase in convictions compared with the previous period in 2000.
Why was the initiative so successful? The NAO report clearly states that it was successful because of the reintegration of the FSS with the police service. I was delighted to see so many burglars put behind bars. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and the Minister would feel the same. Indeed, everyone would. The success resulted from the reintegration of the service. Yet what does the Government propose? They propose to separate the service even further. They intend to set up a public-private partnership as a stage on the road to total privatisation. That will result in the most radical severing of the link between the police and criminal justice service, which remains in the public sector, and the Forensic Science Service, which will go into the private sector.
If I were a distinguished policeman or someone working in the courts I would have doubts about operating with the Forensic Science Service if it were a public limited company. I would worry about the security of information. It might be part of a larger group, and I would be concerned that the shareholders would have opinions about how the FSS was to be used. I might also have worries about money and profit being a motivation, as the information that the FSS would begin to accumulate would no longer be used in the interests of the public sector alone, but might be used in the interests of the shareholders. That disturbs me.
There will be a further breakdown in managerial relationships that are already strained because of the way the service has been separated into an agency. Those relationships will be severed completely when privatisation takes place. There is no case on managerial grounds or on grounds of values for what the Government propose.
David Taylor: Do my hon. Friend's concerns include the possibility that the national DNA database, which contains more than 2 million genetic profiles, might be used for purposes well beyond the detection and prosecution of crimes and criminals?
Jon Trickett: I was concerned about that, and I asked a series of questions about it. The Government may have moved slightly in their thinking on the subject, so I shall not press the point now. However, I warn them that many people, both in the House and outside, would be extremely concerned at the privatisation of the DNA database. The Government may have pulled back from that, but only after people kicked up a fuss.
I wonder whether those who advise the Minister also advised his colleagues to privatise the DNA database. He obviously accepts that it was a mistake to privatise

273WH
that part of the agency; perhaps he should think about the quality of advice that he receives from them, as they were patently wrong. No one in the world is privatising DNA databases. DNA is precious; it is internal to each human being. Our DNA is what makes our life, yet I must tell the Minister that the advisers were telling the Government to privatise it. Those same people are now saying that although that advice was wrong, Ministers should keep their feet on the accelerator. That is a fundamental mistake. One simply cannot make a managerial case for privatisation.
Other information was given to the Public Accounts Committee, and I wait with interest to see the report. However, as far as I could see, not one member of the Committee felt comfortable with what had been discovered. We were told that £6 million would be set aside as redundancy money to get rid of staff; that will be paid for by the taxpayer, presumably to thin down the organisation so that it is ready to make larger profits for the private sector.
What on earth are we doing diverting money from pursuing criminals into paying redundancy money, given that the Government accepts that the FSS will face a 50 per cent. increase in its work? Why are we making people redundant when the service is expanding?
A series of other matters also came up, but I do not have time to raise them now. However, as a Yorkshire Member I am aware of the implications for jobs in Wetherby. No case can be made for what the Government propose, on ideological grounds, on value grounds or on managerial grounds A highly placed snout in the Treasury—I emphasise that this is a very highly placed source—is saying that the Treasury is not pressing the Home Office to do it.
Once one has examined the arguments about why there are no managerial or pragmatic reasons for making the change, the assumption must be that it is ideologically driven. However, I cannot believe that the Minister who is here today could possibly be ideologically driven to privatise part of the criminal justice system. I appeal to him, as other hon. Members have done, to reflect carefully on the debate and on the possible schism that is opening up between Back Benchers—loyal comrades and hon. Friends, who want to modernise the service—and the Government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The purpose of these debates is to enable the Members who raise them to get an answer from a Minister, so we had better start the winding-up speeches now.
10.28 am
Mr. David Heath: I congratulate the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on initiating the debate. I also congratulate all his hon. Friends, and other colleagues, on their contributions. Powerful positions have been set out, and the Minister must have realised that on this subject he has few friends on his own side, let alone on the Opposition Benches. That should give him cause for concern.
I start with the common ground: the police need the best possible forensic service if they are to do their job effectively. That is even more the case as new
274WH
technologies emerge, which give us huge additional scope for the effective detection of crime. We should remember the assertion, supported by all the evidence to hand, that the present structure of the Forensic Science Service provides a quality service. We know that because, as has been pointed out, the National Audit Office report is very clear that the present structures serve the criminal justice community, and the country in general, well. I look forward with interest to the conclusions of the Public Accounts Committee following its inquiry. I know that it has been carefully studying what is proposed and how money is spent.
The National Audit Office report concludes not only that the quality of the service is good, but that improvements are being made in productivity—the number of cases has risen by 52 per cent. since 1996–97, with 130,000 cases in 2001–02—and in timeliness of responses; attention is drawn to the fact that the backlog of DNA samples has been eliminated in recent years. It also concludes that the effectiveness of the work in securing convictions has improved.
Where criticisms are made—and they are few—they are largely about the level of effective communication between the police service and the Forensic Science Service. There is concern about the fact that despite increased take-up there are still police forces that are not well enough equipped with scene-of-crime officers to obtain the raw material to enable the Forensic Science Service to do its work. There is also concern about whether there is sufficient feedback and communication between the service and the police to enable work to be planned more effectively, to provide for transparency in individual cases and to ensure that the best possible service is provided.
The clear conclusion, which Ministers evidently share, is that our Forensic Science Service is a world leader—a professional service that provides a high quality of resource. Therefore, as others have argued, if the Government proposes change, they need to provide arguments for that change. If something is working as well as the service is working, pretty potent arguments are needed to support the sort of upheaval that is on the agenda.
What might such arguments for change be? Perhaps other models of forensic science service, having gone down the road of privatisation elsewhere in the world, are even more successful. However, we have heard that that is not so. Nowhere, even in America, Australia or Canada, or anywhere in Europe, is there anything that matches the Government's proposals.
Indeed, there are very few other services that are even close to the agency approach that we operate. I believe that Holland is just about the only major country whose service tends towards that approach. If they take the steps proposed, the Government will become a pioneer in taking us beyond what any other country has considered reasonable in providing for its criminal justice system.
A second argument for the change would be that there was clear scope for improvement in performance. However, as we have heard from the National Audit Office and others, there is a high level of performance at present, and it is improving. It is therefore hard to sustain an argument that moving the service to the private sector would necessarily improve the performance of the service as a whole.

275WH
As for the investment decisions that the service must take, there is scope within present profitability to secure the investment. It is not clear that an asset base provided by the private sector is needed to maintain the effectiveness of the service. If profitability is what this is all about—ensuring maximum profits for the service, so that part can be reinvested while, inevitably in the case of a private sector business, part must go to the shareholders and be lost to the public sector—where are the profits coming from? They can only come from the public sector—from the police authorities and the people who must pay inflated council tax bills to support the police. Where is the sense in that? What is the logic in ensuring profitability for what is essentially an entirely public sector operation?
There is an argument about the vulnerability of the service to other providers, but I cannot accept that a company that effectively has a 90 per cent. share is highly vulnerable to the small providers. Those small providers provide good alternative services, and I do not want to knock them. Some police forces use them for specialist services and they are right to do so, as there is no reason why they should not test the market like that. However, the idea that a provider with a 90 per cent. market share is vulnerable to those minnows in the market is laughable and will not, I hope, be sustained by the Minister.
David Taylor: The justification for the path on which the Government are apparently set says that the public-private partnership is the optimum way to enable the Forensic Science Service to compete effectively. With whom?
Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman asks exactly the right question with whom? With the other providers? If so, I must point out that they do not want the Forensic Science Service in the private sector, because they know that the virtually monopolistic situation that would arise would not be in their interests as private companies. Also, the innovation that small-scale private sector providers bring to the margins of the Forensic Science Service would be killed, because one large monopolistic private sector company would be grabbing the whole market, which is a serious concern.
What would be the effect of that virtual monopoly? It would drive up the fees and charges to the police forces, which is not a good thing because it will result either in higher costs to the police services, and thereby to the council tax payer, or in fewer cases being given to the Forensic Science Service, which will mean reduced effectiveness of investigation and detection. An effect already being felt is instability in the existing service, with the prospect of redundancies among highly skilled individuals whom we cannot afford to lose from the public service, because they are some of the finest scientists in the country and do a good job. There is also a continuing concern about the reduction in the science base as a whole.
The dialogue between the Forensic Science Service and the police, which we should be promoting, will also be reduced. We want them to compare notes about planned workload and for there to be greater direct communication. If the service were in the private sector, and the conversation about the likely load was therefore taking place between the customer and the monopoly
276WH
supplier, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission would have to look into the matter, as that will not be a private sector, free market situation. Such arrangements will act as a bar to the introduction of new technologies that the Home Secretary will undoubtedly want to enforce and police services will want to take advantage of, because there will be another line of command—that is, shareholders rather than the public interest. There are also genuine issues about security in the service.
Finally, I have some questions. First, we are still not clear about what will happen with the national firearms intelligence database. Will the Minister make it absolutely clear whether he envisages that it will be retained in the public sector? Secondly, we know about the national DNA database from a paragraph that seems to have been inserted into a letter to us all. I have a letter from the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety to my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), which says:
"the review concluded that it is in the public interest for it to continue to be managed in the public sector".
If that is the decision, how is it to be managed? Will we see an orphan agency, existing simply to run the DNA service? If so, where is the cost-effectiveness in that?
Thirdly, why have the Government not published the independent review on which the assessment is based? They have published the executive summary, but they refuse to publish the full report because they say that it is commercially sensitive. That is becoming a habit with the Government. The Home Office refused to publish the Carter review of the Criminal Records Bureau, it refused to publish the independent review of the National Asylum Support Service in July, and now it has refused to publish the report in question. I think that that is a matter for the ombudsman. The Minister ought to consider what constitutes commercial sensitivity and what constitutes the public interest when such a key decision is being taken on our behalf.
My last point is one that all hon. Members have wanted to make. The Forensic Science Service is an integral part of our criminal justice system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) said, it is a service that cannot be allowed to fail. Unless the Government has overwhelming arguments for putting it into the private sector, it should stay where it is, provided that its service is of high quality and integrated, not disintegrated, within the existing system. The Government have yet to prove any case to support their proposition, and it will not receive the backing of many Members on either side of the House.
10.40 am
Mr. Julian Brazier: I congratulate the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing the debate. He expressed his views and his strong feelings, and raised some concerns that are shared on this side of the House. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) on a thoughtful and interesting speech, which drew on his experiences on the Public Accounts Committee.
There is no greater enthusiast for privatisation than me, but the Government's approach to scientific work does not make sensible use of privatisation. This is all of

277WH
a piece: the arguments are the same as those we had about the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, on which the American Government repeatedly intervened, asking the Government not to privatise it, for all the sensible reasons that the Defence Select Committee, which I was on at the time, set out so clearly. There were similar threats to the Public Health Laboratory Service and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs laboratories that are so important for the food chain.
Some changes can appear to be small but have consequences that go far beyond what is perceived when they are made. Changes to the Forensic Science Service could be one such case. Its work is as vital as it is invisible, and I pay tribute to the service for its pivotal role in the fight against crime. The science that the men and women of the service bring to bear can make the difference again and again between conviction and acquittals, both for criminals and for innocent defendants, within the criminal justice system. Forensic science is a vital component in the armoury of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. If that does not remain the case, the nation as a whole, not just those working in the service, will be poorer.
When the Home Secretary announced the changes, he failed to provide any information about what the Government would do with the national DNA database. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has just pointed out, we need to know about that quickly. If the Government are determined to privatise the service—and with their overwhelming majority, they can—they must at least ensure that any change in the status of the Forensic Science Service provides clear safeguards for protecting confidential and sensitive data not just in the national DNA database but throughout the items that involve the interests of the police, victims and the public in general. The service must never be seen to profit from crime at the expense of the fight against crime.
The central question, which the Minister has been asked by each Member, is what is the Government's case for making the change, apart from making a very small contribution in one year—coincidentally, the year before the election—towards reducing the black hole in the public sector borrowing requirement. The FSS is a highly successful trading fund, and as others have said, it paid a dividend of £5 million to the Treasury last year, as well as making substantial internal investment.
One of the few reasons that the Government have advanced for privatisation is increased competition, but as it has 90 per cent. of the market, seven laboratories and 2,400 staff, where would the competition come from? How many new market entrants does the Government anticipate, given the dominant position of the FSS? Would new entrants mean that they would have to establish a regulator? How much would a regulator cost, and what would his terms of reference be?
If the FSS becomes a private company, what will the Government's policy be on possible failure or mismanagement? I assume that such an important service could not be allowed simply to disappear, but that could create an absurd situation in which the Government, having said that they needed the private
278WH
sector because they could not afford the necessary investment, ended up spending much more trying to rescue the service when it went bottom-up.
Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) cannot be here because of another parliamentary commitment, but he is deeply concerned about his many constituents who work in the service. One such constituent says in a letter:
"As part of the criminal justice system the Forensic Science Service acts in the public interest … The cost for Forensic work could increase significantly. Police budgets would then have to be increased … or there would be a decrease in the amount of Forensic Work carried out"
and
"a significant decrease in the number of crimes detected and prosecuted".
Of course, much of the work done by the FSS is painstaking and carried out with little or no profit margin. Does the Government know to what degree, if at all, the FSS operates a system of internal cross-subsidy for labour-intensive major crime work or to maintain the 24/7 on-call system, to which two hon. Members referred? Will the Government set minimum standards of service and service provision? If there will be no minimum service requirement, presumably the unprofitable work will still need to be done by someone, so who do the Government envisage doing that?
Let me illustrate the problem. The present priorities are fixed by the needs of the criminal justice system. Murder is, of course, at the top of the system's priorities, and many murder inquiries involve complicated and exacting one-off work of a sort that will never be profitable in any organisation. What is to prevent the new owners from focusing on an area such as vehicle crime, which is also important, and offers far more scope for profitable repetitive work?
A worried worker at Huntingdon says:
"we are currently threatened with redundancy, despite the FSS having a healthy operating surplus in this financial year … management have consistently denied that the redundancies are connected to making the FSS more attractive to investors and yet the timing cannot be purely coincidental".
Surely the Government does not believe that they can do without the support of the work force. Many of those who stay on will be as angry and bitter as those who are made redundant, yet the Government seem happy to alienate those who joined the service for vocational reasons.
The Government has received representations from the union Prospect. Indeed, I understand that it left a number of questions with Ministers, not least about employees' pension rights. Mike Sparham, the negotiations officer for Prospect, says:
"we have sought assurances about pensions protection and have yet to receive any positive response. We know the civil service scheme is closed to private sector employees, so remaining in it will not be an option. We would like to know what the government's intentions are".
I think we all would.
Perhaps most serious of all is the issue of incorruptibility and security. I quote an employee:
"Our involvement in the Criminal Justice System"
means that it
"is paramount that we remain within the civil service as I believe if private companies were to take over the confidential and personal information that we deal with"

279WH
that
"could adversely affect the lives of people".
As part of the Home Office, the FSS is seen to be beyond reproach, and above all, beyond infiltration. What systems and mechanisms is the Government considering to safeguard not only the lives of staff and their families, but also the effectiveness of the criminal justice system? What consideration have the Government given to the value to the criminal world of getting hold of information from this organisation, which underpins the whole network of criminal intelligence? What will they do about background checks on staff? Who will monitor the companies and the FSS, whatever guise it takes, to ensure the highest standards of probity? Let us remember that the FSS is also a prime target for terrorists, as the citizens of Belfast know all too well. What guarantees will the Government give the new employers?
More generally, I ask the Minister to take this opportunity to reassure the Chamber about what will happen to the national DNA database. We must have an answer on that. The database contains the DNA records of convicted criminals and of suspects who have never been convicted or charged. The commercial value of that information may be limited today, but what about in 10 years' time? What will insurance companies pay for such data? No doubt biotech companies, too, would like access to it. There are ways to use, and, indeed, misuse, someone's genetic code that cause us anguish today. How will the Government limit the scope for even greater problems in future?
I believe that the proposals are driven simply by a desire to make one small patch in the black hole in Government finances the year before an election year. The Opposition has no desire to make life easier for the criminal. We do not believe that that is the Government's intention, but I fear that that could well be the effect, unless they address the matter properly.
10.49 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): I begin by conveying the apologies of the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety, who cannot be with us this morning as she is fulfilling a long-standing commitment to address the Association of Police Authorities. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing this important debate on the future status of the Forensic Science Service. I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Elmet (Colin Burgon), for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ), for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) and for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), all of whom powerfully expressed their views and those of their constituents.
In the short time available to me, I doubt that I will succeed in answering all the questions that were asked, but I shall do my best to answer several of them. I assure hon. Members that they will receive a proper letter containing a full answer to their questions.
The debate has been a useful and important opportunity to air several national concerns and several local constituency concerns. I welcome the recognition given during the debate to the contribution made by
280WH
Forensic Science Service staff to the work of the police in reducing crime. The staff do indeed have a well-earned, world-class reputation, and it has been good to emphasise that point, whatever differences of opinion there may be between hon. Members.
On 14 October, several of my hon. Friends, including, I believe, my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet, met the Home Secretary and the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety and made clear the strength of feeling among FSS staff about the changes that were announced in July and the way in which the announcement was made. I hope that they will be reassured to learn that at a recent meeting with FSS trade union representatives, my hon. Friend apologised for the lack of notice given before the announcement, and gave an undertaking that they would be consulted regularly during the restructuring process. I am happy to repeat that apology and to reassure hon. Members with FSS laboratories in their constituencies.
We need to bear in mind, however, that the challenges facing the FSS did not begin with the decision to create a public-private partnership. The best value approach adopted by police forces is already leading to the development of a competitive market for forensic sciences, in which the police are establishing good working relationships with other suppliers. Two other organisations, LGC and Forensic Alliance, are working successfully with police forces, and already account for some 10 per cent. of market share. Consequently, the FSS has been forced to implement a 9 per cent. reduction in the size of its work force. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley described the prospect of the FSS being divided into a series of regional companies. Different companies may operate in different parts of the country, but I assure him that there are no plans to split up the FSS into smaller regional companies.
The status quo is not an option, and it is clear that we need to act to ensure that the FSS remains a leading-edge forensic organisation. The purpose of the public-private partnership is to ensure that it continues to have access to new developments in forensic technology and can build on the high quality professional skills of its staff to improve the support that it gives the police in reducing crime and making our communities safer places in which to live.
My hon. Friends rightly pointed out the recent improvements in the performance of the FSS. Indeed, in the last financial year, the FSS dealt with 150,000 cases—a record number. Its scientists appeared as expert witnesses in court 2,600 times, and attended approximately 1,700 crime scenes. Also last year, the FSS managed to achieve huge improvements in turn round times. That has continued this year, with 80 per cent. of jobs now delivered within 42 days, compared with only 40 per cent. in February. By next March, the target will rise again to 95 per cent., and that upward pressure will continue as customer expectations and a competitive market demand an ever-improving response to the changing needs of police forces.
We have to recognise that although those are impressive achievements, the structure of the FSS has major limitations. That is why Ministers have concluded that the kind of progress that I have described cannot be sustained unless the FSS is able to continue investing both in new techniques and in its work force. Hon.

281WH
Members will acknowledge that that requires access to development capital—a key issue, which the creation of the PPP will address.
Hon. Members have referred to a £10 million surplus from last year. They are correct, but the review concluded that merely to stand still, the FSS would require between £20 and £30 million of capital investment. Much more than that will be required if it is to remain a leading-edge organisation. Investment is critical to the growth of the FSS at a time when so many opportunities are being provided by new technology, and when other organisations have much more flexible access to development capital.
I can reassure the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who asked why the recent McFarland review was not in the public domain, that it will be placed in the Library of the House once any information that is commercially confidential has been extracted. I hope that he considers that sensible.
David Taylor: The Minister said that the prime justification was to improve access to investment capital. Would he accept that the private sector will pay higher rates for access to capital? On top of that, it will charge its profit element, and the taxpayer will have to pay more for the service both in the medium and the longer term. That does not stack up.
Paul Goggins: The business case will have to stack up, but in order for the FSS to be able to develop further its capacity to remain a leading-edge world-class organisation, it will have to have access to amounts of capital investment that will not be remotely possible if it remains wholly within the public sector.
I return to the McFarland review, which recognised that the FSS has made a success of its trading fund status, in that it is held in high regard by stakeholders and has met most of the operational and financial targets set by the Home Office. However, it asked what might have been achieved if performance had not been fettered by the constraints of trading fund status—in particular, by not having the managerial freedom and flexibility to respond to growing competition, and by its
282WH
inability to sustain the level of capital investment that is required if it is to remain at the leading edge of rapidly advancing science and technology.
The review highlighted the substantial risks facing the FSS. It concluded that after several years of rapid growth, it was significantly undercapitalised. I shall repeat that point for my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley: the report concluded that the organisation was significantly undercapitalised. It requires new money to improve its existing services—
Mr. Hoyle: I am very confused. If the business is making £10 million a year for the Exchequer, why not just put that money into the business? According to the Minister's figures, between £20 and £30 million is needed, so even in the worst case, the service will be wholly revitalised after three years.
Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend knows that the DNA work that the organisation carried out required investment of over £180 million. That is the kind of investment required if the FSS is to remain a world-class, leading-edge organisation, and it is a figure way beyond the very welcome £10 million surplus made last year. The investment required could never be funded year by year out of the surplus.
There are additional constraints on the FSS's ability to enter into enforceable contracts with its customers—an approach that can be difficult when the public sector is both purchaser and supplier. It must be able to enter into business alliances and joint ventures with private sector companies as an equal partner. That is particularly important for research and development, where investment in new technologies is crucial.
Time is against me. There are many more things that I wanted to say—about guaranteeing rights under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, and pension rights, for example, about which I know hon. Members are concerned. I will ensure that the remarks that I wanted to make are enclosed in letters to hon. Members. I repeat that this has been a useful debate, and several important issues have been raised. The Government are fully committed to ensuring that the FSS continues to remain a world leader in the development and delivery of forensic science.

Trans-European Networks
11 am
Albert Owen: The importance of a modern transport system to the economy of north Wales is one of the priorities on which the north Wales group of Labour MPs has been campaigning in the House and outside. It is one of our main issues, along with manufacturing and industry. We believe that it is vital, not only for the economic well-being of the area and for tourism, but for the quality of life of the people of north Wales.
The Government is right to endeavour to spread wealth through the UK, and in their objective of even economic development. To spread wealth evenly to north Wales would require a modern, upgraded transport system, which would provide the foundation and infrastructure to move people and freight across the area. It must be a multi-modal system for the 21st century. The trans-European networks—known as TENs in Euro-jargon—are set up to do that.
North and northwest Wales suffer from dual peripherality; geographically we are on the edge of both Wales and the UK, although I tend to think that that is a London-centric, or even Cardiff-centric, view. To the west of Wales is the Republic of Ireland, which is a major player in European policies. My constituency is smack in the middle of the area between Ireland and the UK. Indeed, it is the heart of the isles and deserves to be treated better in terms of transport.
The links between Wales and Ireland are strong and historic. The towns of Dun Laoghaire and Holyhead have served the cities of Dublin and London for many years. Royal Mail post was carried by road via Chester, Abergele, St. Asaph and Bangor, and across the Irish sea by package ships. The coming of the railways sped up that process and the two cities became closer, although it is argued that the direct rail link was more for transporting MPs from Ireland to Westminster than for moving mail quicker. Hon. Members who travel on the link will testify that MPs in those days had more power to improve things than north Wales MPs do now.
The link is still important. An estimated 2.7 million people a year travel through the port of Holyhead; the Celtic gateway, as it is known in my constituency, Wales and the rest of the UK. Improvement has been made to the port, with new berths and terminals financed by a mixture of private and public money, including European structural fund grants. The sea bridge from Ireland, Dublin and Dun Laoghaire to Holyhead, boasts the fastest ferry, which takes 90 minutes to cross compared with three and a half hours for conventional ferries. There is the largest conventional ferry in Europe, and the new Stena Adventurer is the largest ro-ro ferry in mainland Europe.
According to Anglesey county council and Welsh Development Agency figures, the larger car ferries carry an estimated 646,900 cars and lorries. The E22 Euro-route, or the A55 as it is now known, was completed in 2001. It accommodates some 30,000 vehicles a day, with the ferry companies Stena Line and Irish Ferries projecting an increase in the volume of vehicles, including cars, lorries and large vans. Indeed, they predict year-on-year growth.
284WH
The A55 is already feeling the strain, with major bottlenecks and serious problems. At Penmaen-bach, for example, subsidence caused single-line traffic and huge delays. That is why we need a modern railway system with a fully integrated mechanism.
The Minister will be aware of my campaign to establish scheduled Flights from RAF Valley to Cardiff, Dublin and other UK airports. If that succeeds, the Minister could come to Anglesey for business, take a quick walk up Snowdonia, which I know he is fond of, and be home for tea the same day. I am sure that he will support my campaign for an intra-air service. However, that is a debate for another day.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the idea has all-party support? The Conservative party would like to see RAF Valley used in a proper commercial manner, boosting tourism and businesses in the area.
Albert Owen: Absolutely. It has not only all-party support, but the support of the Wales Tourist Board, which yesterday announced that the plan was one of its priorities.
The railways are problematic, to say the least. We now have the completed A55 dual carriageway, the port and shipping developments that I have described and the improved road and rail links in the Republic of Ireland and the north of Ireland. I believe that the missing link is the north Wales railway. I welcome the strategic plan for UK railways from the Strategic Rail Authority and the Government.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the issue has full all-party support. Earlier, he mentioned the efforts of the north Wales Labour group. When will they meet Richard Bowker of the SRA, as Plaid Cymru did last week?
Albert Owen: We have already met Mr. Bowker on a number of occasions, and we have met other members of the SRA, Network Rail and the rail operators. As I said, the missing link is the north Wales railway. The 10-year plan is welcome after a long period of under-investment.
Hywel Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the main problems in improving rail traffic in north Wales is not in north Wales itself, but in accessing the system to the east? Investment in north Wales is indeed crucial, but we also need better rights in England.
Albert Owen: I will come to the subject of the rail infrastructure in a second.
We must welcome the improvements in progress on the west coast main line. They were the first TENs priority when TENs came into force in 1994. The estimated cost of that project is somewhere in the region of £9 billion. Other projects in 1994 included the channel tunnel rail link, which is now operable in the south-east of England, and a rail link from Lame to Belfast to Dublin.
The Minister will know that the Crewe to Holyhead line forms part of the west coast main line, serving the north Wales coast and the port of Holyhead with its

285WH
links to Dublin. It is time for the strategy on the west coast main line to be brought west, to north Wales and northwest Wales. The modern Eurolink needs to be put in place to achieve the objectives of the Maastricht treaty, article 129(b) of which states that
"to enable citizens of the Union, economic operators and regional and local communities to derive full benefit from setting up an area without internal frontiers"
the Community should promote the
"interconnection and interoperability of national networks as well as access to such networks. It shall take account in particular of … island, landlocked and peripheral regions with the central regions of the Community."
I am sure that everybody in this Chamber agrees with those general objectives.
I was pleased when the Commission announced the enlargement of the trans-European transport networks in October this year. It proposed new projects with new funds to dynamise Europe. The total costs of the projects were estimated to be in the region of €220 billion. The press release that accompanied the announcement referred to trans-European networks as the
"motor and precondition for Europe's economic development and cohesion"
and stated that
"new rules and structures proposed should provide means of attracting more funding to the priority projects and turning them into reality".
Among the projects listed as priorities was the rail line between Crewe and Holyhead, with a date of 2008. It was listed alongside the west coast main line, which is to be completed by 2007. That is a major step forward. Upgrading the north Wales line was on the agenda in the 1980s, but little attention was given to it. It is now in an appalling state, including the stations, which were described by the chief executive of a leading train operator as the worst in the UK network.
The regional paper, the Daily Post, is running a campaign to improve safety and information at north Wales stations, where basic amenities such as toilets, information screens and waiting rooms are either lacking or well below basic standards of cleanliness. The lack of basic facilities does not accord with the objectives of the SRA, which calls for safe and welcoming stations. Journey times are not predictable or relaxing, as the SRA requests.
To be fair to Virgin trains, it has invested in new rolling stock; new, pioneering Super Voyagers and Pendolinos are expected in September 2004. Although the seven trains that were promised will not be coming, there will be a total of four trains, with an additional London to Llandudno train to be timetabled.
Hywel Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the capacity of the four trains from Bangor—the number of passengers that can possibly be carried—is less than that of the three trains that are operated already?
Albert Owen: It is a bit more technical than that. Virgin trains explains the reduction as being due to delays in the rail upgrading and the inability to run
286WH
trains at 140 mph. If the trains could be moved faster, we would have more trains and increased daily capacity, which I am sure is what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
My point for the purpose of the present debate is that the line speeds are as low as 75 mph in parts of north Wales, including Anglesey. That is a total waste of the new capacity that Virgin trains are promoting, which would allow its trains to reach a speed of 125 mph across the network. No wonder people in north Wales feel that the line is a Cinderella line. That is unacceptable for a designated major Euro-route linking the European capitals of Dublin and London.
Of course it is up to each EU member state to improve its own transport system and rail network. Cost is a major factor, yet crude estimates in respect of upgrades in the north Wales line and signalling to allow the new trains to run at 125 mph when they come into service are that the cost would be in the region of £ 10 million to £20 million. I remind the House that the cost of the west coast main line upgrading from London to Glasgow is in the region of £9 billion and I urge the Government to turn the TENs project for a modern, upgraded line between Crewe and Holyhead into reality.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): Will my hon. Friend read out those figures again? I was looking at information recently about the replacement of one group of points, and that cost £10 million. Is my hon. Friend saying that the whole of the railway line from Crewe to Anglesey could be made available for trains to run at 125 mph for between £20 million and £30 million?
Albert Owen: No. The information that I was given by Virgin when the Welsh Affairs Committee conducted its inquiry into railways was that most of the line now has the capacity to run at 100 mph-plus, but that areas of the line need upgrading. The figure for upgrading the whole line so that it could maximise its speed to 125 mph was £10 to £20 million.
The objective of TENs is to move people and freight quickly and reliably. I am sure that the Government shares that objective. The construction of the trans-European networks is an important element of economic growth and the creation of employment. North Wales deserves greater investment in its railways. The ports of Holyhead and Dun Laoghaire have benefited from new investment; there are new ships. The euro-route, the A55, is helping to spread wealth across north Wales. I ask the Minister to give priority to the modest work for which the EU is calling and to work with the EU, the Assembly and the rail company to restore pride in that important link.
I do not want to see north Wales lose out in investment or economically in the future. I used the comparison of the A55, which was begun in the 1980s from Chester to Bangor and across the bridge to Anglesey, but stopped a few miles into Anglesey. The Labour Government in 1997 gave that road the final go-ahead. I remember my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales—when he was a Wales Office Minister—signing the document to allow the A55 to be completed.
I have no doubt that Anglesey lost out significantly in the period when the road was not dualled. Business complained that there was traffic congestion, and used

287WH
that as a factor for not investing in Anglesey. When the road was completed in 2001, the port of Holyhead was fast getting back on its feet, and the economy started to catch up with the rest of north Wales.
I believe that by not investing in and maximising the potential benefits of a fast rail service, north Wales is losing out, in the same way that Anglesey lost out through that major investment not being completed. We need to see a modern west coast line that really is a west coast line, stretching to the west of Wales and to Ireland. I ask the Government to give that greater priority, to adhere to the guidelines of the TENs project and to ensure that the project is completed by 2008, if not sooner.
11.16 am
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) on securing this important debate. As he has informed us, his own constituency in north Wales contains key transport infrastructure on the trans-European transport network; the TEN, as it is known.
The A55 is part of the TEN road network, and I am glad to hear my hon. Friend's views on the way the economy of Ynys Môn has improved as a consequence of the A55 being dualled. I remember driving along that road before it was dualled; it was very different then. The thrust of the TEN is to put in place a modern, interconnected network that will enhance trade and the competitiveness of the European economy, will give life to the concepts of the internal market and provide more territorial cohesion.
In conjunction with complementary policies to open up markets and remove restrictive operational practices, it is hoped that the network, which comprises road and rail infrastructure, strategically important airports and ports, as well as transport information systems, will improve competitiveness and growth in Europe. However, as my hon. Friend told us that come at a price. I believe that he quoted a figure of about £220 billion, whereas I have heard that the figure is £350 billion. Those are fantasy sums. Europe cannot afford projects at those kinds of prices. We must examine the matter on a project-by-project basis if we are to inject reality into those great aims and schemes, aspirational though they are.
Ian Lucas: Will my hon. Friend clarify the effect of the announcement that was made in October by the European Union? Does it mean that additional funds will be made available to assist the north Wales line, or does it mean that he has to make the case to the European Union?
Dr. Howells: I am glad to clarify that for my hon. Friend. We have to make the case, whether it is for the upgrade of parts of the infrastructure that might be designated as part of the TEN project, or for a completely new route. That is not an easy task. Everyone wants a share of that money, and there are ten accession countries. There will be a marked shift eastwards and to the centre of Europe in terms of where that money will be spent. We have an important case to
288WH
make. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn has reminded us, there is an issue of peripherality, both geographically and economically. The gross domestic product in Wales is 20 per cent. below the UK average. The European average is in doubt, as no one can work it out, but there is a serious deficit, and transport has a part to play in it.
The benefit to the UK of TENs is twofold. First, there is the prospect of accessing funding for our projects on the TENs map. When the guidelines were established in 1996, 14 priority projects were identified. They are due to receive a generous proportion of the overall TENs budget between them. That runs to about £3 billion between 2000 and 2006. Four of those priority projects are wholly or partly in the UK: the channel tunnel rail link; the west coast main line rail project, which is probably Europe's busiest railway line when both passengers and freight are taken into account; the road link between Ireland, the UK and the Benelux countries; and the rail link between Cork and Belfast. Those projects have been awarded over £150 million, in grants, from the TENs project. As my hon. Friend reminded us, we have partly benefited from that with the A55, with improvements in Holyhead and, more importantly, with the west coast main line.
Chris Ruane: My hon. Friend has listed several projects. Does he know where one of the more recent developments, the improvement of Mostyn docks, lies on the list of priorities? Has its profile in Europe been lifted?
Dr. Howells: I have no idea, but I will certainly try to find out for my hon. Friend. I am not sure whether Mostyn docks is a priority on the TENs list, but I am sure that he will make a good case for it.
The second benefit of TENs is to our hauliers, who will benefit from the improved infrastructure and links throughout continental Europe, particularly when markets open up after accession. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn would not make the mistake of assuming that because some of those improvements are in England, they will not affect Wales. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) said that the most important transport connections for Wales are those that run through England, and that is a significant point. As one who uses the rail system constantly, I know how important those links are to lines such as the great western route.
We should benefit as much as any other part of Europe from the channel tunnel rail link. That project is going well; touch wood. Phase 1 has been delivered on time and below budget. Phase 2, leading into St. Pancras, is well under way. I am sure that that could be the subject of another debate, but it illustrates the point that many key TENs projects will benefit Wales as well as the areas in which they are being constructed.
Mr. Llwyd: Although I fully agree with the Minister, I must draw his attention to a problem. The Conwy valley line and the north Wales coastline are hopefully going to be upgraded for freight. That is important to those of us who arc Members of Parliament for north Wales, but it might be scuppered by a freeze on freight

289WH
grants in England. Following on from the Minister's remarks, with which I agree, I urge better cross-border understanding.
Dr. Howells: That is an important point, Mr. Deputy Chairman.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am a lot of things, but I am not a deputy chairman.
Dr. Howells: I am very sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The nomenclature of this place is often a mystery to me.
I must reply to the important point raised by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) about freight movements in Wales. He will be glad to know that part of the railway line in his constituency will be used as a test bed for the latest technology in the world on rail safety and management, so that we can run more trains along the track and make better use of railway capacity. He is quite right to highlight the issue of freight, which is important.
Just last week I had discussions with some of the most important companies involved, and they want to hear that we have a positive attitude towards freight on the railway lines. The freight grants are important; there is no question about that. The budget For the coming year is, I think, between £30 million and £40 million, but that is not what counts. The sums involved in moving freight along the railway lines are vast and we must give reassurances that that is the proper way for the country, so I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn knows, the route in question is also an important freight route and should be more important as we try to get more traffic off the motorways and on to the railways; not an easy task.
My hon. Friend will welcome, I am sure, the benefits that the west coast main line upgrade is delivering. By next September, the journey time between London and Holyhead will have been reduced from 4 hours and 20 minutes to 3 hours and 50 minutes. He is right to mention the problem of reliability and punctuality, so I am sure that the figure that I quoted will be a welcome reduction in the overall time that that journey takes. However, if it is impossible for the travelling public to depend on the train arriving somewhere around that time, we shall lose the battle to win more passengers for the rail network, which is such an important consideration.
Albert Owen: My hon. Friend is right that the line speeds up to Crewe will benefit people travelling to and from London, or, indeed, to Birmingham and other destinations. However, does he not accept that many people and businesses that trade with the Republic of Ireland or along the north Wales coast will not see those
290WH
benefits? My point is that we need to be on a par and have a level playing field with businesses and tourism to the east of Crewe.
Dr. Howells: I was rather envious when my hon. Friend talked about 75 mph limits. He should try travelling on the excellent valleys lines; believe me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the limits there are often a lot lower, and that is the busiest commuter network in Wales, between Pontypridd and Cardiff. That line is extremely busy and thousands of people depend on it every day. However, my hon. Friend is right that ultimately the quality of the infrastructure will enable the journey to become faster and more dependable.
The great problem is that although we all want lines to be upgraded, the cost is phenomenal. We know, for example, that originally the west coast main line upgrade was costed at about £2 billion. It then rose mysteriously to £14 billion, and we have now got it back down to about £8 billion to £9 billion. Those are huge sums of money. At the moment it costs something like between £12 million and £15 million to build one mile of railway. A lot of those costs are due to sophisticated signalling systems, safety devices and so on but the costs of electrification are in addition to that. I hope that my hon. Friend bears that in mind.
Albert Owen: The point of the European Commission's announcement is that member states can now tap into the cohesion fund as well as the structural fund, which makes financing more attractive. Will the Minister consider that and give priority to this round of funding as opposed to the last round?
Dr. Howells: We gave a lot of priority to the last round, and we have a good team working on the issue. We are not going to give up the opportunity of getting some of those structural funds, which could do so much to help transportation in and around Wales. However, there are still a lot of misconceptions about what constitutes a good railway and good railway infrastructure, and I do not want to encourage my hon. Friend to think that a diesel set is somehow inferior to an electric set. On the contrary; lots of countries are going for diesel sets and diesel turbos because they are much more flexible. They can go places that one cannot go with electrification, which I am sure is an important consideration for my hon. Friend.
I should like to thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue, which is important to Wales. Transportation infrastructure is often the means by which we improve the economy of whole regions. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which has been useful, and I hope that we can consider in conjunction with the Welsh Assembly how railways can benefit the Principality in ways that until now they perhaps have not.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Identity Cards
2 pm
Mr. Simon Thomas: I am delighted to have secured this debate because many hon. Members are interested in the consultation on an entitlement or identity card system for the United Kingdom, the cost of that system and the questions about civil liberties to which it gives rise.
It is curious that at a time when the Conservative party has dusted down a former, benighted Home Secretary, one of his more controversial and less successful ideas is similarly dusted down and taken off the shelves in Whitehall. Let me say at the outset that I am opposed to ID cards, both in principle and on grounds of practicality. To put it at its most brutal, I do not believe that the best way of remembering, as we do this week, those who gave their lives for freedom is to introduce the sort of society that would have had Saddam Hussein drooling. The apparatus of totalitarian repression depends on knowing who and where every citizen is and was, and which God they worship. The Government may have dropped the God bit, but the potential for all the rest remains.
Brian White: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the many western European democracies that have ID cards are totalitarian states?
Mr. Thomas: No, I am not saying that, but every one of those countries has a written constitution and this country does not. If the Government provide a written constitution that I can sell to my electorate, I might agree with the hon. Gentleman, but until we have that safeguard, we must bear it in mind that, without a written constitution, ID cards can be used repressively by totalitarian regimes.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Thomas: Not at this stage, but I will consider doing so later. As he is sitting next to me, the hon. Gentleman is in a position to catch my eye.
At the moment, we balance privilege with responsibility. It is a privilege to drive a car, and it is a responsibility to pass a test, hold a driving licence, and tax a vehicle and so on. It is a privilege to enter another country, but a passport is needed. Other forms of identity, including credit cards, party membership cards such as my Plaid Cymru card and parliamentary photo passes, are mere conveniences that we can opt to use. An ID card system tips that scale and reduces citizen to cipher. It forgets that the Government should be subject to the people and instead makes the people subject to the Government. The central tenet of freedom—for people to be able to move around as they please, live where they please and do what they want, as long as they do not harm others—is reduced to a nannying, bullying attitude that the Government must know where people are and what they are doing.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones rose—
Mr. Thomas: I give way to my hon. Friend from Wales.
Mr. Jones: I thank my colleague for calling me his hon. Friend because we are friends and I respect his
292WH
views. However, I would like an explanation of something. It is odd that the Member for Ceredigion, who is probably the worst-placed Member, in terms not of knowledge but of his constituency, to understand the need for ID systems, should be taking part in this debate.
Mr. Thomas: I must confess that I do not understand that intervention. Why am I any worse placed than the other 600-odd Members of Parliament who have a view on the matter?
Martin Linton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the sort of entitlement card system that the Home Secretary is likely to propose is a family of ID cards starting with the 40 million people who hold driving licences? They will receive an enhanced driving licence/ID card, and the 38 million people holding passports will receive a passport card. The entitlement card will be introduced along precisely those lines that he says he has no objection to—that it should be an enhanced passport/enhanced driving licence. When all those existing cards have been replaced by entitlement cards, precious few people in this country will not have one. What would be his objection then to the remaining few having one?
Mr. Thomas: I shall address that interesting point a little later when I discuss mission creep, but I say now to the hon. Gentleman that I do not know what the Government's plans are. There is a consultation and there are options, but we have not been told what the Government's thinking is. We do not know whether we will be forced to pay £40, £50 or whatever, or whether the cards will be compulsory or non-compulsory. We do not know whether the proposal will be, in fact, a backdoor tax on our identity. I am interested in those questions. One reason for initiating this debate was to find out precisely what the Government had to say on those matters. I look forward as much as the hon. Gentleman to the Minister's response.
Martin Linton rose—
Dr. Nick Palmer rose—
Mr. Thomas: I shall not give way just yet.
David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman is only on page 1.
Mr. Thomas: Actually, I am on page 2. Of course, I am not reading my notes but merely looking at them, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. May 1 be of assistance? Many hon. Members have applied to speak this afternoon. The more they intervene on the hon. Gentleman, the less chance they have of being called.
Mr. Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is a word to the wise, as we say in Welsh.
The Minister may say that the scheme is voluntary and that it is for an entitlement card, not a compulsory card. That is probably the worst of both worlds—a

293WH
bureaucratic, expensive, nightmarish mess that would inevitably become a de facto, if not de jure, compulsory system.
Any kind of ID card will need a national database. No Government has a good record on creating national databases, and that applies to this Government. Nature abhors a bureaucracy. Child tax credits, the passport office fiasco, census figures, the Child Support Agency—all those major database projects have been beleaguered by problems. No, my mind boggles at the cock-ups that will surround the introduction of an ID card. Every time people lose it or change their address, they will have to report to the authorities, on pain of prosecution, and the potential for more mistakes and fraud, with which I shall deal later, will creep in.
The Government has already admitted that such a database would have to be collated from scratch. The Government do not take quite the line that the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) takes, that of merely bringing together current databases. A proper system will have to be underpinned by a new database created from scratch.
Martin Linton: For most purposes, the entitlement card would use existing public services databases. If someone wanted to check whether a person were entitled to go to a school or to use a library, they would access the database of the local authority or the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, rather than a new database. Like the hon. Gentleman, I question the usefulness of a central database. If there were to be one, it would consist only of the numbers of the cards issued, not information about the individuals. Such information would remain with the public service agencies, so there would not be a huge increase in central computer records.
Mr. Thomas: I would regard that situation with even more horror, because it would break the golden rule of data protection: information collected for one purpose must not be used for another purpose. I shall return to that shortly.
The Government has admitted that a national database would be required, whether for just one number or 1,000, but the Home Secretary has been uncharacteristically coy about the cost of establishing it. I asked about that last week in Home Office questions, but he refused to give me a figure. Legislation may be proposed in the Queen's Speech, but we do not know what it will cost. A sum of £1.6 billion has been hinted at, but some people estimate that an amount closer to £3 billion will be necessary. That is more than the entire NHS capital budget for 2003–04 or the cost of some 60,000 extra police officers.
Is it really a priority for the UK to spend billions—it would be billions, whichever way one looked at it—on ID cards? And to what would they entitle us? They would entitle us to things that we are entitled to anyway: the NHS, public education, pensions and benefits, all of which are paid for in trust by the public. It is true that many MPs, including some in the Labour party, opt out of such services, but the vast majority of the public do not. The only responsibility that people have when
294WH
accessing such services is to prove their identity, something that is easily and cheaply done without an ID card system. Just 5 per cent. of benefit fraud is identity fraud. The vast majority of fraud involves the misrepresentation of circumstances.
I would like to tackle the Government's arguments head on. However, as I said earlier, the Government have not presented a unified argument in their discussion of a national ID card. They have been as convincing as they have been consistent. We were told first that ID cards would deter international terrorism and political violence; next that they would enable the Government to end benefit fraud; and then that they were the panacea that would stop illegal immigration, asylum troubles and illegal working in the UK. The Labour Government, much like the Tory Government in 1995, has used any justification for the introduction of ID cards. It is a clear example of a solution in search of a problem.
Looking at the arguments in turn, there is clear evidence that ID cards are not necessary to counter terrorism. Mr. Adrian Beck of the university of Leicester was commissioned by John Major's Government in 1995 to examine identity cards for use in crime fighting and prevention. After the attacks on 11 September, he said that
"there is a lack of evidence that an ID initiative would have a significant impact on the problem of terrorism, or indeed on more generalised crime…If one legitimate person has the technology to make an ID card then another (illegitimate) person can have it too".
Regrettably, the twin tower terrorists had legal identification or acceptable forgeries, which is notable as the United States has a near universal identity system based around driver licensing.
The Government has adduced no evidence, and I have not been able to find any elsewhere, that ID cards directly relate to a reduction in the threat of terrorism. It could be argued that, in some cases, such as the Palestinian territories, for example, their abuse may exacerbate the situation.
The Government's shift from justifying ID cards as a weapon for combating terrorism to justifying them as a means of tackling benefit fraud is best seen through the official consultation paper. On 3 July, however, the Cabinet Office reported that
"social security fraud rooted in identity misuse amounted to between £20m and £50m per year."
That is less than 1 per cent. of the welfare benefits budget and less than the cost of mistakes made by the Department for Work and Pensions.
Shortly after 11 September, I went to open a new bank account at my local bank. A member of staff who knew me greeted me in person, in Welsh, saying, "Shwd ychchi, Mr. Thomas," which means, "Come in, sit down." There are not many al-Qaeda terrorists who speak Welsh; there may be a few, but the staff knew me. I explained what I wanted to do and she explained that I could not do it without proof of identity. The problem is that a fake ID card can open a bank account, which may be used for money laundering, but my being recognised in person by staff at the bank could not.
Dr. Palmer: I apologise for the fact that I have to go to a Committee shortly; it is not lack of interest that will take me away.

295WH
Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, given the many circumstances where he needs to identify himself, it is making a virtue of ineffectiveness to say that it is better not to have a card that identifies him beyond doubt?
Mr. Thomas: It is precisely the opposite. Anyone can identify themselves as somebody if they have the means fraudulently to identify themselves as that person. Any system is open to abuse, and it is no more reliable to require an ID card as the only system of identity than it is to require people to return to the bank with the usual identity paraphernalia. Just to let Members know, in case they need to open a bank account, my parliamentary photo pass was not sufficient ID for that bank.
The final argument that the Government advanced was about illegal immigration and employment. We already issue ID cards to refugees, who in the spirit of the times we call asylum seekers. The Government do not have asylum under control. They need to issue 15,000 amnesties on the basis of bureaucratic inefficiency rather than deal with bona fide refugees, and they now try to convince us that registering nearly 60 million people can be done efficiently and that it will be effective against a few thousand illegal workers or refugees.
Many of the complaints surrounding illegal immigration are about illegal employment. The alternative view is that such people should be allowed to work while they seek refugee status. There is little evidence that the introduction of ID cards would significantly hinder the black market in illegal labour. Does anyone believe that the gang masters who today take on illegal workers with no national insurance number and no right to work will be discouraged by ID cards tomorrow? They will continue to exploit the same desperate people in the same way.
As with terrorism, the real issue is intelligence and the tracking of criminality. ID cards might make the job of the police a little easier after apprehension and arrest, but in a world where young men without criminal records live as sleepers until they commit a terrorist act, ID cards are useless. There is no correlation between the use of ID cards and crime rates in western countries. There is, however, plenty of evidence that criminals already profit from forging identities. No matter how sophisticated ID cards are, they are always open to forgery.
Michael Levi, a criminologist and expert on fraud at University College Cardiff has remarked that
"the issue is really one of cost benefit analysis; crime prevention mainly consists of modest measures which make noticeable reductions in crime. Secure ID cards are one such measure, though whether, even at a pragmatic rather than a rights-based level, their benefits outweigh their costs to civil liberties is an open question".
Identity problems are not a significant reason why prosecutions fail to stick. The idea that the police are unable to assess a person's identity is, in Levi's opinion, not plausible:
"In this situation, identity cards are an irrelevance, a tough soundbite that has no practical effect".
I have not attempted to deal with the unfortunate history of the "sus" laws and the potential impact of ID cards on race issues. We can all imagine what those
296WH
police officers in Cheshire who were filmed by the BBC would have done with ID legislation behind them when they faced black and Asian people on the street. We have only to look at the misery experienced by the civilian population in the Palestinian territories today to see the havoc caused by an ID system married to so-called profiling.
One important question, which the Government has in the main ignored, is what information will be available to Departments, and perhaps others, via an ID card system. Furthermore, what information will be kept on the card itself? On 16 January this year, the Home Secretary said that he wanted a simple card system to store
"a unique personal number that would verify the holder's identity and establish their access to public services such as healthcare, schooling and social security."
The problem is one of mission creep.
Mr. James Paice: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is the nub of the issue? If the ID card has a unique number, it must be directly linked to an individual's identity, which cannot be forged or fraudulently obtained. That takes us back to biometrics and other ways of ensuring that the number relates to the person carrying the card.
Mr. Thomas: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in that regard, but he should take two other issues on board. First, that would entail a national database, where mismatching numbers with details would lead to mistakes. Secondly. Biometrics would not stop the fraudulent use of such a card system on a day-to-day basis. Someone could fraudulently obtain an ID card, put their identity on it—the technology will be available—and present it at the bank. A student in Swansea had his identity stolen by al-Qaeda—identity theft happens now, and it would happen under an ID card system.
Information is power. As a Government obtains more information on their citizens, they become more powerful. If information is used judiciously and tempered by clear limits and safeguards against abuse, the potential for unwarranted surveillance is diminished. However—this point was raised by the hon. Member for Battersea—no right to privacy is recognised in UK law, nor is there a general right to know about what is done or held in our names. We cannot check, as a matter of right, that what is recorded in various databases is accurate and that improper records are eliminated. No Department may be prosecuted for a data protection offence. The data protection registrar has warned that the Data Protection Act 1984
"would not provide effective protection against the disclosure of information and cross-matching of files which might follow the introduction of a widely usable national identification system".
We must take that warning into account.
We must also take account of the stigma and humiliation of constantly having to prove citizenship or legal immigrant status. In 1996, under the Conservative Government, the Home Office commissioned the Scarman centre to carry out research on the way that ID cards were used in other European countries. It found that identity checks carried out by the police were a

297WH
significant source of tension for ethnic minority groups, and in France, Germany and the Netherlands, the police disproportionately stopped those groups. In the UK last year, while nationally the number of white people stopped by the police fell by 18 per cent., the number of black people stopped increased by 4 per cent.
Martin Linton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the first sentence in the consultation paper states that the Government have excluded the possibility of a card that it would be compulsory to carry? With respect, his points are not relevant to his thesis
Mr. Thomas: As I understand it, it will not be compulsory to carry the cards but it will be compulsory to report to a police station later to be identified. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman.
There is potential here for misuse of personal information. Once all the information is stored in Government databases there will be no guarantee that its use will be limited. The golden rule of information privacy is that information collected by the Government for one purpose should not be used for another purpose without the consent of the person to whom the information pertains.
The central issue is one of trust, and I do not believe that people currently trust politicians or Governments of any political colour to maintain such a cumbersome system safely and effectively. We have to take it on trust that a massive identification bureaucracy would facilitate our way of life rather than undermine the freedoms that we take for granted, yet error rates in processing data are high. What impact could wrong data on one's card have on one's life? For that reason, a similar scheme in a similar country, Australia, modelled on a constitution similar to ours was abandoned after public opposition.
Faced with those problematic objections to ID cards the Cabinet is split down the middle. We have watched the Home Secretary do the hokey-cokey with his colleagues as a Bill on ID cards pops in and out of the Queen's Speech. We now come up against the final desperate argument, which we have heard from a few Members already in interventions: everyone else has them, so why should not we? I make this point. Of the 11 European Union countries that have ID cards, in only four is it compulsory to carry them, and all 11 have written constitutions. The Home Secretary wilfully ignored that point when I put it to him in the House last week, introducing the ridiculous canard of the new European constitution. I am talking about a written constitution for the United Kingdom, which has nothing to do with the European constitution.
We are back where we started, with privileges and responsibilities. If we ever agree to ID cards, we as citizens will be extending a privilege to the Government. It is not the Government's to demand, but it is ours as citizens to give. I urge the Government to reject ID cards as the expensive, unnecessary, illiberal and over-burdensome bureaucracy that they are. If they insist on them, and if we agree, they must shoulder their responsibility and renew their contract with the citizens
298WH
in the form of a written Bill of Rights and constitution. Anything less, and ID cards will represent a real blow to democracy in the nations of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am delighted that a large number of Members have risen to their feet, but may I say that if they all take too much time, they will not all get in?
2.22 pm
David Winnick: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on securing the debate. I tried to do the same, without success, and I am pleased that at long last there is an opportunity to debate this subject. I note that a number of my hon. Friends take attitudes different from mine, but there is no reason why we should not have a good debate in the parliamentary Labour party. I understand from the press, and only from the press, that a good deal of discussion on the matter—friendly, I am sure—is going on at Cabinet level. It would be surprising if that were not the case.
I remain sceptical about identity cards, for some if not all of the reasons that the hon. Member for Ceredigion mentioned. There would be high expectations that such cards would deal effectively with various kinds of domestic criminality and terrorism as well as with illegal immigration. Should such cards be introduced, they might be seen in some parts of the country, although not by parliamentarians or Ministers, as a panacea for the matters that I have just mentioned.
Let us be clear about the compulsion element. As I understand it, it has been suggested that one would not always have to carry the card, but it would be compulsory to give details about oneself. Without that, the scheme would never get off the ground. It would be an offence not to give such information. Some people might want to break the law, and I do not condone that in any way. But we have to understand that that could well be the position.
As for not carrying the card—I accept that it probably will not be compulsory, as the Minister more or less nodded at that suggestion—it is inevitable that at virtually all stages of contact with officialdom and the police, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion mentioned, one would be asked to produce the card. There would be an inbuilt suspicion if someone did not have the card.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: The Government have said that it would not be compulsory to carry the card. Does my hon. Friend think that, once the cards existed, it would be long before carrying them became compulsory? The first time that there was a major terrorist incident there would be calls for that to happen.
David Winnick: I am sure that that would be the position. In time, it would be argued that since everyone had given information, because it was the law to do so, there was no reason why law-abiding citizens should not carry cards.
Does anyone seriously believe that terrorism would be undermined by ID cards? I want to make it clear that if I thought that terrorism would be more effectively dealt with by ID cards, I would be liable to change my

299WH
mind. The security of our people and country must be foremost. However, let us consider 9-11—as it is referred to in the United States and elsewhere. Can anyone really say that the atrocities carried out by those criminals would have been avoided if ID cards had been introduced? The culprits were lawfully in the United States at the time. Would the 30 years of sustained IRA terrorism have been undermined and weakened by ID cards? When I was a member of the Opposition in the House of Commons, none of us suggested that ID cards would be useful and, to my knowledge, no Minister or Government Back Bencher suggested anything of the kind.
I do not wish to be misunderstood in saying this, but perhaps to curry favour the Home Secretary said that he had no idea how many illegal immigrants there are in the United Kingdom. Are we to conclude that his counterparts in those EU countries with ID cards could truthfully tell their people or their media how many illegal immigrants there are? It is wrong to say that we should have such cards and that, lo and behold, we will no longer be faced with the problem of people being in our country illegally, which we all oppose.
Identity fraud is undoubtedly a problem. It is interesting to note that, in its consultation paper, the Home Office conceded that ID cards
"could perversely result in an increased risk of…fraud."
That is because various financial institutions may rely too much on such cards and not carry out the checks that are necessary to safeguard people's accounts. In the same paper, the Home Office accepts that ID cards
"could become a target for organised criminals".
I accept that, with the latest technology, fraud would be more difficult, but international criminals would do their utmost to produce cards that may at first look genuine. As the Home Office conceded, it is right to recognise that international criminals are not going to give up if ID cards are introduced.
Martin Linton: Does my hon. Friend not accept that the ID or entitlement card, as proposed by the Home Affairs Committee when he and I were members, would contain only information on identity to link the holder to the card, and that to forge a card one would either need to forge one's iris or fingerprint, or the information in public service computers? I am not saying that that is not possible, but simply by changing the card one could not forge it in any meaningful way.
David Winnick: My hon. Friend is an enthusiast for cards. I have conceded that forgery would be difficult, unlike in the case of wartime cards. However, the fact remains that the Home Office itself, in its consultation paper, which I know that he has read, concedes that forgery is more than a possibility.
I am sure that the Home Secretary is putting great pressure on his Cabinet colleagues so that ID cards can come about. The latest thing that I have read in the press—true or otherwise—is that a draft Bill will be included in the Queen's Speech. I hope that those members of the Cabinet who have a number of reservations will be able to persuade the Home Secretary not to go ahead with the scheme. It will not produce what he believes it will produce.
300WH
I end on this note. For just over half a century, we have gone without ID cards. The decision to abolish them in 1952—and I am old enough to remember that—was the right decision, albeit one taken by a Conservative Government. I wish that it had been taken by the Labour Government before 1952. All kinds of reasons for cards are advanced, and I accept that ID cards would not make this country anything like a police state. I do not want to give such an impression because it would be nonsensical. As some of my hon. Friends have pointed out, EU countries that have ID cards are hardly police states or anywhere near them, but are as democratic as ourselves. However, we have a different tradition in this country. We have not had such cards except in wartime. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I would need a lot of persuading that ID cards were necessary to deal with the problems that face us, particularly terrorism. I hope that the cards will not come about.
2.31 pm
Mr. Mark Field: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on securing this important debate, and I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) for his impassioned plea. I very much agree with their instinctive views, although I suspect that we shall see the other side of the argument paraded during much of the next hour before the winding-up speeches.
As an instinctive and rational libertarian, I oppose the notion of ID cards, either on a compulsory or voluntary basis. The hon. Member for Walsall, North and his colleague, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), made the valid point that once a voluntary ID card comes into play there is a risk of a creeping sense of quasi-compulsion that will make it difficult to go about everyday life without such a card, particularly if one wishes to open a bank account or do anything else that requires a form of identity to be shown.
My main concern is that ID cards fundamentally shift the delicate balance between the individual and the state. They also bring about a reversal of the common-law presumption of innocence. That would be bad enough, but there are major issues in relation to the practicality of the proposals—or non-proposals—that may follow the Queen's Speech, such as the vast cost that a compulsory scheme would entail and the difficulties in policing and enforcing the scheme. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. A failure to enforce such a scheme would make the entire thing redundant. As has been mentioned by other hon. Members, the likelihood of a determined policy of forgery and identity fraud would undermine the protection that would otherwise be afforded by such a scheme.
As has been mentioned, national ID cards were introduced in this country during the Second World War, and the Home Secretary has given a clear indication that they are back on the agenda as part of the Government's policy on asylum and their war on terrorism. My constituency, in the heart of London, stands to be most affected by the proposals. In addition to a residential

301WH
population of 120,000, a further 800,000 people a day travel to work in the Cities of London and Westminster, and countless other tourists and shoppers visit attractions such as Westminster abbey, this place, St. Paul's cathedral and Buckingham palace. It is probably fair to say that the few square miles that make up my constituency superficially have least to lose from the implementation of a rigorously enforced compulsory ID card scheme, if only because so many of the landmarks in my patch are seen as high-profile targets for a terrorist attack in the UK. However. I believe that a national ID card scheme has less to do with keeping the population safe than it does with imposing control over people—a point that was alluded to by the hon. Member for Ceredigion in his introductory comments.
I accept that we shall have to grow accustomed to wider surveillance of certain groups in our country, but that does not justify a wholesale erosion of civil liberties. The introduction of ID cards will be a significant step towards dismantling the traditional democratic values of freedom and tolerance that have underpinned our open society and which so many of us hold dear to our heart.
Brian White: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that at the moment he has to give information about himself in a variety of ways to a variety of organisations, which increases the risk that a piece of wrong data gets replicated in myriad databases? An ID card would simplify that and ensure that the right information was given every time.
Mr. Field: I shall come on to that point in a moment, because the fact that not only do we have a large number of forms of identification but they are all on computer lists is regularly used as an objection against those on my side of the debate.
My party has traditionally recognised the importance of fostering values of individual responsibility and self-determination in our fellow countrymen. I speak as the son of someone who came to this country from abroad—my mother was a refugee twice by the age of 15 and came here from central Europe. Many people come from nations where authority flows from a heavily centralised state. All too little reliance seems to be placed in those countries on the freedom of individuals to live their lives free from the demands of officialdom. A culture of freedom underpins our mature democracy which should not be undermined except in times of extreme national emergency, such as during a fully fledged world war, and I do not believe that the war on terrorism is such a time.
As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) said, we all have birth certificates, driving licences and national insurance numbers, and an array of other information on each of us is held on debit, credit and store cards. The hon. Gentleman may well then ask what the objection is to another means of identification. In practical terms, however, any obligatory ID scheme is likely to take many years to establish and will cost the taxpayer an ongoing fortune both to implement and administer. In view of that expense, the very notion that ID cards could be introduced as a merely temporary measure is likely to receive short shrift from this or any Government.
302WH
In any case, experience tells us that the argument for restrictions on freedom being short term tends to disappear rapidly with the passing of time. I spent all too many days in Committee discussing what was then the Licensing Bill, and many of us will recall that a lot of our archaic restrictions on alcohol licensing were introduced as temporary measures during world war one. Even the commercial deregulation of the last decade or so has left some of those antiquated rules fairly intact.
In the feverish and security-conscious atmosphere that has inevitably been with us since 11 September 2001, the long-standing importance that we in this country attach to individual freedom from state intervention appears to have been swept away. It is therefore incumbent on the Government, and particularly on the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, to explain precisely how any new laws will protect us from the existing terrorist threat.
Let us not forget that this country has for many centuries been a safe and popular haven for migrants, precisely because of the knowledge that there is a reliance on the traditional values associated with freedom of the individual and the rule of law. The events of 11 September 2001 changed the general outlook of countless thousands, but if the rest of us really believe that those appalling outrages changed the whole world beyond recognition, we are tacitly accepting that the terrorists and terrorism itself have won.
Some serious practical considerations suggest that ID cards are likely to be ineffective in preventing terrorism. However expensive the technology that we use, an increasingly sophisticated network of international terrorists will find it possible, perhaps even easy, to forge or simply steal an identity. Next, we shall have to employ a vast army of public officials to administer and police the entire scheme. Short of there being almost continuous surveillance, those citizens, including, presumably, any would-be terrorists not wishing to co-operate in such a scheme, could go to ground with impunity.
Many civil libertarians have argued that the police will use the excuse of compulsory ID cards to target foreigners and demand their co-operation, which will make them feel even more alienated. To be honest, my fear is that the opposite will happen, especially in central London. I believe that the Metropolitan police, especially in the aftermath of the Stephen Lawrence campaign, will find that the culture of political correctness will make it less rather than more likely that a policeman will stop a prospective terrorist from an ethnic background and demand to see his ID card.
The Criminal Justice Bill, which is working its way through the Lords—I am sure that the Minister hopes that it will conclude its passage in the next fortnight—contains provisions to end the double jeopardy rule for murder. In addition to compulsory ID cards, we are promised a series of measures that aim to curtail the legal right of some criminal suspects. The important thing to remember with such new laws is that when the state adopts draconian powers against strangers today, it tends to use them against one's friends tomorrow and oneself the day after.

303WH
In times of national crisis, it is easy to dismiss a highbrow, and perhaps slightly academic, defence of the rule of law. The hon. Member for Ceredigion made such a defence earlier this afternoon, and I hope that I have made a similar defence of civil liberties. At such times, the Government inevitably face great difficulties, and I would not like to be in the Minister's shoes when trying to present a policy that will keep the citizens of this country happy and secure, but it is precisely during these times that the rights of the individual must be defended with the utmost vigour.
2.41 pm
Mr. Martin Salter: I apologise if I struggle a little today. I am getting used to wearing glasses, which is part of the ageing process, and I will probably look in the wrong direction.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I help the hon. Gentleman? It gets worse as one gets older. I note that several hon. Members rose at the same time as the hon. Gentleman. We can accommodate them all if they are brief, but we must remember that it is a matter for the Member who secured the debate to obtain a reply from the Minister.
Mr. Salter: Thank you for those wise words, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall try to be as brief as possible.
I speak as an instinctive libertarian—a child of the '60s—but as someone who has reached the conclusion that ID cards are not only inevitable but fundamentally desirable. In the Home Secretary's introduction to the White Paper, which I am sure hon. Members have read carefully, he says:
"There are strongly held views on all sides of the debate on identity or entitlement cards. Although many people have settled views on the principle of whether or not they favour them, I think it is important to rehearse all the pros and cons of a scheme even if this is seen as going over old ground."
I now have a settled view, as do my constituents. I responded to the Home Secretary's encouragement for us to consult widely on the White Paper in our constituencies. If it will warm the cockles of the Minister's heart, I am more than happy to read out the results that I obtained from the consultation in my constituency. People had to take the trouble of returning a reply-paid form. I am sure that the process was not scientific, but the results are interesting.
Three questions were asked. The first asked people whether they agreed or disagreed that:
"ID Cards are an abuse of human rights; and invasion of privacy and their introduction should be opposed."
Some 4 per cent. agreed; 89 per cent. disagreed. The second said:
"In this age of computers and credit cards, big business and other organizations already hold a huge amount of personal information and ID cards would not reduce a citizens right to privacy."
Some 88 per cent. agreed; 6 per cent. disagreed.
The third question was the inevitable one asked in any pub or club, or at the many doors on which many of us spend our Sundays knocking. It stated:
"Only people with something to hide have anything to fear from ID Cards."
304WH
Unsurprisingly, 95 per cent. were in favour; 3 per cent. disagreed. So my constituents have a settled view on ID cards.
I am also attracted to the notion of entitlement cards, although I would go much further. I was chairman of the leisure committee on Reading borough council and, as such, the politician who introduced the first entitlement card in Reading since 1952. We had a real problem with people from outside our borough using leisure facilities that were paid for by the council taxpayers of Reading, so I introduced a passport-to-leisure system. People had to prove that they were council taxpayers in Reading to qualify for preferential bookings and discount schemes. Some 40,000 people registered for the scheme. There was no customer resistance at all.
Mr. Gerrard: My hon. Friend has just quoted an interesting statistic. What checks were carried out to determine how many of the 40,000 were fake?
Mr. Salter: Nineteen eighty-six was a long time ago. I am certainly aware that proof of residence was required. Of course, there was a much more serious point, about which I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree, which was that it was particularly demeaning for unemployed people to have to turn up in front of a lot of other people with their UB4Os to get a free swim. The advantage of a card system was that it gave people a sense of dignity and hid the fact that they were unemployed from public view. There were many aspects of the approach that my hon. Friend could agree with.
The history of ID cards in this country is chequered. They were introduced in the National Registration Act 1915, when there was a requirement for people aged between 15 and 65 to hold a card. They were reintroduced in 1939 and functioned much as a "producer" does now; a person did not have to carry documents, but if they were caught without documents by a police officer they had to produce them within 48 hours.
The cards continued into the post-war period. They were a requirement to qualify for ration books. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) describes himself as a Bevanite—I assume that he means Aneurin Bevan—and, interestingly, it was Aneurin Bevan who famously said in 1947 that the ID card had become "almost a popular document". There are probably those who still regret that the requirement for ID cards came to an end in 1952.
One of the more bizarre points made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) was about ID cards heralding a repressive regime, rivalled only by that of Saddam Hussein. I understand that Sweden is one of the most progressive states in Europe, and it is about to introduce compulsory ID cards. Identity cards exist in one form or another in 11 EU states. None of those states has a tremendous history of repression. Cards are

305WH
compulsory in Spain, Greece, Germany and Belgium. Interestingly, in nine of the 11 EU states with identity cards, the cost is nominal.
David Winnick rose—
Mr. Gerrard rose—
Mr. Salter: I give way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Which hon. Member is the hon. Gentleman giving way to?
Mr. Salter: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I only saw my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North.
David Winnick: I am aware that my hon. Friend was not around at the time of the decision to abolish ID cards in 1952, but am Ito take it from his comments that he thinks it was wrong?
Mr. Salter: No, not at all. I only said that some would regret their passing. However, life has moved on.
Mr. Gerrard: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Salter: No; I will make headway if I can.
Five benefits would immediately flow from the proper introduction of ID cards. There has been much talk about the fact that our asylum and immigration system and our borders are not as secure as one would like; nor is the system as valid as one would want. My area is not known for intensive farming, but only the other week my local paper reported that a double-decker bus had crashed, and about 40 people were seen scampering into the fields. The police arrested 17 Polish nationals, all of whom had been working in this country for a year without any documentation. That leads to the conclusion that 23 have disappeared into the system; they are presumably illegally working elsewhere and probably being appallingly exploited by unscrupulous employers.
We know that a huge amount of fraud goes on. The consultation documents suggest a sum of £1.3 billion per annum for ID fraud. We know that we have pitiful outward border controls. An exchange that took place in the Home Affairs Committee led to The Times reporting on 22 October:
"The Home Office has deported only one of 63 Chinese nationals found working illegally in the summer".
The report continued:
"Figures given to the committee show that of the 63 Chinese nationals found in the raids, four were failed asylum-seekers who should not have been in the country, 16 were asylum applicants, who are banned from working, and 10 had committed other immigration offences and should not have been working."
There is an extensive, illegal black economy in operation even in relatively prosperous parts of our nation. The introduction of ID cards would be a useful control mechanism, not just against people who should no longer be in this country, but against those who seek to exploit the misery of asylum and refugee status.
Brian White: Does my hon. Friend accept that if ID cards were introduced, the organised criminals who bring such people in would provide them with fake ID?
Mr. Salter: I shall touch on that point shortly.
I do not want to dwell on health tourism, but we undoubtedly have failings and weak flanks in our NHS controls. I would like to touch on a far more friendly matter, and that is convenience. I am not a great man for carrying a huge amount of plastic, but I have just emptied the contents of my wallet and I see 16 different cards. First and most important is my Labour party membership card, followed by my trade union cards. Also, even in Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities one needs an ID card to get into the council offices. I would be interested to see what the Liberal Democrats make of that. We then go from the important, with a blood donor card, to the Caravan Club, an organisation that I commend to hon. Members. I envisage, in my lifetime, that an awful lot of the plastic that we carry will be rolled up, using the advantages of new technology, into one or two simple cards. That would be a lot easier for us all. I understand from the White Paper that some 137 million plastic cards are in circulation in one form or another.
I have categorised the objections to the proposals. Some people object on the grounds of civil liberties. I respect that view. However, with the amount of information that corporate Britain holds on us as citizens, for every time we use a credit card or a debit card, I wonder what is wrong with a democratically elected progressive state holding a portion of that information.
Mr. Paice: Can I confirm that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that an ID card will contain all the information that he has arrayed in front of him on all those cards? Does he believe the membership of those different clubs and organisations, his entitlement to enter Reading borough council offices and the rest will all be on that card? I do not see where his argument will take us, if not there.
Mr. Salter: I can envisage a time in my life when it will be convenient to amalgamate some of the information that we now carry on a lot of separate cards. I do not envisage that, in my lifetime, the Caravan Club, the National Trust or Johnson's dry-cleaning will appear on a national ID card.
I understand some of the objections to the introduction of an ID card scheme on the grounds of cost. However, we should weigh that against the cost of an asylum system that does not work, a benefits system that is subject to fraud and an ID system that is at least questionable.
The last objection to ID cards is that they could be forged. However, a lot of things could be forged. If we decide not introduce a system of ID cards because of potential forgery—and biometric technology makes that increasingly unlikely—why do we bother with driving licences, passports and all other documentation? Of course people will try to find a way around the system. On balance, if ID cards help the police and Customs, reassure the public and make us feel more secure, that is a price worth paying.
Far more significant than that, however, is that the real threats to the country arise from issues such as social cohesion, race relations, the rise of far-right, racist and fascist groupings and organised crime, particularly

307WH
gun crime, which I have seen in the past few days on the streets of my constituency, and its connection to hard drugs, the smuggling of drugs and people, and prostitution. Those are the real threats to our civil liberties. If an ID card can deal with 5 or 10 per cent. of those threats it is a price worth paying.
2.53 pm
Mr. Neil Gerrard: As I said in Home Office questions, I think that I am one of the few people who still has an ID card. I was issued with one 10 days after I was born in 1942, and I still have it. It has little rubber stamps on it, from when it was inspected.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If it is any compensation, I think that there are probably three of us here.
Mr. Gerrard: Right. One of the difficulties in debating an ID card system is that we need to know what we are actually discussing, because the consultation paper opened up a range of options. In his response to that consultation paper, the Information Commissioner stated:
"I face a real difficulty in knowing what the scheme that is being proposed really amounts to"
because of the diverse range of options that have been proposed, and because the consultation paper asked for more suggestions. The Information Commissioner was saying, "I've got a real problem here knowing what I should be responding to," and that, before the Government go any further, they should produce something more focused and clear.
It is obvious from the debate so far that everyone assumes that the main purpose of ID cards is to deal with problems such as fraud, illegal working, and illegal immigration. Terrorism has been mentioned, but I do not think that the Government consultation paper suggested that ID cards could be used to address terrorism.
Three questions should be asked, all of which have been raised in the debate. Would ID cards work? Even if they were to work, would they be the best way to deal with the problems mentioned? Would they he acceptable? People may have issues with showing the cards. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) said, there is a different culture in this country about how to respond to the police when asked to produce papers than in those European countries in which such practices have been common for some time.
Another issue that has been discussed is that of illegal working. It is a criminal offence for an employer to employ someone whom they know is not entitled to work, but that does not stop them from doing it. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), mentioned an incident involving a busload of people going to work illegally. I do not believe that their employer did not know that they were working illegally. Of course he knew. If an employer is prepared to break the law by not bothering to check whether someone can produce a piece of paper that states that he is entitled to work, would that employer
308WH
ask to see an ID card? Of course he would not. Those employers who avoid making checks are the same type of people who are involved in large-scale fraudulent employment of illegal workers. I doubt whether ID cards would make any difference.
If we want to catch the employers who are illegally employing people, we should look at tax returns, VAT returns and national insurance claims. One can bet one's life that they will not be making those returns properly. I have mentioned that before in debates on this issue. We should remember that Al Capone went to jail for tax evasion. There is more than one way of getting at those who are involved in illegal employment.
As the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) pointed out, benefit fraud is more often about the misrepresentation of circumstances than the misrepresentation of identity. The police do not usually have a problem identifying who someone is. They have much more of a problem finding the evidence to tie them to the crime.
My main point is about how the system would be established. Without a national database, an ID card system would be doomed to failure. It would be a gift to fraudsters if ID cards were to become the ultimate proof of identity, as they might, and we did not have secure systems from the start. We know that systems such as those used by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the UK Passport Service are not secure. There are plenty of fake driving licences around. In the past month, I have dealt with three cases in which people were using fake driving licences in my constituents' names. That is probably happening across the country, because DVLA and passport records were not designed to establish identity. If we build on those databases, we will construct a system that is full of flaws from day one.
If we were to opt for biometrics based on those systems, we would still have a problem. Even if I produce a card with my iris data or my fingerprints, it proves only that I am the person whose personal data is on the card. It does not prove that I am who I say I am. It cannot do that unless we start with a secure database, but that has enormous cost and time implications, and it would affect how such a system was constructed and therefore how acceptable people would find it. Card readers would need to be connected to the database in hospitals, benefit offices and so on—an immense infrastructure would be needed.
Finally, I come to acceptability. I have heard many times before the argument that we are all used to carrying bits of plastic, but that is not so. For instance, only 50 per cent. of the population has a credit card. Even now, many people do not carry plastic. Those who are least likely to do so are to be found in the most deprived and marginalised communities, and they will become targets if they do not have ID cards.
I am not convinced that those who say, "I have nothing to fear. I wouldn't mind. I carry plastic anyway," would feel the same if they were stopped in the street or on arrival at hospital and asked, "Where is your ID card?" They would say, "Why me? Why are you questioning me? I have nothing to hide. I am innocent. I am a respectable person." People would not take it kindly.

309WH
I return to the Information Commissioner's response, which is worth listening to. He said:
"I am concerned that although there may be plausible arguments made for the introduction of an entitlement card scheme in the short term there is the potential for function creep as administrative and political priorities change or even just to maximise the use of a costly infrastructure."
In other words, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West, there is not much doubt that if a scheme were introduced that, on paper, was voluntary, it would be compulsory within 10 years and people would be asked to carry their cards with them wherever they went. Whatever the Government may say—I do not disbelieve them—it does not bind future Governments. That is one of the greatest dangers.
Brian White: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Member was intervening. I am sorry, but it is time to start the winding-up speeches. I call the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten).
3.2 pm
Mr. Mark Oaten: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This has been an excellent debate. I am genuinely disappointed that we cannot hear from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White). I am almost tempted to support the idea of ID legislation being mentioned in the Queen's Speech so that we can continue the debate and go on to defeat the measure. The arguments put forward today have been compelling.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on introducing the subject. His arguments about a written constitution were excellent, and I entirely agree about the difficulties of previous attempts to administer such changes, particularly the chaos that we had with passports a couple of years ago. I, too, was in the ridiculous and embarrassing situation of having my bank manager ask for my passport for identification, despite the fact that we have known each other since I was 18—that was 20 years ago. The hon. Gentleman mentioned some excellent examples.
I agreed entirely with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick), who said that if he were convinced that the system would significantly help to deal with terrorism, he would be prepared to set aside some of his concerns. That is exactly where I come from, but neither of us is convinced. His example on Northern Ireland was a point well made.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) and I share common ground on the libertarian issue. I enjoyed his remarks about the need for a balance between the state and the individual, which were very well made. His arguments about the impact on terrorism carried even more weight, given his constituency.
I was disappointed in the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter). As a child of the '60s, he is normally quite liberal. I can put his viewpoint down only to the
310WH
fact that his eyesight is failing. Now that he has glasses, he might be able to look again at some of the issues. I congratulate him on having his shirts and suits dry-cleaned for the rest of the year, given the number of plugs that he has given to Johnson's dry-cleaning.
Finally, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) was right to talk about cultural differences. I welcome the fact that the relationship between the police and an individual in this country differs from the culture of fear that one sees in other parts of the world. His points about illegal working were spot on. If the argument for ID cards relies on an undercurrent feeling that things operate better elsewhere and that having an ID card will suddenly achieve that for us, it is nonsense.
I shall be brief, because we all want to hear from the Minister and the Conservative party. I have shifted my view. I was one of the rare Liberal Democrats who thought that it might be possible to make a case for ID cards along the lines of "What have you got to hide?". However, I have looked, listened and learned, and I have changed my view. I have concluded that we need to understand why the Government would want to introduce them. What is the purpose? Is it security, immigration or entitlement? I conclude that the reason is none of those, but that a focus group or some opinion polling has suggested that such a policy might sound tough and macho. The Government have not set out a genuine reason for it.
Let us consider some of the arguments. First, we have heard about the 9-11 terrorists—cards did not stop terrorism. One can almost gain a false sense of security by assuming that having a card in place can tackle terrorism. We have also heard arguments about the difficulties with rip-offs. The points have been well made.
On the issue of criminals and benefit fraud, surely the main problem for the police is not identifying the criminals, but catching them in the first place. If we were to spend the amount of money on identity issues that is being mentioned, we could start by giving the police a lot more technology with which to do their current job—fingerprint identification and such issues would be a good starting point and might make more practical difference than the introduction of ID cards. My understanding about benefit fraud is that the main problem is not the question of identity but that of individuals who misrepresent what they are claiming the money for.
Brian White: The hon. Gentleman mentions the fingerprint project. Does that not highlight the difficulties, in that if we wished to introduce one, its scale would be such that, given the history of projects to do with national fingerprinting that still have not been rolled out fully, the time that it would take to introduce a computer system would cause problems?
Mr. Oaten: We agree on that. According to the latest figures, there are only 176 automated fingerprint identification systems in the country. What hope have we of getting an ID card set up and running?
On cost, moving towards a nanny state system and then charging people £40 could well shift the opinion polls and the views of individuals, and given our ability to deliver the system, that could make the dome look

311WH
like a tea party. I can envisage the headlines, the difficulties and the dangers involved. The project will cost a lot of money, and Governments—regardless of party—do not have a good track record when it comes to technology.
Who should hold the card at any given time? We would have difficulties, for example, with EU nationals who were in this country to work and people here on holiday. That could open a loophole that might be used by those who wanted to exploit the system. We could even have the perverse situation in which the people of this country who wanted jobs had to show an ID card whereas EU nationals did not.
If entitlement were the Government's only intention, and if I could be convinced that we would benefit in our daily lives—the hon. Member for Reading, West with all his different cards, and the rest of us with access to health services, benefits and going into post offices—I might see some merit in considering the system. However, if they were to introduce it, the only result would be an enormous burden for business. Government would impose on our public services a great deal of technology—not just that required to produce cards for so many people, but that needed to read them at local hospitals, in post offices and at different places.
Mr. Thomas: That is a point that we have not considered so far. Entitlement to health services is one of the Government's crucial arguments. Of all the services, the health service is the least automated, the one with the fewest records available in a digital format and the least prepared to take the system on board. Surely, on top of the existing crisis, the project would place an immeasurable burden on the health service.
Mr. Oaten: The point is well made. Coping with the production of some 60 million cards is one thing, but providing receiving equipment to do anything with them up and down the country, once we have produced them centrally, is another, and I just cannot see it happening. I do not understand what the entitlement will be if the idea is that if one goes into an accident and emergency department in a rush, one has to have a card and put it through a system. I cannot see what advantage that will bring.
I have changed my view. I had felt that if there was a compelling case I would be prepared to set aside some of my instinctive civil liberty and libertarian concerns, but there is no compelling case. A range of issues has been raised, which, in my judgment, mean that the Government should not introduce the cards. They should heed the consultation and listen to Labour Members and members of the Cabinet, and they should not proceed with this policy. It would be unpopular in the country and unworkable.
3.10 pm
Mr. James Paice: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on securing the debate. I share the view of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) that we could, and hopefully will, debate the matter for much longer. We may well then come to the conclusion that he wants.
312WH
Much of the debate is focused on liberty and civil liberties. The one aspect on which I dissent from the view of the hon. Member for Ceredigion is his point that this is a particularly apposite week for the debate because we are remembering 11 November and the sacrifice that people made for freedom. I think that that generation is generally the most supportive of introducing identity cards. That is not to say that I am swayed by that argument, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's argument flowed. There is much support for ID cards among the general public, particularly the older generation—of which, I hasten to add, I am not quite a member. There is also a lack of understanding of some of the technological and logistical issues to which several hon. Members have referred. I shall not spend much time discussing liberty, although that is not in any way to underestimate it.
I must look at what is happening elsewhere. Much mention has been made of other countries in Europe, and valid arguments have been made on both sides of the debate. It is interesting to know that of all the 11 countries in the EU that have an ID card, only Belgium uses any form of biometric information, which is the fingerprint system. The only three countries in the world to have the more comprehensive form of biometrics that we believe the Government envisages are Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore. Despite being chairman of the all-party group on Singapore, I would not put forward any of those three as being among the most libertarian regimes in the world.
It is interesting that Australia, which has robust anti-immigration and asylum measures—the Minister is no doubt aware of them—has rejected the idea of ID cards being part of that system. Nevertheless, ID cards have some important protagonists, including the Police Federation, for which I have immense admiration, which supports the idea of a mandatory system of ID cards.
That brings me to the point that the hon. Member for Winchester just raised: what is the scheme for? What are we trying to achieve? Is this an anti-crime measure, aimed at trying to identify criminals going about their business so that they can be apprehended more quickly? Are we trying to deal with illegal immigration and asylum, or just with entitlement to public services? If we are looking at entitlement—the Government use that word, so let us assume that that is what they are considering—the need to be fraud and forgery-proof is critical. There is a huge industry out there forging all sorts of documents. In London and elsewhere, one can pick up a forged passport, a driving licence and a social security number for a couple of hundred pounds. All those means of ID are available, so to pretend that an ID card would not be equally forgeable is nonsense, unless we used biometric information. Even then, I would not be entirely convinced, although I am prepared to be persuaded that iris recognition, at least, is fraud-proof.
We then come, however, to the question raised by the hon. Member for Winchester. It is no use having a card with a unique number and a magnetic strip, or whatever means is used for Iris memorisation, if the place that a person has gone to has no means of checking their iris to see whether the person holding the card is the person on it. There would have to be an iris reader in every school,

313WH
every library, every GP's surgery and, because of home visits, every GP's car and every accident and emergency department—the whole works. It is foolish to believe that such an array of technology could be rolled out in the foreseeable future.
Those examples concern public services, but we should consider banks, which are, of course, private institutions. This afternoon, there has been much discussion about the need for identification in banks, building societies and other financial institutions. Can such institutions install card readers and will they be allowed to do so? If the information concerns only iris recognition—leaving aside the question whether the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) is a member of his local Labour party, whether he is entitled to enter Reading borough council offices or whether he is allowed to have his suits dry cleaned—it will be pointless unless the location in which people are trying to use their cards has facilities for reading them.
Setting aside the simple issues of false identity and forgery, I shall turn to crime prevention. The Police Federation obviously believes that police officers should be able to identify people by checking their cards. However, the Government's repeated assertion that it will not be compulsory to carry an ID card nullifies any crime prevention benefit that the scheme might otherwise have. Imagine that a police officer stops someone and asks them who they are. The person replies, "I am John Smith". The officer asks, "Have you got your identity card?", and the person replies, "No. I do not have to carry it." The officer says, "Will you present it at a police station next week?" How can the officer know who has failed to turn up at the police station the following week if the person who was stopped gave a false identity? The situation is absurd. The job should be done properly by making it compulsory to carry an ID card, or the logic behind the introduction of ID cards breaks down entirely.
Let us examine the consequences of not having an ID card, even if it is only for entitlement. What happens when someone who does not have a card turns up at an A and E department? Will they be refused treatment? Will a GP or ambulance refuse to treat someone because they do not have a card?
Mr. Oaten rose—
Mr. Paice: I would like to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I am pressed for time.
What about housing? Will homelessness legislation apply to somebody who has not got a card? There are so many issues.
On illegal immigrants, I wholly condemn the bad practice and worse of gangmasters, examples of which have been mentioned by other Members. Gangmasters operate in my constituency—I hasten to add that all those of whom I am aware are entirely legitimate and operate properly. However, some gangmasters are criminals. In many cases, gangmasters are involved in big business. They will be able to access forgery systems to provide the necessary information.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that the majority of illegal immigrants who come into this country do so with the help, connivance and conspiracy of
314WH
professional people traffickers. Those organisations will have access to the necessary technology to provide a good forged identity unless we use biometric information. Certainly, the idea of some sort of glorified driving licence is wide open to abuse.
As of next summer, the citizens of 25 different countries will be able to move freely within this country. It seems absurd that our residents might be expected to have an ID card while those of other countries are not. It has been suggested that the ID card will cost £40 per head, although it will be issued free to asylum seekers. How will that help to advance race relations or multiculturalism?
The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) raised the issue of a database, and he was wise to do so. I, too, take the view that in a system of ID cards that include biometric information, there must be a central database if the system is to work. A database is not essential to start with, but it is a logical progression. That takes us into the issue of the other information that may be on the database. A national DNA database has its advocates, although I am not one of them. There is also the question of who should be able to access that information.
Like the hon. Member for Winchester, I have become ever more sceptical the more that I have studied ID or entitlement cards. The Government have some huge questions to answer if they intend to proceed any further with this. What are the cards for? Will the system be secure and forgery-proof? Who will have access to the information that may be contained in the system, however much or little of it there may be? What will the cost be? What will happen to the refuseniks who will not carry a card? Without all those answers, and without a clear understanding of how the system will operate, I remain extremely sceptical, as does the Opposition. We are not at all convinced that the Government have thought the idea through.
3.20 pm
The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): We have had an excellent debate and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and all Members who have contributed. Although it is clear that there is a wide range of views, right across the party, it is right that that is so, if the Government proceed on these lines. I appreciate the difficulty caused for Members by the fact that there is no specific proposal on the table—they know why. It is clear that there is a body of opinion, which varies in the degree to which it is well informed, to be expressed if the Government does propose a specific scheme. During any subsequent debates, there will no doubt be a great deal of interest and enthusiasm for grappling with some of the difficult issues involved.
I am not in a position today to give details or to make any announcement. Members know that the Cabinet is discussing the matter, and proposals will be made in due course. Although I will try to deal with some of the questions, one of the most helpful contributions that I can make in the short time available is to set out clearly for Members the developments in the use of biometrics and security of identity that will take place anyway. They are all in the public domain, but they may not have

315WH
been set out together. Members' views on the desirability of ID cards should perhaps properly be informed by the context of what will happen anyway, both internationally and domestically.
We are not in the same position that we were 50 years ago. In today's world, correct identification has become imperative in a way that we could not have foreseen. We face new threats and increases in the scale and sophistication of illegal immigration, organised crime and terrorism, but there are also new opportunities and new improvements in the technology of biometrics. Crucially, such improvements offer the opportunity to link an identity record to an individual with a high level of security. That record can then be used to verify a person's identity and immigration status, show entitlement to work and do some of the other things on which Members have touched.
First, Members need to know that international developments will soon require us to upgrade the security of all our identity documents. The United States is requiring countries that wish to continue in the visa waiver scheme, in which we are included, to include biometric information in passports. Secondly, the European Commission is looking for a decision on including finger scans biometric information on EU common format visas. We must choose between continuing to respond in a piecemeal fashion to some of those external developments and playing a leading role in shaping the way the world responds to the challenge of secure identification in a changing world. Those developments will take place internationally and in the UK.
Thirdly, in May this year. the International Civil Aviation Organisation adopted a global harmonised blueprint for biometric information in passports and other travel documents. The agreed ICAO standard is the inclusion of a mandatory facial image biometric in a contact-less chip—the document would be placed on a reader—with the option of including a secondary biometric finger scan or iris scan in the future.
The 188 ICAO contracting states are now considering adopting that standard in their travel documents. As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) mentioned, Australia looks like being the first to issue passports to that new standard, followed by New Zealand and the United States.
Although biometric documents are being introduced internationally, in the UK the Passport Agency has decided to include a facial image biometric on passports from 2005, with an initial pilot to develop that process. There are also plans for biometrically secure driving licences. We are piloting the use of finger scan biometrics in Sri Lanka for UK visas and extending iris scanning for many secure foreign visitors to allow fast-track immigration clearance.
Several international and UK developments are inevitable, and they include developing biometrics to secure someone's identity to a much higher level of assurance. Such developments will incur costs to individuals for a passport with a much higher degree of security and to the Government for the investment required to develop the technology. A lengthy time scale will be required for their implementation.
316WH
Is it sensible to make the investment in money, technology, time and commitment to secure developments that would take us to the point of an ID card system, but to have none of the additional benefits that an ID card system would bring?
Mr. Oaten: Will the Minister give way?
Beverley Hughes: I will, with reluctance, because many Members want to question me.
Mr. Oaten: The Minister gave the example of the technology available, but is she able to provide her own view on ID cards?
Beverley Hughes: I am personally convinced that ID cards are indispensable in addressing some of the issues touched on by Members, some of whom have been sceptical about the contribution that ID cards can make. They are not a panacea, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) said, but they are vital to progress on some of the serious issues faced by the UK and every country in the modern world.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) has graphically made clear, we are a nation of cardholders. People are used to carrying cards, and the results of our consultation process were very similar to those of consultation under the last Conservative Government, who proposed a voluntary scheme that would have been little more than a glorified driving licence.
An ID card scheme would give us an important means of responding to some of the external threats that we face, within the broader strategy of tackling illegal immigration and illegal working. ID cards could reduce identity fraud and sift out those not entitled to services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who talked about illegal working, must understand, as I am sure he does, that the difficulty is that there is no single document establishing an entitlement to work. The national insurance number does not do that; it is, and always has been, issued to people who do not have an entitlement to work. Employers have a statutory defence against prosecution if they can show that they have looked at a document. There is no single secure document so most prosecutions fail.
Terrorists also use false identities. Although I would not begin to claim that ID cards are a panacea in the fight against terrorism, they are an extremely important weapon, given that terrorists and organised criminals use multiple identities.
In the last few seconds available to me, I would like to make it clear that there would be a national register to underpin such a card scheme. Parliament would have to debate the questions about the information that would go on the card, the chips and the database. I recognise that if we were to go ahead with the scheme it would be a major undertaking, which would take six to 10 years. That is why we need to debate it now, and we need to consider not only whether we need an ID card system now, but whether we shall need one in 10 years' time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Could I ask hon. Members not wishing to stay for the next debate to leave quickly and quietly? It is likely that a Division will occur during that debate, so I shall set out my intentions now. There is the possibility of two Divisions; there may only be one. If there is one Division, we shall suspend for 15 minutes. If there are two Divisions, we shall suspend for half an hour.

Police Funding (Dorset)
3.30 pm
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Dorset police covers an area of over 1,000 square miles and serves a population of nearly 700,000. Half of the populations live in the conurbation of Poole and Bournemouth, and the remaining 50 per cent. of the constituency is predominantly rural in character; a very good mix. The specific features of the county are important in relation to how the police service is delivered, and the way in which it is financed. Dorset is an area with high house prices—it is such a lovely place to live—but where wages are relatively low. That results in Dorset not qualifying for the area cost adjustment, but presents major problems for recruitment and retention of staff throughout the public sector.
Dorset has almost 50 per cent. more residents over the age of 65 than the national average would predict, resulting in a high proportion of households on fixed or restricted incomes being faced with increasing tax demands to maintain the same level of service. Feelings are running very high in the county and I am sure that high overall council tax increases will provoke widespread demonstrations next year.
Within the conurbation of Poole and Bournemouth a further difficulty arises. Bournemouth is increasingly becoming a major south coast venue, attracting a large influx of nighttime visitors. It now has in excess of 30,000 licensed drinking spaces available each night, creating operational policing pressures more akin to those in metropolitan areas. There is a reflection within the formula to take account of visitors, but it assumes that the visitors share the same characteristics as the resident population. That is not the case. The fact that my daughter and her friends come down from London possibly contributes to that view, but Bournemouth is a very attractive place to come for the weekend.
Despite the diverse micro-economy and the pressures that brings, Dorset police prides itself on being innovative and providing a high-quality and efficient service to the people of Dorset. There are many ways in which that is clearly demonstrated, not least in the inspection process by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, which regularly cites Dorset as an example of good practice. The annual achievement of 2 per cent. efficiency gains symbolises the rigorous procedures the force employs in all its activities and its own desire continually to improve.
More than 90 per cent. of the force's officers work directly on front-line policing. It has improved and exceeded its targets in responding to emergency calls for assistance from the public in both rural and urban areas, but—here is the big but—Dorset police force is the sixth lowest spending police force in the country yet it receives the second lowest amount of Government support. Despite its low expenditure the effect of the low funding results in the residents of Dorset having to pay the fourth highest council tax per head in the country.
I am sure that the Minister will appreciate the mixed messages that the residents of Dorset are receiving. We have a highly efficient and effective police force within the existing funding constraints, but we are faced with one of the highest taxes in the country. That makes local

319WH
accountability very difficult. When people are asked to pay more, they naturally ask, "Why don't I ever see a police officer on the beat?"
To be fair, Dorset police now has 1,422 police officers, an increase of 10 per cent. over the last 10 years. That is very good news. However, a local capability assessment has identified a shortfall of officers of approximately 200. I frequently request extra support in local communities to tackle low-level antisocial behaviour. As Dorset is a relatively safe place, much greater use could be made of community support officers and accredited safety officers, whose mere presence would contribute towards people feeling safer. Community support officers are employed in the west of the county only and funding is inadequate to expand the scheme. There are just six CSOs in Dorset. Neighbourhood warden schemes financed by the Government are very limited in number and funding has not been secured for the future.
The Dorset police force prides itself on its consistent and positive approach to achieving national targets and, through its extensive programme of consultation, to accommodating local requirements. However, the situation is becoming increasingly difficult and could lead to significant issues for members of the police authority who must determine how to address the future.
Local consultation has demonstrated strong support for the provision of community beat officers and a desire that such individuals should not be abstracted to other activities, a feeling that is shared across the country. However, the difficulty faced by the force is that with insufficient resources and manpower it cannot fulfil those local priorities as well as achieve all the national targets; hence, the local dissatisfaction that I mentioned earlier. I fear that matters will get worse and hope that the Minister will provide some reassurance this afternoon.
Changes in the Government grant last year led to a reduction in central funding. Dorset received the minimum increase, which was wholly inadequate to meet the pressures of police reform, pensions and increased national insurance.
Mr. Robert Syms: May I assure the hon. Lady that all her Dorset colleagues, irrespective of politics, fully support the powerful case that she is making for our constituents?
Mrs. Brooke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support.
The result of all the pressures was a double figure increase in council tax last year just to maintain existing services. If the authority were to cut its budget to keep to an inflation-only increase next year, it could face a cut in officer numbers of more than 100, which represents 7 per cent. of the force establishment. Dorset residents want more police, not fewer, and they want a reduction in crime and antisocial behaviour. To maintain the present service, Dorset faces a funding gap of £6.5 million on a budget of nearly £100 million. Without a significant increase in central support, that would result in a council tax increase of more than 20 per cent. Dorset residents are reaching the point where they are not prepared to pay more for less.
320WH
As one of the smaller forces in the country, Dorset police is able to react swiftly, re-deploy resources efficiently and to take on and implement innovative solutions that can then be used as an example to the rest of the country. However, as a small force, it finds itself unduly exposed to the current unique funding mechanism for police pensions. A move to direct national funding could address concerns about the current balance of funding review. That would make an enormous difference, particularly for a small authority. Such a move would also produce efficiency savings in administration and reduce perversities in the movement of officers between forces; another issue for those who live in a very nice part of the country, as the Minister will recognise. The public would then see that they were paying for the current service and not the pensions of former officers.
I would not want to see the Dorset police authority, which is a smaller authority, abolished. I truly believe in local policing. It is right to deal with some matters nationally, and the continued drive by the Home Office to identify and deliver national solutions to police information requirements through the identification and procurement of IT systems is recognised as the right way forward for the police service. However, the ability to take on national systems becomes increasingly difficult when the cost must be met by local taxpayers.
Local consultation has identified a specific problem in Dorset and I suspect that the Minister has received quite a lot of representations in relation to the road safety camera project. I wholeheartedly support road safety, speed reduction and saving lives. However, at a local level there is great opposition to the scheme because, according to the letters that I receive, the cameras are on roads that are safe. Opposition is difficult to deflect because the public does not entirely know how the scheme is funded. In the current year, the Dorset road safety camera project will return more than £1 million to the Treasury, money that could and should be invested in local initiatives to improve road safety in its widest context. I applaud the project, but the financing should be managed to support Dorset.
Looking to the future, Dorset pledges to work with the region, the country and the Home Office to ensure that it delivers the national and local agenda. Dorset welcomes initiatives and flexibility within the financial framework. The authority welcomes the prudential code on capital because it will enable better and more strategic long-term planning of both its capital assets and its long-term capital plan. However, even within that new flexibility there has been no announcement to the Dorset police authority on how future capital support will be provided under the new system.
The application of the cost floor has been essential for Dorset to continue to maintain its current level of service but, as yet, there is no indication of what that floor will be in future years or what tapering may be applied to it, thus creating great difficulties in medium-term planning given the tightness of funds in Dorset.
A great deal of work is being undertaken nationally by the police service and by the Government, which will address some of my concerns. However, to meet the immediate needs of Dorset, I should like some assurance on the following points. First, will the total level of Government support to cover general, specific and capital grant be maintained with at least an inflationary

321WH
increase next year? Secondly, could the rules relating to the road safety camera project be relaxed to enable a greater proportion of the income to be invested locally in sensible schemes? Thirdly, will there be a review of future funding to address the issue of police pensions and can we expect some answers on that shortly? Fourthly, will the continued drive to national information systems be fully funded?
Fifthly—this is very important for Dorset—will the rural police grant be continued? Dorset residents were alarmed to read in the The Sunday Times last week:
"The redistribution of police money marks part of a wider government effort quietly to move central government resources away from wealthier, predominantly southern areas to poorer neighbourhoods in northern England, Wales and Scotland."
I do not wish to deprive other areas of funding, but not at a cost to Dorset. Will the Minister comment on the truth of that statement in The Sunday Times?.
This year all police authorities seem to have had concerns about the forthcoming financial settlement, but Dorset—with its historically low funding and a shortage of money to deliver local policing priorities—is, justifiably, particularly worried about the future. Residents of Dorset are reaching the point where they are not prepared to pay more for less. What reassurance can the Minister give to the Dorset police authority and the residents of Dorset on the issues that I have raised this afternoon?
3.44 pm
The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) on obtaining this important debate on police funding for Dorset. She has made some important representations and I hope that I can reassure her on some of the points that she has raised. However, I have to be a little tantalising, because later this month I shall make an announcement on the 2004–05 provisional police funding settlement. I am not in a position to go into a lot of detail today, but I hope that I can give the hon. Lady a broad flavour of what the factors will be in preparing the settlement.
There are currently inescapable pressures on precepts. I receive representations from a range of police authorities that are concerned about the effects on their communities. They are also concerned about the possibility of police authority capping, so the Home Secretary has been keen to emphasise that we want authorities to act responsibly when they set their budgets. We also want them to lock in some of the improvements that they have made in recent years, because we are delighted that authorities have been prepared to go that extra mile and get extra resources to extra officers.
Communities appreciate the higher visibility policing that we have now, but authorities must make well-justified cases for any improvements to their communities and ensure that they have broad public support for the budgets that they set. I remind the hon. Lady that in the last two years authorities have set budgets well in excess of what they have needed to stand
322WH
still. We are pleased about that, because it has meant more resources going to the police service. There has been considerable growth out there in police authorities over the last few years, with central Government expenditure increasing by 30 per cent. to support it.
Mrs. Brooke: Even though the Minister cannot say anything precisely about the settlement, will she comment on whether there will be capping on the police part of the council tax?
Ms Blears: As the hon. Lady knows, the question of whether local authorities will be capped is a matter for my colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, not the Home Office. I am sure that she also knows that discussions are taking place to ensure that we reach a balanced position on local authorities generally and on the pressures on police authorities. Any decisions on capping, however, are a matter for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which has been clear that there will certainly not be universal capping but that a close eye will be kept on the increases.
Last year's increases in some places—not the hon. Lady's constituency—were in the order of 70 per cent. and 75 per cent., which are not sustainable in the longer-term. Dorset police, however, increased its budget last year to £95.6 million, which was an increase of £7.7 million, or 8.8 per cent., which was broadly in line with police authorities generally. The precept was increased by 19.2 per cent., which sounds like a large percentage increase but was actually 38p a week; we must get things in perspective. Although the percentages are large, the sums themselves are fairly modest and appropriate to the improvements that people have seen in policing on their streets.
3.47 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.3 pm
On resuming—
Ms Blears: I am delighted to resume the debate. I was just about to outline Dorset's funding and budget, but first I wanted to say a word about the funding formula. The formula was updated last year and the new formula had buy-in and agreement from all parties in the tripartite structure for policing. I note what the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said about issues still being outstanding. There is scope for improvement in the formula but a period of stability this year is probably in our best interests. In future we will examine with the policing community how we can best develop grant mechanisms to meet the needs of contemporary policing. This is an ongoing debate. I want to ensure that the new funding formula arrangements support the reform and modernisation process on which we have embarked and which are moving on apace.
The hon. Lady also mentioned specific grants. Dorset continues to benefit from our targeted initiatives. It received a further £2.31 million from the crime fighting fund, £0.16 million for Airwave and £0.44 million from the rural policing fund. The authority also receives

323WH
£470,000 for basic command unit funding; £490,000 for DNA—for forensic sciences; and £380,000 in special priority payments.
There has been some concern among police authorities about the amount of grant provided in that specific way. However, virtually all the specific grants are for things that the police service has told us that it wants to see happen. In the past, money has been set aside to improve policing. Under the previous Conservative Administration, money was provided for an extra 5,000 officers, but not one of them was put in place, because police authorities chose to spend that money on other areas. We are therefore concerned to ensure that the crime-fighting fund is spent on those additional officers, who the hon. Lady has been generous enough to acknowledge have made a real difference to the visibility of policing in her area.
By targeting our grant, we can overcome some of the necessary imprecision in general grant figures. Using specific grants enables us to target funds where they are needed and to get real results on the ground. I realise that some forces are concerned about the long-term nature of specific grants and that that makes it difficult for them to plan ahead. I want to ensure that in all our specific grants we take into account the issue of long-term funding and sustainability.
I shall comment briefly on the rural policing fund, which is a big issue for the hon. Lady's constituency. As I said, Dorset's share of the 2003–04 fund was £440,000. As part of the overall changes to policing grant formulae in 2002, we considered whether to put the rural policing grant into the general grant. At that time, police authorities were concerned that that would leave a number of rural forces with less grant than before. We agreed that that outcome would have been counterproductive, and so we did not make that change. I assure the hon. Lady that that conclusion stands, and that the rural policing grant will continue.
Police authorities do not have to bid for the rural grant—it is allocated on the basis of a sparsity formula—but they do report on what they are doing with the grant. In the police force in the hon. Lady's area, they will be improving analysis of rural crime trends, considering the provision of community contact vehicles to ensure that the police are out and about in the rural areas, and supporting a project to try to improve call handling, which should improve performance on the ground.
The hon. Lady raised the important issue of pensions, which affects forces throughout the country, particularly when peaks of retirement occur and police authorities are called on to fund those peaks in pension requirements. As the hon. Lady said, that can be a real drain on a small force. I assure her that we are actively reviewing the pensions issue to see whether, in future, we can provide a system that will relieve some of the pressure on police authorities.
Reasonable provision is made in the annual formula funding settlements for the overall cost, and most forces have enough provision to cover net pension costs—certainly when they can call on pension reserves. However, we are now collecting new data to obtain up-to-date information on the real costs.
The current arrangements do not give a funded scheme that would provide for projected costs in the future to be covered by investing standard annual
324WH
contributions from the employer as well as the employee. If we were to establish a fully funded scheme now, it would be prohibitively expensive—we could not afford to do that. We are looking at the feasibility of a notionally funded scheme for police pensions, under which the officers' employee contributions plus a new employer's contribution could be topped up as necessary by central Government to meet the audited pensions bill. We would aim to smooth out the peaks and troughs of retirements that are often faced by the police authorities. When we issue details of the pensions review, the hon. Lady, and other hon. Members, will be pleased with some of the proposals that it will contain.
I have already had discussions with the Police Superintendents Association, the Police Federation, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities on the question of pensions. The issue is under active consideration.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of road safety income. I understand that all the income from fixed-penalty notices is invested locally in road safety schemes, and is ring-fenced for that. I advise the hon. Lady to find out from Dorset police what they are doing with that income and how it is being reinvested. We are keen that road-safety schemes and speed cameras are targeted at those areas where there are casualties, so that we can reduce the number of deaths and injuries on our roads. There are far too many road accidents. Speed cameras can make a difference, but they should be targeted properly in the areas in which they can have the greatest effect.
The hon. Lady also talked about community policing; clearly a topical issue in view of the consultation document launched by the Home Secretary yesterday on the long-term future of the police service and what it might look like in 10 or 15 years. We are determined to ensure that local neighbourhood community policing is at the heart of what we do and that the officers are valued and properly rewarded. We also want to ensure that the job of community beat manager is much appreciated by the force as well as by the local community, and that people will want to do it in the long term.
The hon. Lady is right that neighbourhood policing cannot function where officers are continually abstracted to do other duties. Increasingly, forces are allocating a specific number of officers in a community for the long term. That means that they can build relationships with local people and can be much more effective in gaining intelligence and information from the community, which means that they can do their job in the best possible way. Getting local community policing right is at the heart of our proposals, as is improving the connection between local people and their police service, examining accountability mechanisms, ensuring that local people have a greater say in setting priorities and in challenging us, as national politicians, to let devolution take root in local areas.
The hon. Lady also raised the important matter—the consultation document addresses it—of how we get the structure of forces right to ensure that they have sufficient capacity to cope with serious and organised crime. There is no point simply getting local community policing right unless forces have the resilience to tackle crimes, which increasingly threaten our communities, and some of the new technology that criminals are using.

325WH
That raises other questions. We should not reorganise for the sake of reorganising, but how can we ensure that forces, especially small ones, can combat organised and serious crime? They may be able to do so by collaborating with their neighbours, by specialising in particular areas or by amalgamating. if that is what they want to do. We must ensure that every level of policing has the best possible structure so that we can deliver the right equipment and the right staff, and can drive up performance.
I am delighted to be able to tell the hon. Lady that the performance of the force in her constituency is extremely good. In the year to March 2003 in Dorset, burglary had fallen by 7 per cent., drug offences by 1 per cent., violent crime was two thirds of the national average, the incidences of burglary in a dwelling were half the national average, and the incidences of theft of a vehicle were roughly half the national average. Dorset is a safe place to live. I appreciate that the hon. Lady is committed to ensuring that Dorset still receives the appropriate level of policing and support. She made a very good case for her local area, but it is important to ensure that the country's resources are also directed to the areas of greatest need, as well as providing a decent amount of support for policing throughout the country.
That is why we want a framework of national standards, within which there is as much devolution as possible. My party does not simply advocate a free-for-all and that everything should be delegated to the local area, but we do see a role for national standards that give everyone in the country the right to a certain standard of policing and police performance; a key difference between the approaches of the political parties to some of the complex issues that are taxing us at the moment.
I am glad to be able to reassure the hon. Lady, but she will have to wait a little longer for the detail of the settlement, which will be published later this month. I congratulate her on speaking for members of her community and on ensuring that their voices are heard in this Chamber, which is the appropriate thing to do.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), I must tell hon. Members that although I do not believe that there will be a Division during the next debate, I will suspend the sitting for 15 minutes if there is.

Education Funding (Leicestershire)
4.14 pm
Mr. Andy Reed: Thank you for warning us that the Division Bell may ring, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about education funding in Leicestershire. When the Minister's team saw that in their in-tray early last week, I fear a groan must have gone around the Department for Education and Skills. There is a feeling that we have been here before.
Unfortunately, many of the problems in Leicestershire have not gone away, and it is necessary to return the debate to the Chamber. I declare a personal interest. My four-and-a-half-year-old son will start at St. Bartholomew's school in our home village, Quorn, in January next year. I was a governor of my local schools, first the school that I attended and, more recently a school in Sileby. I was educated in the local state schools, hopefully with reasonable success.
I wanted a balanced and open debate today, avoiding a lot of the clichés and soundbites traded over the last couple of years. I do not want to let either side off. The Minister knows me as a fair-minded person who will ask some searching questions. I am sure that he will answer them. I recognise the great advances in Leicestershire education since 1997, and I shall start by talking about some of those.
The policy is extremely complex and difficult for people to understand. I could almost bore for England on area cost adjustment and the standard spending assessment funding formula. I did not expect to have to do that when I first arrived as a Member of Parliament. However, those of us who joined the E8, as we were known in the early days when only eight of us moaned about local education authority funding, rapidly became the F40. I have attended many meetings both in the House and in my constituency to discuss the issue and, for something that is so complex, it creates a great deal of passion.
It is important to recognise that education funding is only part of the wider picture. Only yesterday, I was involved in a debate in this Chamber, in which we heard that research carried out in the London School of Economics had found that the most important factor in predicting whether a child would do well at school was not whether his parents were well educated, whether he was from a middle-class home or whether his school was well funded, but whether his parents were actively involved in his education. Given that billions are spent in an effort to drive up educational attainment and standards, the single most cost-effective thing that the Government could probably do is take action to ensure that parents can do more and spend more time with their children.
I hope that there is some joined-up thinking in Government. That phrase was over-used a few years ago, but it is vital that we still look at it. The full picture, in terms of educational funding between 1992 and 2001, needs to be shown. I have asked over 85 parliamentary questions—I checked the figure on the web yesterday—both written and oral on the issue, and I have a wealth of statistics in front of me. I will try to keep those to a minimum, but they are important.

327WH
Between 1992 and 2001, we have seen both year-on-year increases and decreases in education funding in Leicestershire. The year 1992–93 saw a 7.2 per cent. increase in funding. That was an election year, so one would expect that. In 1993–94, we saw a decrease of minus 9.7 per cent.—a real-terms cut for Leicestershire; in 1994–95, we saw a 0.9 per cent. increase—with inflation running at around 4 per cent., that represented a year-on-year real-terms cut; in 1995–96, we saw a 0.8 per cent. increase; 1996–97 showed a little improvement, with a 5.5 per cent. increase—again, probably linked to the election year. Following 1997–98, we have seen increases of 7.1, 6 and 5.6 per cent. I think that 2001–02 saw another 5.6 per cent. increase.
We have seen some great improvements in cash terms since 1997. Later I will quote some head teachers who recognise that that cash increase has started to feed through to schools. It is also important to recognise that the real-terms increase in spending per primary school pupil between 1997 and 2003 has been £600 per pupil in Leicestershire. For secondary pupils, the increase has been £530 per pupil. There have been year-on-year improvements from the base.
The biggest improvement is in our capital programme. That comes across strongly when one talks to local heads, or if one is involved in education in the county. I am sure that the Minister will know the figures off the top of his head. In 1997–98, capital expenditure in Leicestershire was £2.9 million; it rose to £6.5 million, which was quite generous; that even went up to £9 million, and to beat that we have now reached a figure of £25 million per annum. That is something to celebrate and it is sometimes lost from the overall debate when we focus on the formula spending share and the standard spending assessment. It is important to treat those as a basis from which to start.
I could talk about the summary of cash and the rest., but the key to what I am talking about is the difference that it makes to children. We have a positive story to tell in Leicestershire about what we have achieved with our money. At key stage 3, which covers 11 to 14-year-olds, we are in the top 25 per cent. At key stage 2 we are in the top quartile. Our GCSE and SATs results have improved—in the case of SATs from 65 to 76 per cent. Primary class sizes in particular—for five, six and seven year-olds—have reduced. At the school of which I was a governor in 1995–96, every class had more than 35 or 36 children. Those numbers are all reduced.
Mr. Alan Duncan: To make this debate even more fruitful than the hon. Gentleman is already making it, I want to ask whether the case that the Minister must answer is the charge of the inequity and disparity that Leicestershire and Rutland face, compared with other counties—not just the overall level of funding.
Mr. Reed: That is perfect timing by the hon. Gentleman. As hon. Members will have seen, I have turned the page and reached the "but": what he explained is exactly what I want to point out. The year-on-year percentage and cash increases have been delightful for us, but the problem has been that we have had the same funding formula since the early 1990s. We started in 1997 from a position of inequity. That is one
328WH
of the reasons why I joined the E8—later to become the F40—and asked so many parliamentary questions aimed at teasing out the problem.
One of my more recent questions was about the average. It is difficult to compare county with county in every case; we should look at comparable counties or areas. One of the starkest figures is the difference between Leicestershire and Slough. That example is not exactly the same as a county, but I was trying to identify the bottom and top levels of funding outside London. There are other figures that would demonstrate that Leicestershire falls well behind even the average comparable county. However, I shall give figures in relation to Slough. For three to 15-year-olds in Leicestershire the average sum is £2,939, but for Slough, at the top, the figure is £3,828. That is a 30 per cent. difference in funding. I accept that Slough is completely different; but can deprivation and area cost adjustment alone explain such a wide gap?
When I was working on the figures relating to the area cost adjustment, I found that the problem seems to lie there. Hon. Members present today who support my argument have been fairly active in the F40 group; on looking at the relevant tables we recognised that even when Leicestershire was second from the bottom of the funding formula under the previous Government and in the first few years of the Labour Government, when residency numbers, sparsity, additional educational needs and free school meals were taken into account, the cost of the difference between us and some other counties that were averagely funded was slight—that even applied to Hertfordshire, which was usually cited as way out at the top. The difference between Leicestershire and the bottom of the table was only about £40 or £50 a head, but when the area cost adjustment was built in, it jumped to about £250 or £300. That is where much of the problem lies.
I want to ask the Minister about the work that was done on the funding formula review, which I recognise was thorough, and which led to some beneficial changes. However, Leicestershire really needed change in respect of area cost adjustment. I have gone through the figures, and it appears that one problem was rejection of the idea of taking a variety of costs into account; it seems that the vast majority of what is taken into account is still based around wages and salaries.
Leicestershire Members will know that although the east midlands region has high productivity and employment, it has relatively low wages compared to some parts of the country. Compared to other regions, many quarters, especially south Leicestershire, are close to parts of what I would call the outer London commuter belt. Many of my constituents commute to London daily.
I am not necessarily seeking a funding formula that means that every one is the same. I am the first to recognise that there will be differences. There is even a funding formula in the county council's distribution to schools. Many heads have argued for the funding formula for Loughborough to be much fairer at county, rather than at national, level and I have taken delegations to county hall on that. We have many of the same problems on a smaller scale—they are important to the town itself—including English as a second

329WH
language and deprivation. Two of the richest wards in the county are next door to two of the poorest, just outside the city; Shelthorpe and Leamington Hastings wards are surrounded by Nanpanton and Outwoods. That means that figures are skewed in the whole and little pockets of deprivation can almost be missed. I am not looking for a miracle, but we want to try to narrow the gap between us and the best funded, or even the averagely funded, authorities. The disparity seems too great.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) wishes to speak in more detail on what happened in the change from the SSA to the FSS—the formula spending share—and our disappointment at that. To compound the problem, as my hon. Friend the Minister is aware, last year, we had the additional problems caused by the change in the overall settlement. I have met most of my heads during the past 18 months or so in numerous meetings. In a typical middle school—I shall not name the head or the school—last year's funding problems has meant increased class sizes for key stage 4 for maths and science, a rise in average class size from 22 to 27, the use of non-specialist teachers in various subject areas, fewer admin and technical side staff and additional staff not being available.
The head of that school commented, on the positive side, that the school has seen real budget increases in the past four years, enabling it to repair and improve dilapidated buildings, improve the working conditions of the staff and, most importantly, raise educational standards. However, he also said that it had been promised on several occasions that there would be more funding for education to carry out necessary reforms and improvements. Under the last Tory Government, at least he had known that there would be a cut in the budget year on year and could plan accordingly; last year had made things really difficult. That school is very well managed, but is now having to work with a deficit of £300,000.
I welcome last week's statement announcing an additional £3.7 million for Leicestershire as part of the transitional relief, but can the Minister assure me that he will meet a delegation from Leicestershire if we honestly feel that that was not quite enough? I know that everyone always comes to the Department saying that there is not quite enough, but I shall look around the schools and the deficits that have accrued as a one-off from last year—although there are very good teams of governors, heads and teachers—to see whether that £3.7 million is adequate.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for so generously giving way during his Adjournment debate. Has he, like me, been told that Leicestershire schools do not think that £3.7 million is enough for this year?
Mr. Reed: As the Secretary of State said in his statement, many schools—even before they knew the figures nationwide—had already said that the amount or package was not enough. My automatic reaction to that was to sit down, look at the £3.7 million and quickly think through the schools in my constituency and the
330WH
size of their deficits. A quick calculation made me realise that the amount would probably not be sufficient, so I make my plea to the Minister. I always try to be fair. I moan when necessary and praise when necessary, and I shall work through the figures carefully with others in the county. If there is a genuine case for coming back to the Department, I would appreciate it if my hon. Friend allowed us to meet him.
I want to be positive. There have been many positives for Leicestershire. There is still the problem of the funding gap, as it has been called, but I want to move on from that debate. We recognise that there will always be a formula and some discrepancies; we want only to decrease the size of them. Will my hon. Friend the Minister accept that it is difficult for people in Leicestershire to understand why there is such a gap between us and average counties, which have similar make-ups? I admit that last year was difficult, but we must be positive and say that a £2.7 million increase for education is something that we should welcome.
The Treasury has taken a good approach, but I want to know why that increase can be turned into a disaster at local level. At what point did Ministers realise that there was little headroom when all the other matters had been taken into consideration? However, we must not be negative. Investing in teachers' pay, pensions and working conditions is a real assistance for schools, but we must recognise the difficulties that it caused.
In conclusion, I wish to say that we have seen a positive change in Leicestershire. We have problems and we wish to work together with the Department to ensure that there is fair and equitable distribution of the moneys that are available. Will the Minister look again at the area cost adjustment element of the funding source? Will he confirm that he would be happy to meet us if we had a problem with the £3.7 million transitional relief for this year? So that we do not have to debate such matters again, will my hon. Friend ensure that, at every opportunity when such matters pass his desk and statements have to be made about funding, he will consider specifically the problems of Leicestershire and ensure that we achieve a fair deal? I am sure that he will do that. Over the past 18 months in which he has been in post, he has been aware of Leicestershire's problems and has done his best to alleviate them.
David Taylor rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am unable to call the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Loughborough took 17 minutes to make his contribution. He has now eaten into the Minister's time. I call Mr. Miliband. [Interruption.] The Standing Orders are simple to understand. We are holding an Adjournment debate, which is held to allow the hon. Member to receive a reply from the Minister. The Minister's time must not be eaten into.
David Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have sought the sanction of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough, who initiated the debate, and that of the Minister. I wrote to the Speaker's Office, which seemed to be the way to comply with the requirements.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Standing Orders are simple. An Adjournment debate involves an hon. Member who is seeking a reply from a Minister. If the hon. Member concerned wishes to give up time to another hon. Member, he or she is entitled to do so, but taking 17 minutes, which is two minutes out of the Minister's time, does not leave time for any other hon. Member to speak. I call Mr. Miliband.
Mr. Alan Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. McWilliam. Is it not a convention under the Standing Orders that hon. Members call the Adjournment debate and that there is no strict time set for the Minister to speak?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, but under the basic Standing Order, it is for the Minister to reply to the hon. Member. The hon. Member for Loughborough said that he would give up time to another hon. Member, but spoke for 17 minutes, which is more than half of the time for debate. It is only fair to the Minister to allow him to come in at this time. I call Mr. Miliband.
Mr. Duncan: This is absurd.
Mr. Reed: On a point of order, Mr. McWilliam. I wish to be of assistance. I had discussed the matter beforehand and considered that if I were to take 15 minutes and my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire took five minutes, the Minister would be more than happy to speak for 10 minutes. Can we proceed on that basis?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot be privy to those decisions. I call Mr. Miliband.
4.33 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Obviously, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) on securing such an important debate. He suggested that perhaps the Department did not have unalloyed delight at the prospect of another discussion about education funding. I wish to put him completely at ease about that. We are delighted to have the opportunity to debate funding in Leicester as well as anywhere else. I am certainly happy to receive comments from hon. Members during the 11 minutes that remain, if they want to say anything.
It is important to recognise the outstanding work that my hon. Friend has done to put the case for funding for schools in Loughborough. I want to put on the record that he has been tireless in such work. I am glad that he mentioned in passing the outstanding work that is done by many schools in his constituency and in the rest of the country. He will know that, over the past five years, teacher numbers have increased by about 10 per cent.
The January 2003 teacher count of 5,290 for Leicestershire was 490 teachers up on the position in 1998. They have produced some outstanding results. I was pleased that, over the past three years. Leicestershire schools have produced a rate of
332WH
improvement for GSCE at about twice the national average. It was highlighted in the May Ofsted inspection report that, at key stage 3, at the age of 14, there was a particular strength of schools in Leicestershire. My hon. Friend will know that the primary schools are also doing well at key stage 2.
I want to focus on funding. We have discussed it before, but there are new elements to consider, given the Secretary of State's announcement last week. My hon. Friend was generous in recognising the outstanding improvements that have been made in funding throughout the country as well as in Leicestershire. My figures tally with his, showing that in cash terms the increase in funding in Leicestershire has been about £950 per pupil during the past six years and that capital investment is now £28 million a year. That is up from £2.9 million in 1996–97, which is a tenfold improvement that can only be of benefit to pupils in Leicestershire.
I appreciate that people in Leicestershire are concerned that their county is the lowest funded on a per-pupil basis of the 150 local education authorities, and it is up to the Government to justify that position. One LEA will always be 150th, as one will always be first, and we must ensure that we have sound grounds for the distribution of money to local authorities.
My hon. Friend will know that the old system for calculating the local authority grant—the standard spending assessment—was out of date and based on the 1991 census. It was even more complicated than the current system and widely seen to be unfair, as it was based on historic spending patterns rather than set amounts per pupil for additional educational needs and to take account of area costs. That is what the new system does; those elements mean that similar pupils in different parts of the country are funded by the Department for Education and Skills in the same way. It is then up to local government to raise money for education and to distribute it in their area.
David Taylor: There is no doubt that the new formula is more transparent and has the potential for greater equity. Nevertheless, when the figures came into the public domain, it was clear that the disparity between counties had widened rather than narrowed, despite what counties and LEAs had hoped for and expected.
Mr. Miliband: I recognise the outstanding campaigning that my hon. Friend has done over the years, but I assure him that any changes are the result of population changes among counties. I could explain further in writing, if that were helpful.
I said that it was the Government's commitment to ensure that, as far as DFES funding was concerned, similar pupils in different parts of the country were funded in a similar way. That is why every primary school pupil is funded this year to the tune of about £2,100 as a basic entitlement. Extra money of up to £1,300 is available for additional educational needs, which is the same whether the pupil lives in Leicestershire, Lancashire or Leeds. There is also recognition of extra costs, which I will come to.
The reason for differential funding is that the English average for income support is 19.8 per cent. of pupils,

333WH
but in Leicestershire it is 9.2 per cent. We take account of that relative prosperity in Leicestershire when we distribute the grant for additional educational needs. English as a second language is also considered.
David Taylor: My hon. Friend is right to point out that Leicestershire is a relatively prosperous county, but in the absence of an adequate formula within the country to recognise deprivation, the schools in the less well-off areas—which tend to be in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough—are not receiving the benefits.
Mr. Miliband: My hon. Friend makes a profound point, but one that is outwith my powers. As he notes, it is the joint responsibility of central and local government both to raise and to distribute fairly money for education. We distribute money fairly among LEAs, and it is then for each LEA to ensure that its funding formula recognises the different needs within its boundaries.
In Leicestershire, which is a large and diverse county, there will be difficult issues in the construction of any formula, but if my hon. Friend feels that pupils in his constituency or that of Loughborough are getting a raw deal from the Leicestershire funding formula, I am afraid that I have to point him towards local democracy and decisions made in county hall in Leicestershire. I do not decide the funding formula that local authorities use for the distribution of money to schools, but I can assure him that similar pupils in Leicestershire are treated similarly for the distribution DFES grants.
I want to address some specific points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough, including the problems that have occurred this year and how we can get over them in the next two years, as they are obviously of central concern to teachers, governors and head teachers in the county.
My hon. Friend referred to the area cost adjustment. It is important to note the basis on which we distribute that money. We recognise that some local authorities have to adopt special measures to recruit and retain teachers, which means that they face extra costs, such as additional allowances to help recruit and retain staff, the cost of supply cover for vacant posts—it is worth noting that the vacancy rate in Leicestershire is now 0.6 per cent., relatively low by national standards—and the cost of recruiting and advertising for staff. The allowance is not based on teachers' pay scales, which are national—except for the inner-London allowance—because those scales do not fully reflect the differences in the costs of recruitment and retention. That is why we based the additional cost allowance on wage differentials around the country. I assure my hon. Friend that there is no political interference in that. The basis on which those wage differentials are calculated is a matter of national record.
I will now move on to some of the problems that have occurred this year, and how we propose to get out of them over the next two—
4.40 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.55 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Miliband: I shall try to regain my flow and passion with as much authenticity as I can manage, having lost some hon. Members and our friends from the media, who have obviously had their fill.
It is important to recognise that schools in some parts of the country have suffered genuine problems this year. There were significant changes to the local government funding system, and the changes in the standards fund hit individual schools hard. We are trying to overcome that in moving towards our goal of ensuring that every school has a three-year budget on which it can rely and on which it can plan. That must be the aim for anybody interested in sensible budget management.
The way in which we intend to do things this year addresses the acute issue of the responsibility of local government not merely to raise money for education but to distribute it fairly within its boundaries. The whole point of a constitutional settlement that gives an important role to local government is that local government can recognise the pockets of disadvantage and the needs within an area of which it is impossible for central Government in Whitehall to take proper account. I hope that local government will take those responsibilities seriously.
David Taylor: There has been significant progress in education since 1997, but it is starting to stall in some areas, including my constituency. Class sizes are drifting up, old textbooks are not being replaced, there is less support and contact time for teachers and there are fewer extra-curricular activities. Those are the sorts of things about which I receive letters as, no doubt, do other Leicestershire Members.
Mr. Miliband: I understand the dangers, but I would urge the hon. Member to ensure that schools and the LEA are in serious dialogue about the distribution of funds. This year, we need to deliver a minimum per-pupil increase for every school in the country. That has never been done before, and it means that the variation within the county should be reduced. Every school is guaranteed a per-pupil increase of at least 4 per cent. We have given an LEA floor of 5 per cent. Last year, the per-pupil increase for Leicestershire was 3.2 per cent.; it was a floor authority. This year it is 5 per cent. That gives an immediate and significant infusion of extra funds to help in 2004–05 and beyond, because it is built into the baseline.
My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough referred to the figure of £3.7 million. That is on top of the higher per-pupil floor for the LEA; in addition to the 5 per cent. increase, there is £3.7 million of transitional support designed to target precisely those schools that have an overhang from this year. We are fulfilling our responsibility to recognise some of the problems that have existed this year and to play our part in overcoming

335WH
them. In addition, we have reversed the plans to reduce the amount of standards fund being distributed over the next two years.
We all wait with eager anticipation to hear from the School Teachers Review Body, which will next week reveal its conclusions about school teachers' pay for the next two and a half years. Anybody who claims to know what budget problems they will have in that period before the figures are known knows something that I do not. Nobody can say whether they have problems or surpluses until they know about teachers' pay.
In conclusion, I recognise the passion and conviction that hon. Members bring to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met an all-party delegation from Leicestershire earlier this year to talk about the problems there, and numerous parliamentary and other questions have been asked. I appreciate the spirit in which he has suggested that those discussions
336WH
should continue. There is close dialogue at official level, and if he tells me that there is a need for further dialogue at ministerial level, I shall respond well to his suggestion.
David Taylor: I hope that those discussions will address the serious point that 4,500 pupils a day from the much better funded city are educated in the county. Perhaps something ought to be done to bridge that funding gap. That will be very helpful.
Mr. Miliband: It will be an interesting discussion. I suggest that we focus our attention on how to help Leicestershire schools over the next two and a half years. Stability in our funding formula is an important element, but we are guaranteed extra money on top of that. That can be put to good use by Leicestershire schools and I look forward to working with hon. Members to achieve that.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Five o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Stamp DutyChurch commissioners what study has been made of the impact of increases in stamp duty land tax on the commercial holdings of the Church of England; and if he will make a statement. [135607]

  Mr. Bell
  No such study has been made in respect of the Church Commissioners' commercial property investment portfolio. I understand that changes to this tax come into effect on 1 December 2003: whether or not these will have an impact upon the amount of rent tenants will offer for new leases remains to be seen. The Commissioners take independent professional advice regarding the rental values of their properties and these are reviewed regularly.

SCOTLAND

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the implications for tenant farmers in Scotland of reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. [134845]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) on 9 September 2003,Official Report, column 328W.

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what statutory investigatory powers the Department has; which ones will be superseded by use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; and what plans he has for removing these legacy powers. [136131]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office has no statutory investigatory powers.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Countryside and Rights of Way Act
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she will publish guidance to those wishing to dedicate their land as access land under section 16 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000; [135813]
  634W
  (2) what additional funding is to be made available to the Forestry Commission to enable them to dedicate their freehold land for access under section 16 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000; [135814]

  (3) what measures she will take to encourage public bodies to dedicate suitable landholdings as access land under section 16 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000; [135815]

  (4) what steps she will take in promoting to landowners the opportunities available to them to dedicate their land under section 16 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000; [135816]

  (5) what measures she has taken to inform other Government Departments about the possibilities of dedicating land as access land under section 16 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000; and what response there has been. [135817]

  Alun Michael
  I expect to publish guidance and model dedication instruments for those wishing to dedicate their land by the beginning of December 2003. I have discussed with the Forestry Commission what funds might be needed to ensure that they are able to meet their commitment on dedication of their freehold estate.

  We are developing a strategy for promoting dedication to landowners, which will highlight the benefits of dedication, including the reduced liability that owners will incur and the opportunities to realise the potential that increasing visitor numbers has on the rural economy. This will build on the work undertaken by the Forestry Commission in 2001 when it ran seminars to encourage dedication by woodland owners.

  I wrote to Ministers in all Departments in February 2002 about the scope for dedication of land held by Government Departments and sponsored non-departmental public bodies. I have also pursued this point with some commercial organisations that are significant landowners. Now that the dedication regulations have been laid, I will be following this correspondence up, not least to encourage all Government Departments to actively consider the extent to which their landholdings can be dedicated under section 16 and to ensure that the option is widely understood by private sector landowners.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the contracts for(a) consultancy and (b) work carried out by Bechtel in each year since 1997, stating in each case (i) the nature of the work, (ii) the value of the contract and (iii) the duration of the contract; and if she will make a statement. [134732]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 29 October 2003]: Defra was formed in 2001. From information held centrally, Defra has let no contracts with Bechtel.

  Dairy Farms
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what arrangements she intends to put in place to improve the opportunity for United Kingdom dairy farmers to compete in European and global markets: [134377]
  635W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are helping the UK dairy sector to compete better in European and global markets by promoting supply chain efficiency. My noble Friend Lord Whitty, has been chairing the Dairy Supply Chain Forum to consider, among other issues, ways in which the sector can improve its efficiency through collaborative action, and we have made a grant of nearly £0.5 million to the Food Chain Centre to study how the efficiency of the dairy supply chain might be improved. We have also supported the establishment of English Food and Farming Practices, a new industry-led body that has been set up specifically to support and encourage collective activity across all agricultural sectors. In addition to this, we are actively considering bringing decoupling forward to 2005 to give dairy farmers the freedom to restructure their businesses for the more competitively market orientated environment. Furthermore, the Milk Development Council has been working with Food from Britain to identify potential export markets for UK dairy products.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with representatives from the dairy industry on the dispute over the price per litre of milk paid to liquid milk producers [134380]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Price negotiations between producers and processors, or processors and supermarkets, are a private commercial matter in which the Government cannot and should not get involved, as long as competition rules are respected. While the Government share producers' concerns over the low farmgate price of milk, they do not support protests.

  The Secretary of State has had no formal meetings with representatives of the dairy industry to discuss milk prices or the current protests. However, Ministers frequently meet with representatives from all parts of the dairy sector and are therefore aware of the issues. In addition, matters affecting the whole dairy supply chain are regularly discussed at the forum chaired by my noble Friend Lord Whitty.

  Environment Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the outcome was of the Environment Council on 27 October 2003; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including their voting record; and if she will make a statement; [135372]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the issues discussed in the meeting of the EU Environment Council on 27 October 2003. [136016]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I represented the UK at the Environment Council on 27 October 2003. The Council reached a political agreement on one legislative measure, and also considered a number of other important issues.

  The Council reached a political agreement on a Directive on volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in paints. This measure aims to reduce emissions from paints of these organic solvents, which are precursors of ground-level ozone which can be harmful to human health and the environment. We retained a reservation on the proposal as parliamentary scrutiny is not yet
  636W
  complete. Greece asked for further time to implement limits for decorative paints and varnishes, but its request was turned down.

  The Council agreed conclusions on the Commission's proposed structural indicators for reporting on progress on employment, innovation, economic reform, social cohesion and environmental protection to the spring European Council. There was general support for the proposed set of 14 headline indicators of which three would be environment-related. Some delegations proposed including new indicators on biodiversity and public health. I stressed the importance of using robust and meaningful indicators. I pointed out that any biodiversity indicator should be able to measure progress towards the EU's target of halting loss of biodiversity by 2010, for example, along the lines of an index proposed by Birdlife International. The current proposal, on protected areas, was not adequate. The Council agreed that the three proposed environment-related indicators, on climate change, energy intensity and transport, should be reformulated in order to focus on the most significant environmental impacts and that good quality indicators on biodiversity and health should be included as soon as possible so as to cover all of the priority areas identified in the EU sustainable development strategy.

  The Council agreed conclusions on the Commission's proposal for a European strategy on environment and health. This strategy is intended to reduce the disease burden caused by environmental factors in the EU, to identify and prevent new health threats caused by new environmental factors. We also agreed conclusions on the Commission's proposal for an integrated product policy, aimed at reducing the environmental impacts that arise in the supply chain and life-cycle of products.

  The Presidency noted a presentation from the Commission on the results of its public consultation on a legislative proposal for an EU chemicals strategy. The Council also noted a presentation from the Commission on proposals for implementing the provisions of the Aarhus Convention in the EC and on access to justice in environmental matters. We heard a report from Sweden on a ministerial conference they had hosted on environment and sustainable development in northern Europe, and the Commission circulated a report on progress on thematic strategies under the 6th Environment Action programme. Portugal gave a presentation about the devastating forest fires they had experienced this summer, stressing the importance of tackling this issue for the future.

  Belgium and France gave short presentations calling for member states' co-operation to reduce ozone levels. The Commission indicated its readiness to help and drew attention to existing measures that might facilitate co-operation and exchange of information.

  Belgium presented a short paper on decommissioning of ships, expressing concern in particular about the export of vessels to developing countries for disposal. I supported Belgium's concerns, stressing the need to ensure that first class and environmentally sound dismantling facilities are available in the EU.

  The Commission then called upon member states to support a protocol on sustainable development to the Treaty being considered by the Inter-Governmental Conference.
  637W
  We also discussed preparations for the 9th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP9) and the Kyoto project mechanisms. After an exchange of views, we agreed to reconvene on 8 December 2003, immediately preceding COP9, to discuss the outstanding issues.

  GM Crops
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what spray density in litres per hectare was used in the GM maize farmscale evaluation programme; and what spray density she expects will be used if commercial cultivation of GM maize goes ahead. [136609]

  Mr. Morley
  The recommended individual and maximum permitted application rates of the herbicide glufosinate-ammonium used on GM maize in the farm-scale evaluations were defined by the conditions of the simulated product licence that formed part of the experimental pesticide approval. This specified a maximum permitted rate of eight litres per hectare and a recommended individual rate of four litres per hectare, depending on the weeds present and their growth stage. Application was permitted until the nine-leaf stage of maize. For further details, and for details of other non-herbicide sprays used, see Champion et al. 2003; "Crop Management and Agronomic Context of the Farm Scale Evaluations of Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerant Crops"; Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (B). 358 (1439): 1801–18. A copy of this journal has been placed in the Library.

  Before glufosinate-ammonium could be used on a commercial scale on GM-maize, it would need full pesticide approval. In seeking approval, the necessary data package would have to be supplied by the applicant and be subjected to the considerations of human and environmental safety which have been established for all pesticide uses. Any approval given would specify recommended and maximum application rates in the same way as the experimental permit. These conditions would be determined by the Pesticide Safety Directorate taking due account of advice from their expert advisory committee the Advisory Committee on Pesticides.

  National Fruit Show
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many Ministers have visited the National Fruit Show (Marden Fruit Show) since 1997. [134137]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: No Minister has been able to attend the National Fruit Show in recent years.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish(a) guidance to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority on the interim conditioning, packaging and storage of radioactive waste and (b) the study on the case for extending waste substitution, referred to in the Government's First Progress Report to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on Managing Radioactive Waste Safely. [134076]
  638W
  Mr. Morley
  The interim conditioning, packaging and storage of radioactive waste will be among the matters to be included in the plans that sites will prepare for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. The appropriate regulators will be consulted on the plans. The waste substitution study is expected to be issued for consultation shortly.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much wild honey has been imported from St. Helena over the last five years; and if she will take steps to ensure that St. Helena continues to be able to export honey to EU countries. [135660]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 3 November 2003]No wild honey has been imported from St. Helena over the last five years. EU rules do not allow the export of wild honey from St. Helena to the European Union.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what quantities of Arabica coffee were imported in each of the last five years from St. Helena. [135661]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 3 November 2003]: The table shows UK imports of coffee from St. Helena in each of the last five years. Arabica coffee is not specifically identified in official overseas trade statistics.

  Tonnes

  1998

  1.8

  1999

  1.7

  2000

  1.1

  2001

  0.4

  2002

  0.7

  Source:

  H M Customs and Excise

  Data prepared by Statistics (Commodities & Food) Consultancy
  Trade & IT, ESD, DEFRA

  Waste Management
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the tonnage of tyres(a) sent to waste and (b) dealt with by each method of waste disposal was in the most recent year for which figures are available. [132672]

  Margaret Beckett
  The latest available figures for used tyres are for 2001. These show that 481,496 tonnes of tyres went for disposal; of these, 290,496 tonnes (60.3 per cent.) were recovered, broken down as follows:

  Recovery option

  Tonnes

  Percentage of waste tyres

  Reuse

  78,217

  16.0

  Retreading

  49,179

  9.9

  Recycling

  107,000

  22.2

  Landfill engineering

  16,100

  3.3

  Energy recovery

  40,000

  8.3

  Total

  290,496

  60.3

  Sources:

  various.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  War Crimes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Solicitor-General on how many occasions since the coming into force of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 the Attorney-General's consent has been sought to bring a prosecution for war crimes; and if she will make a statement. [134400]

  The Solicitor-General
  Owing to the way records are kept in the Attorney-General's department answer to this question cannot be provided without disproportionate cost. Applications for consent are not recorded by reference to the offence for which the application is made. Also, a request unaccompanied by evidence may not be recorded as an application.

DEFENCE

  Alcohol Limits
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the legal alcohol limit is for(a) operating equipment and (b) driving on military bases in Scotland; when the adequacy of this limit was last reviewed; and if he will make a statement. [135800]

  Mr. Caplin
  There is no statutory alcohol limit laid down for operating equipment on military bases in Scotland or elsewhere. Where military bases are served by public roads in the UK, the statutory alcohol limits imposed by the Road Traffic Act 1988 apply. If the military bases are not served by public roads, service personnel are subject to standing and local orders which regulate alcohol consumption. Personnel may be prosecuted under the Service Discipline Acts for being unfit for duty as a result of consuming excess alcohol or contravening orders. Commanding officers and the chain of command are very aware of the requirement to provide a safe working environment.

  Breathalyser Tests
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) minimum and (b) maximum alcohol levels recorded by breathalyser tests in alcohol related cases investigated by military police on each military base in Scotland in 2003; what the comparable readings were in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [135798]

  Mr. Caplin
  No such tests have been conducted.

  Disused Army Barracks
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the disused army barracks that his Department is selling, (b) the size of each plot and (c) the selling price of each site. [135863]

  Mr. Caplin
  The table of army barracks that the Ministry of Defence is currently selling is as follows.
  640W

  Site name and address

  Area in Hectares

  McGrigor Barracks, Hospital road, Alderhot, Hampshire

  7.1

  Montgomery Lines—South Alisons Road, Alershot, Hampshire

  19.1

  Montgomery Lines—North Part, Alisons road, Aldershot, Hampshire

  12.6

  Wainscott Camp, Hoo Road, Wainscott, Kent

  4.61

  Stonebridge Camp, Mundford, Thetford, Norfolk

  1.39

  Oakington Barracks, Rampton Drift, Longstanton, Cambs

  289.7

  RE Depot, Long Marston, Warwickshire

  185

  Saighton Camp, Huntingdon, Chester, Cheshire

  48.58

  I am withholding the internal valuation of surplus sites in accordance with Exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Drink Driving (Scotland)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many occurrences of drink driving recorded by military police there were in each of the military bases in Scotland each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [135202]

  Mr. Caplin
  The service police have no powers in Great Britain to stop and breathalyse persons suspected of committing an offence under the 1988 Road Traffic Act.

  Suez Medal
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the procedures to be followed by veterans in order to claim the Suez medal. [135465]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to my written ministerial statement of 23 October 2003,Official Report columns 45–46WS, and Command Paper 5999.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Suez Canal Zone medal applications have been received from(a) Chorley, (b) Lancashire and (c) the North West; and how many have been granted. [135809]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence is very keen to issue medals to eligible veterans as quickly as possible. There is already a sizeable backlog of applications which has accumulated in recent weeks. I would not, therefore, wish to divert staff at the medal offices to undertake an exercise of the sort that has been requested, at the expense of issuing the medal to Suez veterans.

TRANSPORT

  Airline Competition
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the fairness of competition between airlines operating in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [136181]

  Mr. McNulty
  Fairness of competition between airlines is a matter for the UK competition authorities and, insofar as there is a potential effect on trade between EU member states, the European Commission.

  Aviation Landing Charges
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to equalise aviation landing charges throughout the UK; and if he will make a statement. [136180]

  Mr. McNulty
  There are no plans because the Government do not set landing charges. These are set by the airport operator and, in the case of the designated airports, the CAA sets a price cap to airport charges in its capacity as economic regulator.

  Bus Safety
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) bus drivers and (b) bus passengers were injured as a result of items being thrown at buses in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [136184]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is not available. The Department collects information on bus drivers assaulted by members of the public, assaults on passengers on buses and vandalism to vehicles, but this is not sufficiently detailed to determine how many injuries were as a result of objects thrown at buses.

  Central Railway
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will decide on the Central Railway project. [136250]

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his decision on the Central Railway proposals; and if he will make a statement. [136592]

  Mr. McNulty
  A decision will be made as soon as is practicable.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether, in respect of applications for entry clearance from working holiday makers, identical requirements and conditions are applied for applicants from each Commonwealth country. [133077]

  Mr. Mullin
  I have been asked to reply.

  Yes.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department will take to instigate levels of nitrogen dioxide consistently within EU limits by 2010 at Heathrow Airport. [135294]

  Mr. McNulty
  Heathrow Airport lies within an Air Quality Management Area declared by adjacent local authorities. Various emissions sources may contribute to potential NO2 exceedances in 2010. In the vicinity of Heathrow Airport mitigation strategies could apply to aircraft, airside and road traffic sources, although general 'background' levels of NO2 are also a major contributor (as elsewhere). BAA plc is required to produce and review an Action Plan to minimise emissions from Heathrow Airport as a condition of the planning permission for the Fifth Terminal.

  Kyoto Protocol
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps the Government are taking in(a) European and (b) other international fora to encourage other countries to include international aviation in the Kyoto Agreement. [136252]

  Mr. McNulty
  Emissions from international aviation are not included in national targets under the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (2008–12). However, the Kyoto Protocol does require contracting parties to work through the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from international aviation. The Government are therefore working hard in ICAO to engage other countries in the climate change debate and to reduce emissions from aviation. Discussion on action beyond 2008– 12 will begin in 2005 when the Government will work closely with all Parties and argue strongly that the framework for global action after 2012 should address international aviation emissions.

  Mersey Tunnels
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he intends to establish a public inquiry into the proposed increase in the Mersey Tunnels toll. [136081]

  Dr. Howells
  Yes. A date for when the inquiry will start will be announced in the near future.

  Motorcycle Speeds
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions has he had with Triumph about motorcycles capable of 200mph; and what suggestions he made to the firm about manufacturing such a motorcycle. [136086]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have had no such discussions.

  Passenger Transport (Tyne and Wear)
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his Department has had with transport operators and regulators in Tyne and Wear concerning(a) integrated passenger transport networks and (b) the future of the Tyne and Wear Metro. [136030]

  Dr. Howells
  Officials from the Transport Team at the Government Office for the North East have meetings, on an approximately quarterly basis, with officers at Nexus (Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive). Discussions cover the full range of Nexus' work in developing and promoting an integrated passenger transport network in Tyne and Wear, including buses, rail, metro, ferry and concessionary fares. In addition Government Office officials attend regular meetings chaired by the North East Assembly, attended by representatives of bus and rail operators providing services in Tyne and Wear.

  Officials from Government Office for the North East and Department for Transport have also had several meetings during the past year with Nexus concerning its proposals for the future development of the Tyne and Wear Metro and the possibility of tram and bus based

  643W
  extensions to the system. The most recent meeting was held on 21 October 2003. I understand that Nexus intends to submit an outline business case for funding for these developments in 2004 and officials have provided advice to Nexus on their potential submission.

  River Tyne (Dredging)
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the locations on the River Tyne that are the subject of discussions between his Department and the Port of Tyne Authority concerning the dredging and disposal of contaminated sediment. [136027]

  Dr. Howells
  The locations on the River Tyne that are the subject of the application from the Port of Tyne Authority to DEFRA for a licence for the dredging and sea disposal of contaminated sediment, submitted in February 2003, are referenced in the application as:

  A. A & P (Tyne) Ltd. North Shields

  B. Branmore Investments Ltd. (ex-Cammell Laird (South Shields Ltd.)

  C. AkerMcNultyLtd.

  D. Swan Hunter (Tyneside) Ltd. East Fitting Out Quay

  E. A & P (Tyne) Ltd.—Wallsend Dry Docks

  F. Neptune Yard

  G. A & P (Tyne) Ltd.—Hebburn Bede Quay, West Quay & No 2 Dry Dock

  H. Shepherds Offshore Ltd. Offshore Technology Park

  I. Bill Point—Channel

  On-going discussions on this issue are primarily between the Port of Tyne Authority and DEFRA.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what alternative disposal routes his Department has identified with the Port of Tyne Authority for contaminated sediment dredged from the River Tyne. [136028]

  Dr. Howells
  It is not for the Department for Transport to determine alternative disposal routes for contaminated sediment dredged from the River Tyne. The Port of Tyne Authority made an application, in February 2003, to DEFRA for a licence for the dredging and sea disposal of contaminated sediment from various locations on the River Tyne. Discussions on matters of detail relating to this application are on-going and, primarily, for the Port Authority and DEFRA.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the negotiations between the Port of Tyne Authority and his Department concerning the dredging of the river to reach a conclusion. [136029]

  Dr. Howells
  Negotiations concerning the dredging of the River Tyne are primarily for the Port of Tyne Authority and DEFRA in connection with the Port Authority's application for a licence, submitted to DEFRA in February 2003, for the dredging and sea disposal of contaminated sediment from various locations on the river. Discussions between the Port Authority and the Department for Transport about this matter will continue until such time as a satisfactory conclusion is reached. I am aware that further information is being sought from the Port of Tyne Authority as part of their on-going discussions with DEFRA and that a final decision cannot be reached 644W
  until such time as all the facts are to hand. It is not possible at this stage to say when this might be but the need to move to an early resolution is fully recognised.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has commissioned on the correlation between the speed of vehicles and the number of road accidents. [136083]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department has commissioned various studies into the correlation between vehicle speed and road accidents. These are either summarised or referenced in the Department's review of speed management policy entitled "New Directions in Speed Management—A review of policy" published in March2000. Copies of this document are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the reasons for the slowing down of the rate of decrease in road fatalities in this decade. [136084]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Transport Research Laboratory has been commissioned to investigate the reasons for the slowing down of the rate of decrease in road fatalities as part of their on-going work on monitoring the progress towards the 2010 casualty reduction target. It is a complex issue that demands in-depth analysis because there are different trends for different road user groups and for different accident types.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve the standard of driving on roads; and if he will make a statement. [136185]

  Mr. Jamieson
  One of our key road safety goals is to improve the standard of driving and our road safety strategy sets out a number of measures to achieve this. "Tomorrow's roads: safer for everyone", published in March 2000, is available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve road signage and road markings. [136186]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The appearance of signs and markings, and conditions for their placing, are specified in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (SI 3113), which came into effect earlier this year. Guidance on good practice in the design and use of signs is given in the Traffic Signs Manual. An updated Chapter 7, on sign design, and Chapter 5, on road markings, will be published later this month. It is the responsibility of individual traffic authorities to ensure that signs and markings are used in conformity with the statutory requirements and Government guidance.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the risk to(a) motorists and (b) pedestrians posed by the level of non-compliance with traffic signals by pedal cyclists in London [136388]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department has made no such assessment. It is an offence for any vehicle not to stop at traffic signals when required to do so. Any cyclist or other road user who fails to comply with traffic signals is a danger to themselves and other road users.
  645W
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the merits of licensing pedal cycles as a means to improve compliance by cyclists with road traffic regulations. [136390]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department has examined the case for a road tax on cyclists in the past. It would require a registration system like the one for motor vehicles and the costs of the system would certainly outweigh any benefits for enforcement of road traffic offences by cyclists. Moreover, increasing the costs of cycling would not support our policy of encouraging more people to consider cycling as a viable mode of transport and we have no plans to introduce such a tax.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to make the wearing of bicycle helmets compulsory when riding on roads; and if he will make a statement on their safety uses. [136159]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A study commissioned by the Department to look into the effectiveness of cycle helmets, published in November last year, found that overall, the evidence suggests that cycle helmets are effective at reducing the severity of brain and upper facial injuries for all ages, and especially children. This reinforces our view that we should encourage helmets to be worn by children.

  A survey undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory measuring wearing rates in 2002 found that the rate for all cyclists on built-up major roads was 25 per cent. The wearing rate is continuing to increase, with the exception of boys under 16 where the rate has reduced from 16 per cent. in 1994 to 12 per cent. in 2002. At these levels making helmets compulsory would cause enforcement difficulties and without greater public acceptance could have an effect on levels of cycling. We are making special efforts to persuade adolescents, and especially boys, to wear helmets. We will continue to monitor wearing rates by all ages and review the option of compulsory wearing from time to time.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people have died from head injuries whilst riding a bicycle in each of the past 15 years. [136160]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. James Wray, dated 5 November 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many people have died from head injuries whilst riding a bicycle in each of the past 15 years. I am replying in his absence. (136160)
  The latest year for which data are available is 2002. The attached table for 1988 to 2002 inclusive, shows the number of deaths certified as being due to head injuries in cyclists.
  646W

  Number of deaths of cyclists from head injuries1, England and Wales, 1988–20022

  Number

  1988

  182

  1989

  196

  1990

  185

  1991

  177

  1992

  141

  1993

  91

  1994

  88

  1995

  130

  1996

  109

  1997

  102

  1998

  79

  1999

  95

  2000

  63

  20013

  59

  20023

  56

  1 Selected using the International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision (ICD-9) underlying cause of death codes E800-E807 (.3), E810-E19 (.6), E820-E825 (.6), E826 (cyclists) combined with secondary cause codes 800–804 or 850–854 (head injuries) for 1988 to 2000 and the International Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision (ICD-10) underlying cause of death codes V10-V19 (cyclists) combined with secondary cause codes SOO- S09 (head injuries) for 2001 and 2002,

  2 Figures are for the number of deaths registered in each year between 1988 and 1992 and for the number of deaths occurring in each year between 1993 and 2002.

  3 Data for 2001 and 2002 may not be directly comparable to those for previous years, due to the introduction of ICD-10 in 200 L The figures should therefore be interpreted with caution!

  Sources:

  1. Office for National Statistics

  2. Griffiths C and Rooney C (2003) The effect of the introduction of ICD-10 on trends in mortality from injury and poisoning in England and Wales. Health Statistics Quarterly 19,10–21.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to raise awareness of safety issues on the roads for(a) bicycle users and for (b) car drivers. [136161]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Road Safety Strategy, "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone" sets out our aims to improve road safety for cyclists and car drivers. This is being done through publicity, training opportunities for cyclists, education initiatives and driver testing and training. Recent publicity campaigns have included drink driving, speed, mobile phones, seat belts and cycle helmets.

WALES

  Crime and Disorder
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to seek a joint meeting of representatives of the police, local government, the National Assembly for Wales, the NHS and the Home Office to discuss issues relating to tackling crime and disorder in Wales. [135535]

  Mr. Hain
  The Welsh Community Safety Unit works closely with the 22 Community Safety Partnerships in Wales to tackle crime and disorder. The membership of these partnerships includes the police, local authorities and local health bodies.

  Euro
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has held with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the impact of the rate of the euro on European funding available in Wales. [135536]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend and I meet regularly with Treasury Ministers to discuss a range of issues.

  The Spending Review 2002 settlement enabled the Welsh Assembly to continue to meets its commitment to the success of the Objective 1 programme in Wales.

  I understand that £595 million has so far been committed to 955 projects in West Wales and the Valleys.

  Community Support Officers
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of community support officers in Wales. [135538]

  Mr. Touhig
  The Government are carrying out an ongoing assessment of CSOs throughout England and Wales. Forces with CSOs are submitting evaluations now and we hope to provide an interim assessment by the end of the year.

  CSOs have been welcomed across Wales and I have been impressed by the amount of positive feedback that has been received even at this early stage.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on employment in the manufacturing sector in Wales. [135539]

  Mr. Hain
  Manufacturing industry is a major contributor to our economy and to employment in the UK and in Wales.

  The Government are committed to stimulating enterprise and economic growth through our macroeconomic policies, funding programmes and our "Manufacturing Strategy".

  Farming
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to promote the prosperity of Welsh farming. [135540]

  Mr. Touhig
  Over the last few months I have visited a range of agricultural producers and manufacturers across Wales and I will continue to do everything possible to promote Welsh produce and producers.

  Women in the Work Force
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to assist the retention of women in the work force in Wales. [135541]

  Mr. Touhig
  Widening employment opportunities for women has always been a key priority for the Government. As examples of recent legislation, all women are now entitled to 26 weeks' maternity leave, and employers must give serious consideration to parents' requests for flexible working arrangements.648W
  Financial support has also been made available to enhance the provision of child care facilities—in Wales this is the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Painkillers
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Department of Health regarding the number of painkillers available over the counter in Wales which contain codeine phosphate. [135542]

  Mr. Touhig
  I have not held specific discussions on products containing codeine phosphate, but I am aware that the position in Wales is the same as that in England.

  According to the records held by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), there are currently 96 granted marketing authorisations for medicinal products containing the active ingredient codeine phosphate. These are licensed as pharmacy medicines and are available without prescription from a pharmacy under the supervision of a pharmacist. No products containing codeine phosphate are licensed for general sale.

  The National Assembly has recently supported 'Ask about Medicines Week' in October. This is an awareness week to highlight the role of pharmacists and increase people's understanding of medicines.

TREASURY

  Automatic Teller Machines
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether United Kingdom consumers withdrawing euros from automatic teller machines in European Union member states are subject to additional charges. [136661]

  Ruth Kelly
  Whether United Kingdom consumers are subject to charges for withdrawing euros from automated teller machines in European Union member states is determined by the terms and conditions of their accounts and of the automated teller machines they use.

  Cross-border Payments Regulation
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effect upon consumers of the cross border payments regulation adopted on 1 July 2002. [136662]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Regulation on cross-border payments in euro seeks to prevent excessive charges for consumers for certain cross-border payments in euro by imposing requirements in connection with the level, transparency and facilitation of charges for these types of payments. It does not apply to sterling denominated payments.

  Children Trust Fund
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of children in Coventry he estimates will benefit from the additional £250 to the Child Trust Fund. [136141]
  649W
  Ruth Kelly
  This information is not available. However, it is estimated that around a third of all children will receive the additional payment of £250.

  Debt Cancellation
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the amount of third world debt which the IMF and World Bank is prepared to cancel; and if he will make a statement. [136061]

  John Healey
  The UK Government remain fully committed to the rapid and full implementation of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative to ensure that it delivers a robust exit from unsustainable debt for the world's poorest countries. At present, 27 countries have reached Decision Point and have started to receive interim relief. Of these countries, eight have reached Completion Point and are now also receiving irrevocable debt relief.

  In the September 2003 publication "Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative: Status of Implementation", the staffs of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) provided an update on progress under the Initiative and new estimates of costs. This document is available on both the World Bank and the IMF websites. Table 9 in the document sets out the status of delivery of assistance by the World Bank. Under the original and enhanced HIPC Initiatives, the World Bank has made total debt service reduction commitments of US$12.4 billion and has delivered $2.5 billion.

  Table 11 sets out the status of delivery of assistance by the IMF. Under the original and enhanced HIPC Initiatives, the IMF has made total debt service reduction commitments of SDR £1.8 billion (approximately $1.3 billion) and has disbursed SDR £1 billion (approximately $740 million). The Special Drawing Right (SDR) serves as the unit of account of the IMF and is allocated to member countries in proportion to their IMF quotas.

  The UK has provided commitments of around £2 billion of debt relief to eligible HIPC countries and has pledged a total of $474 million through the multilateral institutions to further support the initiative. The UK is committed to providing 100 per cent. relief for eligible HIPC countries, and calls for all bilateral, multilateral and commercial creditors to participate in the Initiative.

  The HIPC Initiative has an important role to play in maximising the resources available for poverty reduction in developing countries. However, unless there is an increase in the volume of resources available from donors to poor countries, additional debt relief would simply reallocate resources from one form of financing to another, and from non-HIPC poor countries to HIPC countries, without adding to the overall financing available for poverty reduction. Furthermore 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
  650W
  resources that debt relief alone would not achieve, which could be disbursed by way of grants and additional debt relief.

  Economy (York)
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses have been registered for VAT in the York unitary authority area in each year since 1995. [135949]

  John Healey
  VAT Registration thresholds are reviewed as part of the Budget process. The Small Business Service produces statistics that are available on their website at www.sbs.gov.uk which show that VAT registrations for the York unitary authority area from 1995 were as follows:

  New registrations

  Total registrations

  1995

  405

  4,020

  1996

  390

  4,035

  1997

  435

  4,115

  1998

  415

  4,200

  1999

  410

  4,250

  2000

  445

  4,335

  2001

  440

  4,395

  2002

  435

  4,440

  Fuel Duty
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the recent increase in fuel duty. [136265]

  John Healey
  My right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced the increase in fuel duty in his Budget statement in April.

  Following that announcement, the legislation implementing this change was debated in Parliament as part of the Finance Bill, which received Royal Assent on 10 July and it took effect on 1 October.

  Futurebuilders Investment Fund
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps have been taken to appoint the fund managers of the futurebuilders investment fund. [136066]

  John Healey
  An open competition to appoint the fund managers was launched on 10 September. A procurement exercise is now under way. It is hoped to make an appointment in December, with the funds coming on stream in the last quarter of this financial year.

  Stamp Duty Land Tax
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the(a) total and (b) average liability for stamp duty land tax after 1 December for farm business tenancies; and if he will make a statement. [135604]

  Ruth Kelly
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Tax Credits
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people living in York have received each tax credit in each year since each was introduced. [135950]

  John Healey
  The numbers of families receiving the Working Families' and Disabled Person's Tax Credits in each local authority and constituency in each quarter between May 2001 and November 2002 are shown in "Working Families' and Disabled Person's Tax Credit Statistics. Geographical analyses". Estimates, based on a sample of cases, of the numbers receiving the Child and Working Tax Credits in each local authority and constituency at July 2003 are shown in "Child and Working Tax Credit Statistics. Geographical analyses". These documents can be found on the Inland Revenue website, at www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/personal-tax-credits/menu.htm.

  No corresponding estimates are available for the Children's Tax Credit.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated annual cost is of administering(a) child and (b) working tax credit. [136150]

  John Healey
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General gave my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) on 3 June 2003,Official Report, column 30W.

  VAT
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the Exchequer proceeds were in the last financial year of charging value-added tax on cycle helmets. [136427]

  John Healey
  From 1 April 2001, the Government removed VAT from adult cycle helmets. Children's cycle helmets have never been subject to VAT.

  Unemployment (Scotland)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were unemployed in(a) the Edinburgh West parliamentary constituency, (b) the City of Edinburgh local authority area and (c) Scotland in each year between 1985 and 1995. [136624]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. John Barrett, dated 5 November 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on the number of people unemployed in (a) the Edinburgh West parliamentary constituency, (b) the City of Edinburgh local authority area and (c) Scotland in each year between 1985 and 1995. I am replying in his absence. (136624)
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) following the internationally standard International Labour Organisation definition. However, the data for the years requested are not available. ONS also compiles statistics of those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (ISA) or previous unemployment benefits for local areas including Parliamentary Constituencies. Data are not fully comparable over time.
  652W
  The table gives the average number of claimants each year from 1985 to 1995 in the Edinburgh West Parliamentary Constituency, City of Edinburgh Local Authority and in Scotland. The figures are not seasonally adjusted.

  Annual average level of claimants for the years 1985 to 1995

  Edinburg West parliamentary constituency1

  City of Edinburgh local authority

  Scotland

  1985

  2,473

  26,976

  352,967

  1986

  2,574

  28,112

  360,201

  1987

  2,415

  27,492

  345,766

  1988

  2,012

  23,542

  293,598

  1989

  1,484

  18,222

  234,690

  1990

  1,353

  15,708

  202,518

  1991

  1,720

  18,017

  220,217

  1992

  2,039

  20,389

  241,031

  1993

  2,101

  20,933

  246,420

  1994

  1,991

  19,606

  231,465

  1995

  1,721

  17,423

  203,494

  1 Based on the 1981 Parliamentary Constituency wards.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when funds provided by his Department for landmine clearance in Afghanistan in 2003 were made available to de-mining teams there; what role the UN is playing in adminstering these funds; and when de-mining personnel in Afghanistan funded by his Department were first paid for this work in 2003. [135845]

  Hilary Benn
  In 2003 The Department For International Development has provided £2.3 million to the United Nations Mine Action Service (UN MAS) for mine and unexploded ordnance clearance in Afghanistan. This has provided additional support to the on-going activities of UNMAS in Afghanistan allowing an increase in the number of deployed mine clearance teams from 94 to 134 and an increase in the number of mine action personnel to over 8,000. DFID does not directly fund humanitarian demining personnel in Afghanistan.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on attacks on de-mining teams in Afghanistan. [135846]

  Hilary Benn
  Attacks on demining teams took place in March and April this year on the Kabul to Kandahar road. Since June 2003 the Ministry of Interior has provided four hundred guards to protect teams working on mine clearance and the reconstruction of the road between Kabul and Kandahar. As a result the number of attacks have decreased.

  Aral Sea
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money(a) his Department and (b) other Departments of the Government (i) have pledged and (ii) provided to the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea (IFSAS) since its inception; and if he will make a statement. [136311]
  653W
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The Governments of Central Asia established the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea (IFAS) in the early nineties; an interstate mechanism for developing and centrally funding regional environmental and research activity aimed at improving the environmental situation in the Aral Sea region. Although the established mechanism provides for an operational framework to generate international assistance, in practice the IFAS has failed to become a functioning institution with a strong regional environmental remit. The failure is attributed to a number of factors but chiefly by the general lack of enthusiasm by the governments in the region to cooperate on practical issues.

  A $12 million Water and Environmental Management Project financed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), managed by an Executing Agency of IFAS, has a component to develop longer term, sustainable regional and national water management strategies; to replace the current system of annual ad hoc water allocation and distribution arrangements which is slowly breaking down. This strategy will help to develop strategic choices at the river basin level such as water allocation between and within the five states, cost sharing for operations, maintenance, rehabilitation and improvement of the existing infrastructure. The UK contrilbutes to the GEF and last year DFID provided an additional contribution of £15 million to the third replenishment.

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 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. [135056]

  Hilary Benn
  For information on how much electricity and other energy DFID has used in each year since 1997 I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Bradshaw) on 4 November 2003,Official Report, column 403W.

  Forecasts of future consumption are still in the process of being developed. We have occupied our 1 Palace Street building for less than two years and a reliable baseline is only now emerging. Similarly, our East Kilbride office is undergoing extensive refurbishment and extension that will completely alter the energy consumption picture there, and our subsidiary London office is being vacated in 2004 so is excluded from future predictions. However the Department's aim is to reduce its energy consumption in accordance with Government targets, and to this end the London and East Kilbride refurbishments include such features as energy-efficient boilers, low-energy light bulbs and tubes, and, where appropriate, movement sensors instead of light switches to ensure that lights are not left on unnecessarily in unoccupied rooms. The offices have also had their computer monitors replaced throughout with low-energy flat screens. In addition, the London office electricity supply has been 100 per cent. from renewable sources since July 2002, while from this month the new supply contract for East Kilbride is
  654W
  10 per cent. renewable (the maximum available there). Also at East Kilbride, a feasibility study for an on-site wind turbine is currently under way. The staff Green Awareness programme includes an energy section and a computer switch-off campaign backed up by monthly monitoring and feedback.

  DFID is committed to the Government's Sustainable Development Framework and Targets, which include an Energy component, and is developing an Environmental Management System based on ISO 14001 in order to deliver these. Building management systems incorporate energy reduction elements; consumption is monitored monthly and any undue increases investigated.

  Sexual and Reproductive Health
  Chris McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list bilateral aid for(a) reproductive health care, (b) family planning and (c) sexually transmitted disease control including HIV/AIDS, broken down by (i) project or sector aid, (ii) programme aid, (iii) technical co-operation, (iv) grants and other aid in kind, (v) humanitarian assistance, (vi) his Department's programme and (vii) CDC investments for each financial year since 1996; and if he will make a statement. [135267]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The following provides the figures for DFID bilateral expenditure on 'HIV/AIDS'1 and 'Reproductive Health'2.

  We regard reproductive health as an essential and inseparable element of good health. We believe that the best way to deliver this is for people to be given the right, freedom and support necessary to enable them to take full individual and personal control of their own fertility and reproductive health. Reproductive health continues to be a key priority for DFID and we remain firmly committed to the 1994 Cairo International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) target of achieving access to reproductive health for all by 2015.

  There is no simple solution to HIV/AIDS crisis. It is a very complex and globally diverse epidemic. Condoms or drugs alone are not the answer to tackling HIV/ AIDS. The fight against HIV/AIDS also has to include effective public health programmes involving education, prevention, treatment, care and support. For any of these programmes to be implemented successfully they need to involve government, education, health, agriculture, civil society and the private sector and this is the approach the UK promotes.

  In financial year 2002–03 alone DFID spent over £270 million on projects related to reproductive health and HIV/AIDS.

  1 'Multisectoral Responses to HIV/AIDS' covers all activities related to HIV/AIDS control including information, education and communication; voluntary counselling and testing; prevention; treatment, care and support; research; sexually transmitted disease control and prevention.

  2 'Reproductive health' covers HIV/AIDS programmes, prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted infections and maternal and adolescent health. It also encompasses the services for family planning, contraception and childbearing that make an important contribution to increasing women's choice and opportunity and to preventing un planned or unwanted pregnancy.
  655W

  £000

  Financial aid (Excl ATP)

  Other programmes

  Project or Sector aid

  Programme aid

  Technical cooperation

  Grants and other aid in kind

  Humanitarian assistance1

  Total DFID programme2

  CDC investments

  Multisectoral responses to HIV/AIDS

  1996–97

  1,220

  6

  3,295

  6,889

  —

  11,410

  —

  1997–98

  1,555

  3

  4,821

  4,181

  —

  10,560

  —

  1998–99

  1,830

  —

  6,343

  4,940

  —

  13,113

  —

  1999–2000

  996

  —

  8,807

  5,443

  112

  15,358

  —

  2000–01

  342

  —

  7,811

  7,034

  —

  15,187

  —

  2001–02

  3,938

  —

  16,320

  5,712

  —

  25,970

  —

  2002–03

  4,167

  —

  29,265

  17,357

  —

  50,789

  —

  Reproductive health (includes family planning)

  1996–97

  2,505

  —

  12,878

  13,907

  —

  29,290

  —

  1997–98

  2,134

  —

  18,583

  14,969

  —

  35,686

  —

  1998–99

  2,240

  —

  11,934

  18,212

  —

  32,386

  —

  1999–2000

  2,415

  —

  16,580

  16,781

  —

  35,775

  —

  2000–2001

  6,639

  —

  17,825

  16,790

  —

  41,255

  —

  2001–02

  4,827

  —

  18,533

  14,380

  —

  37,739

  —

  2002–03

  9,172

  —

  19,710

  12,340

  —

  41,222

  —

  1 Humanitarian Assistance comprises food aid and other humanitarian assistance.

  2 2001–02 is a unique year in that total DFID expenditure is understated by around £140 million due to move to resource accounting.

  Note:

  These figures understate the expenditure figures as they are based on Economic Sector codes. Until recently DFID systems only allowed one Economic Sector code to be applied to each activity, even if the activity was relevant to more than one economic sector.

  Chris McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list his Department's total funding to(a) UNFPA, (b) WHO sexual and reproductive health programme, (c) UNICEF sexual and reproductive health programme, (d) UNAIDS, (e) International Planned Parenthood Federation, (f) Marie Stopes International, (g) Interact Worldwide (population concern) and (h) International Family Health in each financial year since 1996 for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [135266]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The following table details the funding provided to the various organisations listed since 1996.

  We regard reproductive health as an essential and inseparable element of good health. We believe that the best way to deliver this is for people to be given the right, freedom and support necessary to enable them to take full individual and personal control of their own fertility and reproductive health. Reproductive health continues

  £000

  DFID programme

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  UN AIDS

  3,500

  2,300

  2,750

  3,000

  3,000

  3,052

  3,052

  UN Childrens Fund (UNICEF)

  13,847

  9,241

  10,461

  29,143

  2,619

  17,500

  17,366

  UN Population Fund (UN FPA)

  10,000

  11,500

  13,120

  15,000

  40,050

  24,213

  9,000

  World Health Organisation (WHO)

  11,619

  12,099

  8,091

  20,300

  75,110

  41,348

  34,156

  International Planned Parenthood Federation

  7,850

  5,850

  5,500

  5,500

  5,500

  4,500

  4,500

  Marie Slopes International

  3,202

  3,103

  4,235

  4,945

  5,132

  2,554

  2,979

  Interact Worldwide (Population Concern)

  91

  138

  28

  51

  3

  0

  0

  International Family Health

  762

  1,175

  1,151

  773

  508

  628

  —

  Notes:

  1. The figures are "regular budget" or contributions made by DFID centrally and do not include country specific expenditure agreed at country level.

  2. The figures for UNICEF and WHO cover the block grants we provide to each organisation. It is not possible to apportion the amounts allocated to sexual and reproductive health programmes.

  656W
  to be a key priority for DFID and we remain firmly committed to the 1994 Cairo International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) target of achieving access to reproductive health for all by 2015.

  DFID support for reproductive health is wide ranging. It covers HIV/AIDS programmes, prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted infections and maternal and adolescent health. Reproductive health also encompasses the services for family planning, contraception and childbearing that make an important contribution to increasing women's choice and opportunity and to preventing unplanned or unwanted pregnancy. Family planning services also provide an important opportunity to improve sexual health and in particular to increase women's access to methods that help prevent HIV infection.

  In financial year 2002–3 alone DFID spent over £270 million on reproductive health and HIV/AIDS programmes.

  India
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid his Department has(a) pledged and (b) contributed to emergency relief programmes for victims of the Orissa Floods in India; and if he will make a statement. [136312]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID did not receive any request for assistance from the Government of Orissa, nor any NGO for the floods in year 2003. However, Care India utilised £25,000 for flood relief from an on-going DFID supported drought relief project of £1.5 million. It was encouraging to note that Government of Orissa was well equipped and organised to manage the flood relief.

  In 2001 DFID contributed £800,000 for flood relief through UNDP and International NGOs. The relief focused on two key areas: agriculture and a combination of cash/food-for-work programmes.

  Iraq
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many unexploded cluster bomblets he estimates there are in Basra; how many unexploded cluster bomblets have been(a) cleared and (b) marked by munition clearance organisations in Basra since the end of hostilities in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [135853]

  Hilary Benn
  UK forces used approximately 80 cluster bombs against a number of Iraqi military targets and fired around 2,000 artillery delivered L20A1 Enhanced Range Bomblet Shells, mainly in the UK area of operations around Basrah. The UK has over 120 military personnel in Iraq, approximately 1 per cent. of our total in-theatre force, for clearance of explosive remnants of war, and a significant number of Royal Engineers are involved in the marking and fencing of bomblet strike and mined areas. They have already completed 1.600 clearance tasks of unexploded ordnance of all types and have now made safe 619,000 explosive remnants of war and 350,000 small arms rounds.

  Mine Clearance
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department's spending on mine clearance by the United Nations. [135850]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID's current policy of channelling a high proportion of its funds for Humanitarian Demining via United Nations Agencies is currently being reviewed. This will be the first formal review of the policy. The UN agencies have a mixed record of success in their various roles; in particular the role of global coordination and the management of field operations could be improved. However there have also been some significant successes (Kosovo and Sudan are two examples).

  Pakistan
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid his Department has(a) pledged and (b) contributed to
  658W
  emergency relief programmes for the victims of the Tharparkar Floods in the Sindh province of Pakistan; and if he will make a statement. [136313]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Following the floods in August DFID made a contribution of £97,100 to Oxfam UK to help address the immediate needs of 2000 families in Badin District in Sindh Province.

  Emergency assistance to affected families was also provided by the national authorities of Pakistan, UN agencies and other international non-government organisations to meet the immediate needs of those affected.

  Safe Drinking Water
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of the population of(a) Zambia, (b) Ethiopia, (c) Iraq and (d) Malawi he estimates has access to a plentiful supply of safe drinking water. [135296]

  Hilary Benn
  The Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment 2000 (World Health Organisation (WHO)/ United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)) provides baseline figures on progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The Joint Monitoring Programme is continuing and will provide the United Nations reference data for access to improved water supply.

  The figures for the proportion of the population with access to improved water supplies were:

  (a) Zambia: 64 per cent.;

  (b) Ethiopia: 24 per cent.;

  (c) Iraq: 85 per cent.;

  (d) Malawi: 57 per cent.

  DFID has provided substantial financial support and technical assistance to this initiative from the outset.

  South Caucasus (Oil Pipeline)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the proposed South Caucasus oil pipeline; and what discussions he has had with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the environmental consequences of the proposed pipeline. [136065]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID interest in the Baku-Tbilisi Ceyhan (BTC) pipe line project in the South Caucasus is as a shareholder of the International Finance Corporation (IFC) of the World Bank Group and of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). The Board of the IFC has already decided to provide finance for this project, and the Board of the EBRD is expected to take a decision on this on 11 November.

  Both institutions have carried out rigorous due diligence, including on social, environment, legal and commercial issues, in accordance with their standard procedures. DFID has not duplicated this work but, in view of the complexity of the project, commissioned consultants to carry out an assessment of its compliance

  659W
  with the environmental safeguard policies of the IFC and EBRD. I am placing this assessment in the Library of the House.

  In considering the IFC and EBRD proposals on the BTC project, DFID carried out extensive Whitehall co-ordination, including with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will ask the UN Relief and Recovery Unit to publish reports confirmed of confirmed incidents of(a) politicisation and (b) the corrupt use of (i) international food aid and (ii) GMB grain in Zimbabwe. [135346]

  Hilary Benn
  The World Food Programme (WFP) have agreed with all their implementing partners a protocol for reporting irregularities, and in particular political interference, in relation to the distribution of donor-funded food aid. which accounts for the large majority of food being distributed in Zimbabwe this year. This information is shared with donors and implementing partners. We believe that, so long as there is no damage to the effectiveness of international humanitarian operations in Zimbabwe, the UN should also make this information available publicly. We and other donors are discussing this with the UN as part of the present review of the UN's Relief and Recovery Unit (RRU).

  Despite continual pressure from WFP, the Government has provided very little information about its own plans and activities in relation to food and grain distribution which it funds itself, distributed by the Grain Marketing Board (GMB). The UN agencies do not have a formal role in monitoring the activities of the GMB, in which donor funding is not involved. However, some local non-Governmental Organisations do monitor food supplies, including those from GMB, and publish reports locally.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the scale of poppy production in Afghanistan in each year since 1996. [136535]

  Mr. Straw
  The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), conducts an annual survey into the level of opium cultivation and production in Afghanistan. Their figures since 1996 are as follows:

  Hectares

  Tonnes

  1996

  57,000

  2,250

  1997

  58,000

  2,800

  1998

  64,000

  2,700

  1999

  82,000

  4,600

  2000

  82,000

  3,300

  2001

  8,000

  185

  2002

  74,000

  3,400

  2003

  80,000

  3,600

  660W
  The UNODC figures for 2001 reflects the Taliban ban on opium cultivation. The ban did not however address the underlying causes of poppy cultivation in Afghanistan and was enforced with a mix of serious violence and bribery.

  Ali Salem Tamek
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Moroccan authorities on the imprisonment of Ali Salem Tamek. [136491]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 4 November 2003]We have made no recent representations to the Moroccan authorities on the imprisonment of Ali Salem Tamek. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mike O'Brien) gave him on 28 April 2003,Official Report, column 133W.

  Argentine-British Council Meeting
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the recent Argentine-British Council meeting held in Argentina is endorsed by the Government as an official forum for discussing Anglo-Argentine relations; what support was provided by(a) the Government and (b) the British embassy in Buenos Aires for the meeting; and whether a Minister from his Department attended. [136495]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 4 November 2003]: The Argentine-British Council (ABC) is a non-governmental organisation. The Government did not offer financial support for its recent meeting. Our ambassador in Buenos Aires held a reception at his residence for all ABC delegates. A member of our embassy attended a session of the meeting as an observer.

  Morocco
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the export of arms to Morocco, with specific reference to their use in the Western Sahara. [136493]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 4 November 2003]: Secretaries of State from the main Government Departments involved in export licensing are in regular contact with each other on the subject of specific export license decisions and broader export control policy matters. However, Morocco has not been raised recently in such contacts.

  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the Government's responses to the questionnaires issued by the Italian Presidency on the Intergovernmental Conference negotiations on the Convention on the Future of Europe. [136140]

  Mr. MacShane
  Yes. I will place written responses in the Library of the House.

  European Union Law
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 20 October 2003, reference 132935, what discussions he has had with EU institutions on the relationship of sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972 and the jurisprudence to which he refers of the European Court of Justice since the case of Costa v. ENEL; and what assessment he has made of the judgments of the United Kingdom courts in(a) Macarthys Ltd. v. Smith and (b) Thorburn v. Sunderland City Council in relation to the principle that no provision of national law may be invoked to override Community law. [135482]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 3 November 2003]: The UK has given effect to its obligations under the EU treaties through the European Communities Act 1972. Costa v EN EL set out the clear principle that its obligations under the treaties cannot be overridden by domestic legal provisions.

  In Thorburn v. Sunderland City Council, Lord Justice Laws said as part of his judgment:
  "All the specific rights and obligations which EU law creates are by the 1972 Act incorporated into our domestic law and rank supreme…".

  The ultimate guarantee of parliamentary sovereignty lies in the power of Parliament to repeal all or any of the Acts which give effect to the EU treaties in this country. As Lord Denning made clear in the case of Macarthys Ltd. v. Smith. it is within Parliament's power to legislate contrary to the UK's treaty obligations. The result of so doing, however, would be to put the UK in breach of its treaty obligations.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will publish the evidence that underlay the claim by the UK's special representative to Iraq on 28 October that foreign terrorists were behind the bomb attacks in Iraq on 26 and 27 October; [135942]

  (2) upon what evidence the claims made by the UK's special representative to Iraq that elements in Iran, Syria, Afghanistan and further a field in the Islamic world are contributing to instability in Iraq were based, with particular reference to the bomb attacks on 26 and 27 October. [135943]

  Mr. Straw
  We have received information from a wide range of sources about the infiltration of foreign extremists into Iraq. The bombings on 26–27 October are currently under investigation by the Iraq authorities and the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). We do not know at this stage the identities of those responsible for these attacks, although as Sir Jeremy Greenstock said, the use of suicide bombers may indicate the involvement of foreign terrorists.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with the Governments of(a) Iran, (b) Syria, (c) Afghanistan and (d) other Islamic countries regarding terrorists from those countries entering Iraq to participate in terrorist activities. [135944]
  662W
  Mr. Straw
  We have discussed border security with all of Iraq's neighbours and urged them to tighten up security and border controls to deny terrorists access to Iraq.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional steps the Government has taken to ensure the security of(a) British personnel and troops and (b) those working for international aid organisations in the south of Iraq since 26 October. [135947]

  Mr. Straw
  Security measures are kept under constant review by UK commanders on the ground. The safety and security of all UK personnel is paramount. Force protection measures in place in southern Iraq are consistent with the current threat level. The Coalition offers security advice and assistance to aid workers wherever possible. However, international aid organisations are responsible for ensuring that adequate personal security arrangements are in place for their staff.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 12 May 2003,Official Report, column 85W, to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith), on nuclear non-proliferation, what further actions his Department will pursue to implement the disarmament measures identified at the end of the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference; and if he will make a statement. [135824]

  Mr. Straw
  The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is the cornerstone of the nuclear nonproliferation regime. The United Kingdom fully supports the Final]Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference and the 13 practical steps towards disarmament that it identified. We intend to continue our close co-operation with other NPT members to strengthen the effectiveness of measures against nuclear proliferation.

  To that end, we will participate actively in the NPT review process, including the next Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) in April and May 2004 and the subsequent Review Conference in 2005. We will continue to provide reports at those meetings on our progress on all actions agreed in the 2000 Final Document. The UK is currently working on research into the verification of nuclear disarmament, and we will be presenting a second interim report on our studies at the next PrepCom. We intend to issue a consolidated report on this research at the 2005 Review Conference. This will contribute significantly towards one of the 13 practical steps towards disarmament identified in the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made since 11 September 2001 to the Israeli Government to persuade it(a) to sign and ratify the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, (b) to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention and (c) to sign and ratify the Biological Weapons Convention. [135825]

  Mr. Straw
  We have a regular dialogue with Israel on the full range of counter-proliferation issues as an integral part of our diplomatic relationship. This
  663W
  dialogue includes an annual senior official-level meeting specifically on the subject. The last such meeting took place in March this year, with the previous one having taken place in March 2002.

  Oil and Gas Reserves
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the amendments the UK Government wish to see to the draft EU constitution where it impacts on Government policy for the exploitation of oil and gas reserves from the UK continental shelf. [R] [135326]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 30 October 2003]: Article III-130(2)(c) of the draft EU Constitutional Treaty, which is based on Article 175(2)(c) of the TEC, sets out the Union competence to adopt
  "measures significantly affecting a member state's choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply"

  By unanimity. Article 111–157 of the draft EU Constitutional Treaty states the policy on energy shall aim to:

  (a) ensure the functioning of the energy market,

  (b) ensure security of energy supply in the Union, and

  (c) promote energy efficiency and saving and the development of new and renewable forms of energy and states that this policy shall not affect a member state's choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply.

  Under the Treaty establishing the European Community, there is already Union activity in energy matters. We believe there is a strong case for making the legal base for policy in this 8/2/2006area more transparent.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Adoption
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) for what reasons adoptive parents are not entitled to the same financial assistance as biological parents; [136501]

  (2) what plans she has to review the level of adoptive pay; [136503]

  (3) what estimate she has made of the number of claims for adoptive leave made in each of the last three years. [136504]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  New statutory rights to leave and pay for parents adopting a child came into effect on 6 April this year. Eligible employees are able to take up to 52 weeks adoption leave and receive Statutory Adoption Pay for up to 26 weeks paid at the same standard rate as Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP)—£100 per week or 90 per cent. of average earnings if this is less than £100.

  SMP is paid for the first six weeks at 90 per cent. of average earnings. This reflects the leg al requirement that women take a period of compulsory maternity leave following the birth of a child. This is for their health and safety and that of their child. Offering a higher rate of SMP for the first six weeks recognises this and helps mothers to take that time off.
  664W
  The adopter's partner may be able to benefit from the new rights to paternity leave and pay. Statutory Paternity Pay is paid at the same standard rate as SMP. This rate applies for all fathers, not just adoptive parents.

  We are already gathering evidence on how the new rights for adoptive parents are working in practice, as part of a wider monitoring strategy for all the new laws relating to working parents introduced in April 2003, and will continue to do so as an ongoing process. The Government will begin a review of the right to request flexible working in 2006 and we aim to look at how effective the other laws have been at the same time.

  The new rights have only been in place for seven months so as yet we do not have any figures on how many parents have taken adoption leave. However, it is estimated that in 2003 there will be 3,850 adoptions per year and we hope that most of these adopters will be able to benefit. We will be looking at the level of take up as part of our monitoring strategy.

  Broadband
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to bring high speed broadband internet connections to those areas where British Telecom has deemed enablement of the telephone exchange unviable. [136438]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government intends spending £1 billion on broadband connectivity for the public sector between 2003–06. The Broadband Aggregation Project will set up 9 Regional Aggregation Bodies (RABs), which will aggregate and procure public sector demand for broadband. Each RAB will work closely with stakeholders in their region to develop an appropriate regional strategy that will offer best value for money and the widest availability to surrounding communities.

  Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) are committed to improving the availability of broadband in their region and are involved in a range of regional and local partnerships with both the public and private sector. RDAs administer the £30 million UK Broadband Fund which carries out pilot projects, to build awareness and understanding of the benefits of broadband in areas which are not currently served by the market.

  A joint DTI/Defra Rural Broadband Team has been set up to address the issue of availability of broadband in rural areas. It aims to support local community action to secure affordable access to broadband, to ensure rural communities derive the maximum benefit from the deployment of broadband and promote rural access and take up of broadband to those in a position to effect positive change.

  Competitiveness Council
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who will represent the Government at the EU Competitiveness Council of Ministers on 10 November. [136201]
  665W
  Jacqui Smith
  I will be representing the Government at the EU Competitiveness Council of Ministers on 10 November 2003.

  Computer Viruses
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her most recent annual estimate is of the cost to UK business of virus infection of business computers and networks. [136428]

  Mr. Timms
  The DTI works with business to produce a biennial survey of Information Security Breaches, the latest of which was published in April 2002. The Survey is intended to raise awareness of the importance of effective information security management. The 2002 Survey did not set out to survey or measure the costs of specific security breaches such as virus infections, but surveyed the costs of all forms of information security breach. Based on the information gathered, the figures indicated that serious security incidents cost on average some £30, 000 per incident in 2001. The survey does not contain a figure for the total number of incidents. Work on the 2004 Survey is under way, and the results will be published in April 2004.

  Consumer Credit
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to set maximum(a) charging structures and (b) interest rates for (i) personal loans, (ii) credit cards, (iii) store cards and (iv) sub-prime loans. [136288]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Department has considered the issue of interest rate ceilings for the consumer credit market in the context of its review of the Consumer Credit Act. We are not persuaded of the case for introducing such ceilings. However, we have commissioned research into the way interest ceilings work in other EU countries.

  Proposals in these areas and others, will be included in the forthcoming Consumer Credit White Paper, due for publication in December.

  Estate Agents
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) of 11 September,Official Report, column 390W, on estate agents, what information her Department collates on the number of estate agents and their regulation. [136634]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  According to the Office for National Statistics in June 2003 there were 8480 estate agent enterprises eligible for VAT in the UK.

  The Estate Agents Act 1979 regulates the conduct of estate agents in the course of estate agency work. The Act gives the Director General of Fair Trading the power to issue warning or prohibition notices against those persons whom he considers to be unfit to carry on estate agency work.

  Export Controls
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 16 September 666W
  2003, Official Report, column 705W, on export controls, whether she has examined the impact that the Government's proposals for export control will have on the safety of UK military personnel. [136254]

  Nigel Griffiths
  By strengthening the strategic export control regime, the new controls will reduce the risk that goods or technology exported from the UK, or goods brokered from the UK, or in certain circumstances goods brokered by UK persons anywhere in the world, could be used against UK armed forces.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government are taking to promote inward investment in the United Kingdom. [135474]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have expanded the inward investment function, home and overseas, within UK Trade & Investment (formerly Invest UK) to ensure that the UK maintains its place as the number one destination in Europe for inward investment in the EU. UK Trade Investment works with the Regional Development Agencies and the development agencies of the Devolved Administrations to provide a tailored service to encourage inward investment.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to promote the United Kingdom as a manufacturing base to foreign companies, with particular reference to the qualities of the workforce. [135503]

  Ms Hewitt
  In promoting the UK as the top inward investment location in Europe, UK Trade and Investment (formerly Invest UK) focuses on value added investment including in manufacturing.

  UK Trade and Investment ensures that inward investors are aware of all the qualities the UK has to offer including our skilled and adaptable workforce.

  Japan
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the reason was for the postponement of the Minister of State for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services1 planned visit to Japan in November; and when it will now take place. [136723]

  Mr. Timms
  The build-up to the Japanese elections made it difficult to secure key ministerial meetings. The visit has therefore been postponed until early in 2004.

  Loan Companies
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the practice of selling debts by loan companies to debt collection companies. [136174]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Department has made no specific assessment of the practice of selling debts by loan companies to debt collection companies.

  Lenders and debt collectors require a licence from the Office of Fair Trading under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The OFT issued its "Debt collection guidance—Response to consultation paper and final guidance on

  667W
  unfair business practices" on 14 July 2003. The guidance specifies certain behaviour which OFT would consider in relation to taking licensing action. The guidance makes it clear that lenders must not ignore the unfair practices of debt collectors acting on their behalf, whether in-house or external. Lenders should take care in the selection of third parties, investigate complaints and take action where appropriate. Failure to do so will call their own fitness to hold a licence into question.

  The DTI is reaching the conclusion of its review of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Government proposals in this area will be set out in a White Paper due for publication in December. This will address issues such as the transparency of credit products, ensuring consumers are more aware of the terms and conditions of agreements they may wish to undertake.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will take steps to make loan companies publish statements on their efforts to reduce harassment of clients whom they are pursuing for overdue loans; [136175]

  (2) if she will take steps to restrict the (a) days and (b) times of day that debt collectors can contact people they are pursuing for overdue debts; [136176]

  (3) if she will take steps to restrict the number of (a) letters, (b) phone calls and (c) face to face visits debt collectors can make to people they are pursuing for overdue debts; [136177]

  (4) what recent discussions her Department has had with consumer groups about harassment of borrowers by debt collection companies. [136178]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The OFT issued guidance for debt collectors on 14 July 2003 which is aimed at all consumer credit licence holders and applicants and applies to the collection of debt once an account is in default. It sets out the type of behaviour, such as harassment of debtors, that the OFT, which administers the licensing system, considers to be unfair and which could call into question fitness to hold a licence.

  OFT guidance states it is an unfair business practice for a debt collector to be contacting debtors at unreasonable times and ignoring or disregarding debtors' legitimate wishes. Further to consultation on the guidance OFT decided not to prescribe specific times given debtors' differing circumstances.

  The practice of debt collectors when recovering overdue loans has been considered in the context of my Department's review of the Consumer Credit Act.

  The Consumer Credit White Paper that we will publish in December will outline our proposals to regulate the conduct of lenders and unfair credit agreements.

  Microsoft (Licensing Fees)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was paid to Microsoft in licensing fees by her Department and its agencies in each of the last three years; and how much has been budgeted for(a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05. [130680]
  668W
  Ms Hewitt
  The provision of IT services for the Department of Trade and Industry is via a long term PFI contract with UNITAS, (a consortium of Fujitsu Services and Logica/CMG). Under this agreement all IT assets, hardware, software, (including Microsoft licensing fees), etc. are owned by UNITAS. Their provision and associated support are met through agreed bundled monthly service charges and it is not possible to identify specific costs for individual elements of these charges. The contract with UNITAS requires them to ensure that all software included as part of the services they provide to the Department are fully licensed with the appropriate supplier.

  Miners' Compensation
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) interim and (b) full and final payments have been made to former miners suffering from (i) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (ii) vibration white finger. [136097]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The figures as of 26 October 2003 are as follows:

  Interim and full and final payments made to former miners

  COPD

  VWF

  Interim payments

  69,753

  85,735

  Full and Final payments

  85,735

  75,648

  Note:

  Figures are readily available on the DTI website: www.dti.gov.uk/coalhealth and updated monthly.

  Office Plants Document
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost of producing her Department's foliage strategy was; how many staff hours were spent on producing the document; and if she will make a statement. [135400]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 30 October 2003]: The only cost involved in producing the Department's so called "foliage strategy" was staff time at an internal cost of around £600. The strategy was an integral part of a procurement process to rationalise the contractual arrangements for provision of plant maintenance throughout the DTI buildings. The new contractual arrangements have resulted in overall savings of about £6,000 per annum.

  Precious Metals
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, in the current EU Presidency working party discussions on the draft directive on articles of precious metal, she will propose that a high level of consumer protection secured by reliable third party verification should be a requisite in harmonised trade in such articles; and if she will make a statement on the stance adopted by other member states in the discussions. [136386]
  669W
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Government believe that a system of independent third party checks provides a high level of consumer protection and are opposed to any measures that would reduce such protection in the UK.

  Some member states have indicated support for the approach in the draft directive, while others have expressed reservations.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she is making to her counterparts in other EU member states to encourage them to support the view that harmonised trade in articles of precious metal should have a high level of consumer protection secured by reliable third party verification. [136387]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has written to potentially sympathetic member states urging them not to support the draft directive.

  Scottish Stamps
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to discuss with the Royal Mail the(a) promotion and (b) marketing of the Scottish definitive stamps. [136155]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 3 November 2003]: The stamp programme is an operational matter for Royal Mail Group plc, I have therefore asked the Chief Executive of Royal Mail to reply direct to my hon. Friend.

  Television Reception (East Kent)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in negotiation with the French authorities towards agreed enhancement of South Coast television transmitters for those living in East Kent; and if she will make a statement. [135332]

  Mr. Timms
  Negotiations are continuing. The Radiocommunications Agency is in regular discussion with its French counterpart about sharing spectrum for our respective analogue and digital TV coverage requirements. These negotiations are conditioned by internationally agreed arrangements, and spectrum planning methods, for determining equitable spectrum shares. The close proximity of the two countries and the heavy demand for frequencies on both sides of the Channel requires difficult and complicated technical discussions to maximise the use of spectrum in both countries in a way that minimises interference effects. In some cases, compromises are having to be made on both sides to deliver TV networks, such as mutual toleration of the risk of greater interference for longer periods than advised by the international planning rules.

  We are still in negotiation with the French authorities on acceptable channels and transmitter powers for digital TV from the Dover and Bluebell Hill stations in conjunction with the French requests for frequencies (and transmitter powers) for their own networks. Both sides are currently analysing the impact of each others' latest proposals and we hope to meet the French administration as soon as possible to take forward the discussions.

  Trade Missions
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Government's view of the benefits of trade missions. [135514]

  Ms Hewitt
  Trade missions are a tried and tested mechanism providing a framework of support, both practical and financial, in which companies new, or relatively new, to the markets concerned can receive support to travel overseas to explore or assess the market or reinforce existing marketing efforts.

  The main benefits of participating in trade missions, apart from any financial support, are the raised profile of being seen as part of a UK group of companies; the opportunity to network and do business with fellow participants and the assistance, advice and knowledge provided by the mission organiser before the mission and during the visit.

  Transport and Access
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints from British businesses her Department has received concerning transport and access issues in each of the last five years. [134868]

  Nigel Griffiths
  No such figures are available but the DTI is currently working on identifying optimal ways in which business's views on transport can be recorded and subsequently acted on.

CABINET OFFICE

  Magistrates
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many magistrates there are under the age of(a) 30, (b) 35 and (c) 40 serving in Lancashire. [135572]

  Mr. Alexander
  At 31 March 2003 the available figures show that there were three magistrates under the age of 30 and 28 between the ages of 30 and 39 within the Lancashire Commission. A National Recruitment Strategy announced by the Lord Chancellor on 7 October will seek to find ways of recruiting younger magistrates and the 3 will be actively promoted within the Duchy area.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Appeals
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) attendance allowance appeals, (b) disability living allowance appeals and (c) incapacity benefit (personal capability assessment) appeals there have been in each of the last three years. [133715]

  Maria Eagle
  This is a matter for Christina Townsend Chief Executive of the Appeals Service. She will reply to the hon. Member.
  671W
  Letter from Christina Townsend to Annabelle Ewing, dated 5 November 2003:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question regarding the number of attendance allowance appeals, disability allowance appeals and incapacity benefit (personal capability assessment) appeals there have been in each of the last three years.

  Attendance allowance (AA), disability living allowance (DLA) and incapacity benefit (personal capability assessment) (IB(PCA)) appeals received by the Appeals Service.

  Attendance allowance

  Disability living allowance

  Incapacity benefit

  Caseload as at 28 February

  Received at Appeals Service

  Caseload as at 28 February

  Received at Appeals Service

  Caseload as at 28 February

  Received at Appeals Service

  April 2000-March 2001

  1,279,000

  14,875

  2,210,600

  106,405

  2,324,400

  41,835

  April 2001-March 2002

  1,291,400

  11,505

  2,337,700

  83,790

  2,337,700

  43,595

  April 2002-March 2003

  1,333,400

  10,300

  2,387,900

  81,735

  2,387,900

  54,140

  Notes:

  All figures are subject to change as more up to date data becomes available. Figures for the latest months will rise as information feeds through to the Appeals Service.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent. sample.

  Caseload notes:

  Caseloads are rounded to the nearest 100

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 5 per cent. sample

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many times a tribunal has requested medical evidence from a general practitioner, consultant and other medical professional in support of(a) attendance allowance appeals (b) disability living allowance appeals and (c) incapacity benefit (personal capacity assessment) appeals in each of the last three years. [133716]

  Maria Eagle
  This is a matter for Christina Townsend Chief Executive of the Appeals Service. She will reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Christina Townsend to Annabelle Ewing, dated 5 November 2003:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question regarding how many times a tribunal has requested medical evidence from a general practitioner, consultant and other medical professional in support of attendance allowance appeals, disability living allowance appeals and incapacity benefit (personal capability assessment) appeals in each of the last three years.
  We do not have this information prior to April 2002 but the attached table shows the figures for the period April 2002-March 2003 and April 2003-September 2003.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Appeal tribunals for AA, DLA and IB (PCA) at which medical evidence has been requested

  Number

  AA

  DLA

  IB (PCA)

  April 2002-March 2003

  755

  8,735

  560

  April 2003-September 2003

  370

  4,580

  350

  Medical evidence requested at tribunal includes:

  Consultant Report, Existing Records

  Consultant Report, Fresh Examination

  Examining Medical Practitioner Attendance Allowance

  Examining Medical Practitioner Care and Mobility

  Examining Medical Practitioner Care only

  Examining Medical Practitioner Mobility only

  General Practitioners Factual

  General Practitioners Specialist

  Hospital Case Notes/Extract From DEC

  Hospital Case Notes (Direct to Hospital)
  672W
  The attached table shows the number of attendance allowance appeals, disability living allowance appeals and incapacity benefit (personal capability assessment) appeals which were received by the Appeals Service during the last three years.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Hospital Factual Report

  obtain Fresh X-Rays

  Notes:

  All figures are subject to change as more up to date data becomes available. Figures for the latest months will rise as information feeds through to the Appeals Service.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 100% sample.

  Fraud
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the level of council tax benefit fraud in the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [134131]

  Mr. Pond
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) on 16 July 2003,Official Report, column 432W.

  New Deal
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many Employment Service personal advisers have been recruited under the New Deal programme since 1997. [133161]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Anderson to Mr. Nick Gibb, dated 5 November 2003:
  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning how many Employment Service personal advisers have been recruited under the New Deal programme since 1997. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  In line with the Departments policy, Jobcentre Plus recruits people under the Employment Option of the New Deal into the Administrative Assistant or Administrative Officer grades. As

  673W
  Personal Adviser posts are graded at the Executive Officer grade we would not recruit for these posts under the New Deal programme.
  However, people on the New Deal caseload can apply for any posts advertised externally by Jobcentre Plus which would include grades at the Executive Officer level. People recruited using this method would not be classed as one of our New Deal employees.I hope this is helpful.
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the impact of the New Deal for Communities since 1998 in(a) St. Helens, South, (b) Merseyside and (c) the north west region on (i) reducing crime, (ii) creating jobs and (iii) raising standards in education. [134616]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  (a) There are no New Deal for Communities (NDC) Partnerships in St. Helens, South.

  (b) and (c) There are two NDC Partnerships in Merseyside—Liverpool (Kensington) and Knowsley (North Huyton). There are six partnerships in the north west region. These include the two Merseyside Partnerships and those in Manchester (Beswick and Openshaw), Oldham (Hathershaw and Fitton Hill), Rochdale (Heywood) and Salford (Central).

  The NDC programme is scrutinised and reviewed using two, complementary and linked streams of work:

  a performance management system, which drives annual and mid-year reviews, lead by the Government Offices for the Regions;

  the NDC National Evaluation, providing external assessment at partnership, programme and theme level, lead by Sheffield Hallam University.

  The performance management system was introduced in 2003 and used for the first time for the 2002–03 annual reviews. Partnerships reviewed their own performance and the results that they are starting to achieve.

  The evidence provided in these reviews by the NDC Partnerships show that partnerships in the Merseyside and the north west are beginning to make an impact in reducing crime, creating jobs and raising standards in education. For example:

  In the Kensington area of Liverpool, the rate of all recorded offences has fallen from 185.3 instances per 1,000 population before the NDC, to 148.8 in 2002–03.

  In Salford, the gap between the proportion of pupils getting five or more GCSEs at grades A to C narrowed from 12 per cent. to 8 per cent. in 2002–03.

  In east Manchester, the percentage of the working age population who are in employment has risen from 52 per cent. to 65 per cent., which exceeded the city average in 2002–03.

  Alongside this evidence from partnerships themselves, data from the national NDC evaluation about the progress NDC Partnerships are making towards achieving their outcome targets is now beginning to come through. An overview of the latest position was recently published in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Research Report 7 "New Deal for Communities: The National Evaluation: Annual Report 2002–03". Copies are available in the Library of the House.
  674W
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proposals he has to(a) continue and (b) develop New Deal for Communities schemes in (i) St. Helens, South, (ii) Merseyside and (iii) the north west region. [134646]

  Yvette Cooper
  have been asked to reply.

  (a) There are currently no New Deal for Communities (NDC) Partnerships in St. Helens, South. There are no plans to develop any NDC Partnerships in the St. Helens south area.

  (b) There are two NDC Partnerships in Merseyside—one n Liverpool (Kensington) and one in Knowlsey (north Huyton). These partnerships have both been awarded a grant to spend over a ten year time period, and so the Liverpool Partnership will continue until 2009–10 and the Knowsley Partnership until 2010–11. There are no plans to develop any further NDC Partnership; in Merseyside.

  (c) There are six NDC Partnerships in the north west, these include the two mentioned in part (b) of this answer and also partnerships in Oldham (Hathershaw and Fitton Hill), Rochdale (Heywood), east Manchester (Beswick and Openshaw) and Salford (Central). The Manchester Partnership will continue until 2009–10 and the Oldham, Rochdale and Salford Partnerships until 2010–11. There are no plans to develop any further NDC Partnership; in the north west.

  Pension Advice Surgeries
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his Answer of 12 October 2003,Official Report, column 206W, on pension advice surgeries, if he will break down the number of regular drop-in and appointment surgeries by region. [135926]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The break down of regular drop-in and appointment surgeries by region is detailed in the table. These surgeries are under constant review with regard to suitability of location, publicity and level of usage. This will enable us to continue to provide a modern delivery that is based on the needs of older people and takes account of their views about how they want to access our services.

  GOR

  Appointment only surgeries

  Drop-in only surgeries

  Appointment and Drop-in

  Total

  Scotland

  5

  41

  128

  174

  North West

  30

  24

  230

  284

  North East & Humberside

  66

  45

  141

  252

  South East

  27

  154

  171

  352

  South West

  36

  78

  101

  215

  Wales

  27

  132

  64

  223

  East Midlands

  12

  97

  397

  506

  West Midlands

  17

  104

  164

  285

  London

  40

  112

  76

  228

  Total

  2,519

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the take-up rate for the pension credit is in each constituency; and how many people are(a) eligible for and (b) claiming pension credit, broken down by constituency. [135965]
  675W
  Mr. Browne
  The information is not available in the format requested. Approximately half of all pensioner households across Great Britain are eligible for Pension Credit and stand to gain on average £400 a year. Around 1.9 million Pension Credit awards have already been made to pensioner households across Great Britain as a whole (helping more than 2 million individuals).

  The Government have a target for at least 3 million pensioner households to be in receipt of Pension Credit by 2006. We want all those eligible for Pension Credit to take up their entitlement.

  We intend to publish monthly reports on the progress of Pension Credit take-on, which will include information on the number of applications. The first such report will be published later this month.

  Pensions
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures the Government plans to introduce to regulate contribution holidays by occupational pension schemes. [135826]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Government proposals for regulating occupational pension schemes are set out in the documents "Simplifying the taxation of pensions: increasing choice and flexibility for all" (December 2002) and "Working and Saving for Retirement: Action on Occupational Pensions" (June 2003) Cm 5835. These do not contain specific proposals regarding contribution holidays. However, our proposed simplified tax regime for approved pension schemes would abolish the rules that currently require approved occupational pension schemes to run off their surplus funds or lose their full tax exempt status.

  We also propose to replace the Minimum Funding Requirement, now widely regarded as inadequate, with scheme-specific funding arrangements intended to ensure that the level of contributions is sufficient to meet a scheme's long-term pension commitments. Trustees and employers, with the scheme actuary's advice, will develop and agree the funding strategy for their scheme in line with this objective.

  SchlumbergerSema Doctors
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average time spent by SchlumbergerSema doctors on an individual personal capability assessment was in each year since 1997(a) broken down by region and (b) in the UK as a whole; and if he will make a statement. [134194]

  Maria Eagle
  Doctors are encouraged to spend as long as required to carry out an appropriate assessment. Some types of disabling conditions will take longer than others to assess, depending on the nature of the disability.

  The available information is in the table.
  676W

  Average time taken (in minutes) to complete the personal capability assessment

  Region

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  East Midlands

  39.0

  41.2

  39.2

  37.7

  Eastern

  40.0

  40.0

  37.4

  37.6

  London

  38.8

  37.5

  33.7

  36.6

  North East

  35.9

  32.9

  32.4

  34.8

  North West

  38.1

  36.3

  32.8

  33.2

  Scotland

  39.8

  38.8

  37.2

  39.5

  South East

  37.6

  36.9

  34.4

  35.6

  South West

  37.7

  36.3

  35.3

  38.0

  Wales

  35.5

  34.5

  33.9

  35.6

  West Midlands

  40.7

  41.0

  38.4

  37.4

  Yorks & Number

  34.2

  35.7

  36.0

  35.9

  National

  37.8

  37.1

  35.2

  36.3

  Notes:

  The information requested is not available for the period 1997 to 1999

  The timings given in the above table relate to the average time the doctors spend interviewing and assessing the customer and completing the report.

  Source:

  SchlumbergerSema

  Winter Fuel Payment (Wansdyke)
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate(a) how many people in Wansdyke constituency are eligible for the winter fuel payment in 2003–04 and (b) how many people in Wansdyke constituency received it in 2002–03. [136332]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, such information as is available is as follows.

  The number of people in Wansdyke parliamentary constituency who received a Winter Fuel Payment for winter 2002–03 was 19,940 made up of 8,965 men and 10,975 women. We expect similar figures for 2003–04.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are taken from the Matching Intelligence Data Analysis Service Winter

  Fuels Payment 2002/03 exercise 100 per cent. data

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent. sample.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action he is taking to tackle the problem of children living in substandard housing conditions as part of the target to eliminate child poverty. [136446]

  Keith Hill
  The Government are very aware of the links between housing conditions, health and poverty. Children of low income parents (those on means tested benefit) are more likely (38 per cent. of such households, 760,000 households in all) to live in homes that do not meet the decent home standard than other children (25 per cent.).

  That is why the Government are committed to making all social housing decent by 2010 and has made a long-term commitment to eliminate child poverty by

  677W
  2020. Improving sub-standard housing conditions is an integral part of the Government's child poverty strategy.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister target is that by 2010 all social housing will be made decent and that 210,000 more households will be supported to ensure their homes are made decent. Good progress has already been made—between 1997 and 2001, nearly half a million the numbers of non-decent social sector homes have been reduced. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has also helped around 120,000 vulnerable households in the private sector to make their homes decent.

  In March 2003 the draft Housing Bill was published. It includes the following proposals that will benefit poor and vulnerable households by targeting housing condition problems which will in turn address child poverty issues:
  Housing Health and Safety Rating System—this new system will target health and safety hazards in the home and provide a better basis for enforcement. It will replace the current Fitness Standard.
  Licensing of higher-risk Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs)—These house some of the most vulnerable people. The definition includes Bread and Breakfast (B&B) accommodation for homeless families. This mandatory national licensing scheme will improve controls on about 120,000 HMOs, to improve basic facilities and management standards.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has also set a target to end, by March 2004, the use of B&B accommodation for families with children except in emergencies, and then for no longer than six weeks. The Government are considering making it unlawful for local authorities to exceed this six-week deadline, and hopes to make an announcement by the end of this year.

  Council Housing Stock
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average level of council tax is for(a) those councils that have transferred council housing stock and (b) those councils that have maintained control of council stock. [133767]

  Keith Hill
  Tabled as follows is(a) the average Band D council tax for 2003–04 for those authorities that have completed Large Scale Voluntary Transfers (LSVTs) of housing, and (b) the average Band D Council Tax for 2003–04 for those authorities that have not completed a LSVT.

  An LSVT is defined as the transfer of more than 499 properties to a single Registered Social Landlord. No data are available for smaller transfers of housing stock.

  Average Band D council tax 2003–04

  £

  Authorities completing a LSVT

  Authorities not completing a LSVT

  Total

  Inner London boroughs

  824

  636

  718

  Outer London boroughs

  899

  902

  901

  Metropolitan districts

  988

  960

  671

  Unitary authorities

  946

  961

  958

  Shire districts

  147

  155

  151

  Diabetics
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will issue guidance under planning provision that encourages major stores, high street restaurants and other appropriate retail outlets to provide private rooms for diabetics to inject insulin; and if he will make a statement. [133093]

  Keith Hill
  The internal arrangement of shops and restaurants, including customer facilities such as toilets and baby changing facilities, are not planning matters. Although some facilities for customers are required under other legislation, most are provided by retailers as a customer service.

  Domestic Violence
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the progress of the Government's domestic violence helpline. [136314]

  Yvette Cooper
  The development of the single freephone Helpline for victims of domestic violence is making good progress. The Government and Comic Relief are providing funding. However, it will not be a Government help-line as it will be owned and run by two independent charities.

  A further statement will be made as soon as the launch date of the project is known.

  Housing Market Renewal (West Yorkshire)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to provide resources for housing market renewal in West Yorkshire. [136412]

  Keith Hill
  The Regional Housing Board for Yorkshire and the Humber has identified £16 million over two years to kick-start a West Yorkshire Low Demand Project, in addition to the needs-based allocation that all local authorities will receive. In 2004–05, West and South Yorkshire will also be sharing £2 million of the £6 million identified for innovative approaches to private sector renewal in Yorkshire and the Humber, with bids from all sub-regions for the remaining £4 million to be invited early next year. The board will also allocate £10 million for 2005–06 for transformational projects that meet the region's priorities, which include regeneration and neighbourhood renewal.

  There are no current plans for further Market Renewal Pathfinders. The evidence for further pathfinders will be considered within the context and constraints of the 2004 Spending Review.

  Investigatory Powers
  Brian White
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what statutory investigatory powers his Department has; which ones will he superseded by use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; and what plans he has for removing these legacy powers. [136118]

  Yvette Cooper
  A full list of existing statutory investigatory powers for which the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has responsibility is not held centrally
  679W
  and could be provided only at disproportionate costs. But in any event, no such powers are superseded by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000: generally speaking, existing powers make provision relating to compelling production of information (subject to various safeguards) in different contexts and in a wide variety of statutory regimes. Such existing statutory powers could not be used to compel disclosure of communications data in the sense for which the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 provides. Accordingly there are no plans to repeal any such powers in consequence of that Act.

  £million

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2003–031

  2003–041

  Total Grant2

  92.6

  99.9

  108.6

  116.8

  122.9

  140.9

  Increase on previous year

  —

  7.4

  8.6

  8.2

  6.1

  18.1

  Percentage increase on previous year

  —

  8.0

  8.6

  7.6

  5.2

  14.7

  Percentage cumulative increase on previous year

  —

  8.0

  17.3

  26.2

  32.7

  52.2

  1 Budgeted figures

  2 Includes Revenue Support Grant, Redistributed Non-Domestic Rates and Special and Specific Grants inside AEF.

  Note:

  Increases between years may not be on a comparable like for like basis due to changes in responsibilities.

  Source:

  1998–99 to 2001–02 Revenue Summary Returns and 2002–03 to 2003–04 Budget Estimate Returns.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much public money he estimates will be spent by both sides of the campaign on the forthcoming regional assembly referendums. [136076]

  Phil Hope
  Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, organisations can apply to the Electoral Commission to become the lead campaign body for one of the referendum outcomes. The Electoral Commission is currently considering, the appropriate level of grant to award to these designated organisations.

  Street Wardens
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the sources of funding are for street wardens in Cambridgeshire; and how much funding is being received from each source in 2003–04. [136384]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister funds three street warden schemes in Cambridgeshire, based in Cambridge, Huntingdon and Peterborough, all of which are match funded by local authorities. The Cambridge scheme has an Office of the Deputy Prime Minister grant of £54,250 for 2003–04, which is match funded by Cambridge city council. The Huntingdon scheme has an Office of the Deputy Prime Minister grant of £64,484, match funded by Huntingdon district council and the Peterborough scheme has an Office of the Deputy Prime Minister grant of £94,691, match funded by Peterborough county council. This represents a total of £426,850 to fund street wardens in Cambridgeshire in 2003–04.

  Tollington Estate
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what expenditure there has been on the preparation for the sale of the Tollington Estate in Islington by the North British Housing Association and its subsidiaries;

  Local Government Finance
  David Wright
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how much additional grant support has been received by Telford and Wrekin Council annually since its creation as a unitary authority; [132548]

  (2) what annual percentage increase in grant support has been made available to Telford and Wrekin Council since its creation as a unitary authority. [132545]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Total grant for Telford and the Wrekin Council since its creation as a unitary authority is shown in the table.

  and how much of this was funded by (a) local authority, (b) Housing Corporation and (c) re-generation funds. [136507]

  Keith Hill
  The North British Housing Association (NBH) has spent £590,000 to ensure effective resident involvement and consultation in the development of proposals for the stock transfer of the Tollington Estates from Islington council to NBH. This has involved extensive resident involvement in the preparation of the masterplan for the estates, the provision of an estate based office to provide an accessible information point for residents and the production and circulation of newsletters to everyone living on the estates.

  This sum has been funded internally within NBH. There has been no financial support to NBH from other bodies.

HEALTH

  "A Vision for Pharmacy"
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in implementing "A Vision for Pharmacy". [136051]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  "A Vision for Pharmacy", published on 17 July 2003, builds on a programme to develop national health service pharmacy services set out in "Pharmacy in the Future", published in September 2000. The consultation paper highlights the significant progress made in the past three years in delivering important changes in the way pharmacy services are delivered. Consultation on "A Vision for Pharmacy" ended on 17 October and details of the wide-ranging responses received will be published by the end of the year. These are currently being analysed and will
  681W
  help inform and shape further action to deliver improved patient choice and access to a range of high quality pharmacy services.

  Accident and Emergency Services
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients admitted to accident and emergency departments in London in each quarter of each of the last four years waited for more than 12 hours before being treated or transferred to a ward. [135156]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally. However, data on total time spent in accident and emergency from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge has been collected and routinely published since July 2002. This information is available on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivitv.

  Asian People's Disability Association
  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to enable the Asian People's Disability Association to remain in the offices which they now occupy in the Central Middlesex Hospital, Park Royal,(a) during and (b) after the rebuilding programme. [132724]

  Mr. Hutton
  This is a local matter and I understand that health and social services have been working together to find suitable alternative accommodation for the Asian People's Disability Association and that these negotiations are on-going locally.

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire Strategic Health Authority
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much debt was inherited by the AvonGloucestershire-Wiltshire Strategic Health Authority on its formation; how much of this debt was inherited from(a) Royal United Hospitals, Bath, (b) United Bristol Health Care and (c) North Bristol Health Trusts; and if he will make a statement. [135403]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer on 30 October 2003]: Strategic health authorities (SHAs) were established in 2002–03. Information in respect of inherited balances can be obtained from the chief executive of Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire SHA. The information is not available centrally.

  Bechtel
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list contracts for consultancy or work carried out by Bechtel in each year since 1997 stating in each case(a) the nature of the work, (b) the value of the contract and (c) the duration of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [134679]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 28 October 2003]: No contracts for consultancy or other works have been awarded to Bechtel since 1997.

  Cancer Research UK
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding has been allocated to Cancer Research UK in 2003–04; and for which projects. [133916]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department has provided £2.6 million to Cancer Research UK to fund their `Death Repackaged' campaign. This awareness raising campaign was launched in September 2003, to highlight the dangers of terms 'light' and 'mild' on cigarette packs.

  The Department does not allocate funds directly to charities for research. We spent an estimated £83.8 million on cancer research in 2000–01. Over 75 per cent. of this expenditure is devolved to the national health service, largely to meet the additional patient care costs associated with research. These costs cover items such as extra scans for diagnosis or monitoring of treatment, extra blood tests, extra in-patient days and extra nursing attention. This support allows work funded by the research councils and charities, including Cancer Research UK, to be conducted within the NHS.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total cost of PFI-based capital investment in the NHS in London has been since 1997; and what revenue costs were incurred on an annual basis to service the financing facilities. [133747]

  Mr. Hutton
  For private finance initiative (PFI) schemes with a capital value greater than £10 million, the total capital cost of PFI-based investment in the four new London strategic health authorities since 1997 is £975,900,000. The capital value of PFI schemes is defined as: total capital cost to the private sector including the costs of land, construction, equipment and professional fees but excluding value added tax, rolled up interest and financing costs. As PFI procures a service, rather than the underlying asset, capital values are necessarily estimates.

  Unitary payments on a PFI scheme—paid for from a trust's general revenue allocations—include elements for 'hard' and 'soft' facilities management services as well as financing costs. A partial breakdown of the unitary costs for schemes with a capital value exceeding £20 million is held centrally. This shows the split between 'availability' and 'services' where 'availability' includes costs attributable to 'hard' facilities management and financing, but does not distinguish further. To collect this information would mean reviewing the financial models for all these schemes which would incur disproportionate costs.

  Unitary payments on PFI schemes become payable when the scheme becomes operational. The first to do so was Queen Mary's hospital, Sidcup, which took its first patient at the end of March 2000; the most recent to open was St. George's in September 2003.
  683W

  Total unitary payments for PFI schemes which have reached financial close since 1997 in the four new London strategic health authorities

  £ million

  2000–01

  32,848

  2001–02

  51,813

  2002–03

  60,000

  2003–04 (to date)

  94,900

  Care Homes
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to assist care homes in adapting premises to meet the new size requirements for residents' rooms. [135178]

  Dr. Ladyman
  National minimum standards relating to room sizes in pre-existing care homes (that is, a care home which existed before April 2002) were relaxed in June 2003. The change means that pre-existing care homes which do not already meet certain of the standards introduced in April 2002 will no longer be expected to make physical changes to the home to do so.

  The Government has no plans to provide direct financial assistance to care homes to meet any of the standards. Care homes are independent businesses and any changes to meet standards should be viewed as `upgrading' the service being provided. Providers will be able to detail the facilities they offer in their prospectuses, so that those purchasing or using the services can make an informed choice.

  Care Payments
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to encourage local authorities to make available direct payments for care. [136054]

  Dr. Ladyman
  From 8 April 2003, there has been a duty placed on local councils to make direct payments to those who choose to receive them. The Government have also established the direct payments development fund. This will provide £9 million over three years to national, regional and local voluntary organisations in partnership with local councils. This is a substantial investment in direct payments support services, key to improving access to direct payments. Increasing the take up of direct payments will contribute to the overall assessment of each council's performance that is made each year.

  Clinical Trials
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will amend the draft Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2003 to ensure that non-commercial publicly or charitably-funded drug development work will not come under the same regulatory framework as commercially-funded trials. [135584]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The European Directive on the conduct of clinical trials was adopted in February 2001. The main aim of the Directive is to simplify and harmonise procedures across the Community while ensuring the protection of trial subjects and providing a684W
  safe environment for the development of new medicines. member states are required to fully implement the Directive by 1 May 2004.

  The scope of the Directive is wide and the United Kingdom Regulations will apply to all clinical trials on medicinal products for human use conducted in the UK, including academic and healthy volunteer studies, with the exception of non-interventional trials.

  Because the Directive makes no distinction between commercial and non-commercial publicly or charitably funded clinical trials, they cannot be treated differently in the UK implementing regulations. However those drafting the Directive recognised the special position of non-commercial trials conducted by researchers without the participation of the pharmaceutical industry. The Government has taken steps to attempt to influence the Commission in its consideration of a Commission Directive on good clinical practice and also in reviewing guidance that the Commission published earlier this year with a view to avoiding any unnecessary regulatory requirements and costs.

  In responding to concerns, and to provide an environment in which patients are protected but high quality research is not inhibited, my noble Friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, invited the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Academy of Medical Sciences to co-ordinate a report on the impact of the Directive on academic studies. The impact assessment, prepared by the MRC with the active support of others including Cancer Research UK, the National Co-ordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment and a number of academic experts formed the basis for a response to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) consultation on the draft regulations to implement the Directive into UK law earlier this year.

  The MHRA is giving careful consideration to legislation and guidance linked to these issues. For example, they are considering the acceptability of different approaches to monitoring the validity of trial data that are less labour intensive and expensive than those usually used in commercial trials. The aim is the use of appropriate quality systems proportionate to risk (thereby minimising increases in costs). A list of responses to frequently asked questions are published on the MHRA website at www.mhra.gov in the Clinical Trials Directive pages, which will be kept updated.

  In another initiative, the Department and the MRC have announced a joint project to work with experts to find practical solutions to the issues identified in the impact assessment. Details of the project can be found on www.ncchta.org/eudirective/index.asp.

  With our careful exploration of the impact on publicly-funded research and organisations that support it and delays in the Commission finalising the GCP Directive and other guidance, the United Kingdom's implementing regulations are not expected to be made until early in 2004.

  Dental Devices (Outsourcing)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to outsource custom-made dental devices to(a) Turkey, (b) Hungary, (c) China and (d) the Philippines. [133244]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Custom-made dental appliances are manufactured to the written prescription of the dentist responsible for the case in question. The choice of manufacturing laboratory is a matter for local decision. All dental laboratories in the European Union are registered with the competent authority, which in the United Kingdom is the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.

  Manufacturers of custom made appliances from outside the European Union are required to designate an authorised representative within the European Union, who must register with the competent authority where they have their registered place of business. The manufacturer must meet the relevant requirements of the Medical Devices Directive (93/42/EEC) and must meet the same standards as devices manufactured within the European Union.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of Standard Three of the National Standards Framework for Diabetes; and if he will make a statement; [R] [135375]

  (2) how his Department assists primary care trusts to meet Standard Three of the National Standard Framework for Diabetes; and if he will make a statement. [R] [135376]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  "The New NHS and A First Class Service" introduced a range of measures to raise quality and decrease variations in service including national service frameworks (NSFs).

  The NHS Plan re-emphasised the role of NSFs as drivers in delivering the modernisation agenda. NSFs are one element of the overall programme of modernisation. They are designed to help us to improve health and social well-being by:

  providing services to more people, more quickly and to a higher standard;

  improving the patient experience;

  reducing variations in care across the country;

  increasing compliance with evidence-based practice.

  NSFs have challenging aims (the vision) for a particular service or care group. Ways to achieve those aims are described in a number of standards, focused as far as possible on the needs of patients and good outcomes, underpinned by:
  the rationale and a clear statement of the evidence base;
  good practice: key interventions and service models which have worked in practice (linked, wherever possible, to Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) work and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines and appraisals);
  performance indicators to measure local and national progress.

  686W
  Standard 3 of the diabetes national service framework is about patient empowerment. All people with diabetes will receive a service that encourages partnership in decision-making and supports them in managing their diabetes.

  This is reflected in the "Planning and Priorities Framework for the NHS 2003–06", which includes targets for the diabetes NSF. One such target states the need for primary care trusts to update practice-based registers for people with diabetes by March 2006. This will help to ensure that they receive systematic treatment regimens and advice to help support them in managing their own condition.

  The above gives clinicians and other professionals, managers and service users the information and guidance they need to drive forward improvements locally. NSFs will be implemented and monitored in the same way as departmental policy generally, allowing maximum scope for local flexibility. The implementation/monitoring regime will differ from NSF to NSF. Essential elements include:

  implementation guides covering, as appropriate, national actions to support local delivery through a number of underpinning programmes, such as workforce development and research and development;

  national and local champions who will drive forward delivery of the standards with clinical colleagues and others;

  national and local performance indicators to help strategic health authorities, primary care trusts and local councils to benchmark progress;

  the Commission for Health Improvement using national standards to inspect and evaluate services;

  empowered patients and users using standards to feedback on local services;

  patients forums and other similar consultative groups identifying where services could be improved;

  the Modernisation Agency, NICE, SCIE and the Improvement and Development Agency to promulgate, spread and support best practice.

  Dysphasia
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which primary care trusts support a dysphasia service; and which of these have received external funding. [132784]

  Mr. Hutton
  Most, if not all, primary care trusts will either directly provide or will commission services for people suffering from dysphasia. Such services may not necessarily be separately identified as dysphasia services but may form part of the service provided by speech and language therapy departments. Information is not available in sufficient detail centrally to show whether particular dysphasia services have received external funding.

  Epidermolysis Bullosa
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision he is making for people suffering from epidermolysis bullosa; if he will meet representatives from the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Research Agency; and if he will make a statement about epidermolysis bullosa. [136105]
  687W
  Dr. Ladyman
  Patients with this condition are able to access the normal range of national health service services.

  I will certainly consider any request to meet representatives of the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Research Agency.

  Essex Ambulance Service
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many full-time ambulance paramedics were employed by the Essex Ambulance Service on 1 September 2003. [132635]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Published figures are not yet available for September 2003. As at 30 September 2002, there were 210 full-time ambulance paramedics employed by the Essex Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust. In addition, a further 23 were employed on a part-time basis, giving a total whole-time equivalent of 220

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Patients England of Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents (UPEs)1 by strategic health authority in as at 30 September 2002

  Number (headcount)

  SHA code

  SHA name

  All patients

  Under 16

  16 and over

  Q01

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  2,177,943

  402,226

  1,775,717

  Q02

  Bedford and Hertfordshire

  1,690,454

  342,940

  1,347,514

  Q03

  Essex

  1,646,695

  320,293

  1,326,402

  Q04

  North West London

  2,040,719

  351,554

  1,689,165

  Q05

  North Central London

  1,394,454

  249,041

  1,145,413

  Q06

  North East London

  1,647,642

  352,690

  1,294,952

  Q07

  South East London

  1,629,989

  311,813

  1,318,176

  Q08

  South West London

  1,409,652

  256,397

  1,153,255

  Q09

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  1,428,122

  262,895

  1,165,227

  Q10

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  1,166,109

  226,726

  939,383

  Q11

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire

  1,671,717

  315,685

  1,356,032

  Q12

  West Yorkshire

  2,175,033

  435,650

  1,739,383

  Q13

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  1,943,598

  375,381

  1,568,217

  Q14

  Greater Manchester

  2,662,307

  538,021

  2,124,286

  Q15

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  2,440,943

  472,683

  1,968,260

  Q16

  Thames Valley

  2,284,737

  448,969

  1,835,768

  Q17

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  1,790,410

  340,689

  1,449,721

  Q18

  Kent and Medway

  1,608,226

  322,293

  1,285,933

  Q19

  Surrey and Sussex

  2,650,943

  481,421

  2,169,522

  Q20

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  2,227,736

  423,386

  1,804,350

  Q21

  South West Peninsula

  1,610,145

  286,706

  1,323,439

  Q22

  Somerset and Dorset

  1,181,982

  211,154

  970,828

  Q23

  South Yorkshire

  1,348,408

  261,130

  1,087,278

  Q24

  Trent

  2,621,590

  495,018

  2,126,572

  Q25

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland

  1,568,323

  311,591

  1,256,732

  Q26

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  1,494,796

  286,852

  1,207,944

  Q27

  Birmingham and the Black Country

  2,436,973

  505,083

  1,931,890

  Q28

  Coventry, Warwickshire. Herefordshire and Worcs

  1,572,745

  298,861

  1,273,884

  England total

  51,522,391

  9,887,148

  41,635,243

  1 UPEs include CMS unrestricted principals, PMS Salaried and PMS Contracted GPs.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the additional cost to the NHS of providing out of hours treatment following acceptance of the new GPs' contract. [134244]

  Mr. Hutton
  This is a matter for local decision and depending on how services are reconfigured. We are making available an extra £138 million from 2003–04 to 2005–06 to support these changes. These resources are in addition to the average of £6,000 released by each general practitioner who opts out of his/her responsibility for out-of-hours services.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of(a) adults, (b) children and (c) the total population are registered with a general practitioner in (i) England, (ii) each region and (iii) each strategic health authority. [133725]

  Mr. Hutton
  At 30 September 2002 (the latest published data), 51,522,391 people were recorded as registered with a general practitioner or provider of personal medical services. The table provides details by strategic health authority (SHA). It is not possible to express these figures accurately as a percentage of total population as the phenomenon of "list inflation" means that registered populations are typically larger than actual populations. This phenomenon arises where a patient moves his or her registration and for a transitional period may be registered on two lists. Similarly, an individual who dies or moves abroad may remain on a list for a time.

  Health Care-associated infection
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the first quarter results of the second phase of the mandatory surveillance scheme for health care-associated infection to be published. [134064]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: Collection of data for the second phase of the mandatory surveillance scheme began this autumn, with publication expected to start next summer. Quarterly reporting may not be appropriate for all data.

  Care Homes (Somerset)
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) residential care home and (b) nursing home places were available in Somerset in each year since 1997, broken down into places available at (i) local authority-run homes, (ii) independent private homes and (iii) homes run by independent charities and other not-for-profit organisations. [135424]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The table shows the number of care home places by type of accommodation available in Somerset as at 31 March for the years 1997 to 2001.

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

  Residential homes

  Nursing homes

  Local authority

  Private

  Voluntary

  Small1

  Independent

  Somerset

  1997

  365

  2,265

  370

  380

  2,575

  1998

  350

  2,995

  350

  2—

  2,830

  1999

  165

  3,000

  425

  445

  2,870

  2000

  190

  3,095

  395

  420

  2,825

  2001

  195

  3,065

  395

  450

  2,580

  1 Not available.

  2 Independent registered care homes with less than four places.

  Source:

  KO36, RA and RH(N) FORM A.

  Hospital Appointments
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 13 October 2003,Official Report, column 57W, what information he holds on the proportion of hospital appointments which were pre-booked at the start of 2000–01. [133978]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the proportion of hospital appointments pre-booked at the start of 2000–01 was not collected centrally.

  Immunisation
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list coverage rates of immunisations which are given to school age children and infants. [134771]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information about the childhood immunisation programme, which includes children immunised by their second birthday, and from 1999–2000 by their fifth birthday, is derived from the COVER (Cover of Vaccination Evaluated Rapidly) system and collected by the Health Protection Agency.
  690W
  Information about numbers of immunisations of older school children is collected by the Department of Health from service providers and does not allow for the calculation of coverage rates because appropriate population denominators are not available.

  Information about childhood immunisations from both the sources mentioned is published annually in Departmental statistical bulletins. The latest bulletin, "NHS Immunisation Statistics, England: 2002–03", is available in the Library and on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0316.htm.

  Intrathecal Analgesic Pumps
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the frequency was in 2002–03 of the fitting of intrathecal analgesic (Isomed) pumps to patients in Gloucestershire; what the cost of each operation was; what the(a) length of the waiting list and (b) average times spent waiting for such an operation were; and if he will make a statement. [135003]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 28 October 2003]: The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nursing and (b) residential care places for the (i) elderly., (ii) chronically ill and (iii) physically disabled there were in London for each of the last five years, broken down by London borough. [134070]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 29 October 2003]: Information on the number of nursing care places for older people aged 65 or over and younger physically disabled people aged 18 to 64 by London health authorities as at 31 March for the years 1998 to 2001, has been placed in the Library. Equivalent data for residential care places by London councils with social service responsibilities, has also been placed in the Library. Comparable data for 1997 are not available.

  Data on chronically ill people are not available as this is not one of the client groups for which separate information is collected.

  Figures for later years have been collected by the National Care Standards Commission.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made with identifying possible candidates for refund of care costs, following the publication of the Second Report, Session 2002–03, of the Health Service Ombudsman on NHS funding for long-term care of older and disabled people; and what steps he envisages that patients or their families would need to take to pursue their claims. [135371]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Strategic health authorities (SHAs) have established procedures to investigate inquiries for recompense of the costs of continuing care wrongly denied. To pursue a claim, patients or their families should contact their local SHA and request an investigation of their case.

  Medical Appointment Letters
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate the NHS has made of potential savings derived from sending medical appointment letters by second class post. [132782]

  Mr. Hutton
  No estimate has been made of potential savings derived from sending medical appointment letters by second class post. This is because it is the decision of each trust/health authority, based on locally decided priorities, whether or not post is sent out by first, or by second class.

  Mental Health
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many in-patient beds have been available in London for patients with(a) mental health conditions and (b) learning disabilities in London in each year since 1997. [133745]

  Mr. Hutton
  The average daily number of in-patient beds in London for patients with mental health conditions and learning disabilities in national health service trusts in the London area are shown in the table.

  Average daily number of available beds, mental illness and learning disability sectors, London area1

  Mental illness

  Learning disability

  1996–97

  7,186

  576

  1997–98

  7,300

  569

  1998–99

  7,008

  554

  1999–2000

  6,155

  554

  2000–01

  6,401

  488

  2001–02

  6,149

  461

  2002–03

  6,321

  158

  1 Reorganisation of NHS administrative boundaries may mean figures are not directly comparable. From 1996–97 to 2000–01, the figures are based on the number of beds reported by NHS trusts within the London Regional Office boundary. For 2001–02 and 2002–03, the figures are based on the number of beds reported by NHS trusts located within the five London strategic health authorities of North West London, North Central London, North East London, South East London and South West London.

  Source:

  Department of Health form KH03.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many agency nurses are employed in each(a) hospital trust and (b) mental health trust shown (i) in actual numbers and (ii) as a percentage of nursing staff overall. [134769]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission research into the issues raised by Mind's report, The Hidden Costs of Mental Health; and if he will make a statement. [135600]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department keeps its priorities for research under review. Priorities for departmental research and development support for the development of policy are determined through discussion with policy colleagues and Ministers. In the national health service, priorities are identified through widespread consultation with those using, delivering and managing services. They take account of the burden 692W
  of disease, potential benefits and departmental objectives, as well as the responsibilities and work of other funders, including the charities.

  National Standards Framework for Children
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he proposes to publish his substantive National Standards Framework for Children. [134772]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The national service framework for children, young people and maternity services will be published in 2004.

  NHS Integrated Care System
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the results have been of the Gateway reviews of the NHS Integrated Care System. [136628]

  Mr. Hutton
  New and large scale procurement projects in central Government are subject to gateway reviews. The process examines a project at critical stages to provide assurance that it can progress successfully to the next stage. The review provides project teams with advice and guidance from fellow practitioners and in order to maintain the integrity of the advice, this is held to be completely confidential by both parties. The gateway review process is not an audit.

  Recommendations are made to the senior responsible officer on good practice in key areas such as programme management, risk management and involving key stakeholders. The national programme is implementing any recommendations which arise from each stage in the gateway review.

  The national information technology programme is fully committed to external reviews being undertaken on a timely basis.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many man hours he estimates will be required to input a record for each NHS patient into the Integrated Care System; and who will be responsible for this work. [134287]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data and information is already keyed in on multiple systems and on multiple occasions.

  The efficiency savings will be generated through data and information being keyed in once only. This will result in a net saving to the time required on record keeping and maintenance.

  The integrated care records service is not about entering historical data but about improving the capture, use and quality of current data and future support to patient care.

  North Bristol Trusts (Chief Executive)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was paid to the former Chief Executive of North Bristol Trusts on his departure in December 2002; and if he will make a statement. [135404]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 30 October 2003]: North Bristol National Health Service Trust made a payment to its former chief executive upon his resignation, the total value of which was £70,961 (gross); the net value of this to the employee following deductions for tax/

  693W
  national insurance etc was £54,576.60. The payment was considered and approved by the trust's remuneration committee in line with its terms of reference.

  Nurse Prescribing
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether persons on nurse prescribing courses can be individually funded; [136163]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 4 November 2003]: The Department has made funds available to work force development confederations to train nurses in prescribing. It is for the confederation, in consultation with local National Health Service employers, to determine how to use the funds available to them.

  Estimated length of time from first contact to first service for new clients by age group in 2001–02—England

  Rounded figures

  Estimated figures

  Percentages

  All ages

  Clients aged 18–64

  Clients aged 65 +

  All ages

  Clients aged 18–64

  Clients aged 65 +

  All client groups

  375,000

  78,000

  296,000

  100

  100

  100

  Contact day or the following day

  63,000

  16,000

  47,000

  17

  21

  16

  More than day

  52,000

  9,300

  43,000

  14

  12

  15

  More than 1 week up to 2 weeks

  46,000

  8,000

  38,000

  12

  10

  13

  More than 2 weeks up to 6 weeks

  93,000

  17,000

  76,000

  25

  22

  26

  More than 6 weeks up to 12 weeks

  48,000

  10,000

  38,000

  13

  13

  13

  More than 12 weeks up to 6 months

  40,000

  9,100

  31,000

  11

  12

  10

  More than 6 months

  33,000

  9,500

  23,000

  9

  12

  8

  Note:

  2001–02 data are national estimates based on 133 P5 forms

  Source:

  RAP return P5

  Orthotics
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the results of the Orthotics Pathfinder project were; and what the cost of the project was; [135276]

  (2) whether it is his policy that the model of the Orthotics Pathfinder project will be introduced across the NHS. [135277]

  Mr. Hutton
  The report of the Orthotics pathfinder project will be published in January 2004 and its policy implications will need to be considered. The total cost of the project was approximately £400,000 over a period of three and a half years. Most of this cost was to fund the changes in service provision, whose effectiveness the project was evaluating.

  Patient Power Programme
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress towards the Patient Power programme; what targets have been set; and what the(a) deadlines and (b) baselines are for these targets. [128906]

  Mr. Hutton
  Patient bedside televisions and telephones have been well received by patients and staff. The national health service and private sector suppliers are to be congratulated on the rapid progress being

  PAF PI D43
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how long people waited for services in the last five years to be provided after their first contact as recorded in PAF PI D43, broken down by(a) age and (b) length of wait. [130875]

  Dr. Ladyman
  There is insufficient data available to answer this question in full, as national estimates on waiting times are available only for 2001–02.

  The estimated length of time between first contact and first service for new clients aged 18 and over for the year 2001–02 and the relevant percentages for each time band, are shown in the table, broken down by age group.

  We are unable to provide any estimated figures for England 2000–01 as only 52 local authorities provided data for the relevant return. Data for years previous to 2000–01 were not collected.

  made, which to date is bringing over £100 million of investment into the NHS, and giving patients access to improved communications.

  Patient bedside televisions and telephones are operational in 95 hospitals, including 76 major facilities. We want all major hospitals to at least have a contract agreed by the end of 2003, and to have the system installed by the end of 2004. The exception will be a small number of hospitals with public finance initiative schemes which will install the system as their new hospitals come on line. We have also worked with suppliers in order to enable them to introduce the system to smaller sites, so as many NHS patients as possible can have access to the service.

  Pharmacies
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many fully qualified pharmacists are working in pharmacies that provide services for more than 100 hours per week; and if he will make a statement; [135398]

  (2) how many pharmacies in England are open for more than 100 hours per week; and if he will make a statement. [135399]
  695W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 30 October 2003]: The information requested is not held centrally. However, as at March 2002, out of a total of 9,756 national health service community pharmacies in England, 1,524, or 15.6 per cent., received payment for extended opening hours either before 0900 hours or after 1730 hours on Monday to Saturday (or after 1300 hours on an early closing day). 4,015, or 41.2 per cent., received payment for opening on Sundays or on public holidays.

  We are currently consulting on a range of measures to modernise the regulatory system which governs whether or not a community pharmacy can dispense NHS prescriptions. As well as maintaining and improving access to pharmacies in all our communities and continuing to raise standards for patients, the aim is to make the system more business friendly, to provide more certainty and reliability for the companies who depend on it and to make the process less time-consuming. The measures include a proposal to exempt from the current restrictions applications from pharmacies which intend to open more than 100 hours a week, provided they provide a full and prescribed range of services, appropriate to local needs, determined by the NHS primary care trust. Full details are given in the consultation document, "Proposals to reform and modernise the NHS (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1992", published on 29 August 2003 and available on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uIc/pharmacyregulationconsultation.

  Comments can be sent, by 21 November 2003, to Peter Dunlevy, Pharmacy and Prescriptions Branch, Department of Health, Room 155 Richmond House, 79 Whitehall, London SW 1A 2NS or e-mailed to peter.dunlevy@doh.gsi.gov.uk.

  Research and Development
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the national health service research and development programme was last inspected; and when it is next due to be inspected. [133932]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department issued a research governance framework for health and social care in 2001. It brought together standards and statements of good practice against which national health service research and development programmes can in future be inspected. In 2002 and 2003, those NHS bodies involved in research reported to the Department on progress against an implementation plan.

  In 2004, it is intended that research governance will be one of the controls assurance standards for the NHS. The standard will provide a common point of reference for strategic health authorities' performance management of research governance, and for the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection to take into account in its assessments.

  Subject to legislation, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency will from 2004 have statutory responsibility for inspecting NHS and other sites where clinical trials involving medicinal products are conducted.

  Sick Leave
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many sick leave days were taken in each London NHS Trust by(a) doctors, (b) nurses, (c) other health professionals and (d) other employees in (i) 1988, (ii) 1993, (iii) 1998 and (iv) for the most recent period available; and if he will make a statement. [135153]

  Mr. Hutton
  National data on sickness absence levels in the national health service have been collected only since 1999. Information on working days lost in the NHS due to sickness of less than three days duration is not held centrally, but may be available from individual NHS employers.

  Action is being taken across the NHS to reduce sickness absence levels. A national improvement target has been set for all NHS employers to reduce sickness absence levels by 30 per cent. by 2003.

  Sexual Health
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who is responsible for matters of sexual health for the Birmingham and Black Country Strategic Health Authority area; and whether that authority has plans for the development of paediatric services. [135885]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The medical director of the Birmingham and the Black Country Strategic Health Authority (SHA) is responsible for sexual health services in that area. The SHA is in the process of setting up a clinical network to support development of these services.

  The SHA is currently working on its strategic framework, to be completed for full consultation by the end March 2004. Children's services are being addressed as part of that.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many teenagers were treated for sexually transmitted diseases in the(a) Eastbourne and (b) Surrey and Sussex Health Authority in each of the last 10 years. [133383]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information about the number of teenagers treated for sexually transmitted diseases is available only at health authority level, and is collected based on the residency of patients. This is shown in the tables.

  Data have been provided only since 1995–96 as, prior to 1995, the coding of diagnoses was different and so data would not be comparable.

  Primary diagnosis (ICD10 B20-B24, A50-A64) AIDS/HIV, sexually transmitted diseases: NHS hospitals, England, 1995–96

  Count of finished in-year admission episodes

  Age on admission 13 to 19 years

  Regional health authorities of residence Sussex and Surrey

  Number

  G21

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  3

  H20

  West Surrey

  2

  H21

  East Surrey

  3

  Total

  8

  697W

  Primary diagnosis (ICD-10 B20-B24, A50-A64) AIDS/HIV, sexually transmitted diseases: NHS hospitals, England, 1996–97 to 2001–02

  Count of finished in-year admission episodes

  Age on admission 13 to 19 years

  Regional health authorities of residence Sussex and Surrey

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  QAK

  East Surrey

  1

  0

  5

  2

  4

  1

  QAL

  West Surrey

  3

  2

  2

  2

  0

  2

  QAM

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  6

  3

  9

  5

  3

  0

  QAN

  West Sussex

  2

  4

  1

  6

  3

  0

  Total

  12

  9

  17

  15

  10

  3

  Notes:

  1. The figures for 1995–96 are based on old health authority areas.

  2. Admissions are defined as the first period of in-patient care under one consultant within one health care provider. They do not represent the number of in-patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.

  3. The primary diagnosis is the first of up to 14 (seven prior to 2002–03) diagnosis fields in the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data set and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

  4. Figures are grossed for both coverage and missing/invalid clinical data, except for 2001–02, which is not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Smoking
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of smoking-related deaths were due to(a) lung cancer, (b) heart attack, (c) stroke and (d) chronic lung disease in 2002. [133924]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  These data are not available in the form requested. However, an estimate of the proportion of deaths in the United Kingdom that were caused by smoking was made by the Health Education Authority in its 1998 report: "The UK Smoking Epidemic: Deaths in 1995". The table shows the proportions of all deaths caused by smoking for each of these diseases for people aced 35 and over.

  Estimated number and percentage of deaths caused by smoking: United Kingdom, 1995

  Disease

  Number of deaths

  Percentage of total (net) deaths

  Total (net)

  121,700

  100

  Total (gross)

  123,000

  Deaths from diseases caused by smoking:

  Cancer

  46,500

  38

  Respiratory

  34,300

  28

  Circulatory

  40,300

  33

  Digestive

  1,900

  2

  Note:

  The percentages add up to 101 per cent. because the percentages have been based on the net total number of deaths. The net number of deaths takes into account the estimated number of deaths which may be prevented in part by smoking.

  Source:

  Health Education Authority: "The UK Smoking Epidemic: Deaths in 1995".

  Urinary Tract Infections
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Chief Medical Officer's strategy for tackling healthcare associated infections will address catheter-associated urinary tract infections; and if he will make a statement. [134195]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Chief Medical Officer's strategy will be published shortly and will set out actions aimed at controlling all healthcare associated infections.

  Walk-in Centres
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 14 October 2003,Official Report, column 58W, to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Evan Harris), on walk-in centres, what protocol covers whether clinical information should be shared with a patient's general practitioner. [133402]

  Mr. Hutton
  National health service walk-in centres are expected to work with their local Caldicott Guardian and are bound by the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Access to Health Records Act 1990.

  Worcestershire Royal Hospital
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the deficit at the Worcestershire Royal Hospital; and what timetable he has agreed for its repayment. [135498]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The West Midlands South Strategic Health Authority is currently developing a financial strategy, with the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals national health services trust and the three primary care trusts within Worcestershire, to address the financial challenges affecting the local health economy.

  In line with NHS finance regulations it is intended that Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS trust will return to recurrent financial balance within three years.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Early-years Education
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of three and four year-olds are receiving nursery or full time education. [135008]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 30 October 2003]: Around 96 per cent. of the three and four-year-old population in England receives funded early years education provided by a maintained school, a private and voluntary provider or an independent school in January 2003.
  699W
  We have made the commitment that by April 2004, six months ahead of our original target, all three-year-olds whose parents want one, will have access to a free, part-time early education place. Around 88 per cent. of three-year-olds are now benefiting from free early education.

  The latest figures on early years provision in England were published by the Department in the Statistical First Release 15/2003 "Provision For Children Under Five Years Of Age In England—January 2003 (Provisional)", copies of which are available from the Library and the Department's website, www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics.

  Education Provision (Bath and North East Somerset)
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money Bath and North East Somerset received in total capital funds from central government in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 2003–04; and if he will list the main components of that spending. [136318]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table sets out the capital allocations made by this Government to Bath and North East Somerset local education authority (LEA) and its schools in 1996–97 and 2003–04. The LEA determines investment of these funds by prioritising the capital requirements of its schools in an asset management plan.

  Capital allocations for Bath and North East Somerset LEA

  £000

  1996–97

  2003–041

  LEA Co-ordinated Voluntary Aided Programme

  —

  140

  Basic Need

  1,545

  1,364

  NDS Condition

  —

  1,519

  NDS Devolved Formula

  —

  2,383

  NDS Modernisation

  —

  864

  Schools Access Initiative

  45

  334

  Schools Renewal Challenge Fund

  511

  —

  Seed Challenge

  —

  224

  Staff Workspace

  —

  96

  Supplementary Credit Approvals

  425

  —

  Targeted Capital Funding

  —

  4,924

  Teaching Environments for the Future

  —

  350

  Voluntary Aided School Grant

  750

  —

  Total

  3,276

  12,198

  1 Figures for 2003–04 are to date.

  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the pupil-computer ratio was in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Bath and North East Somerset in (i) 1997 and (ii) 2003; [136335]

  (2) how many computers there were in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Bath and North East Somerset in (i) 1997 and (ii) 2003. [136336]

  Mr. Miliband
  Information on the pupil-computer ratio and the number of computers in schools is not available in the form requested. Figures for England, which were derived from a sample of schools, are shown in the table.
  700W

  Average number of computers per school and average number of pupils1 per computer (used solely or mainly for teaching and learning purposes) by type of school—England—1998 and 2003 (position as at 31 March)

  Maintained primary schools

  Maintained secondary schools

  Average number of number computers per school

  Average number of pupils per computer

  Average number of number computers per school

  Average number of pupils per computer

  2003

  28.6

  7.9

  192.7

  5.4

  1998

  13.3

  17.6

  100.9

  8.7

  1 Full-time equivalent numbers of pupils within maintained primary and secondary schools.

  The latest information on ICT in schools was published in Statistical Bulletin "Survey of Information and Communications Technology in Schools 2003", which is available on the Department's website www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics.

  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) three-year-olds and (b) four-year-olds were in receipt of free nursery education in Bath and North East Somerset in (i) 1997 and (ii) 2003; and if he will estimate what proportion of the local three-year-old population these figures represent. [136337]

  Mr. Miliband
  Information is not available in the form requested. The available information is shown in the table.

  Number1 of three and four-year-olds taking up free early education places that are fully funded—Bath and North East Somerset Local Education Authority area 1997 and 2002 (position in January each year)

  1997

  2002

  Three-year-olds

  2310

  730

  Four-year-olds

  1,700

  1,800

  1 Part-time equivalent number of children.

  2 Only includes three-year-olds attending maintained nursery and primary schools. (There was no Nursery Education Grant available for places for three-year-olds in 1997.)

  In every local education authority area, there is an early education place for every four year old whose parents want one in either the maintained, private or voluntary sector. We have made the commitment that by April 2004, six months ahead of our original target, all three-year-olds whose parents want one, will have access to a free, part-time early education place.

  Latest figures on three-year-olds and four-year-olds in early years providers were published by the Department in the Statistical Bulletin Provision for Children under five years of age in England—January 2002' (08/02) in December 2002, a copy of which is available from the Library. An electronic copy of this publication is also available on the Department's website (www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics).

  Education Provision (East Riding)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of children in(a) the Haltemprice and Howden constituency, (b) the East Riding of Yorkshire and (c) England remained in education after the completion of their GCSEs in each year since 1997. [136468]
  701W
  Mr. Miliband
  Data on the percentage of students staying on in full-time education and education and training is not calculated for areas smaller than LEAs, as reliable estimates cannot be made.

  The percentage of 16-year-olds participating in full-time education, and in education and training, in East Riding of Yorkshire Local Education Authority and in England for end 1997 to end 2000, the latest available year, are shown in the table.

  Participation by 16-year-olds

  End 1997

  End 1998

  End 1999

  End 2000

  Full-time education

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  70

  71

  72

  74

  England

  70

  70

  71

  71

  Education and training

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  1n/a

  88

  87

  87

  England

  84

  83

  83

  83

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

  Participation rates by LEA for 16 and 17-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".

  GCSE Syllabuses
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with examination boards about the compliance of GCSE syllabuses on child care and child development with the WHO International Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes. [135079]

  Mr. Miliband
  The responsibility for determining the content of GCSE syllabuses lies with the regulatory authority—the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA)—and the awarding bodies. I have asked the QCA to consider whether the provisions of the WHO International Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes are adequately reflected in the awarding bodies' GCSE child care related syllabuses. The Chief Executive of QCA will advise you of the outcome in due course.

  Key Stage Tests
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of children in Bath and North East Somerset in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 2002–03 gained Level 4 or above in their Key Stage 2 tests in (i) English and (ii) mathematics. [136315]

  Mr. Miliband
  The percentage of pupils achieving Level 4 or above at Key Stage 2 in Bath and North East Somerset in(a) 1997 and (b) 2003 in (i) English and (ii) mathematics are as follows:
  702W

  Percentage

  English

  Mathematics

  1997

  Bath and North East Somerset

  68

  66

  England

  63

  62

  2003 (provisional)

  Bath and North East Somerset

  78

  76

  England

  75

  73

  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children in Bath and North East Somerset in 2002–03 were eligible to sit Key Stage 2 tests. [136342]

  Mr. Miliband
  The total number of children in Bath and North East Somerset who were eligible to sit Key Stage 2 tests were:

  2003 (provisional): 1,811

  2002: 1,801.

  Local Education Authority Expenditure
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much the target transitional grant for Staffordshire local education authority will be in the next two years; and what arrangements have been made for the provision of the grant. [136166]

  Mr. Miliband
  Details of the transitional support package for 2004–05 and 2005–06, including the arrangements for paying the targeted grant, will be published at the time of the provisional Local Government Finance Settlement later this month.

  On 29 October the government published indicative figures for the targeted grant in 2004–05, which have been placed in the Library of the House. These assumed that grant would be available to authorities whose increase in Education Formula Spending and relevant DIES grant between 2002–03 and 2004–05 would otherwise be less than 12 per cent. per pupil. The increase in Staffordshire LEA is expected to he above 12 per cent. per pupil over the relevant period, which means it would not be eligible for the targeted grant.

  However, if Staffordshire or any other LEA is able to put forward a compelling case that additional, transitional funds are needed in the short term—above and beyond those already available to the LEA—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be prepared to consider bringing forward grant payments from my department, so that the LEA will have funds available in 2004–05 for this purpose, with the expectation of a consequential reduction to what they will receive in future years. The maximum amount that might be made available in this way would be a maximum of £300,000 per authority, or 0.2 per cent. of the authority's total education resources in 2004–05, if that is higher. For Staffordshire, 0.2 per cent. of its education resources would be over £800,000.

  Ofsted Inspections
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the trends in the
  703W
  percentage of Year 10 and 11 lessons inspected by Ofsted and recorded as set by ability in (a) history, (b) geography, (c) modern languages, (d) science and (e) English between 1996 and 2002. [133829]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following tables show the percentages of lessons that inspectors recorded as setted by ability by subject in each year for pupils in years 10 and 11. These data are among the background information which are collected by inspectors to assist them in making judgments about standards achieved in schools and are not part of a representative survey of the use of setting by schools.

  The table figures provide a useful indicative picture of the use of setting across subjects, with setting being used in the vast majority of schools in mathematics, more than three-quarters of schools in science, and between half and three quarters of schools in English and modern foreign languages. A more detailed study, undertaken over a number of years with a consistent sample of schools, would be needed to enable secure judgments to be made about trends.

  Year 10

  Year 11

  History

  1996

  27

  27

  1996/97

  23

  22

  1997/98

  24

  23

  1998/99

  21

  24

  1999/2000

  21

  23

  2000/01

  23

  25

  2001/02

  20

  19

  1996–2002

  23

  23

  Geography

  1996

  34

  37

  1996/97

  30

  29

  1997/98

  28

  32

  1998/99

  30

  32

  1999/2000

  35

  33

  2000/01

  29

  31

  2001/02

  24

  23

  1996–2002

  30

  30

  Modern Languages

  1996

  66

  67

  1996/97

  69

  65

  1997/98

  67

  66

  1998/99

  69

  69

  1999/2000

  68

  67

  2000/01

  70

  70

  2001/02

  70

  69

  1996–2002

  69

  67

  Science

  1996

  70

  68

  1996/97

  77

  69

  1997/98

  76

  76

  1998/99

  76

  76

  1999/2000

  77

  77

  2000/01

  85

  82

  2001/02

  85

  86

  1996–2002

  78

  76

  English

  1996

  45

  54

  1996/97

  55

  50

  1997/98

  56

  58

  1998/99

  51

  49

  1999/2000

  52

  56

  2000/01

  59

  61

  704W

  Year 10

  Year 11

  2001/02

  56

  59

  1996–2002

  54

  54

  Mathematics

  1996

  85

  83

  1996/97

  90

  86

  1997/98

  91

  89

  1998/99

  90

  91

  1999/2000

  89

  89

  2000/01

  93

  92

  2001/02

  92

  92

  1996–2002

  90

  89

  Qualifications
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what programmes are sponsored by his Department to ensure that(a) higher educational courses and (b) vocational training are responsive to forecast demand in the labour market. [136031]

  Alan Johnson
  There are a number of programmes that are responding to forecast labour market demands. In higher education they include: the expansion of Foundation Degrees, New Technology Institutes (NTI), the Teaching Quality Enhancement Fund, Aim higher and the Enhancing Student Employability Coordination Team (ESECT).

  In terms of vocational training, programmes such as Modern Apprenticeships and Advanced Modern Apprenticeships are designed to meet existing and future labour market needs. The Higher Education Funding Council and the Learning and Skills Council are working closely with the Skills for Business network and Regional Development Agencies to ensure that vocational qualifications meet the needs of local, regional and national labour markets. Further information is included in 21st Century Skills: Realising our Potential.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many of the vocational training programmes recognised by his Department are structured in such a way that it is possible by undertaking additional further courses of study to obtain a degree level qualification. [136032]

  Alan Johnson
  All programmes at Level 3 in the National Qualifications Framework have the potential to allow students to undertake further courses of study to obtain a degree level qualification.

  In particular reformed Advanced Modern Apprenticeship frameworks now include technical certificates. These are taken in addition to NVQ at Level 3 to assess underpinning occupational knowledge. Their inclusion in frameworks now allows for easier progression to higher education for those with the aptitude to do so.

  We are also expanding the number of Foundation Degrees available, with 10,000 extra places from next year. These are new qualifications and provide opportunities for individuals to progress to full honours degrees.
  705W
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the evidential basis is for the statement in the Higher Education White paper that 80 per cent. of future jobs will require education to level 4. [136456]

  Alan Johnson
  The White Paper stated that:'Between 1999 and 2010 the number of jobs in higher level occupations—the ones most likely to be filled by those who have been through higher education—will grow by over one and a half million. That represents 80 per cent. of new jobs over the decade'.

  This forecast is based on work carried out by the Institute for Employment Research in 2001: 'Projections of Occupations and Qualifications 2000/01: Research in Support of the National Skills Task Force', Department for Education and Employment. The research estimated that out of the 2.1 million new jobs expected to be created between 1999 and 2010, 1.7 million (or 80 per cent.) will be in the top three occupational groups. These are the jobs which require the sorts of skills that can be acquired through Higher Education.

  Teaching Assistants
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures are being taken to ensure that the phrase teaching assistants includes(a) supervisors working with classes of children without the presence of a teacher and (b) others employed under paragraph 10 of Schedule 2 to Statutory Instrument 1663 employed to undertake specified work and that these are recorded separately from those who already appear in the teachers tables of the school workforce statistics when these figures are next collected from schools and local education authorities. [136303]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 4 November 2003]: Guidance to LEAs completing the Annual Survey of Teacher Numbers and Vacancies (6180) in January 2004 will make clear that support staff who may be providing cover supervision, or who may be carrying out specified work without a teacher present under the conditions set out in the regulations, should continue to be counted separately from teachers. We would expect most of these to be counted as teaching assistants in the Annual Schools Census, but often support staff in schools undertake more than one role. We are also considering what further categorisation we might introduce for the 2005 school census.

  The Workforce Agreement Monitoring Group will continue to monitor developments in the strategies used by schools to deal effectively with teacher absence as part of its wider role in overseeing the implementation of the National Agreement on raising standards and tackling workload.

  Trainee Teachers
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the additional financial support offered to trainee teachers since 1997. [136432]

  Mr. Miliband
  Since 1998, full tuition fee remission has been available to most postgraduate trainee teachers in England. In 1999, the Government announced a706W
  further package of support which consisted of a payment of £2,500 for people taking Postgraduate Certificate in Education courses in mathematics and science and a further £2,500 payable on appointment to a relevant post in the same subjects.

  These payments were superseded in September 2000 when the Government introduced £6,000 training bursaries for eligible postgraduate trainee teachers and £4,000 Golden Hellos for those going on to teach one of five priority subjects in a maintained school in England. These incentives have been reinforced by the Repayment of Teachers' Loans pilot scheme, introduced in September 2002 for new teachers of priority subjects.

  These measures have contributed to an increase of over 5,000 in the number of recruits to courses of Initial Teacher Training between 1998/99 and 2002/03.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research he has commissioned on the principal alternative models for(a) university finance and (b) student funding. [136454]

  Alan Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 30 October 2003,Official Report, column 429, in which I cited the work the Government had done on the principal alternative options considered in the Higher Education Review for student finance and university funding-namely, an increase in flat-rate fees, a graduate tax and re al rates of interest on student loans.

  In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills wrote a letter on this issue to my hon. Friend for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) on two separate occasions, on 11 April and 3 June 2003; both copies are placed in the House Library.

  Work Placement
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what reports he has received on health and safety related to trainees on placement; and how experience is disseminated among learning and skills councils. [134279]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer29 October 2003]: The Secretary of State receives individual accident reports on trainees injured while on work placement. The Learning Skills Council also report on health and safety issues as part of regular performance reviews with Ministers. They have their own internal arrangements for sharing information with local offices. Mark Haysom, the Chief Executive of the LSC, will write to my hon. Friend with further details of these arrangements and a copy of his reply will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Cemeteries
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in implementing the Government response to the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee Report on Cemeteries. [133899]
  707W
  Paul Goggins
  We are planning to publish a public consultation document on reform of the burial laws shortly. We have now completed a pilot survey of burial grounds, and expect to launch the main survey soon. We are also currently considering the publication of a report on the research carried out last year. Guidance on cemetery management and memorial safety is well in hand.

  The number of ASBOs, as notified to the Home Office by Magistrates courts committees and the Crown court, by complainant and local authority area within the County of Durham, 1 April 1999 to 30 June 2003

  Applications by complainant

  Local authority area

  Total applications

  Local authority

  Police

  Total issued

  Total refused

  Durham

  24

  6

  18

  24

  0

  of which:

  from 1 April 1999 to 31 May 2000 by pfa

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  n/a

  from 1 June 2000 to 30 June 2003 by local authority area

  24

  6

  18

  24

  0

  Chester-le-Street DC

  2

  0

  2

  2

  0

  Darlington BC

  4

  0

  4

  4

  0

  Derwentside DC

  4

  3

  1

  4

  0

  Durham CC1

  14

  0

  14

  14

  0

  Easington DC

  4

  0

  4

  4

  0

  Sedgefield BC

  3

  2

  1

  3

  0

  Wear Valley DC

  3

  1

  2

  3

  0

  1 Order also includes prohibition in wear valley DC n/a = Not available (Note: Between 1 April 1999–31 May 2000 data available on number issued by police force area (pfa) only)

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been refused support by the National Asylum Support Service under section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; and what reports he has received about the length of time these people had been in the United Kingdom before claiming support. [135452]

  Beverley Hughes
  Section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 came into force on 8 January 2003, restricting the availability of National Asylum Support Service (NASS) support to those asylum seekers who make an asylum application as soon as reasonably practicable.

  Of the total (4,365) cases referred to NASS for a Section 55 decision in the first quarter of 2003, 2,850 were refused NASS support on the grounds that their claims were not made as soon as reasonably practicable.

  Of the total (3,110) cases referred to NASS for a Section 55 decision in the second quarter of 2003, 1,830 were refused NASS support on the grounds that their claims were not made as soon as reasonably practicable.

  Information on how long these applicants had been in the United Kingdom before making an asylum claim is not held centrally.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with(a) local authorities and (b) service providers about the provision of housing for asylum seekers when the current contracts expire; and if he will make a statement. [135461]

  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Anti-Social Behaviour Orders have been(a) applied for and (b) granted in each district council within County Durham. [134649]

  Ms Blears
  Information is given in the table on the number of notifications, as reported to the Home Office, of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) applied for and issued within the County of Durham from 1 April 1999 up to 30 June 2003 (latest available).

  Beverley Hughes
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate is in the process of developing a strategy which will determine the procurement of accommodation post 2005 when the majority of its current accommodation contracts expire. Local authorities, private sector accommodation providers, voluntary sector agencies, lobby groups and a number of Government Departments are all being consulted about the development of this strategy.

  Cannabis
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce his decision on the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes. [136220]

  Caroline Flint
  The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has yet to complete its evaluation of the safety, quality and effectiveness of the medical preparation of a cannabis-based drug developed and tested by GW Pharmaceuticals.

  Once marketing approval has been received, we will move without delay to seek Parliament's agreement to any necessary changes to the misuse of drugs legislation. Our aim is to ensure ready and early availability of the drug as a prescribed medicine.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the sources of cannabis entering the UK; and what has been done to combat the amounts of cannabis imported. [136266]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  Current assessments of the source of cannabis entering the EU and UK are contained in 'The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) Annual Report 2003';'Tackling

  709W
  Drugs Communications and Campaign Pack' published by the Home Office and 'Cannabis—An Update 1999–2002' by Professor D. J. Nutt and Dr. J. R. Nash. Copies of these are published at

  www.emcdda.eu.int and www.drugs.gov.uk.

  Customs enforce the import prohibition which applies to cannabis and seizure data is published annually in their Annual Report. In 2001–02 Customs seized over 67 tonnes of cannabis.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy on declassifying cannabis; and what assessment he has made of the impact of declassification on cannabis consumption. [136269]

  Caroline Flint
  The Government believe that all controlled drugs, including cannabis, are harmful and that no one should take them. But our drug laws and our educational messages to young people must reflect the relative harms of drugs, in accordance with the available scientific and medical advice, if they are to be credible, convincing and, ultimately, effective.

  The Government's proposal to reclassify cannabis to Class C—in line with the recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and of the Home Affairs Select Committee—will help us to convey a more open, honest and balanced educational message—to young people in particular—about the dangers of misusing illegal drugs.

  Reclassification of cannabis is also designed to continue to deter use of the drug, because of its continued illegality, while enabling the police to put in place a consistent regime for policing cannabis, in line with the Association of Chief Police Officers' cannabis enforcement guidance. This will allow the police to redeploy resources to tackling more serious offences, including dealing in Class A drugs, like heroin and crack cocaine, which do the most harm.

  The Government will seek to make an impact on the current level of cannabis use by launching an educational and advertising campaign in January aimed at young people, making it clear how the law will operate in practice and seeking to dissuade them from experimenting with cannabis. We are also taking a tough line with dealers.

  Crime Statistics
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effect of the adoption of the National Crime Recording Standard on the capacity to compare crime statistics with previous years' performance. [135279]

  Ms Blears
  It is difficult to make valid comparisons of recorded crime statistics over time owing to changes in police recording, the latest being the introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) in April 2002. However, the adoption of the NCRS by all forces will establish a fairer and more consistent basis upon which future crime statistics can be interpreted, both nationally and between police forces.

  In order to provide a more realistic picture of crime levels, the Home Office has conducted a full evaluation of the estimated impact of the NCRS at a national and
  710W
  force level for 2002–03. More detailed information about the methodology can be found at http://www.homeoffice.gov. Uk/rds/pdfs2/rdsolr3103.pdf. The study concluded that overall the crimes counted in 2002–03 were approximately 10 per cent. higher than they would have been under pre-NCRS recording practices.

  Additionally, it is important to note that findings from the British Crime Survey, which is the most authoritative source on crime trends (and which has not been affected by changes to police recording practices) enable trends in crime over the last 20 years to be identified on a reliable basis.

  Crime Statistics (Avon and Somerset)
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug dealers were convicted in Avon and Somerset in(a) 1997, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003. [136324]

  Caroline Flint
  The table contains data from the Home Office Court Appearances and Cautions Drugs Database showing the number of drug dealers in the Avon and Somerset Police force area brought to justice in the years 1996 to 2000 (the latest year available). The term 'brought to justice' has been taken to mean cautioned or found guilty of 'dealing' in drugs. "Dealing" has been taken mean drug trafficking, that is: to include possession with intent to supply, unlawful supply, unlawful production and unlawful import/export.

  Drug dealers brought to justice in Avon and Somerset police force area, 1996 to 2000

  Number of dealers

  1996

  340

  1997

  360

  1998

  350

  1999

  330

  2000

  310

  These data are taken from the annual Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Drug Seizure and Offender Statistics, UK 2000", which is available on the RDS website and in the Library http://www.homeoffice. gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb402.pdf.

  Drugs
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of anti-drugs campaigns in(a) the United States and (b) other EU countries. [134837]

  Caroline Flint
  The issue of drugs is common to many countries. However trends in drug use differ form one country to the next. It is therefore difficult to make comparisons between Britain and other countries.

  Part of the development of the "Frank" drugs campaign currently running in England and Wales was an assessment of the effectiveness of campaigns in the United States and in European Union member states. These supported the findings of research in this country that campaigns that aim to shock have at best limited success, because potential users do not associate themselves with the messages. What is needed instead is

  711W
  reliable information and advice for personal contacts of potential users and for potential users themselves. The Frank campaign has been designed in that light.

  Dungavel Removal Centre
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his response is to the Report by Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons on Dungavel Removal Centre; and if he will make a statement. [135438]

  Beverley Hughes
  We welcomed the publication of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons' inspection report on Dungavel Removal Centre. We were pleased to see that the report concluded that Dungavel was essentially a place of safety where detainees were treated with respect and received a good standard of custodial care. The report contains a number of recommendations and we are considering these carefully. We will respond formally to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector shortly.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why Fatima Muse was fined by staff at Dungavel Removal Centre on 27 August after hiding food in her room; under what power this was done; and if he will make a statement. [135439]

  Beverley Hughes
  Detainees at Dungavel Removal Centre are not fined. They benefit from an incentive scheme that provides them with a weekly cash allowance provided their behaviour and conduct is satisfactory. In the case of unsatisfactory behaviour, a warning letter will be issued and, if the detainee's behaviour does not improve, consideration will be given to withdrawing the weekly allowance. Unsatisfactory behaviour may include breaches of the centre rules on hygiene or health and safety. Detainees taking food from the dining room to their rooms would constitute such a breach. In the case in question, a warning letter was issued in respect of a number of separate matters but the detainee's weekly allowance was not in fact withdrawn.

  Table 1

  Offence

  Sentence

  Time to expected release date, at date of abscond

  Those not recaptured by 24 October 2003

  Theft

  2 years 6 months

  11 months

  Violent Disorder

  1 year 10 months

  9 months

  Robbery

  5 years

  14 months

  No

  Wounding with Intent

  7 years 6 months

  21 months

  Supply of Drugs

  4 years

  14 months

  Breach of Supervision Order

  2 year 6 months

  3 months

  Theft

  6 months

  3 months

  Burglary

  2 years

  9 months

  Taking and Driving Away

  7 months 26 days

  3 months

  No

  Burglary

  3 years

  5 months

  Attempted Robbery

  4 years 6 months

  14 months

  Burglary

  4 years

  3 months

  Burglary

  3 years

  3 months

  Robbery

  6 years

  8 months

  Deception

  3 year 10 months

  8 months

  Grievous Bodily Harm

  12 years

  2 years

  No

  Burglary

  5 years

  14 months

  Burglary

  4 years 6 months

  14 months

  Driving whilst Disqualified

  10 months

  3 months

  Driving whilst Disqualified

  4 months

  1 month

  Deception

  7 years 3 months

  13 months

  No

  Burglary

  3 years

  1 month

  Taking and Driving Away

  1 year 9 months

  1 month

  No

  Ethnic Monitoring System
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what published reports have been produced by Government(a) departments and (b) agencies using information gathered through an approved statutory ethnic monitoring system. [135773]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is not immediately available. We are currently seeking this information. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as this information has been received and collated.

  HMP Leyhill
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have absconded from HMP Leyhill in the last 12 months for which figures are available; how many of these have not been recaptured; and if he will place in the Library for each absconder in the last year a list of(a) the original offence for which they were imprisoned, (b) their original sentence and (c) the average length of their outstanding sentence. [134996]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 28 October 2003]: Leyhill is an open category D training establishment containing adult males mostly from the South West Area, although many transfer from other establishments after their recategorisation to category D. Leyhill also holds life sentence prisoners, allocated nationally.

  Eighty-two prisoners absconded from Leyhill between 1 November 2002 and 24 October 2003. Of these 19 have not yet been recaptured. Table I lists for each absconder the offence for which he was imprisoned, the sentence and the length of sentence outstanding between the date of abscond and the expected release date. For prisoners other than life sentenced prisoners the average period for the time from date of abscond to expected release date was 10 months. Table 2 shows the changes in population, and the number of time served prisoners who were discharged from Leyhill in the last 12 months.
  713W 714W

  Table 1

  Offence

  Sentence

  Time to expected release date, at date of abscond

  Those not recaptured by 24 October 2003

  Conspiracy to Theft

  2 years

  3 months

  No

  Breach of Community Supervision Order

  6 months

  1 month

  Burglary

  2 years 6 months

  13 months

  Burglary

  5 years

  8 months

  Attempted Robbery

  4 years 9 months

  7 months

  Burglary

  5 years

  11 months

  Robbery

  6 years

  14 months

  Burglary

  5 years 4 months

  9 months

  Murder

  life

  date to be fixed

  Murder

  life

  date to be fixed

  No

  Customs Evasion Drugs

  8 years 10 months

  18 months

  No

  Importing Drugs

  5 years

  13 months

  Burglary

  18 months

  3 months

  No

  Murder

  life

  date to be fixed

  Burglary

  3 years

  11 months

  Robbery

  8 years

  1 year 9 months

  Burglary

  3 year 3 months

  7 months

  Possession of Drugs

  4 years 6 months

  6 months

  Burglary

  3 years

  3 months

  Handling Stolen Goods

  2 years 6 months

  7 months

  Murder

  life

  date to be fixed

  Burglary

  2 years 6 months

  6 months

  Wounding with Intent

  7 years

  14 months

  Possession of Drugs

  3 years 10 months

  3 months

  Driving whilst Disqualified

  6 months

  1 month

  Burglary

  6 years

  11 months

  Robbery

  3 years

  5 months

  Robbery

  3 years 6 months

  9 months

  No

  Burglary

  5 years

  2 months

  Robbery

  5 years 2 months

  23 months

  Robbery

  4 years

  20 months

  Robbery

  4 years

  8 months

  No

  Robbery

  3 years

  2 months

  Robbery

  5 years

  8 months

  Theft

  3 years

  7 months

  No

  Burglary

  10 months

  2 months

  Burglary

  4 years 6 months

  2 months

  Burglary

  3 years

  1 month

  Robbery

  4 years

  16 months

  Burglary

  2 years 6 months

  9 months

  Burglary

  4 years 2 months

  8 months

  Robbery

  5 years

  11 months

  Manslaughter

  7 years

  16 months

  No

  Burglary

  6 years 2 months

  6 months

  Burglary

  3 years

  6 months

  Rape

  7 years

  22 months

  Drugs

  4 years

  4 months

  Burglary

  3 years

  4 months

  No

  Burglary

  3 years 3 months

  11 months

  Attempted Burglary

  1 year 7 months

  2 months

  Burglary

  3 years 11 months

  15 months

  Wonding with Intent

  4 years

  18 months

  Burglary

  3 years

  11 months

  Robbery

  4 years

  4 months

  Drugs

  1 year 3 months

  1 month

  No

  Prossession of Drugs

  6 years

  21 months

  Burglary

  3 year 6 months

  1 month

  Theft

  8 months

  2 months

  Burglary

  1 year 5 months

  6 months

  Burglary

  2 years

  8 months

  Affray

  1 year

  3 months

  Grievous Bodily Harm

  6 years

  3 months

  Threatening Behaviour

  1 year 6 months

  1 month

  Robbery

  11 years

  5 months

  Robbery

  9 years 6 months

  26 months

  No

  715W

  Table 1

  Offence

  Sentence

  Time to expected release date, at date of abscond

  Those not recaptured by 24 October 2003

  Breach of Probation Order

  4 years

  9 months

  No

  Wounding with Intent

  4 years

  4 monts

  Customs Evasion

  5 years 6 months

  16 months

  No

  Theft

  1 year 4 months

  7 months

  Attempted Murder

  Life

  Date to be fixed

  No

  Table 2

  Baseline CNA1

  Population

  Discharges

  October 2002

  512

  445

  83

  November 2002

  512

  449

  75

  December 2002

  512

  382

  96

  January 2003

  512

  360

  59

  February 20003

  512

  431

  38

  March 2003

  512

  497

  89

  April 2003

  512

  500

  76

  May2003

  512

  495

  81

  June 2003

  512

  500

  82

  July 2003

  512

  508

  82

  August 2003

  512

  511

  69

  September 2003

  512

  506

  61

  1 CNA = Certified Normal Accommodation

  Home Detention Curfews
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have been released from prison on the Home Detention Curfew scheme since the introduction of presumptive release. [135014]

  Paul Goggins
  The total number of home detention curfew (HOC) releases from 1 May 2002, when the presumptive scheme was introduced, to 30 April 2003 is recorded as 21,928, of which 11,259 were from sentences of under a year.

  Immigration
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects a decision to be made on the application by(a) Mrs. Geraldine Merchant and (b) her daughter Ms Martina Rhule, Ref:M 1012795, for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. [135311]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 30 October 2003]: A decision in respect of both applicants should be made within the next two months.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much the Police Service spent on purchasing and upgrading IT equipment(a) in 2003 and (b) in 2002; and what this cost per police officer. [135896]

  Ms Blears
  The information is set out in the table.
  716W

  Purchasing and upgrading IT equipment

  Estimated expenditure on ICT equipment1England and Wales (£ thousands)

  Estimated cost per police officer (£)

  2002–03

  241,358

  21,8622

  2003–04

  203,826

  31,5283

  1 Information, Communication and Technology capital expenditure includes provisions for Airwave, the new communications system.

  2 Based on police numbers in England and Wales as at 31 March 2002.

  3 Based on police numbers in England and Wales as at 31 March 2003.

  Source:

  2002–03 figures—CIPFA Police Statistics 2002–03 Estimates

  2003–04 figures-CIPFA Police Statistics 2003–04 Estimates

  John Tero
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the terms of reference are of the independent clinical review of the case of the late Mr. John Tero; [134617]

  (2) who is carrying out the independent clinical review of the late Mr. John Tero's care in prison; [134618]

  (3) when he expects the independent clinical review into the case of the late Mr. John Tero to report; [134619]

  (4) what evidence is being considered in the independent clinical review of the case of the late Mr. John Tero. [134620]

  Paul Goggins
  I was sorry to learn of Mr. Tero's death. The Prison Service has asked Dr. Joseph Blackburn, a General Practitioner and Clinical Governance lead for North Surrey Primary Care Trust, to undertake a clinical review of this. He was given the following terms of reference:

  "In respect to the care of Mr. John Tero during his period in custody at Her Majesty's Prison Woodhill and Her Majesty's Prison Wymott:

  Was the care post Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP) satisfactory and equivalent to care in the NHS?

  Was the care of his gastric symptoms satisfactory and equivalent to care in the NHS, including with regard to:

  the clinical recordings of the patient's weight.

  referral and attendance at hospital appointments?

  Would any of above have affected the prognosis?"

  717W
  The Prison Service expects Dr. Blackburn to consider any evidence which he feels is relevant to these terms of reference. The Prison Service expects to receive Dr. Blackburn's report in November.

  Miscarriages of Justice
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are waiting for admittance to the compensation for miscarriages of justice scheme. [133539]

  Paul Goggins
  There are currently 58 applicants waiting the determination of their eligibility for compensation under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (the statutory scheme) or under the ex-gratia arrangements announced by the then Home Secretary (Douglas Hurd) in his statement to the House of Commons on 29 November 1985.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people who have served under 20 years in prison before being released due to a miscarriage of justice are waiting for admittance to the compensation for miscarriages of justice scheme. [133570]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 21 October 2003]: This information is not readily available. The length of time spent in prison following a wrongful conviction is not a matter that affects a decision on eligibility for compensation. This only becomes a factor when the level of award for a successful applicant is assessed. Consequently, those wrongfully convicted, or their representatives, do not always provide custody details with their initial applications for compensation.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to ensure that prompt mental health assessments are available for victims of miscarriages of justice. [133572]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 21 October 2003]: The Home Office funded Royal Courts of Justice Citizens Advice Bureau Miscarriage of Justice Project supports prisoners who have their convictions referred back to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission in the period leading up to their release and for up to six months after. This service would extend to providing advice on obtaining any necessary medical assistance.

  Psychiatric and other medical reports are often provided by successful claimants for compensation for miscarriage of justice in support of the non-pecuniary loss element of their claim when it is alleged that the claimant's health/mental health has been affected by their period in prison. While the onus is on the applicant to provide such reports to substantiate the particular element of their claim, the cost in obtaining them will be considered when the final award is being assessed.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average waiting time for admittance to the compensation for miscarriages of justice scheme over the last 12 months was. [133573]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 21 October 2003]: In the 12 months to September 2003, the average time taken to determine eligibility for compensation under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (the
  718W
  statutory scheme) or under the ex-gratia arrangements announced by the then Home Secretary (Douglas Hurd) in his statement to the House of Commons on 29 November 1985 was 182 days.

  North Wales Police
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) staff, (b) civilian staff and (c) police officers have been recruited by North Wales Police in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [134509]

  Ms Blears
  The number of police officers in North Wales Police was 1,607 at 31 August 2003, an increase of 238 since March 1997. The number of police staff at 31 March 2003 was 703, an increase of 227 since 31 March 1997. Figures for the recruitment of police staff are not collected centrally. Those for police officers are set in table.

  North Wales police

  Police officers recruitment

  2000–01

  119

  2001–02

  90

  2002–03

  1,331

  Note:

  March 2003 figures are not comparable to previous recruitment figures as data includes transfers from England and Wales forces and officers returning after a period of secondment.

  Driving Offences
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the number of penalty points required to be incurred by drivers leading to an automatic ban; and if he will make a statement. [136182]

  Ms Blears
  Drivers can expect to be disqualified from driving if they acquire 12 penalty points. The Government have no plans to increase this trigger level.

  People Trafficking
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the need for the introduction of safe houses in Leicestershire for(a) women and (b) children rescued from traffickers involved in the illegal sex trade. [134356]

  Caroline Flint
  The Government has acknowledged that provision needs to be made for the victims of trafficking, in whichever part of the country they may live. It is intended that any victim support measures should be available in due course for all victims of trafficking.

  The best information we have about possible number of victims of trafficking in the United Kingdom comes from research published in the report—Stopping Traffic (2002). This estimated that anything between 140 and 1,400 were trafficked annually into the UK for purposes of sexual exploitation.

  At present the majority of known trafficking cases are in London and surrounding areas—this is where the service delivery partner is based and have developed

  719W
  their specialist services. Additionally pro-active policing by the Metropolitan Police is uncovering numbers of victims of trafficking in London also.

  There is growing evidence to suggest this is a national problem and it seems reasonable to suppose that wherever there is a well developed vice market, there is likely to be a demand for trafficked women to work in the sex industry.

  The White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven"—published in February 2002—sets out our general proposals for assisting the victims of human trafficking.

  On 10 March this year, we launched a pilot scheme in the London area. Under the scheme, adult female victims of human trafficking for sexual exploitation whose circumstances meet the criteria set out in the White Paper are offered protection and support provided:

  The victim has been brought to the UK;

  She is being forcibly exploited;

  She is working as a prostitute or she demonstrates that she has escaped from the trafficker, and that in the period immediately prior to her escape she had been working as a prostitute;

  She has come forward to the authorities; and;

  She is willing to co-operate with the authorities.

  The objectives of the pilot scheme include: to develop mechanisms that enable and ensure formal assessment of the number of victims of trafficking, the assessment of the relevance and impact of the services provided, development of a multi-disciplinary case-work model to facilitate the effective identification and assessment of victims.

  Under the provisions of the Children Act 1989 minors are the responsibility of local authority social services Departments. It is not possible for minors to be admitted to the pilot scheme.

  The pilot scheme will be evaluated to assess its impact. We will then consider what more we can do to help victims of trafficking.

  Police
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests were made by police officers in England and Wales on foot patrol in each of the last six years; and what percentage of arrests made in England and Wales this represents. [135870]

  Ms Blears
  Information collected centrally on the number of persons arrested for notifiable offences does not distinguish foot patrol arrests from other arrests.

  Police Grant Allocation
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage floor will be set on his Department's police grant allocation; and if he will make a statement on the relationship of that floor to the police pay award. [136020]

  Ms Blears
  I shall announce details of the provisional police funding settlement for 2004–05 in mid November, including details of the floor and ceiling on police grant.

  Prisons
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many full-time prison officers were employed by HM Prison Service in Essex on 1 September. [132631]

  Paul Goggins
  On 1 September 2003, there were 255 full-time prison officers, including senior officers and principal officers, employed in Essex. There were 76 at Bullwood Hall prison and young offender institution and 179 at Chelmsford prison.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the establishment of staff is at(a) Downview and (b) High Down Prisons; and how many staff were in post at each prison on 1 October. [133263]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is shown in the table. Figures are for all staff and are full time equivalent basis.

  Complement 1 October 2003

  Staff in post 1 October 2003

  Downview

  234

  186.5

  High Down

  481

  446

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 6 October 2003,Official Report, column 1246W, on prisons, if he will assess the likelihood of the legislative and other changes listed in his answer being fully implemented within the timescales of the projections. [133554]

  Paul Goggins
  The prison population projections only include legislative and policy changes that have been implemented or have an agreed date for implementation. All those listed in the previous answer are expected to have delivered their full impact during the period covered by the projections apart from automatic life sentences for serious repeat offenders where the impact is expected to extend beyond June 2009. The impact beyond June 2009 is projected to be around 50 prison places. Estimates made of the impact of such changes are kept regularly under review.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what provision is made by the Prison Service to ensure that prisons are able to fulfil their statutory duty to provide frequent and reasonable access to legal texts; [134622]

  (2) how many prison libraries stock legal texts and statutes as stipulated in Prison Service Order 6710. [134623]

  Paul Goggins
  All prison libraries are required by their service level agreement to stock the texts stipulated in the libraries Prison Service Order. The Prison Service ensures that libraries comply with this requirement through the Standards Audit and through the annual review of the library service level agreement.

  All prison Governors must ensure that libraries obtain the stipulated publications using the capitation grant provided for this purpose.
  721W
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners awaiting trial are being held more than(a) 50 and (b) 100 miles from their committal court town; [134624]

  (2) how many prisoners awaiting trial were sharing cells with convicted prisoners in the last month for which figures are available. [134625]

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

  On 31 August 2003, the latest date for which information is available, details were available for 7,473 prisoners, 94 per cent. of the total prison population

  Distance from court town

  Prisoners awaiting trial

  Number of prisoners

  As a percentage of the total1

  Held over 100 miles away from their court committal town

  96

  1

  Held 50–100 miles away from their court committal town

  556

  7

  Held fewer than 50 miles away from their court committal town

  6,821

  86

  Information unavailable

  507

  6

  Total number of prisoners awaiting trial

  7,980

  100

  1 Based on total number of prisoners awaiting trial

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans for the management of prison gardens. [135467]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 30 October 2003]: There are no plans to change the existing arrangements for the management of prison gardens.

  Rap Music
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of a link between violent lyrics in rap music and gun crime. [136248]

  Caroline Flint
  Although there has been considerable discussion about the relationship between gun crime and rap music, the Government recognises that there are many factors that can influence the incidence of gun crime. The glamorisation of violence and gun culture in music or other media aimed at young people is unacceptable, but we recognise that music can play an important part in young people's lives and be used to promote and reinforce positive images.

  Reoffending
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of overcrowding on the ability of an individual to participate in reoffending reduction courses. [135493]

  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Service keeps the impact of population pressures under review. The main threat to offending behaviour programmes stems from prisoners being transferred to another prison before completing a programme, in order to alleviate population pressures. So far this has been largely avoided. Only 1.5 per cent. of prisoners who started a cognitive skills offending
  722W
  awaiting trial. This information is shown in the following table. The number of prisoners awaiting trial who share a cell with convicted prisoners is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Prison Service rules and policy state that prisoners awaiting trial should not be required to share a cell with a convicted prisoner. Where it becomes necessary for an unconvicted prisoner to share with a convicted prisoner due to population pressures, they should only do so if they have given their consent.

  Every effort is made to ensure that appropriate prisoners are located together and any such decision is made on the basis of staff judgment and experience. Steps are taken to ensure that prisoners are held safely. A full cell-sharing risk assessment procedure is carried out before prisoners are considered suitable to share a cell.

  behaviour programme in 2002–03 failed to complete the programme as a result of transfer (which may have been due to overcrowding or for other reasons). This is similar to the previous three years and compares with 4.8 per cent. in 1996–97.

  Thames Valley Police
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department's targets are for the police officers per thousand ratio; what the Thames Valley Police Force's target ratio is; and to what extent his Department expects any imbalance will be addressed by the time of the 2004–05 grant allocation to Thames Valley. [136021]

  Ms Blears
  Thames Valley Police had record police strength of 3,965 on 31 August, which is 270 more than in March 1997. In addition the force had 2,412 police (support) staff, which is 587 more than in March 1997.

  No target for ratio of police officers to 1,000 population is set. Decisions on the balance between police officers and police (support) staff is a matter for the Chief Officers of Police and will have an impact on the ratio of police officers to population in forces.

  Tuberculosis (Prisons)
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many tuberculosis cases there are among the prison population; what measures are being taken to(a) identify and (b) isolate TB cases early; and what other measures are being taken to prevent transmission between inmates. [132550]

  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Service does not routinely collect information from establishments about the number of cases of tuberculosis among prisoners in
  723W
  England and Wales. It has, however, contracted the Health Protection Agency to provide a communicable disease data collection and monitoring service. As part of this contract, the London prisons will shortly begin to pilot use of a new reporting form, which will provide information on newly diagnosed cases of tuberculosis and also on people already being treated for tuberculosis when received into prison.

  The Health Protection Agency also issues a Quarterly Report on Infectious Diseases in Prisons. The two most recent editions have included detailed guidance about the control of tuberculosis in prisons designed to clarify and reinforce earlier guidance to establishments. This makes it clear that all prisoners should be screened for tuberculosis on first reception by direct questioning about the particular symptoms of the disease. Where any case of tuberculosis is suspected, immediate efforts should be made to confirm the diagnosis or to make an urgent referral to the local NHS chest physician. Any prisoners with symptoms of the disease should be isolated until a diagnosis is made. The recent guidance
  724W
  also includes advice on notification under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 and associated contact tracing.

  West Yorkshire Police Authority
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on police officer manning levels in the West Yorkshire Police Authority area. [135876]

  Ms Blears
  Decisions on the balance between police officers and police (support) staff is a matter for the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (Mr. Colin Cramphorn). At the end of August West Yorkshire Police had 5,169 police officers. This is 140 more than in March 2003 and 280 more than in March 2002. I understand that the force has forecast strength for 31 March 2004 at 5,286 officers. In March 2003 the force had 2,538 police (support) staff, which is 174 more than in March 2002.

  Additionally, West Yorkshire Police had 96 Community Support Officers on 31 August, with plans to have 160 by March 2004.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Excellent Authorities
  The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  Authorities categorised as excellent1 by the Audit Commission following comprehensive performance assessment are given a wide range of freedoms and flexibilities in recognition of their performance and capacity to improve.

  These freedoms and flexibilities include the removal of almost all plans, virtually no inspection and a dramatic reduction in ring-fenced grants. A programme is in train which has already provided some substantial freedoms. Others will become available as the Local Government Act 2003 and other deregulatory measures come into effect.

  The Government have decided that councils which lose their status as excellent where their performance has slipped should in principle retain the full range of freedoms and flexibilities for the following year, 2004–05. Exceptionally freedoms could be retained for a further year if that proves necessary in securing improvement in key areas of weakness.

  The Government will meet with formerly excellent authorities as soon as possible after recategorisation to determine how best to secure the necessary improvement in performance. The relevant Inspectorate/Department (as appropriate) will agree with the authority:

  the way in which the authority will tackle declining performance and what steps are needed to move back up to excellent;

  the time period within which improvement in performance is expected to take place; and

  how performance improvement will be supported and assessed.

  The principle of an inspection holiday will be retained for councils subject to an agreement, but there will need to be some inspection involvement in respect of any specific service in which performance has deteriorated. However, the scale and scope of assessment will be the subject of discussion with each authority and will be proportionate to the scale of the problem to be addressed. It could include a large degree of self-assessment.

  The duration of the agreement will be tailored to individual councils' circumstances but will be up to 12 months, although in exceptional cases it could be up to 24 months.
  32WS
  1 Excellent authorities that are currently less then 3 star education performers will gain access to the full package of flexibilities, including the inspection "holiday", as they relate to education on achieving 3 star status.

  Councils which have been recategorised downwards from excellent will remain members of the Innovation Forum.

  An agreement will be made when:

  a rule comes into play eg

  Social services performance falls below 2 stars;

  Education performance falls below 2 stars;

  Financial standing; the auditor's judgement falls to 2 or below on the 4 point scale;

  Any other core service scores 1 on the 4 point scale.

  Overall service scores fall below the 2002 threshold for excellent based on the 2002 CPA methodology.

  In exceptional circumstances drops in service or corporate performance may be sufficiently serious as to warrant immediate removal of some or all freedoms and flexibilities. These circumstances include:
  Service failure in either social services which would lead to zero star or special measures status, or education, in the event that an LEA receives an OFSTED inspection report graded "unsatisfactory" or worse;
  Exposure of fundamental problems in the council that had not previously been evident;
  Breakdown of relations between members and officers such that the council ceases to be able to run itself effectively.

  The reaction would be different in different cases and would be proportionate to the scope and severity of the failure. In the event of service failure in education or social services any removal of freedoms and flexibilities would be limited to those related to the relevant service area.

  Renewable Energy
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper)
  I am today announcing the start of the public consultation period for planning policy statement 22, which sets out this Government's planning policy for renewable energy projects.

  Increased development of renewable energy resources is vital to facilitating the delivery of the Government's commitments on both climate change and renewable energy. This new draft planning policy statement clearly sets out positive planning policies, which will facilitate renewable energy developments and contribute to all four elements of the Government's sustainable development strategy.

  This statement makes clear:
  that local planning authorities should set clear criteria in their plans on which renewable energy projects will be judged rather than identifying any specific locations suitable for certain types of development. We believe that the past emphasis on identifying specific areas of search within development plans has proved unsuccessful;
  that targets for renewable energy generation should be set within regional planning guidance, as indicated in the Energy White Paper. Such targets may be disaggregated sub-regionally if appropriate, but the aim should always be to exceed any targets set, rather than just meet them;

  33WS
  the latest Government planning policy relating to renewable energy developments and the additional safeguards for national parks or other national and internationally designated areas.

  Due to the need for clearer and more concise statements of Government policy this PPS does not include technical advice or good practice guidance. The intention is to publish separately a companion guide containing the technical details of what was originally in the annexes of PPG22. We are also keen to include evidence of good practice from both developers and local planning authorities within this guide. Work on the guide will commence shortly and it will be published alongside the final version of PPS22.

TRANSPORT

  School Buses
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  My Department is today publishing a research report by Steer Davies Cleave which evaluates the impacts of three yellow school bus pilots in Hebden Bridge (West Yorkshire) Runnymede (Surrey) and Wrexham (North Wales), plus a variety of other schemes around the country. I am arranging for copies of the report to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. This research sets of the potential advantages of well designed dedicated bus schemes and the service features which are most highly valued by both primary and secondary school children.

  Although the pilots evaluated have been relatively small in scale, there is clear evidence that dedicated bus schemes have the potential to reduce car dependency on the journey to school, the key objective of the travelling to school action plan, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and I published jointly on 17 September.

  Several local authorities have already submitted, or are in the process of submitting, capital funding bids for dedicated school bus schemes through the local transport plan process. I welcome the initiative that is being taken by local authorities in considering how dedicated school buses can contribute to the overall mix of transport policies at local level. Where these schemes can meet our normal appraisal criteria, and subject to affordability constraints, my Department will give full and fair consideration of such bids. consistent with its approach to other bids for major capital funding.

DEFENCE

  Gurkha Prisoners of War
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  The Government have carried out a detailed review of the eligibility for the ex-gratia payment scheme established in 2000 for far east prisoners of war. This follows the ruling in the High Court by Mr. Justice McCombe in November 2002.

  I am now able to announce that, in accordance with the principles set out in the judgment of the Court, the scheme will be formally extended to include those
  34WS
  Gurkha far east prisoners of war (FEPOW) who were held captive by the Japanese in the second world war and who, in 1951 when the peace treaty between the United Kingdom and Japan was signed, were citizens of Nepal. Claims can be made by the FEPOW or by their surviving spouse for the payment of £10,000.

  In order to deal with applications, a team from the Ministry of Defence will be established in Kathmandu and in Delhi by the end of February 2004. Application forms will be available for claims after this date but in the meantime an internet site http://www.army.mod.uk/fepow is available now for potential claimants to register their interest.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Oil and Gas Licensing
  The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms)
  I am pleased to inform the House that I am today offering Burlington Resources (Irish Sea) Limited an oil and gas exploration and production licence on Seaward Blocks 113/21 and 113/22 in the East Irish Sea.

  The successful applicant will have a fixed period in which to decide whether or not to accept the offers.

  DTI undertook an environmental appropriate assessment prior to advertising these blocks to ensure compliance with European Union environmental legislation.

  Overseas Exhibitions
  The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien)
  Details of UK Trade & Investment's £20 million programme of support for UK company participation in supported groups at overseas exhibitions, seminars and sector focused outward missions will be placed in the Library of the House. Sponsor organisations that bid for support to organise groups are being informed.

  These overseas exhibitions, seminars and sector focused outward missions continue to be central to trade development work world wide. UK Trade & Investment is conscious of sponsor organisations' need for flexibility in the way in which the funding is allocated. The operation of the programme during the 2004–05 financial year will continue to take account of this need for flexibility, within the overall budget provision, and the need for efficient administration.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Magistrates Courts Service
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  The Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Magistrates' Courts Service for 2002–03 has been laid before Parliament today. This document gives full details of the Magistrates Court Service Inspectorate's performance for that year. Copies of the Report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn)
  On 4 November the Executive Board of the International Finance Corporation (IFC) agreed to provide a loan to help fund the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Pipeline. The IFC decision was taken by the IFC Executive Board on which 175 shareholders are represented by 24 Directors, including the UK. The IFC loan, which will be at commercial rates of interest, is for around 4.5 per cent. of the total cost of the BTC pipeline and accompanying Azeri-Chirag-Gunashli (ACG) Phase 1 oil field development projects.

  The BTC pipeline will provide an export route for oil from Azerbaijan's Caspian oil fields. The Governments of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey—the countries through which the pipeline passes—strongly support the project and have negotiated agreements with BTC Corporation, the pipeline company. Azerbaijan, a low-income country, will benefit from significant revenues from the ACG oil field development. Georgia, also a low-income country, will benefit from transit revenues of up to 10 per cent. of current GDP/year. The pipeline will help to strengthen cooperation between the three countries and increase their links to global markets. It will provide local employment and demonstrate the potential for foreign investment. The construction of the pipeline, which will be buried underground, has already started.

  Responsible and transparent management of oil revenue will be vital if the BTC project is to achieve real development benefits for the people of the region. Working to achieve this will need to be a priority for the Governments of the region, with support, assistance and oversight from civil society, the private sector and the international community. The agreement of BTC to "publish what it pays" and in turn the agreement of Georgia and Azerbaijan to "publish what they receive" are welcome steps. The UK will continue to work to increase transparency and build local capacity in decision making on the use of revenues, including through the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI).

  DFID is not providing any direct funding for the BTC project. DFID's role is as a shareholder of IFC and of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)—whose Executive Board will consider finance to BTC on 11 November. The institutions carried out rigorous social and environmental, integrity, legal and commercial due-diligence procedures. In accordance with our standard practice, we did not duplicate the due diligence undertaken by these institutions.

  Over the last year DFID officials have met with local and international NGOs, staff from IFC and the EBRD, BTC and representatives of the governments involved to build a better understanding of the benefits and risks associated with the pipeline. In view of the project's complexity, DFID commissioned consultants to do an assessment of the BTC Environmental Assessment. They confirmed compliance with the IFC and EBRD policies and procedures. I will place a copy of this report in the House of Commons Library.
  36WS
  The Government recognise that large-scale pipeline projects such as the BTC pipeline present risks as well as potential benefits. Project risks include the weak governance environment and the potential social and environmental impacts of the pipeline. The multilateral institutions have thorough environmental and social safeguards procedures and genuine expertise of working in the region. We believe that their engagement provides the best prospect that the BTC pipeline will be constructed and operated to the highest standards. The UK Director at IFC therefore supported the project.

  We are now focusing on ensuring that the project is implemented properly. In particular we recognise the importance of very strong monitoring including NGO and community representatives. We therefore pressed IFC to:

  Ensure regular independent consultation on monitoring the implementation of the project—IFC will set up a mechanism that brings together IFI staff, the sponsors, Governments from the region, civil society (local and international) and representatives from the IFI Executive Boards in order to resolve issues arising during project implementation.
  Encourage enhanced transparency of revenue management—IFC will support the IMF and the World Bank in their efforts to promote the transparency of revenues in both Azerbaijan and Georgia and to encourage the use of these revenues to support Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper objectives.
  Demonstrate how IFC has learnt from the BTC/ACG projects—IFC will ensure that these lessons are properly reviewed and inform future policy development, including in discussions of the Extractive Industries Review (EIR), and report back to the Board. We made clear that we would strongly support the use of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for future infrastructure projects on this scale. IFC agreed to include in its review an assessment of the potential for SEA in future large scale and cross border projects. Other shareholders supported the UK points.

  The challenge now is to ensure that the people of the region benefit from the opportunities offered by the Caspian's natural resources. This will require concerted effort by the countries of the region, and also by civil society, the private sector and the international community. The UK Government will work to ensure that risks, which might impact on this project's contribution to sustainable development, are addressed.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EU Council Meetings
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane)
  The forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union is as follows:

  Date

  Location

  Event

  November

  4

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  6

  Brussels

  EU—Russia Summitt

  6

  Brussels

  Justice & Internal Affairs (Informal Council)

  6

  Milan

  Meeting of Ministers for Urban Policies

  6-7

  Catania

  European Conference on Employment

  37WS

  Date

  Location

  Event

  14-15

  Taormina, Sicily

  Ministerial Seminar on Mountain issues in the EU

  17-18

  Brussels

  General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC)

  17-18

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  18

  Milan

  European Conference on Immigration & Labour Market

  21

  Rome

  Informal Ministerial on Consumer Policy

  24-25

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  24-25

  Brussels

  Education, Youth & Culture Council

  27-28

  Venice

  Euromed Agriculture

  27-28

  Padua

  Informal Ministerial Meeting on Housing

  27-28

  Brussels

  Justice & Internal Affairs (Informal Council)

  28-29

  Naples

  Foreign Ministers Conclave on IGC

  28

  Brussels

  EU & Western Balkans JHA

  December

  1-2

  Rome

  Euromed Meeting

  1-2

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council

  1-3

  Rome

  Informal Public Administration Ministerial

  2-3

  Naples

  EuroMed Foreign Affairs

  4-5

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  5-7

  Rome

  Closing Conference for the European Year of the Disabled

  8-9

  Brussels

  General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC)

  9

  Brussels

  EU and Western Balkans Foreign Ministers meeting

  12-13

  Brussels

  EUROPEAN COUNCIL

  15-17

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  16

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  22

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  January

  8

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  16-17

  Brussels

  Employment & Social Policy (Ministerial Informal)

  16-17

  Galway

  Informal Employment and Social Policy

  19

  Brussels

  Eurogroup

  20

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  22-23

  Dublin

  Justice & Home Affairs (Ministerial Informal)

  26-27

  Brussels

  General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC)

  38WS

  Date

  Location

  Event

  February

  10

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  19

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs (Ministerial Informal)

  23-24

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC)

  23-24

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs (Ministerial Informal)

  25-26

  Porlaoise

  Meeting of Regional Policy Ministers

  26

  Brussels

  Education, Youth & Culture Council

  March

  2

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  4-5

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs (Ministerial Informal)

  8-9

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  9

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  11

  Brussels

  Competitiveness Council

  22-23

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC)

  22-23

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  25-26

  Brussels

  EUROPEAN COUNCIL

  25-26

  Dublin

  Informal on Humanitarian Aid

  31

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs (Ministerial Informal)

  April

  2-4

  Punchestown

  ECOFIN

  16-17

  Tullamore

  GYMNICH

  18-19

  Unconfirmed

  ASEM Foreign Ministers Meeting

  23-24

  Brussels

  Economic & Financial Affairs (Informal)

  26-27

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC)

  26-27

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  29-30

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs (Ministerial Informal)

  May

  6-7

  Dublin

  EuroMed Foreign Ministers

  9-11

  Killarney

  Informal Agriculture

  11

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  14-16

  Waterford

  Informal Environment

  17-18

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC)

  19-20

  Offaly

  Informal Budget Committee

  23-25

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  27-28

  Brussels

  Education, Youth & Culture Council

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.

The Lord Bishop of Durham
Nicholas Thomas, Lord Bishop of Durham—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Oxford and the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

Energy Use
2.40 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
When the public awareness campaigns to reduce waste and energy use referred to in Changing Patterns—The UK Government Framework for Sustainable Consumption and Production will start; and how much they intend to spend on the campaigns.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government have allocated £30 million over three years to funding public awareness campaigns through the Waste and Resources Action Programme. That is in addition to existing activities such as the National Waste Awareness Initiative. The campaigns will operate at both local (beginning in January 2004) and national (beginning April 2004) levels. The Energy Saving Trust and the Carbon Trust also have active programmes to promote public awareness of the importance of reducing energy use. Further government-supported activities to raise public awareness are likely to be set out in the energy efficiency implementation plan to be published in February 2004.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which was somewhat helpful. However, does he agree that one of the main causes of waste and indeed of expense to consumers is the ridiculously short lifespan of many domestic appliances? Built-in obsolescence seems to arrive sooner and sooner. I am amazed that the Government's Changing Patterns document, which lays out their policies, does not seem to address that issue at all. Do the Government have any plans to bring in, first, labelling of an indicative lifespan and, secondly, to press Europe to introduce a system whereby the repair of such items can be VAT rated and
790
spares for appliances are required to be available for a reasonable time after the product's withdrawal from the market?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, any mandatory standards for the labelling of appliances would have to be agreed at European level. There are discussions on the energy use of appliances, and we have had some success at the UK and commercial level in changing consumer behaviour in relation to, for example, white goods which are energy efficiency labelled. As for built-in obsolescence, I am not aware of any discussions at European level on proposed mandatory requirements relating to expected life. Continuous product standards are being pursued in the UK with the various trade associations. That includes issues such as spares but does not specifically include the issue of expected life.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is there not a risk that the cost of the campaigns could be more than the savings and the reduction in waste and energy use?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think that is extremely unlikely since a relatively small change in consumer expenditure would yield billions of pounds of saving both on the energy side and in terms of minimisation of waste or the way that we deal with waste. Clearly, any such programmes have to be subject to an assessment of their effectiveness but relatively small expenditure, if properly directed, can have a very large return.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, while the work of the advisory committee on sustainable consumption and production is much to be welcomed, can the Minister say whether the Government have plans in the short term to increase the number of compulsory information instruments in addition to the EU energy rating labels and the new car CO2 labels? There are a number of voluntary information instruments at the moment but they are not well co-ordinated and certainly not obligatory. Are the Government prepared to add to the work of the advisory committee that of providing more information about the environmental impact of trade miles to which it does not seem to have given very much attention?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is a certain amount of discussion on trade miles in a number of contexts and research is being carried out. There are no immediate proposals for mandatory labelling for the other purposes to which the right reverend Prelate referred but discussions regarding domestic appliances are being pursued at sectoral level, as I indicated.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, do the Government have plans to deal with the mountains of unsolicited paper that come through our letterboxes every day of every week of every month of every year? Will the noble Lord encourage newspaper proprietors not to produce such weighty tomes at the weekend?

791
That would reduce a great deal of the disposal problem. With regard to energy, would it not be better to encourage, even by grant, the saving of energy rather than to build monstrous windmills all over the place?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, first, we are not building monstrous windmills all over the place. Every proposition is subject to proper planning consideration. We believe that renewable energy, including wind power, both onshore and offshore, can make a significant contribution. But the two issues of energy efficiency and renewable energy are not alternatives; efforts to change sourcing and to change behaviour are both needed if we are to meet the carbon objective set out in the energy White Paper. As to unsolicited junk mail, at the end of the day those who produce it must accept some responsibility for it. However, each and every one of us can exert a degree of consumer preference by indicating what mail we do and do not want. There is no overall attempt to ban junk mail in the way that my noble ex-friend suggests.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that Members of this House individually and collectively could make a great contribution to energy saving, first, if they made fewer repetitive speeches at various stages of legislation and therefore made fewer reading demands on the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and, secondly, if bodies such as the House's Procedure Committee took precise notice of ballots of Members and did not try to intervene by having 1½ hour lunch breaks on Thursday, which is not what we voted for?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on the first point, I could not possibly comment. On the second, while I have some sympathy with my noble friend, that is a matter for the House authorities and not for me.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, first, would I be right in assuming that when the energy efficiency implementation plan is published in February, it will bring together all the various initiatives in this field? Secondly, in view of the fact that market forces do not favour energy saving at the moment, particularly in the domestic sector, will the Government give the publication of the plan every possible impetus in their publicity arrangements?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the plan will attempt to bring together different sorts of measures which could help to deliver the energy efficiency targets set out in the White Paper. In relation to the market situation, one other strand of this is out for consultation at the moment, which is the Treasury and Defra consultation paper relating to fiscal incentives and disincentives in relation to energy efficiency. That will form part of the overall approach although it will be dealt with in the normal way of all forms of taxation.

ITV: Public Interest
2.48 p.m.
Lord McNally Lord McNally asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to protect the public interest regarding the future of ITV in advance of Ofcom taking up its responsibilities on 29th December.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, the Independent Television Commission will continue to protect the public interest regarding ITV until 29th December this year when Ofcom takes up its responsibilities and the new media ownership and programme content rules commence. Until that date the ITC remains responsible for regulating ITV in accordance with the rules set out by the Broadcasting Act 1990.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister now concede that the Government were wrong in not following the Puttnam committee recommendation that Ofcom should be allowed to look at the case for non-EU ownership of ITV before it was thrown to the market? Does he think it important now that he, as Minister, reminds shareholders or any would-be shareholders that the Government and the regulators will rigorously enforce the licence provisions which ITV will take over, particularly in terms of quality news provision, regional provision and British content, because that might dampen the ardour of some would-be suitors?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord's supplementary question is wide of the original Question, because the Question led me to the conclusion—I am glad to say that it was a false conclusion—that he did not understand that there was no interregnum between the existing and future regimes. I am glad that he understands that. I confirm that the Government were not wrong in implementing the new regime, which will take effect on 29th December, and that it will be rigorously implemented by Ofcom.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, 29th December is not very far away. Although many of us may think that the pre-scrutiny committee's proposed breathing space would have been safer, will the Minister commit to use all his and the Government's considerable powers of persuasion to encourage Ofcom to put the ITV situation right at the top of its agenda, possibly even before the date on which it begins its operation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Ofcom comes into existence as a statutory body on 29th December, and all its powers and responsibilities, including those relating to ITV, will come into force then. There is no possibility of advancing or delaying that process.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the distinctive qualities of

793
ITV has been its smaller regional companies? Will the Government therefore ensure that, in the merger between Carlton and Granada, the interests in the advertising marketplace of the smaller independent regional companies that remain will be properly safeguarded?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that I can just about bring that question within the scope of the original Question, by saying that there are provisions in the regime to be brought in on 29th December under the Communications Act to ensure that programmes are made both regionally and for regional audiences.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that, until Ofcom gets legal life on 29th December, responsibility for the goings-on at ITV rests squarely with the Independent Television Commission, under the terms of the licence that the ITV companies hold?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. I thought that I had just said that.
Lord McNally: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his right honourable friend Patricia Hewitt has given considerable praise to the way in which shareholders in ITV have behaved recently? Does he think that ITV has anything to learn in terms of corporate governance from its near neighbour BSkyB?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I appreciate that I answer for the Government and not for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. However, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry having responsibility for corporate governance and having expressed her views on it, it would be impertinent of me to intervene.

Copyright Law
2.53 p.m.
Lord Lloyd-Webber Lord Lloyd-Webber asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to strengthen current copyright law, with particular regard to unauthorised exploitation of material which was not intended for the public domain.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, we have no plans to make further changes to copyright law beyond those that came into force last week. There are comprehensive remedies for copyright owners where protected material is used without permission. Use of
794
material that was never intended for the public domain may, of course, additionally be a breach of confidence. Remedy exists in the courts as well.
Lord Lloyd-Webber: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply—a careful reply, if I may say so. Does he believe that there is any case to introduce an American-style law of privacy in the UK?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, as noble Lords know, that has been a matter for discussion over the years. However, the Government are satisfied that current legislation provides adequate protection to an individual's right to privacy and a private life. In addition to the common law, the Data Protection Act, the Computer Misuse Act and the Children Act are tailored to safeguard the privacy of an individual in particular circumstances. In addition to those protections, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which was given effect in this country by the Human Rights Act 1998, affords a cross-cutting right to privacy.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does not the Question raise a wider issue that may also be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, on the more general protection of intellectual property? With the advance of technologies, it is now increasingly easy to exploit other people's ideas and creativity. As we want to become a country of creativity with value added, surely there is a need for strengthening national and international laws against copyright theft and intellectual property theft.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, we acknowledge the work that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has done in the area. He will remember that, in the 2001–02 Session, the Government supported his Private Member's Bill on video piracy. I assure him that the issues that he raises remain high on the Government's agenda. We have already made some progress to combat copyright piracy, and will continue to think about what needs to be done in future.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it may be sensible to revisit the law of confidence, and thereby in certain circumstances breach of confidence, rather than strengthening the law of copyright?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, nothing that has happened recently suggests to us that there is a need to revisit the law of confidence. Rights to confidentiality may arise in many situations—for example, where a breach of contract involves a confidentiality clause. Such clauses are normally contained in contracts of employment or for services. A duty of confidence may also arise where a person either knows or ought to know that another person can reasonably expect his privacy to be protected. A recent example of a successful case concerning breach of confidence was brought by Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones against Hello! magazine in

795
relation to private wedding photographs. We are content that the law is there and can be used if necessary.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in order to understand better the supplementary question of my noble friend Lord Lloyd-Webber, may I ask what is the American system of confidentiality that the Minister rejects?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, someone behind me said, "Give it an hour and a half. I am not a lawyer, and am conscious that I speak to an audience in which there are many lawyers. I have only had practical experience of the American privacy laws. They are very much tougher than ours, to the point of being almost unmanageable. Many has been the occasion when I have had to deal with American privacy laws and had books rewritten to make absolutely sure that they do not fall foul of them. We do not want what we regard as a rather oppressive law here. We are happy and satisfied that our privacy laws provide remedy for those who feel that their privacy has been invaded.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that my American law professor wife has written an admirable book—sorry, a wholly admirable book—called Invasion of Privacy? I hereby undertake to get her to send the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, a signed copy.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for that incredibly helpful intervention.

Political Parties: Donations
2.59 p.m.
Lord Campbell-Savours Lord Campbell-Savours asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the influence of individual and institutional donors on political parties should be more closely regulated.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 established that donations must be from a permissible source and must be declared. That promotes openness and transparency in the financial affairs of political parties and is four-square with the recommendations of the Neill committee. The Electoral Commission is currently undertaking a review of all aspects of party funding. We shall consider its recommendations following publication.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, my noble friend will know that if a trade union leader were to seek to manipulate Parliament by telling the Labour Party to ditch its leader, there would be an outcry in the country from the general public and cries of "disgrace" and
796
"abuse of power". In that light, and that being the case, why is it permissible for Mr Stuart Wheeler, a well heeled businessman, to seek to manipulate Parliament and the House of Commons by demanding that the Conservative Party ditch its leader, Iain Duncan Smith, as happened last week? Surely that is an abuse of power. Indeed, some would say that it borders on corruption of the whole political system.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government have no particular view on that issue; it is a matter for the Conservative Party. I mark only that the fact that we passed the 2000 Act makes it clear and publicly apparent that these issues are in the public domain, and that is surely right.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it would be good, in the public interest, to make it clear that trade union leaders will be given the powers to get rid of the Prime Minister?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I missed the last crucial words of the question.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I suggested that the easy way to overcome the problem would be to give trade union officials similar powers and, indeed, encouragement if they wished to remove the Prime Minister.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, that is what I can describe only as an interesting suggestion, but I am not sure that it would find universal favour with the Government. The House will be well aware that trade unions, many of which support the Labour Party, do not always get what they wish from the Government.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, will the noble Lord always bear in mind that it is a basic freedom in this country that every individual has a right to back any political party and that questioning a person's right to give money to that political party is a dangerous road to tread?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I believe that in many respects that argumentation led the Neill committee to conclude in its report that there was no need to put a cap on political donations; nor did it recommend state funding for political parties. The committee saw that participation by individuals in political processes, including the making of donations, was open to all citizens if they wished to do so.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I speak as a former member of the Neill committee. Do the Government feel that the time has come to deal with the abuse mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, by putting a limit on the amount that any one person—whether an individual, a corporation or a body such as a trade union—can contribute to political parties? Do they also feel that, by contrast, they should

797
encourage the making of small donations to political parties via a means such as Gift Aid on donations of up to, say, £500?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, knows better than most, this is an extremely well tilled field. No fewer than six studies have been carried out into party political funding over the past 25 years. The noble Lord is well aware of our position to date. At this stage, the most helpful comment I can make is that we shall await with interest the recommendations of the Electoral Commission on these issues next summer and shall then consider whether there is merit in them.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I have just heard the first move by the Government towards total state control of party funding. Would it not be better, as my noble friend said, to leave it to individuals to decide whether they want to support a political party? After all, is it not true that even someone who simply pays to become a member of a political party expects to gain some influence, even if only by going along to a party meeting and talking to his MP? Would it not be a great pity if the Government regulated the individual donor out of existence, leaving only the possibility of complete state control of party funding, which our Benches would totally oppose?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. It might well be a pity if I had implied on behalf of the Government that we had any intention whatever of doing anything that he suggested. However, that is not our position. Our position is that individuals are free to make political donations to parties of their choice; that there is no cap on the size of those donations; and that the issue of sizeable donations should be in the public domain. Political parties no doubt look to their own control mechanisms over such issues.
Lord McNally: My Lords, just for the record, is the Minister aware that the Conservative Party already takes more than £3 million in state funding? Clearly it believes in being just a little honest.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I believe it is good to try to avoid being excessively party political on many of these occasions. However, I am aware that all political parties receive state funding from a variety of sources: Short money; Cranborne money; and policy-development grants—the most recent initiative and a very useful source, with £2 million being distributed between the parties—in addition to the funding that national parties receive in support of national election campaigns. I do not believe that most people feel that the current system is fundamentally broken; it is a mixed system.

Unsolicited E-mails
3.6 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to obtain the co-operation of the United States in the implementation of the new European Union directive on unsolicited e-mails.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government implemented the EU Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications on 18th September, bringing into force an opt-in regime for unsolicited commercial e-mail to individual Internet subscribers from 1lth December 2003. However, we recognise that the problem of spam e-mail is global. The UK has held discussions on spam with the US Administration and is currently active in discussions on this issue in wider global fora, including the OECD.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. He will be aware that more than 50 per cent of all global e-mail traffic now consists of spam and that it is reckoned that by February that proportion will rise to 70 per cent. That compares with a figure of just 8 per cent two years ago. However, does he agree that the opt-in regime under the EU directive is all very well but that it will be completely worthless unless the United States takes seriously its responsibility to stop all the junk that comes out of that country? A huge proportion of it apparently comes from Florida, where 200 spammers are sending 50 million e-mails each day. Why cannot everyone follow the admirable example of Italy, which has interpreted the EU directive in a way that makes everyone who sends e-mail advertising without the informed consent of the recipient guilty of an offence which can carry a gaol sentence of up to three years?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend has identified a substantial and, as he indicated, growing problem. That is why we are concerned to tackle the problem as best we can on an international and, indeed, global basis. A parliamentary committee visited the United States to try to impress upon that country that we in Europe regard opting-in as a crucial dimension of any legislation. We recognise that there is some federal activity in that respect and almost half the American states now have some controls over spam.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the better the controls in the European Union and the United States, the more one will drive the spammers to use sources and servers in places such as Kyrgyzstan and Russia, which they are already doing? Does he also agree that the effect of implementing controls in Florida, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, would simply be to expand the traffic in those places?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord has just reinforced the point that I sought

799
to make: we need to tackle this issue on a global basis because it is a global problem. However, as my noble friend Lord Faulkner indicated, at present a substantial amount of spam is generated from the United States, and it would certainly be enormously advantageous to all of us if the Americans could be persuaded to introduce federal legislation to tighten up in this area.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the totally satisfactory answer to this problem is not to have an e-mail address? Would the Government be minded to encourage a proactive policy of supporting a vigorous revival of letter writing, preferably by manuscript?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate tempts me to say that I still cultivate the art of letter writing. However, he will recognise that in this day and age all organisations, particularly organisations with an international dimension, use e-mails, including his Church which I am sure uses e-mails to a substantial extent.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, would the best answer be to get the Internet service providers to clean spam out of their systems as it comes through the e-mail system?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that would put an enormous demand on ISPs. We do not believe that that is an impost that can be enforced at the moment. Clearly, we expect organisations to provide opportunities for people to protect themselves against the incursion of spam. That is why we now have an opt-in regime in this country, as there is in Europe. If one does not want what are often superfluous e-mails one can take steps to protect oneself against them.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that there is a problem not only with e-mails, but also with unwanted advertising that comes through fax machines, very often throughout the night? Short of turning off fax machines and rendering them unusable, what steps does he suggest to avoid that?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness has identified a growing problem in another area of developed technology. We need to move apace to protect the use of such technologies from enormously irritating material. I sympathise with her point, but as far as I am concerned,
"Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof,
and the e-mail issue is the significant one at the moment.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a telephone number that one can ring or an address to which one can write to
800
stop unsolicited fax messages? I should be very pleased to send that information to any noble Lord who would like it, if I can find it.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lady is right. That is exactly how one protects oneself against such unsolicited mail. One can ring the appropriate telephone number. I am grateful that she is helping to publicise that fact. Of course, at present that applies only to individuals and not to companies, but it is an advance and I am sure that many Members of the House will be duly grateful for that fact.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, would the Minister consider government action on e-mails that would suggest to the writers of programs for e-mails that there should be a "Return to sender" icon? On a lot of junk mail that is delivered through the post appear the words, "If undelivered return to" and I return it all to the senders who have to pay for the return postage. They soon get the message.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness has identified a growing practice of consumer resistance to unsolicited mail of various kinds. I applaud her recommendation and hope that more of us take up her suggestion.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, during the war spam was tinned meat. Can the noble Lord tell me what spam means?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I was terrified that I would be asked for a definition of such names. I was ready to describe "cookies" and some of the other delightful concepts that are now used as shorthand for aspects of new technology. Spam refers to unsolicited mail.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House why the Government have fixed a derisory £5,000 penalty for this matter when the Italians—leaving aside the penalty of three years imprisonment as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner—have a fine of £66,000, which is much more proportionate to the amount of money involved in this trade?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it has often been asserted—quite accurately—in the House that the British are significantly more law-abiding with regard to European directives than many other societies. We can be confident that with a fine at this level we shall fulfil the requirements of the directive. The Italians may believe that they need a greater deterrent.

Criminal Justice Bill
3.15 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 now further considered on Report.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 128 [Increase in sentences for racial or religious aggravation]:
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 79, leave out lines 5 to 7.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this group of amendments concerns hate crime. Although a number of noble Lords will be interested in this subject, I can see that many are not. I shall pause so that people will have an opportunity to listen.
Hate crime is an offence of any kind committed against a victim because of a characteristic of the victim that the offender particularly dislikes. So far the statute law has identified a number of them—race and religion—and it has dealt with them in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to which were attached some provisions in Section 38 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Since I drafted the amendment—I should perhaps have seen this before— the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, has tabled Amendment No. 201A which adds two new categories: sexual orientation and disability. I thoroughly approve of that.
It would have been useful to have a preliminary discussion on this matter in Committee. I had intended to say something on a Liberal Democrat amendment which was tabled but in the end it was not moved because the necessary troops were not present. The matter arises out of the Select Committee on Religious Offences where my colleagues and I had a good deal of opportunity to consider the law, as it currently stands, on this point and its disadvantages. I am told that my drafting is hopelessly faulty. That is no novelty for anyone who moves amendments in this House. Nevertheless, the various points are: worthy of consideration and discussion.
I have tabled Amendment No. 199 which deals with a number of characteristics and at the end I have put in the vague phrase,
"or other identifiable characteristic".
The noble Baroness and her advisers do not like it. My problem is that in terms of what we already have on the statute book, we are nowhere near meeting what is currently in process, and has been for a very long time—the European Council draft framework decision on racism and xenophobia. That does not concentrate solely on race and religion or indeed on sexual orientation and disability; it deals with race, colour, religion, descent or national or other ethnic origin. The letter that the noble Baroness was kind enough to send to me stated that when all those matters turn up as problems, we shall have primary legislation to deal with them. That means that we shall have a criminal justice Bill every year, as usual. So be it. If that is the Home Office's attitude to this matter, we must put up with it.
I pick one small quarrel, although not with the noble Baroness as I know that this is not part of her portfolio. However, the issue was discussed in the
802
report of the Select Committee. The Home Office should have replied to it within three months. It did absolutely nothing. There is one feeble letter from the junior Minister, and we have had no reaction whatever. Therefore, I think it is probably quite appropriate to raise the matter at this stage of the Bill, even if it would have been better raised in Committee.
The statute law on hate crime is in a real mess. We have had two statutes—one in 1998 and one in 2001— which dealt with race and religion. They created aggravated offences. They also substantially increased the maximum penalties for a number of fairly ordinary, but nevertheless very unpleasant, offences, sought under Section 20 or Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act; harassment under the Public Order Act and the Protection from Harassment Act; and criminal damage. I shall not go into the details, but, for example, under the Criminal Damage Act— not including arson or criminal damage intended to endanger life—the maximum penalties were increased from 10 to 14 years. Those are now available to the courts in cases where aggravation is established.
I should have thought that all Members of your Lordships' House would agree that where such aggravation on the basis of any hate crime is established, a court should be able to impose an increased penalty. That is exactly what is provided in Amendment No. 201 A, tabled by the noble Baroness, but only for that limited category.
The current situation is that if a person commits an offence, activated by hatred of the victim, which falls within one of the classes where the maximum imprisonment is life, there is no need to do anything about it. Nothing has been done about it. In other words, homicide offences under Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act—that is, grievous bodily harm to malicious wounding, both of which carry life—and offences under the Criminal Damage Act, such as criminal damage with the intent to endanger life or arson which also carry life, have not been included in any legislation so far because there has been no need. The maximum sentence being life, the court has liberty to put the correct maximum tariff on the offence.
On the other hand, we have the other sets of offences. First, there are those dealt with under Sections 29 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act on the basis of race, where there is an increase in the maximum sentence on the grounds that these are aggravated offences. To those were added the religiously aggravated offences under the 2001 Act, in which the courts are enabled to increase the sentence above what would be the maximum in other cases. But of course the difficulty is that the offender has to be charged with a racially or religiously aggravated offence.
That matter must be proved to the satisfaction of the jury. If the members of the jury are not so satisfied, they can of course convict—and will have to be directed to convict—on the lesser, "unaggravated", ordinary offence. If they do so, there is a major problem for the judge—or indeed the magistrates—

803
because the one thing that cannot then be taken into account is the aggravating circumstance because that has been dismissed by the finders of fact and is no longer available as an aggravating circumstance. Therefore, it cannot be the basis of the sentence.
In Section 153 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 there is a more general power, where in respect of anything other than the Crime and Disorder Act and legislation on religious offences the court must treat aggravation as increasing the seriousness of the offence, and therefore raise the sentencing limit within the maximum laid down by the statute. But there is no increase in the maximum laid down by any other statute, and the whole thing rests entirely upon the maximum in the other legislation. There is no similar provision, as in the Crime and Disorder Act, whereby the actual maxima sentences are increased in order to deal with what is seen as the mischief. That applies only where it is not a matter of race and religion.
Now we have the amendment that the noble Baroness will move as part of this group, whereby she says that we should add to the Section 153 list the matters of sexual orientation and disability. There will be no increase in the maximum sentence, as was the case for race and religion, but, nevertheless, the seriousness can be reflected by the court in the sentence imposed. So I would suggest to your Lordships that there is legislative chaos in this particular area. There has been no comprehensive consideration of this, nor have we had any answer to the package in the report of the Select Committee on Religious Offences where we dealt with the matter.
I suggest that we should have a more general look at the point. I dare say that my amendment is wholly defective, but never mind; there is something in it that might appeal to all noble Lords. The concept is that we should no longer go along with the particularities that so far distinguish this legislation. In Amendment No. 199, I have attempted to broaden out the kinds of hostility and include the other identifiable characteristic which the noble Baroness does not like.
Then, as in Amendment No. 201 A, we have a general provision for an extra penalty being legitimate on the grounds of aggravation, if an offence is proved to have been motivated by this kind of hate crime. It does not actually have to be proved to the jury. Therefore, the judge is not debarred from imposing an increased sentence because the prosecution has not had to put the matter on a basis of a particularly aggravated offence on a specific reason. Therefore, the jury members have not had an opportunity to discuss this or to come to any conclusion on it. The matter is therefore in the hands of the judge. He will be able to look at the situation in the light of all the considerations that have come out either in the course of the crime or in looking at the antecedents.
I do not know what will happen in this kind of area as a result of the previous provisions in the Bill. I do not know what will happen to the bad character part of the Bill. I expect that it will come winging its way back from another place in exactly its original form,
804
before amendment was made to the Bill yesterday. One way or another, either under those provisions or those passed yesterday on a Division by way of Sections 82, and so on, to the Criminal Evidence Act, the court will have a discretion on whether or not to allow previous convictions to come in as part of the evidence to the jury or to the magistrates.
It seems to me that if someone is accused of criminal damage in that he sprayed offensive graffiti on the wall of a mosque and the jury are told—if it gets to a jury— or the magistrates are told that the defendant has a number of previous convictions for graffiti and religiously motivated criminal damage—spraying swastikas on Jewish tombstones, or whatever it might be—those points would be so prejudicial to the fairness of the trial that a judge probably should not let them in. If we are determined to stick to a separate regime for race and religion whereby guilt would have to be proved on the basis of an extra motivated aggravated crime, such previous convictions would be fiercely argued as between the prosecution and the defence. They would be extremely prejudicial to the defendant's chances, as he may not have committed the previous offence or the current one.
I do not know what will happen as regards bad character; however, it is not necessary to go down that road at all. If one takes the view of the draft framework decision that there is a whole range of objections that motivate people to attack each other or each other's property, and one moves away from having cases that must be proved on the basis of racial and religious aggravation, one has a much more general situation in which courts can treat all those factors as a matter of aggravation. They may need to look at the maximum sentences currently available for the kinds of offences to which I refer. Some are comparatively small, but they may be adequate. The noble Baroness, in her amendment, has not considered it necessary to increase any of the maximum sentences in the circumstances about which she is talking.
This is an opportunity to look broadly at the area to see where we are going. I am very unhappy at the suggestion that we must pinpoint one target group after another and have primary legislation later to bring them into the system whereby the courts can treat the circumstances as seriously aggravated.
In East Anglia, where I come from, thousands of Chinese work illegally and there are many other immigrant workers whose status I do not know. The local population does not necessarily object to them as such, but they may object on the grounds that illegal immigrants are using public resources and taking jobs that others would like. I do not believe that those circumstances would lead to victims being targeted on the grounds that they are Chinese, Albanian or any other nationality; there would be different reasons. It is not good enough to wait until someone can pinpoint the exact reason why certain people have been chosen for victimisation and made the object of various offences.
The issue should be broadened. We have now an opportunity to discuss it, probably not on the basis of my amendment, but certainly on the basis of

805
Amendment No. 201A, tabled by the noble Baroness. Perhaps we can discuss the issue more broadly to see whether we can end the extraordinary disparity between the three existing provisions and the new one that is about to be put on the statute book. This piecemeal approach cannot possibly make sense. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that the Companion gives guidance on the length of speeches on Report. I understand the interest that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, has in the area, but I ask noble Lords not to respond to his request for a wider debate on the issues.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, my name is attached to the amendment, as I am a member of the Select Committee on Religious Offences, of which the noble Viscount is the distinguished chairman. The Select Committee looked in detail at the concept of aggravation and made observations on it, particularly at paragraph 121, to which I drew the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, in a letter on 1st October. As she knows, having read those paragraphs, the committee concluded that there were serious disadvantages in creating statutory aggravated offences and that the right way to deal with the matter was through sentencing guidelines. The line of reasoning is reinforced by the establishment in the Bill of the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which removes the previous potential for the objection that the courts have not always heeded the advice of the Sentencing Advisory Panel.
I wrote to the noble Baroness on 20th October about homophobic offences. She replied a few days later saying that they could not be considered until the Met had undertaken a 12-month review of hate crime, which is due to start only this month. The Government, as an afterthought, have created in their amendment a new statutory offence applicable to crimes motivated by hatred of gay and disabled people. Although I join the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, in applauding the idea, I take issue with the manner in which the legislation has been framed.
The Select Committee reported as long ago as 10th April, and five months later the feeble letter that the noble Viscount mentioned was sent by the junior Minister, Fiona Mactaggart, stating that the Government intended to provide observations on the report by the middle of last month. They have not appeared yet, but the Home Office, in what I must say is its typically arrogant way, has ignored the reasoning of the Select Committee and avoided any discussion of a matter that it knew was a proximate subject for legislation. It knew that long before the Select Committee reported, because the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General gave evidence to the Select Committee, during which the matter was discussed in some detail.
I do not wish to incur the wrath of the Government Whip by making a long speech but I cannot resist the temptation to quote a remark by the noble and learned
806
Lord that echoes precisely what the noble Viscount has just told us about the disadvantages of the approach. As reported at page 229 of the minutes of evidence, the Attorney-General said that,
"if you do charge the aggravated version of the offence and the jury acquit on that but convict of the lesser version of the offence (and sometimes juries do take what might seem to be a compromise position) it would be hard for the sentencing judge in those circumstances to take into account conduct which by their verdict the jury had ruled out".
That is the situation regarding the offences dealt with under Sections 29 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act.
The Select Committee pointed out that the Crime and Disorder Act had no direct effect on sentencing for the most serious offences, the maximum penalty for which is already life imprisonment. We said that, where the jury was not satisfied that racial or religious aggravation was involved, but they convicted on the bare offence, as the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General explained, the judge, in sentencing, would be unable to take motivation into account, even if the defendant had a long history of previous conduct displaying racial or religious hatred. The Committee drew attention to the guidelines that were issued by the Court of Appeal in conjunction with the Sentencing Advisory Panel in the case of R v Millberry and others which dealt specifically with homophobic rape and to the complementary initiative by the DPP to treat all homophobic crime as having aggravating indications that should be addressed in the presentation of evidence. The judge would therefore be alerted to the possibility of an increased sentence. Meanwhile, the Disability Rights Commission and others have drawn attention to the increasing frequency of crimes motivated by hatred of disabled people which they have shown affects as many as one in four disabled people.
Who on earth would have imagined a few years ago that we would be discussing these horrible offences of crimes against disabled people, motivated simply by a hatred of disabled people? Who could have imagined at the time of the Law Commission report, which led to our discussions in the Select Committee, that crime motivated by religious hatred would need to come before your Lordships' House? That is the point of the speech by the noble Viscount, which I would like to echo. In the Minister's scheme of things, if new groups become subject to crimes of hatred in the future, we would have to have a new criminal offence to deal with them. Under the scheme proposed by the noble Viscount, however, they could be dealt with as yet another group subject to the same provisions.
When this Bill comes into effect, there will be at least four different sentencing regimes associated with treatments of aggravation in our law. First, there will be the offences that attract the statutory increased penalties for racial and religious aggravation in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Secondly, there will be the more serious offences for which the maximum sentence is life, as I have explained, affected directly neither by the 1998 Act nor by this legislation. Thirdly, there will be all the other criminal offences to which the

807
concept of racial and religious aggravation now applies under Clause 128, but without the increases in maximum sentences provided under the Crime and Disorder Act. Fourthly, there are the offences motivated by hostility towards gay or disabled people, all of which are to be treated in the same way as racially or religiously aggravated offences under Clause 128. That creates the anomaly that if any of the offences covered by Sections 29 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act is motivated by hatred of gay or disabled people, it will be liable to a more lenient penalty than if that same offence had been motivated by hatred of the religious or racial origins of the victim.
It would be much better to sweep away this arbitrary taxonomy of aggravation, and institute the single, easily understood scheme recommended by the noble Viscount, following the ideas that he developed as a result of detailed consideration and agreement by the Select Committee of which he was the distinguished chairman. Under one and the same statutory provision, the courts would have to treat every kind of group-hate motivation as an aggravating factor, and would have to say so in open court. That would lead to greater consistency and uniformity of sentencing than under the four different regimes that will exist if the Bill goes through in its present shape.
Lord Alli: My Lords, I do not wish to take much of your Lordships' time. I know that this is a complicated Bill and many hours have been spent on it. However, I could not let this set of clauses go past without recording my thanks to the Minister for introducing Amendment No. 201 A. She listened very carefully and I know that it was a difficult amendment for her to get through with her colleagues. I want to record my thanks for bringing it forward at this stage of the Bill. Many people will be affected by this provision.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 201 and 201B in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond are grouped with Amendment No. 198. Our amendment also has the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth. I endorse Amendments Nos. 198, 199 and 200 in the names of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and my noble friend Lord Avebury. These three amendments follow the reasoning of the Select Committee on Religious Offences, in chapter 9, which deals with aggravation. It would be helpful at some stage to see the Minister's reaction to those amendments.
I fully endorse what has just been said. Miracles do happen from time to time and I want to grab this one as fast as I can. I am delighted that the Government have accepted our case for increased sentences for offences aggravated by reference to disability and sexual orientation.
We were impressed by the case made by the Disability Rights Commission, which identified hate crime against disabled people as a major human rights issue. My noble friend Lord Avebury cited the statistics. What is frightening is that nine out of 10
808
people with learning difficulties have had their self esteem, dignity and personal safety robbed by verbal or physical abuse or harassment. Such harassment often cannot be dealt with because the significance of such action may be lacking in law. I am delighted that the Minister has now decided to put that particular right. We now have provision in statute to ensure that crimes involving harassment by reference to disability or sexual orientation can be dealt with by the courts.
We support government Amendment No. 201A. With that in mind, we will not move our Amendment No. 201B. I have one minor concern: those who have studied matters relating to racial attacks and harassment are aware that many times, the aggravating factor based on race, colour, national or ethnic origin is ignored by the prosecution because it is difficult to prove. In some cases, the original offence is sufficient to convict and the CPS has been reluctant in the past to give added emphasis to aggravating factors. That is why our Amendment No. 201 is important. We need systematically to collect and interpret data relating to these offences. That would indicate how effective the provision has been. Without such a system of monitoring we would be unable to identify how many cases are proceeded with in which aggravation is a factor.
Much credit goes to our judiciary, which has not hesitated to pronounce increased sentences when aggravation is a factor. That is a good example of how we can all influence public opinion. The Government obviously have our support in the action that they have taken.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, will the Minister be speaking to her amendment? It is difficult for those of us who are new to this debate to know what everyone is discussing when she has not yet spoken to her amendment. Presumably she will, and will wind up quite separately.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Yes, my Lords, I will.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it may be convenient for me to speak now. I want to express my concern about Amendments Nos. 201A and 201B and Clause 128 in so far as they refer to sexual orientation. I know how strongly the noble Lord, Lord Alli, feels about these matters and how he is absolutely sure that it is necessary to make this change in the law to see that injustice is not done and that gay people are properly protected. However, I think that he appreciates that there is another side to the argument that should be expressed.
Many people who harbour no ill will to people of homosexual orientation still feel very strongly that homosexual acts are wrong. That is the view that is commonly held by churchmen, who rely on the biblical prohibition of homosexual practice. Not surprisingly, some may be compelled from time to time to speak out affirming their belief. On the other hand, many homosexual rights extremists view any disapproval of homosexual behaviour as hostility to themselves as

809
individuals and feel entitled to react to such hostility with violence. I drew to the attention of the House some months ago a newspaper report of a vicar in Southampton who stood on a soapbox and expressed his views about homosexual practice. As he made his speech, he was pelted with missiles thrown by people in the vicinity. The police came on the scene and arrested not the men who were committing acts of violence, but the vicar. Some people felt that that was a bizarre result. There is some reason 10 think that, if the government amendment, in particular, became law, such occurrences would occur more frequently.
I say that because of the interaction between the new clause and Section 154 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. That Act created a new Section 4A(1) in the Public Order Act 1986, which says:
"A person is guilty of an offence if, with intern to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he uses threatening, abusive or insulting words … thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress".
If the new clause became law, a gay rights activist could argue all too easily that words of hostility towards homosexual acts were words of hostility towards those of homosexual orientation who heard or read them and that the words were insulting and, therefore, amounted to the offence of harassment.
In other words, the new clause, although purporting to be about increases in sentences, enlarges what can be said to be harassment. An imam expressing disapproval of homosexuality in a local paper could find himself confronted by activists claiming that he had caused distress to local homosexuals by his hostility to their sexual orientation. Activists could demand the prosecution of a clergyman preaching a sermon that referred to the biblical prohibition on homosexual practice.
That is why I do not like the clause. I fear that it may be used by homosexual rights extremists to attack free speech and attack all those who dare to criticise them, not for what they are but for the way in which they conduct themselves and the way in which they seek to influence others. That would be unfortunate.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I agree strongly with the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. It would be mistaken to list categories of groups of people to whom the idea of aggravation can apply without leaving flexibility for other groups that we may not yet have thought of who may be victims of the same abuse or violence.
I have in mind particularly the kind of violence that is frequently inflicted on people who are, in a broad sense, members of the group of users of animals in laboratories. Often, that is used as an excuse for a personal attack on somebody who works in a laboratory or his relatives. That is just one example of the kind of area in which the concept of aggravation may be necessary. It would be rash to close the list of such groups, even with the extension now before us. Flexibility is extremely important.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I could not agree less with the views just expressed by the noble
810
Lord, Lord Waddington. With regard to the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dholakia, I shall talk particularly about Northern Ireland, in order to ensure that that subject is placed on the record.
I speak first to Amendment No. 201.I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State announce that the new legislation to deal with sectarian and racially motivated crime in Northern Ireland would be extended to include crimes motivated by hatred of sexual orientation. That step is extremely welcome. Undoubtedly, sectarian crime is the most prevalent form of hate crime in Northern Ireland, but other forms of hate crime are on the increase. The police started collecting figures on racially motivated crime in Northern Ireland in 1996. Then, 26 such crimes were reported; by April this year, the figure was up to 226, an increase of 769 per cent. Those figures are taken from the Chief Constable's report and are available on the website of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
In a BBC Online report on 27th June, the Equality Commission was reported as stating that racist attacks in Northern Ireland were running at a higher level than in England and Wales. My colleagues and I have heard of some hideous racially motivated crimes in Northern Ireland. Families have been intimidated out of their home; properties, such as the Indian community centre in Belfast, have been continually attacked; and there have many vicious attacks on individuals. One Chinese gentleman was beaten so badly during a mugging that he needed 195 stitches: he was carrying only £2 or £3 at the time.
Racial hatred is as important a matter to deal with as sectarian hatred, but so are other forms of hate-related crime. The Government have taken the welcome step of proposing to extend their hate crime legislation in Northern Ireland to include crimes motivated by hatred of sexual orientation. I am delighted about that, because reporting of hate crimes can be a complicated and distressing business. The Government have consulted on hate crime, but, until now, that process has not included dealing with homophobic crime. One incident reported to me involved a young man who went to a police station in Northern Ireland to report a homophobic crime. He was given the wrong form to fill in because the police had no idea how to deal with the incident. The collecting and interpreting of hate crime data will be essential, if we are to have proper reporting of such offences.
Can the Minister assure me that she will examine the wording of the forms and the procedure for reporting such crimes? Furthermore, will she ensure that the procedure is simple, clear and unequivocal and that the message about such crime is clearly understood? Will she further indicate that crimes of that nature in Northern Ireland will be treated with the utmost seriousness and severity of punishment? Finally, will she undertake to consider the possibility of installing a free phone number for people to report all incidents of hate crime?

811
Amendment No. 201B is about treating hate crime as an aggravating factor that increases the seriousness of the offence. It follows the Minister's amendment on stating in open court that the offence was so aggravated. The wording is similar, so I shall not repeat it. I just wish to encourage the Government to ensure that they put in place effective monitoring, once the measures are in place.
The Scottish Executive have indicated their willingness to put into legislation extended protection for disabled people, gays and lesbians, older people and women. I cannot help thinking that such an all-encompassing approach is the right one. In Northern Ireland, crimes against disabled people are not prevalent, but the Government were reluctant to put in place measures to combat racially motivated crime in Northern Ireland back in 1998, when the Crime and Disorder Bill was going through Parliament. They said then that racism was not a sufficiently serious problem there. I sincerely hope that we do not see an increase in crimes directed against people because of their disability or their gender, but if we are going to consider legislation on sectarian, homophobic and racial crimes, it would be appropriate to legislate for all forms of hate crime, in order to show our commitment to the many thousands of people who suffer lack of protection from some appalling criminal behaviour.
I look forward to seeing the Government introduce legislation for Northern Ireland in this area as soon as possible.
4 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, my first point concerns Amendment No. 201. How is the Secretary of State to collect and interpret data on the reporting of offences manifesting prejudice? Does that mean press reporting or court reporting? If it is to be the latter, that is rather more understandable because the facts will have been brought out and a decision will have been reached.
My second point concerns an important issue raised by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross about sentencing guidelines being a preferable means of dealing with the problems rather than legislating separately for each category of aggravated offence. When the Minister replies to the whole debate, I hope that she will spend some time on that point.
Lord Monson: My Lords, all the amendments in the group—none of which was discussed in Committee, even obliquely, as far as I am aware—can be criticised on a number of points. For example, the very idea of a "hate crime" is ridiculous and misleading. Hate crime is an American concept, which would have been laughed out of court on this side of the Atlantic 20, or even 10, years ago.
I say "misleading" because if a man attacks and perhaps kills his business partner, who he finds has embezzled every penny from the partnership leaving the victim totally destitute, it is not counted as a hate crime. Similarly, if a man kills his wife's lover, it is not
812
classified as a hate crime provided that the lover is male. If the wife's lover is a lesbian—as occasionally happens, to my certain knowledge—it is a hate crime. How preposterous can one get?
The conferral of group rights, which would be the effect of the amendments standing in the names of my noble friend Lord Colville and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is another North American innovation, although Canadian in this instance rather than American. As I understand it, in Canada, groups are deemed to have the same rights as individuals, if not greater rights; but at least my noble friend Lord Colville and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, are being consistent in trying to protect all identifiable groups, unlike the Government who are being extremely selective.
It seems that the noble Lords' amendments are designed to protect not only those with unusual sexual habits and the disabled, but also all other visible minorities. For example, fox-hunters, motorcyclists, joggers, non-disabled elderly, bald men, grammar school pupils and rough sleepers, to name but a few, sometimes attract hostility, as well as those often attacked in pubs and barrack rooms by virtue of speaking with the wrong accent in the wrong place. Those who speak with Scottish or Welsh accents are already protected; not so those who speak with Geordie or West Country accents in the south-east of England.
In contrast, government Amendment No. 201A is capriciously selective, as is Amendment No. 201B, and would result in even greater anomalies. If a cyclist pedalling furiously along a road or a pavement ran into a pedestrian—as happens all too often nowadays—and shouted, "You fool; are you deaf or something?", he would be caught whether or not the pedestrian was deaf. But if he shouted, "You silly old git" or "You silly old cow", he would be quite safe.
All the amendments are designed to provide extra protection for some. In law, we are all entitled to protection from the state, but these provide extra protection for those with minority sexual orientations, including paedophiles. Clearly, paedophilia is sexual orientation; there is no doubt about that. Above average protection would also be given to those people with some of the more bizarre orientations discussed in this Chamber just a few months ago in the course of the Sexual Offences Bill. I make no comment. I merely draw that point to your Lordships' attention.
When all is said and done, what difference does it all make to the victim? If a middle-aged, female cloakroom attendant, who happens to be black, is punched hard in the face by a drunken, teenage, female pop singer—most of us will have read about this recent case—the victim is hurt just as much and the cheekbones bruised for just as long whatever the motive or mixture of motives of she who threw the punch. I realise that in raising this latter point I can be accused of trying to shut the stable door after some of

813
the horses have bolted, and bolted for good. I am trying to prevent a great many more horses simply bolting.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I would be very grateful if the Minister would move her amendment because I wish to speak to it. I want her to move it first.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, it might be more helpful if I intervened now. I have a great deal of sympathy with the objectives of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. Sadly, he may be disappointed to learn that I shall not support the amendment if he divides on it, for reasons that I shall give. But I do have sympathy with the objectives.
I have sympathy, too, with the fact that today we are having what is really a Committee stage debate. As the noble Viscount said when introducing the amendment, that is no fault of his. It was merely an accident of fate, for very good reasons, that it was not possible for these amendments to be moved in Committee. Some noble Lords might say that it was open to the noble Viscount or other noble Lords in Committee to seize the opportunity and to move someone else's amendment. But we would all accept that at the time that would have been bad form. Therefore, being good form, the noble Viscount did not pursue that.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to the amendments. The noble Viscount is right that it is not satisfactory to have a piecemeal approach to legislation in this respect—I would say in any respect—but certainly with regard to these definitions and protections. It is the right time to have an overall look at the codification and to have a proper approach.
My noble friend Lord Waddington pointed out some of the difficulties that arise in competing legislation. But we must be grateful for small mercies, one of which is that because we have had time between Committee and Report, the Government have been able to reflect. They have tabled today an amendment that I strongly support, which is against the background that I would prefer the more far-reaching review that the noble Viscount called for and which I hope that the Minister may be able to direct us will happen in future.
It is difficult at this stage when the Minister's amendment is grouped with others. My noble friend Lady Carnegy is right to ask for some latitude. If Back-Benchers wish to ask the Minister questions, perhaps they may do so succinctly and within the rules of Report after the Minister has moved the amendment. I guarantee that I shall not do so.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Minister will speak to the government amendments. She may not move them because only the first amendment in the group may be moved. She will speak to them when she replies and has taken careful note that, within the rules, questions and factual information could be addressed to the Minister when she is replying to the whole debate.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I have been in the position of the noble Baroness often enough and long enough
814
to know that, under these circumstances, the Minister should move or speak to her amendment, along with others who are moving amendments in the group, to give everyone in the House an opportunity to hear the arguments so that they can address them in their speeches. We get only one opportunity to speak at Report. It was always the way in which things were done when I was doing it. It would be far the best for the House if the noble Baroness would do it that way. It is quite within the rules. I encourage her to take the opportunity to speak to her amendment now.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, perhaps I may have a little interlude before the noble Baroness does that. I see that she is advised by the Table that that is the proper approach, as the noble Lord has said.
With the greatest respect, I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, when he says that there is no such thing as "hate crime". As I see it, from experience, in our society there are young men who go around in groups and packs, tanked up with alcohol and perhaps drugs, to seek a target. That target may be someone who is different on account of their race, religion, disability or sexual orientation. I do not believe that those categories should be closed because those young men will single someone out and attack him simply because he is different.
What binds together all these forms of hate crime is that the person who is attacked is someone who is completely inoffensive and has done nothing to the group that is seeking to work out its aggression on that particular individual.
Perhaps I may cite an example from my home town. Noble Lords may recall that during the summer there was a suggestion that race riots had broken out in Wrexham. I found that ludicrous, having been brought up within a matter of yards of the place where the alleged race riot took place. Certainly the disturbance on the first day involved a group of asylum seekers who attacked a local public house. However, on day two a large disturbance broke out because police in riot gear were called in from Liverpool. That action brought into Wrexham every troublemaker from the surrounding villages and some 250 gathered to attack the police; they had their excuse and that is how they worked off their aggression.
I do not make that comment as a result of any personal insight into the particular affair, but Judge Roger Dutton, when passing sentence on many of those people only a week ago, made the point: this was not a race riot or a riot against the asylum seekers, and we do not regard ourselves as a race apart from Liverpudlians. Rather, this was an occasion when young people vented their aggression on the police, and that is what hate crime is all about. It is the act of attacking a person simply because he is different.
I think that the approach taken to this by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the approach adopted on these Benches is absolutely right. If people in an identifiable category are attacked in circumstances of

815
the kind I have described, those crimes should be described as hate crimes and the perpetrators punished accordingly.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I wish to put one question to the noble Lord because I genuinely seek the answer. Is he really saying that, if an elderly couple in a flat are badly beaten up and, say, one of them is black and the other white, because the assailant is a racist as well as a thug and uses racial abuse against the one but not against the other, such a crime should attract two different sentences?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am saying exactly that, as the noble Lord pointed out.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, taking his Wrexham example, are not the police a group with a number of identifiable characteristics? Is not hatred of the police a well known facet, not only in Wrexham but in many other places? Is a football team or its supporters another identifiable characteristic? Almost everyone could beat up someone other than a personal enemy; almost everyone will have one or other category of person that they dislike. Where would the noble Lord stop?
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I think that I can now satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, with propriety because I intend to speak to my amendment and to reply to the amendments moved and spoken to by other noble Lords. That will give the noble Lord an opportunity—
Lord Lucas: No, my Lords, absolutely not. I want to speak to the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, as well. The ordinary way of doing things in this House is for the Minister to move her amendment at the beginning as a part of the grouping. That would give noble Lords an opportunity to listen to her arguments and reply to them. I was in her position and I have done exactly that often enough.
I understand that the noble Baroness is not going to choose to take that course on this occasion, which I regret. Therefore I shall direct my speech now to the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and try to imagine what the noble Baroness means in her amendment. That is difficult because I have not heard her speak. She will sound off on her amendment and we shall be given no decent opportunity to reply to it or to integrate what we have to say about the other amendments in the grouping with what she will say about hers. I find that a profoundly unsatisfactory way of dealing with a government amendment, and I am sorry that the noble Baroness is choosing this course.
816
I wish to make a speech on the grouping as a whole, but the noble Baroness has chosen not to present her part in it because she has the right to respond at the end of the debate.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has omitted to read the Companion, which states that, on Report, noble Lords may not speak after the Minister.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the Companion also states that the Minister has the right, if she so wishes, to speak to her amendment earlier. That is a right which I used myself on many occasions when I had the honour to sit in her position, or rather in the position of the noble Baroness the Lady in Waiting. The noble Baroness has the ability to do that and it would make things better for the House.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, can I make it plain that I am perfectly content to speak now so that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, can say anything he likes about my amendment? I have been patiently taking advice as regards how I can respond with propriety and I am anxious to do so. I shall now speak to my amendment—
Lord Lucas: My Lords, no. I wish to speak to the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. If the noble Baroness now speaks in the way she wishes, I shall not have the opportunity to do so.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is my understanding of the rules set out in the Companion that the noble Lord may speak to all the amendments in the grouping together. The amendment which has been moved and is now before the House is the first amendment in the grouping. All the other amendments which noble Lords have agreed to include in the grouping may be spoken to or may not. My noble friend on the Front Bench has agreed to speak to her amendments within the group. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will then be able to make his speech on any or all of the amendments within the group.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope, with that clear exposition, that the noble Lord is at last content. I had somewhat naively believed that grouping my amendments with these would give noble Lords a little pleasure. I understand entirely that that is an aspiration which I should no longer hold.
Perhaps I may say straightaway to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, that I understand his concerns in relation to this group of amendments. I understand, too, that his amendment seeks to create a generic offence of hate crime into which members of any group could fall if they were to exhibit the characteristics which could qualify them for and merit the additional sanction or protection which the designation of a hate crime would provide.
I understand, too, that while the drafting may be flawed, it was crafted so that we could have the advantage of debating these issues properly and

817
provide proper protection for those who may have a peculiar vulnerability and be subjected to hate crimes. Therefore, there is no question of disparaging the amendment because it has given us the opportunity to do what we have now enjoyed for one hour and two minutes; namely, to debate this issue. For that, I hope the noble Viscount will not be too surprised when I say that I thank him.
Perhaps I may start by saying how much I welcome the concerted effort which has been made by several Members of this House to highlight the plight of victims of hate crime. As many noble Lords have pointed out, all forms of hate crime are pernicious and the Government must keep as a priority the need to tackle such crime in whatever form it takes. Of course I hear the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who said that the notion of hate crime is ridiculous and misleading; that it is a North American innovation which we could do without. That may be his view, but the reality is that, regrettably, hate crime is with us and, tragically, many innocent and vulnerable people are subjected to such crimes. We now have an opportunity to do something that will give better protection to those who are so subject.
I hear, too, what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, say about the failure to respond properly and comprehensively to the Select Committee report. I am told that the Select Committee report is detailed, weighty and deserving of a comprehensive response. This is now being undertaken and we are hopeful that our completed response will be available at some stage next week. That is our most realistic expectation. I unreservedly apologise that it has taken so long. I hope that when they see its contents the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will consider that it was worth the wait.
Let me now turn to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and those of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I shall first outline some of the background to satisfy the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy— who is not in her place at the moment, but I am sure that she will return to the Chamber—to know what we have been talking about for the past little while.
We have listened very carefully to the arguments on the subject of hate crime and have concluded that there is more than enough evidence to support extending the current requirement on courts to increase sentences for racially and religiously aggravated offences to include offences aggravated by hostility towards: the victim because of his or her sexual orientation or disability.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the evidence given to the Select Committee by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General. However, it is important to remember that what my noble and learned friend said was his own view. On page 228 at paragraph 667 he said:
"My own view is that there are advantages in having a separate offence as a matter of principle because it enables Parliament to send a very clear and loud message that particular conduct is not going to be tolerated".
818
That was my noble and learned friend's view, with which both I and the Government concur.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, so in other words the Government and Parliament are sending a loud message to the people who commit hate crimes against those who are characterised by their religion, lack of religion or racial origin, but not those who are characterised by sexual orientation or disability?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that is not what I am saying. We believe that the government amendments state very clearly indeed that the Government feel such issues should not be tolerated.
Let me now deal with the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. He referred to the worry that many will have that comment which is adverse to others may somehow be used as the basis for aggravation and prosecution. That is not the purpose of these clauses.
Such offences are worryingly common. A survey carried out by Stonewall and published in 1996 found that 32 per cent of those surveyed had experienced homophobic violence in the past five years. That figure rose to 48 per cent of young people under the age of 18. So we are not talking about people whose feelings may be tenderly hurt or touched; we are talking about people who are suffering violence and difficulty and whose lives are being made very miserable indeed by such actions.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the patient way in which she is dealing with the point that I raised. She obviously understands that I am not attacking for one moment the proposition that someone who assaults another because that other is a homosexual should not suffer a dire penalty. I am merely suggesting that the interaction between the new clause and the law of harassment could result in private individuals bringing private prosecutions to the embarrassment of us all.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we will still have the benefits of the Human Rights Act and the need for proportionality and propriety. The courts will have to determine whether such issues fall within or without the Act. We cannot legislate for the perverse. I cannot say to your Lordships that there will not be an individual who will seek to take improper advantage of the legislative framework that we have put in place, but we believe that the good sense of the judiciary and the way in which the legislation has been framed will ensure that those who seek to take such advantage are brought to a quick, sticky end. I do not mean a permanent end, but an end in terms of the way in which the litigation will be dealt with.
The Disability Awareness survey of 2001 found that a quarter of the disabled people surveyed had experienced harassment. A Mencap survey found that 90 per cent of people with a learning disability suffer from bullying on a regular basis, and a quarter reported physical assault.

819
Many of these offences are not reported to the police because of a lack of confidence that the criminal justice system can adequately deal with them. ACPO is aware of the problem. In most parts of the country, lesbian and gay police liaison groups work with the police to encourage reporting, respond to violent incidents, support victims and often also cover issues such as homophobic bullying. We believe that legislating will send a clear message to offenders, victims and witnesses that these very serious offences will not be tolerated.
It is appropriate at this point to mention Amendment No. 225B, which is a consequential amendment to Amendment No. 201 A. It changes the definition of aggravation by sexual orientation for the purposes of Schedule 19—"Determination on minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence"—to that used in the new clause on hate crime.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for indicating that he will not move the amendment standing in his name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, because it is very similar in effect to the government amendment. The only difference is that it includes hostility towards the victim because of gender as an aggravating factor. We do not believe that this is necessary. I am content that the noble Lord has indicated that he is also so content. Given that we have acted on recommendations from around the House, I hope that there will be no difficulty in dealing with the matter appropriately.
Amendments Nos. 198 to 200, which have been tabled in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, have a somewhat different effect from that of the government amendment, although I believe that the principle behind what we seek to achieve is very similar. If I understand the amendments correctly, their effect would be to apply the maximum sentences specified for racially and religiously aggravated offences in Sections 29 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to offences aggravated by race, religion, lack of religion, sexual orientation or other identifiable characteristics. This would enable sentencers treating such features as aggravating factors to pass sentences greater than the maximums currently in place for certain offences. The amendments would also give the police power to arrest a person without a warrant whom they reasonably suspect of committing an offence motivated by hate.
The first difference between these amendments and ours is the inclusion of hostility because of any "other identifiable characteristic" as an aggravating feature. "Any identifiable characteristic" is very wide, as many have said. Furthermore, we do not believe that we should legislate on the basis of any possible future need but rather on the basis of evidence, which we believe we have seen in the cases of hate crime against gay and disabled groups. If other groups are targeted by hate crime in future, the proper procedure will apply. The
820
evidence will be put before the House in the context of the Bill and the House will decide whether it is appropriate to legislate or no.
I now turn to the application of increased maximum penalties for offences aggravated by hatred of a particular group. Let me say that I personally hope that we will not have a Criminal Justice Bill every year, not least if I have the honour of still holding my current position.
We decided against creating aggravated offences and decided instead to provide for aggravating factors that would increase the severity of sentence without altering the maximum penalty overall that is available. We really do not think it is appropriate to increase the maximum penalties for these specific offences. A maximum sentence is set at a level which enables the sentencer to consider all the aggravating factors—that is, the worst case scenario for that offence. These have been set at the level deemed by Parliament to be appropriate. The racially and religiously aggravated offences were created specifically for a set purpose, and this cannot simply be applied to other aggravating features.
It is also inappropriate to apply the powers of arrest in Section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act to offences where the aggravating factors are to be taken into account. There is no demonstrable need for the increased powers of arrest in this context. On the basis of these arguments, and given the strong level of support for the government amendment from the House and from relevant stakeholder groups, I hope that noble Lords will be prepared to withdraw their amendments.
Amendment No. 201, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, seeks to specify that data collected under Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 should include certain group characteristics. The Secretary of State is required under Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to publish annually such information as he considers expedient for,
"facilitating the performance by such persons of their duty to avoid discriminating against any persons on the grounds of race or sex or any other improper ground".
As part of the Government's commitment to driving out hate crime, we are carrying out a review of the hate crime investigation manual in association with the Association of Chief Police Officers. This full-scale review, which will also consider how hate crimes are monitored, will be widely consulted upon. Without pre-empting the findings of that review, we feel we have the processes in place that will drive the changes in policy and investigations that we all seek in this area.
I remind the House that we are expending £1.16 billion on the criminal justice IT to try and bring about a much broader and more comprehensive understanding of what exactly is happening in the criminal justice system so that we can get the empirical data upon which we will be better able to craft policy and legislation in the long term, because we really need to understand what works. As that comes on stream, we will be able to utilise the IT to make sure that we are

821
getting the sort of data that will help us do the work we need to do. I say to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that the combination of those two factors should inure to our advantage, and it is for that reason that we will resist their amendment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, spoke about Northern Ireland. She is quite right that we have announced our intention to legislate by Order in Council on increasing sentencing for offences motivated by hatred of the victim because of his or her sexual orientation. This is because, as the noble Baroness indicated, there is, rather tragically, a particularly high incidence of homophobic crime in Northern Ireland. We are also considering the issue of hate crime against disabled people in the light of the Government's amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill. The Northern Ireland Office will be looking at that very keenly indeed.
The noble Baroness asked a whole series of specific questions in relation to Northern Ireland. Bearing in mind the stage we are at, rather than my reciting the answers to her, it might be preferable if I write to her on those matters. I hope that she will not find me discourteous if I take that course.
I have tried to interweave the answer to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, into the answers I have given so far. I hope that he will feel that he, too, has the answers he needs in that regard.
I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Alli. He speaks with some conviction and passion for those who have not had a voice in the past. It is important that we take into account that those who may disagree with the nature of others' sexual orientation should appreciate that, in terms of equality of treatment, everyone needs the protection of the law in a way that is meaningful and fair. We believe that this is a proper recognition at this stage, together with the proper recognition that we have a duty to be fair and appropriate towards disabled people.
I hope that I have replied to all noble Lords—I incorporated the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in the questions that I sought to answer.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I shall take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness for that explanation of her amendments. I support them—I entirely agree that this is a good thing to do. However, it is interesting to note, first, what she said at the end of her remarks about everybody needing the protection of the law—I shall come back to that. Secondly, it is interesting to note how extreme, in a way, her amendments are. In the same way as they protect the homosexual community, they protect paedophiles. We are saying—and I think it is quite right—thai: they, along with every other group in society, are entitled to the protection of the law. If someone is pursued by a newspaper or a mob because of their paedophile tendencies, they will be entitled to the: protection provided by the amendment.
I think that gets very close to the Government agreeing that this is a general crime—that everybody is entitled to this sort of protection. A crime of this sort
822
is not just a crime against the person it is committed against, it is calculated to strike fear, and prolonged fear, into the hearts of those who share whatever characteristic it is that someone is being persecuted for.
If we are to support the Government in going as far as they have in this amendment, then, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and I agree, we ought to look at protecting those who are persecuted and have been persecuted for a very long time by animal rights activists. Indeed, the Government are expending very large sums of money in supporting companies which have been brought to the brink of destruction by animal rights activists. Many people have suffered over a long time, yet they are not to be offered the sort of protection which is now to be extended, quite rightly, to the homosexual community.
The homosexual community has had to suffer a long time before getting the benefit of the new clause. There is a great deal to be said for the proposal by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, that we should recognise the generality of this. If the intention of someone committing a crime is not only to harm the person whom they are committing the crime against but to harm a lot of other people of similar persuasion or similar condition as well, that should be taken into account in the sentencing. That is a general proposition. I cannot think of a single instance of a group of people into whom it is desirable that someone should strike fear, or make them believe that they were likely to be subject to similar crimes—because we are talking about crimes and not about reasonable protest. It is a universal wrong. Just because they are not many or their voices are not loud enough, it is not right for a group of people to have to suffer for as long as the homosexual community has had to suffer. Presumably, those who are suffering from animal extremists have suffered for quite a long time, too. We should recognise that, however few they are, they are suffering.
By making the law simpler and more universal, we can stop that evil arising, or deal with it as best we can, well before it reaches the same level of problem for another group, and before that group suffers the years of suffering that the homosexual community has had to endure. Queer bashing was something that I knew about when I was young; there has been decades of it, and now we are dealing with it. How many decades will those who work for Huntingdon Life Sciences and other animal scientists have to wait in fear before the Government decide that they have suffered enough to receive similar protection?
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I am grateful to those who have taken part in the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, will be bitterly disappointed that it has gone on for as long as it has, but the fact is that the Liberal Democrat amendment tabled at Committee stage has blossomed. Not only has it caused me to table my doubtless faulty amendment, but it has led to a huge acceleration of the way in which the Government have dealt with matters that they have been discussing for some time. That is

823
why we have government Amendment No. 210A, and those consequential on it. For that we should be thankful.
I am not going to press the amendment, not because the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, says that she and her colleagues will not support it—one never knows what they are going to support at the present moment, but I now know that they are not going to support this amendment—but because I know that there are deficiencies in the drafting and that it would not be sensible for me to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, can take away a few messages from the debate, and I am sure that she will do so. She has been ready to listen to what noble Lords have to say. First, on the question of categorisation, a number of noble Lords have given further examples of cases in which there should be protection. I am sure that there is no end to that sort of categorisation, and I am not at all content with the idea that we should have to have primary legislation every time one crops up. The assessment being done with ACPO may have the effect of producing a collection of new categories; I hope that it does and that it is conclusive, so that we do not have to have this piecemeal legislation. I encourage that process to go ahead and hope that results will be seen fairly soon.
Secondly, as noble Lords have made clear, it is not satisfactory to have four different methods under statute for dealing with this sort of situation. That suggestion was not denied. If the Minister does not wish to have the maximum sentences increased for offences of hate crime against people on account of their sexual orientation or disability, why must she have increased maximums for race and religion? There is no logic to that.
Such legislation has always been done piecemeal— it was done in 1998 and 2001, and now it is being done differently in 2003. The Home Office should rationalise its approach. If the courts are to be trusted with aggravating circumstances and enabled to pronounce increased sentences on that account, the Home Office should consider the maximums and see whether they are adequate; if they are not, they should be brought into line with the race and religion provisions and, if those maximums are excessive, they should be reduced. Let us have a level playing field without all the different categories. If that is done, something valuable will have come out of this debate, and provisions would then be much more easily implemented in relation to other categories that might be proposed, such as those referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and my noble friend Lady Warnock.
I am not going to take the matter further today, but I hope that the Minister will not give up her efforts. She has evidently been spurred on by the interest in this House to introduce the amendments. I strongly suggest that we support Amendment No. 201A and the consequentials on it. Nevertheless, we have not reached the end of the story yet. The debate may have illustrated to the Minister and her colleagues, and the officials in the Home Office, that this is unfinished
824
business and that there is quite a lot more to do. I should not think that there is time to draft anything for Third Reading—this has all been done in a great rush anyway—but we may have to return to the matter on another occasion. I thank those who have taken part in the debate and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 199 to 201 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 201A:
After Clause 128, insert the following new clause—
"INCREASE IN SENTENCE FOR OFFENCE AGGRAVATED BY REFERENCE TO DISABILITY OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION

(1) This section applies where the court is considering the seriousness of an offence committed in any of the circumstances mentioned in subsection (2).

(2) Those circumstances are—

(a) that, at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the victim of the offence hostility based on—

(i) the sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation) of the victim, or

(ii) a disability (or presumed disability) of the victim, or

(b) that the offence is motivated (wholly or partly)—

(i) by hostility towards persons who are of a particular sexual orientation, or

(ii) by hostility towards persons who have a disability or a particular disability.

(3) The court—

(a) must treat the fact that the offence was committed in any of those circumstances as an aggravating factor, and

(b) must state in open court that the offence was committed in such circumstances.

(4) It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) whether or not the offender's hostility is also based, to any extent, on any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph.

(5) In this section "disability" means any physical or mental impairment."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 201B not moved.]
Clause 136 [General limit on magistrates' court's power to impose imprisonment]:
4.45 p.m.
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 82, line 21, at end insert—
"(8) This section shall not come into effect before the national roll-out of the "custody plus order" under sections 163 and 164."
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 202 and 203 are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. We had some considerable discussion on these amendments at Committee stage,

825
but we are still concerned about the implications of Clauses 136 and 137, which deal with consecutive terms of imprisonment.
Clause 136 will increase the general sentence limit to months for any one offence. Clause 137 will increase the limit for consecutive terms of imprisonment to 65 weeks, when sentences for more than one offence are to run consecutively. That will apply to both summary and either-way offences. In effect, the new "custody plus order" will replace all short-term prison sentences of less that 12 months, with the exception of intermittent custody in Clause 163. Under custody plus, there are strict limits for the custodial period, which must not be less than two weeks and not more than 13 weeks.
We would presume, as does the Home Affairs Select Committee, that when custody plus is in force, a magistrates' court will not be able to impose a sentence which has a custodial period of more than 13 weeks.
There is a risk that Clauses 136 and 137, which collectively extend the sentencing jurisdiction of magistrates' courts, if not specifically linked to the availability of "custody plus" regimes, will sharply increase the severity of custodial sentences passed in magistrates' courts. It will also reduce the use of community sentences previously considered not so serious as to demand a custodial sentence.
Although not a significant factor in increasing the prison population, increases in the use of short custodial sentences, mainly at the expense of community sentences, over the past 10 years, have been very large. That is a trend that the Bill should properly be seeking to reverse. The amendments are designed simply to help reduce the risk that the trend will be accelerated. Amendments Nos. 202 and 203 will ensure that the limit on magistrates' courts' forces will not come into effect before the national roll-out of the "custody plus order" under Sections 163 and 164.I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I support this amendment. I must admit that I am a little disappointed to see that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, is no longer in his place. When summing up his amendment, he chided me a little by saying that it was difficult to know which way we voted on these Benches. I have to say—and I will ensure that I put today's Hansard in front of him as I regard him very highly as a colleague from different Benches—that anyone who has read my Second Reading speech or any of my speeches in Committee will see that I have not resiled one iota from any pledge or commitment that I have given throughout our discussions on the Bill, nor will I do so in future.
The Minister will not be surprised at my support for this amendment, although in being consistent with what I have said before, my reasons for supporting the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, are rather different from those that he adduced in his own defence on this amendment. When we debated issues of sentencing in Committee, my noble friend Lord Hunt made it clear—at cols. 1042 to 1045 of the Official Report of 15th October 2003—that we are very concerned that
826
the Government have launched into the proposals on sentencing without ensuring that adequate resources are allocated for an orderly and swift roll-out of these important provisions.
So much of this part on sentencing from the Government is a matter of smoke and mirrors. They are trying to give to the newspapers—I shall not name any in particular—the headline, "Look what tough guys we are in increasing overall maximum sentences and trying to deal seriously with serious crimes". On the other hand, what they are really doing by so many of the provisions in this part is to reduce the time that people spend in prison. There may be very good reasons for doing that, and the Government have brought forward some innovative proposals which we have welcomed for custody plus, the subject of Amendment No. 202. The difficulty is that we will have a system in place before we know what it will cost and when it will be rolled out.
So, for all the reasons that my noble friend Lord Hunt adduced in Committee—it would be wrong for me to reproduce all of them today—we think that it is right for the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, to table this amendment and to be concerned about this section before there is a national roll-out. I therefore support the noble Lord.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I say to both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that I understand the reasons why they have retabled Amendments Nos. 202 and 203. They seek to ensure that the proposed increase in magistrates' sentencing powers will not be implemented in advance of the new sentence of custody plus, which I know has for some time been an issue of concern to noble Lords. However, as I said in Committee, due to the fact that sentencing reforms will be introduced in phases over several years, both to allow the system to absorb the measures gradually without too much disruption and to enable the correctional services to reach the capacity necessary to deliver the reforms effectively, it seems likely that the increase in magistrates' sentencing powers may—I cannot put it any higher than that— take place in advance of the implementation of sentences of custody plus. That is because we want to accrue the anticipated benefits to be derived from the changes to allocation procedure as soon as possible and for magistrates' courts to retain more cases for trial.
We do not believe that the changes to magistrates' sentencing powers will lead to an increase in the prison population as there is no evidence to show that magistrates sentence more severely as compared to the Crown Court. Like all courts under the new framework, magistrates will be bound by a set of principles which stipulate that custody must only be imposed when the offence is so serious as to merit it, and then only for the shortest time commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. They will of course be guided in their application of these principles by sentencing guidelines to be issued by the new council.

827
The Sentencing Guidelines Council will be able to consider the position on a continuing basis and issue guidelines as appropriate.
Many of the provisions, such as those concerning the conditions attaching to cautions and the Crown Prosecution Service being able to charge, will greatly improve the efficiency of the system. We hope that they will also enable us more effectively to address the needs of victims and witnesses and, equally important, the needs of defendants, enabling them to be successfully rehabilitated so that they do not continue to be a nuisance, to put it at its lowest, to the communities in which they live.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the explanation that she has offered. Only yesterday we discussed the need for consistency in sentencing. We are not objecting to the principle of the Government's proposals. We are simply asking them please not to bring this section into force before the national roll-out of the custody plus order. Obviously the Government have some difficulty here. I do not believe that the probation service is currently equipped to deal with matters such as release on licence and supervision. There is a danger that it will not be possible to apply the provisions across the country with the necessary consistency. It is right and proper to say that the section should be implemented only when custody plus is rolled out nationally. In the light of our differences on this particular matter, I should certainly like to test the opinion of the House.
4.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 202) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 129; Not-Contents, 120.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Falkland, V.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Ferrers, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Flather, B.

Attlee, E.

Fookes, B.

Avebury, L.

Fowler, L.

Biffen, L.

Freeman, L.

Blatch, B.

Freyberg, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Glentoran, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Goschen, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Greenway, L.

Byford, B.

Hamwee, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hanham, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Hooper, B.

Cox, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Howe, E.

Dahrendorf, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Denham, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Dholakia, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Elton, L.

Inglewood, L.

828

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Reay, L.

Kimball, L.

Redesdale, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Rees, L.

Kingsland, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Laird, L.

Roper, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Russell, E.

Lindsay, E.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Listowel, E.

Sandberg, L.

Liverpool, E.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Seccombe, B.

Lucas, L.

Selsdon, L.

Luke, L.

Sharman, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Sharp of Guildford, B.

L.

Sharpies, B.

Mackay of Clashfem, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Mackie of Benshie,L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Skehnersdale, L. [Teller]

McNally, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Maddock, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Stem, B.

Marlesford, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Swinfen, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Taverne, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Montrose, D.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Moynihan, L.

Tope, L.

Noakes, B.

Tordoff, L.

Northover, B.

Tugendhat, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Ullswater, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Waddington, L.

Onslow, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Wakeham, L.

Palmer, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Parkinson, L.

Walmsley, B. [Teller]

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Weatherill, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ahmed, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Dubs, L.

Andrews, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord

Bach, L.

Chancellor)

Barnett, L.

Falkender, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Blackstone, B.

Filkin, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Gale, B.

Borrie, L.

Gavron, L.

Brennan, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Brett, L.

Goudie,B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Brookman, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Grantchester, L.

Burlison, L.

Gregson, L.

Carter, L.

Grenfell,L.

Christopher, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Clark of Windermere, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Harrison, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Haskel, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Hayman, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Crawley, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

David, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Howie of Troon, L.

Desai, L.

Hoyle, L.

Dixon, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

829

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Radice, L.

Jones, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Jordan, L.

Rea, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Rooker, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Sawyer, L.

Lipsey, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Lockwood, B.

Sewel, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Simon, V.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Smith of Leigh, L

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall,B.

Strange, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Marsh, L.

Tenby, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Thornton, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Turnberg, L.

Mitchell, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Walpole, L.

Warner, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Nicol, B.

Whitaker, B.

Parekh, L.

Whitty, L.

Paul, L.

Wilkins, B.

Pendry, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.8 p.m.
Clause 137 [Consecutive terms of imprisonment]:
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 82, line 28, at end insert—
"(5) This section shall not come into effect before the national roll-out of the "custody plus order" under sections 163 and 164."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 138 [Pre-sentence reports and other requirements]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 203A:
Page 83, line 12, leave out from "18" to first "the" in line 14.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 203A and 204 were tabled as a result of issues that arose in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, rightly pointed out that for cases where a community sentence or custody is being considered the court needs to see pre-sentence reports where the offence is summary or either way but not where it is indictable. We agreed that the issue needed further consideration and that we would return to it on Report. On that assurance the amendment was withdrawn.
The current provisions detailing when the courts are required to request and consider a pre-sentence report are contained in Sections 36 and 81 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. Those in turn are a consolidation of provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 1991.
We believe that the original assumption was that the more senior courts—the Crown Courts—would naturally ask for pre-sentence reports, and that legislation focused on other cases because that was where practice needed to change. Having consulted the Department for Constitutional Affairs, the Youth Justice Board and the Crown Prosecution Service, we think it more logical to have the same statutory requirement for what are by definition the most serious juvenile cases. In practice most of those cases, whether in the Crown Court or the youth court, are already subject to pre-sentence report.
Nevertheless, we want to avoid any situation in which a pre-sentencing report could be denied to a young person facing the more serious indictable offences. Arguably, it is those cases that most need the input of a pre-sentence report with an offence analysis, an offender assessment, assessment of risk to the community and details of available options for sentence. In addition, the legislation allows courts to use a previous pre-sentence report where one exists, which gives some reasonable flexibility in situations where there are practical difficulties in obtaining a report or where a recent report is available and the youth offending team can confirm that the information is still accurate.
Given those considerations we propose that, where a juvenile is charged with an indictable-only offence and faces a custodial or community order, the court should be required to request and consider a pre-sentence report. Amendment No. 204, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, proposes that an Appeal Court should be required to request and consider a pre-sentence report in indictable-only juvenile cases if the lower court has not done so. I have added my name to that amendment and am very happy to accept it. On this occasion, I hope that I will in short measure get noble Lords' assent. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 204:
Page 83, line 33, leave out from "18" to first "the" in line 35.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we are most grateful to the Minister for accepting our amendment, and for her related amendment that has just been agreed to. This is an example of the Government having listened, and it is a tribute to the eloquence and clarity with which my noble friend Lord Dholakia put our concerns in Committee. I pay tribute to him for that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 139 [Additional requirements in case of mentally disordered offender]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 83, line 42, leave out "Subject to subsection (2),"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 206, 207 and 208. All the amendments stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kingsland.
The amendments return to an issue debated in Committee on 8th October, as reported in col. 300 of Hansard. Clause 139 deals with the requirement to obtain a pre-sentence medical report before passing a custodial sentence in cases where the offender is, or appears to be, mentally disordered. The combined effect of subsections (1) and (2) is that the court is required to obtain such a report unless it,
"is of the opinion that it is unnecessary".
In Committee, I pointed out that it would be difficult to think of circumstances in which the court ought not to consider a medical report before passing a custodial sentence on such a person. In that, I received support from around the Committee.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, resisted my amendment by saying that the court might already have a medical report before it, perhaps because it had already remanded the offender to hospital for treatment under Section 36 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Her view was that in such a case,
"it would be a waste of time and resources of the court and of the medical practitioner to produce and consider a further report which would add nothing to the information before the court… In those circumstances, it would be open to the court to say, 'We don't need to order another report because we already have available to us an appropriate report'".—[Official Report, 8/10/03; col. 302.]
As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, that narrow exception may be what the Government intend to address in subsection (2), but the Bill grants a much broader power to the courts to sentence mentally disordered offenders to custody without a medical report if the court's view is that such a report is "unnecessary". That could be for any number of reasons and not just the reason given by the Minister in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, was particularly concerned about a medical report not being obtained at all due to constraints on resources, a concern that I echoed then and do again today.
My amendments should of course be read together, as they are a package. They address the concerns expressed from this side of the Committee and the point made by the Government. The combined effect would be to place, under subsection (1), an absolute requirement on the court to consider a medical report before passing a custodial sentence on a mentally disordered offender. Subsection (2) would be altered to state that a medical report would have to be obtained by the court in order to fulfil the requirement in subsection (1) unless the court already had access to such a report. I hope that that meets the point made by the noble Baroness in Committee.
Amendment No. 208 addresses a slightly different issue. It would remove subsection (4). I remain concerned that the subsection appears to be declaring that if the sentencing court has not taken the right action and has failed to obtain a medical report, the mentally disordered offender is in the position of being stuck with the sentence and can change that only by
832
being put to the trouble and effort of going to an appeal themselves. As I said in Committee, that seems to be doing things the wrong way round.
I have returned to the issues not simply because I feel that there has been a drafting error, but because the matters concern me. The commitments and duties on the court need to be clarified in this respect. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, my name has been added to the amendment. I fully support everything said by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. Any practical problem may be cured by the omission of "obtain and", because in so many cases where there is a suggestion of mental disorder it is the defence who has obtained a report, and it would not be necessary for the court to go and get one providing that the defence was prepared to release it to the sentencing judge, as is almost invariably the case. That answers some of the practical problems that may have been in the minds of those who originally drafted the clause. It would be much improved by the amendments.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. It is absolutely vital that, where there is any suspicion of mental disease or abnormality, the court should be apprised of that with a detailed medical report.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am almost overwhelmed by the strength of the fact that the noble Baroness has the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, to support her. I am timorous about disagreeing. Loath as I am to do so, I will, and I shall explain why.
The effect of the amendments would be to remove the discretion of the courts to decide whether it was necessary to consider a medical report on an offender who appeared to be mentally disordered before passing a custodial sentence. I understand the importance of that. The amendments are significantly better than those brought forward on the previous occasion, if I may respectfully say so, with humility. However, the court will normally consider a medical report in those circumstances, to inform its decision on whether a disposal under the Mental Health Act 1983 would be appropriate. Clause 139 requires the court to consider so doing.
The medical report will not always be necessary to reach such decisions, however. An example is where a sentence under the dangerous offenders provisions is necessary, so one knows that custody is regrettably likely to be the result. In circumstances where, for whatever reason, it was clear to the court that it would not make a Mental Health Act disposal, then to require it to consider a medical report would be wasteful of both time and resources in a way that would benefit neither the offender nor the administration of justice.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not consider it important that, even where a

833
dangerous offender order is made, those who may ultimately have to consider whether to release a person into the community should have at their disposal a report relating to the mental disorder made at the time of sentencing?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. He knows, too, that increasingly—we hope that it will be rolled out generally—offenders go through a risk assessment process when they reach prison so that one can better manage them through the period of imprisonment and address the needs that they may have. Therefore, it is certainly likely that, in any event, an assessment process will take place for prisoners.
We are really considering whether, in the particular circumstances of a case, the court should have a residual discretion to say, "A report is not needed on this occasion for the following reasons". The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, will know that if the court is given no discretion, it is very difficult to legislate for every circumstance. The noble and learned Lord will know from his time as Lord Chancellor in particular how assiduous the courts have been in relation to this issue. Therefore, bearing in mind the careful approach of the judiciary, we believe that it will be important to retain a modicum of discretion for the court to do what it feels is proper.
I understand the concern that has been expressed and I understand, as I said, what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said. On balance, we have come down on the side of saying that the court should have this modicum of discretion in order to ensure that things are dealt with appropriately and smoothly while also, obviously, addressing the question of the mental health of the offender. The noble Lord will know, for example, that if the court failed and/or refused to do what was proper in consideration of the defendant's needs, a matter would be raised on appeal if that were appropriate. I know that our judges would be assiduous in ensuring that such opportunities were limited.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of, in particular, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern and also for that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who added his name to the amendment.
If I were to press the matter to a Division, I would, by tradition, start by saying how disappointed I was with the response of the Minister. I shall not press this issue to a vote but I am still disappointed with her response. I understand precisely that the Government are seeking to leave behind what the Minister calls so delicately "a modicum of discretion". Certainly, in relation to many other parts of the Bill I argued that I wanted courts to have discretion. The only reason that I am trying to fetter that discretion here is that I believe it to be in the interests of a particular group. I feel that the onus should not be put on that group to appeal a decision which would plainly be wrong.
I would expect—as I have no doubt the Minister would—that no court would come to the decision that a report should not be current and available and used
834
before such sentencing. My attempt was only to have that commitment from the Government placed on the record, which, in a manner, they did in Committee and on Report. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Baroness. Mentally disordered offenders represent a significant proportion of people who now, regrettably, find themselves in our prisons. Dealing with them appropriately and well is absolutely critical. Where a mentally disordered offender comes before the court, we expect the court to have the kind of evidence upon which it can make a properly informed judgment. We believe that any opportunity to exercise this discretion should be used very judiciously. It should be reserved for the exception and should by no means become the rule. I hope that that assists the noble Baroness.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, that was a very clear and generous response. It is as good as it gets and it is very good of the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 206 to 208 not moved]
Clause 143 [Pre-sentence drug testing]:
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 209:
Page 86, line 12, leave out "14" and insert "18"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 209, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 210 and 211. The existing drug-testing powers in the criminal justice system are applicable only to anyone aged 18 and over. Under the provisions of the Bill, it is proposed that those powers should be extended to anyone aged 14 or over.
The principles behind our continued pressure on the Government on this issue are two-fold. First, we do not believe that they are rooted in evidence and we consider that they are therefore potentially counter-productive. Secondly, we believe that they confuse the distinctive status of children in law and within the criminal justice system.
Therefore, we believe that the proposed measures in relation to drug-testing powers for children should be withdrawn. Unfortunately, the Minister did not convince us in Committee that they have an explicit purpose or rationale. We believe that they are an extension of powers used with adults without any consideration of how or whether they meet the best interests of children. They infringe children's rights to liberty, privacy and protection from inhuman and degrading treatment. We believe that they risk making a child's right to necessary treatment for a drug problem conditional upon his past or future involvement with offending. That should not be the basis for the availability of such treatment. Finally, they come at a time when expertise and evidence in relation to children's drug problems and their relationships with offending are evolving. The evidence does not suggest that the Bill's proposals will be effective.
Perhaps I may say a little more about that. The evidence put forward by the Government shows certain linkages between acquisitive crime and long-term drug dependency. We agree to the validity of that link and have never disputed it in your Lordships' House. However, that body of evidence suggests that identifying and treating adult offenders who have an entrenched dependency can have a clear impact on their criminal behaviour.
However, research into the relationships between drug use and offending in the juvenile population shows that, while drug experimentation and regular use are prevalent, a long-term drug dependency is rare. Offending and drug use among the young are inter-related in far more complex ways than is the case with adults. That must raise the question why we should simply assume that an extension of powers used for adult drug-dependent offenders will be appropriate or effective for young people.
We are particularly concerned about the lack of stated purpose or intended consequence given for the extension of powers to test children for class A drugs. Any child who is charged, including those given final warnings, will already be referred to a youth offending team officer for assessment of his needs. Part of that assessment is an analysis of any substance misuse, and all YOTs have a specialist to follow up any needs or further assessments. That includes the pre-sentence report stage and ensuring appropriate support in the community following release from custody. That raises the question why the powers are thought to be necessary before research has proved that they are in fact necessary.
We are at least gratified that, as the noble Baroness told us in Committee, this measure will be piloted and monitored and that the powers of the Secretary of State to amend the age upward or downward will be subject to affirmative instrument and, therefore, subject to some kind of parliamentary scrutiny. However, we ask the Government to reconsider these issues in the absence of the appropriate research to prove their necessity. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Clause 143 provides for the court, when considering passing a community sentence on a person aged 14 or over who has been convicted of an offence, to make an order for that person to be tested for specified class A drugs— heroin, cocaine and crack. We have gone through these matters before. I absolutely understand why the noble Baroness is concerned about them. I believe that she understands how the Government put the matter and why we think it is necessary.
Amendment No. 209 would raise the minimum age for drug testing from 14 to 18. The effect of that will be to negate the purpose of the clause as pre-sentence drug testing is already available for adults aged 18 and over—under Section 36A of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000—where that is being
836
implemented as part of the wider drug testing programme for adults. We are considering knocking out the clause in its entirety and expunging it.
The purpose of the clause is to lower the minimum age from 18 to 14, in line with other drug testing provisions in the Bill, to help to ensure that younger offenders in the age range 14 to 17, who may be misusing specified class A drugs, are also identified. Action can then be taken to follow this up and appropriate intervention can be made to address the needs of the offender when the court is passing sentence. We believe that it is absolutely critical that we address the problems—they are real problems—as quickly and as early as we can.
I know that the noble Baroness has previously acknowledged some of this. We know that drug use and offending and other anti-social behaviour among young people are very much linked. Moreover we know that there is a correlation between early use of illegal drugs and more frequent and problematic drug use later on.
Drug testing for young people aged 14 to 17 years is part of a package of interventions that stretches across the drugs strategy provisions for young people. These provisions aim to ensure that drug misuse can be identified in a number of settings, including within the criminal justice system, so that young people who are misusing drugs can be encouraged to address their misuse and access appropriate treatment and other programmes of help. So we want to get them out of the behaviour. We do not simply want to ignore the fact that they are in a distressing situation and are not coping very well.
The purpose of pre-sentence drug testing, as with testing on charge, is to have a screening tool. We know that young people will often not acknowledge that they have a drug misuse problem—particularly one involving heroin, crack and cocaine—or that their drug misuse is causing problems to themselves, to their family and to the community. The tragedy is that some young people are very skilled in hiding their misuse from all of those who care most for and about them.
Pre-sentence testing can provide a signal to professionals working with young offenders that the offender is misusing specified class A drugs. The drug test result can then be used, with other information, to help the court form an opinion as to the most suitable requirements for the offender as part of his or her community sentence; for example, whether it would be appropriate to include any relevant drug treatment and testing requirement.
It has been argued that these provisions, with their element of compulsion, are unnecessary, as young offenders who are using serious drugs will be picked up by the Youth Offending Team's ASSET assessment which includes an assessment of substance misuse. However, we believe that these provisions are necessary. Pre-sentence testing is intended to be used in conjunction with the ASSET assessment—not in substitution of it—and initiatives such as arrest referral. It provides an opportunity, which might not

837
otherwise arise, for the court to obtain an indication as to the offender's recent use of any specified class A drug.
It could be used, for example, where the offender has not previously been tested, or has produced a negative result at charge but the court has reason to believe that the offender is misusing specified class A drugs; or where a young person has not co-operated with the ASSET assessment or any referral to a drugs worker in the Youth Offending Team and the supervising officer believes that the young person has a specified class A drugs problem.
It could also be used where the offender is disputing a test or claiming to be no longer using specified class A drugs having tested positive on charge. The results of the test will help to inform the sentencing decision of the court and ensure that for those young offenders who do have a specified class A drugs misuse problem, that that misuse can be taken into consideration and appropriate treatment and intervention can be provided.
We want to help young people with such drug problems, which if left unchecked, could escalate and lead to an ongoing cycle of drug misuse and offending, and all the associated problems that brings with it. We believe, therefore, that this provision, which allows the court to exercise its discretion to require a drug test which will help to identify whether the offender has used a specified class A drug, is in the best interests of young offenders. It will help to ensure that if they are using specified class A drugs, that misuse can be addressed alongside their offending, with the aim of enabling them to go on to lead a healthy and crime-free lifestyle. It is also in the interests of the victims of their offending and of society.
The noble Baroness will have heard, as I have when visiting programmes for such young people, terrible stories of the life that they led when under the influence of these pernicious drugs. Then one sees the wonderful person who rises out of that situation when they have received the help and support that they need to leave behind the offending behaviour, the contribution that they go on to make to their communities and how they help others to drag themselves out of the same mire in which they were steeped. That is very important, and we are very committed to taking the opportunity to do that.
We therefore propose that Amendment No. 209 should be resisted. We would invite the noble Baroness not to press it. The clause provides for the presence, of an "appropriate adult" during the testing process for those offenders who are under the age of 17. Amendments Nos. 210 and 211 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, would raise the age at which a person must not be tested for specified class A drugs except in the presence of an appropriate adult, from those under the age of 17 to those under the age of 18.
We acknowledge the views expressed by noble Lords that the clause should provide for all persons under the age of 18 to be afforded the same safeguard involving an appropriate adult. Similar amendments
838
were debated on Report in respect of Clause 5, relating to drug testing persons in police detention. As I explained then, we believe that consistency and clarity in respect of the age level for an appropriate adult are important, but we believe that we need to look holistically at the issue of how juveniles are treated under PACE and across the criminal justice system, rather than seek to change the position in a piecemeal fashion. Earlier today we were accused of doing things in a piecemeal fashion. We have taken that to heart and we do not want to do this piecemeal because it affects so many young people.
We propose to introduce the provisions for drug testing younger offenders in limited areas initially so that they can be fully evaluated and so that information about good practice can be shared. That will include issues relating to the appropriate adult requirement. Although the legislation, as drafted, does not specifically provide for the presence of an appropriate adult for those aged between 17 and 18, that is not precluded. There is nothing to prevent a 17 year-old requesting that a parent or an appropriate adult be present during the testing process.
As I sought to assure noble Lords earlier on Report, we shall certainly heed the views expressed when considering whether more consistency needs to be introduced into the age levels applying to juveniles across the criminal justice system, as identified by the PACE review in 2002. The issues will not go away; we shall return to them and we shall have an opportunity to deal with them holistically. With contributions from all noble Lords whom I know will contribute to that debate, I hope that we shall get it right. Therefore I invite the noble Baroness not to press any of these amendments, although I understand why she has tabled them.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I agree that it is critical that we address these problems. I accept that it is the Government's wish to help young people with them. But, the Government often ask noble Lords to take into account care and practice. I ask the noble Baroness: why is the Youth Offending Teams' current practice of making these assessments not being taken into account? Why is it still seen to be necessary to have this practice in legislation, because it is being done anyway as a matter of routine?
I shall not be dividing the House on the amendments, but I urge the Government to roll out these measures carefully and to monitor them rigorously. We shall look carefully at that monitoring. After young people have been subjected to this kind of testing, they should be followed up for a sufficient length of time. We will also look very carefully at any attempt by the Secretary of State to change the age— particularly downwards—for mandatory drug testing.
On Amendments Nos. 110 and 111,I agree with the noble Baroness that we need consistency and clarity about how young people are treated under the law. But we should like that to be consistent with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in preference to

839
the provisions of PACE. However, we will, as the noble Baroness says, return to the matter. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 209A:
Page 86, line 13, after "sentence" insert "or a suspended sentence"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 209A, 218B, 218C, 218CR and 220D make a number of minor drafting improvements to the Bill. Amendment No. 209A corrects an omission and enables pre-sentence drug testing to be applied where the court is considering passing a suspended sentence or a community sentence. A suspended sentence will of course be available only for adults, but the choice of requirements that can be applied to it are exactly the same as those that are available for a community sentence in the Bill.
I hope that with that simple explanation your Lordships will find these amendments acceptable. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 210 and 211 not moved. ]
5.45 p.m.
Clause 149 [The Sentencing Guidelines Council]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 212:
Page 89, line 32, leave out "seven" and insert "ten"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment would increase the number from seven to 10 of judicial members of the Sentencing Guidelines Council. I propose first to speak to the narrow issue, in a sense, of my amendment before referring to the Minister's amendment and how I hope that it might interrelate with mine.
The most important question on the Sentencing Guidelines Council is to determine how the balance of membership should be comprised and how it should be balanced between the twin aims of ensuring that the sentencing guidelines retain a substantial input from the judiciary and the requirement that they should command public confidence.
In Committee on 8th October, I put forward my own answer. "My own" I have to say reflected all the work that went on behind the scenes by my honourable friends in another place. It was supported at Second Reading in this House by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice; namely, that the council should have only judicial members, but that its decisions on the guidelines should be subject to scrutiny by Parliament. That proposal was part of a very broad package of proposals that perhaps were—in a phrase of the Minister's—"carefully crafted" to achieve judicial discretion as far as possible while retaining some modicum of parliamentary scrutiny.
That, as I thought, "carefully crafted" proposal was blown totally and utterly out of the water by the disapproval of noble Lords and in particular that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who is in his place, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. One has to say, "Right, that battleship is sunk", and to consider what remains within the principles set out that can be brought forward, and to which one will adhere throughout the progress of the Bill.
So, I have to try to reconcile the two aims, to which I have referred and which I believe have wide support around the House, including from the Government; that these are the two issues which need to be balanced.
We are now left with the structure in the Bill. We are trying to adapt our amendments to reflect the fact that we have to deal with the Government's offer. From the point of view of the Front Bench on this side of the House, we now have a situation in which we have two models on sentencing guidelines for murder that will be debated in the rest of this Bill. One model is that proposed by the Government and the other is that proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
The Minister's model tries to achieve the same kind of objectives that we want. They have gone around the matter the wrong way in some parts, which is why we are trying to amend it. In particular, we think it goes too far in encroaching on judicial discretion. We shall come to the detail of some of that later. I will not be able to attack the Government on that because my defence has been removed from me by other noble Lords in this House, so I suspect that the noble Baroness will sit very contentedly and watch the Bill go through virtually unamended from this point on.
I turn to the model proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, which of course is very attractive and beguiling and has the support, I know, of very principled Members from my own Benches; that is, that judicial discretion overrides all. The Front Bench in both Houses has always—in government and in opposition—supported the Government throughout on the proposition that those who are sentenced for the most serious forms of murder—if one can be more serious than another—those that used to carry the death penalty, should indeed sometimes be kept in prison out of society for life. In the past, the Home Secretary had the right to take part in determining that period. That was of course blown out of the water from the Government's point of view by the Anderson case. They then brought forward this model.
I needed to get that explanation on to the record today because it will give notice to noble Lords that I have been completely—the only polite word I can think of—"stuck" in what I can honestly and honourably do on the Bill from hereon. The amendment provides one of the honourable solutions that I can still find as a way forward; that is, that we have always supported the Sentencing Guidelines Council, but if we are going to go down the line the Government say, the majority of the people on that council must have judicial experience. My

841
amendment—I picked the number 10 out of the air— was simply to enable me to make that point to the Minister and to invite her to give an assurance to the House that the majority of the voting members—it is important that they should be voting—on the Sentencing Guidelines Council must be those who have or have had judicial experience.
Then, to my surprise and pleasure I noted the amendment of the noble Baroness, which is in the group. I read the accompanying letter, which was written on 29th October, but, sadly because of recent postal problems—despite the best efforts I am sure at being sent on 29th—reached me only earlier this morning. However, the Home Office team was very kind in ensuring that I had an e-mail copy of it yesterday, so I did have advance notice.
The Minister is doing what I consider to be the right thing for different reasons—not wrong reasons but different reasons. Her explanation is that her amendment removes a civil servant from the membership of the council while providing for him or her to continue to have an observer role on the council. That is the core to the changes she will make. I shall not go further because the noble Baroness will put those reasons on the record. So, although that may be her stated reason, I hope that she will go on to say that it has the added benefit of making it even more certain that the majority of the people voting on SGC will be judicial. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, as I submitted previously to your Lordships' House, the sentencing guidelines situation has been grossly over-complicated. For the past two decades, sentencing guidelines have been provided by the Court of Appeal, cases have been collected and the opportunity taken to announce the principle. During the past two decades, almost, I have referred on several occasions to guidelines to establish a principle. They have never been criticised, until this day, when the guidelines that the Lord Chief Justice produced on burglary were not so much misread as not read properly at all by the press. They had to be corrected. Some time ago, I had cause to have placed in the Library a collection of guideline judgments so that they could be read.
Why the change? Change has already taken place, and judges have not resisted sensible change. Two or three years ago an Act set up the Sentencing Advisory Panel, which consisted of people of varying professional experience, with a professor presiding and members including the noble Lord, Lord Chan, and magistrates. The panel went to enormous trouble, because the legislation provided that sentencing guidelines were not to be enunciated without first consulting it, or, that if it produced sentencing guideline proposals, they had to be properly taken into consideration and, if not followed, reasons provided.
As a result, the panel produced.10 guideline proposals over three years. It invited the public to represent in various ways their views and then produced a report. On every occasion, the Court of Appeal has accepted what the panel has suggested. The
842
latest guidelines produced, which related to sentencing for murder, were particularly interesting, but I shall reserve any detailed comment on them until Clause 19.
We have moved on. The system has become more transparent and is open to public criticism and views. So why change it? What is the point of having a Sentencing Guidelines Council consisting partly of sentencers and partly of the public, when the public are already represented on the panel? If you want a policeman or a civil servant—that is one of the proposals in the sentencing guidelines—you can put him or her on the panel. When the panel was asked its view on the proposal, it demurred and said, "This is a duplication of our effort. What is the point of having a Sentencing Guidelines Council not composed solely of sentencers but with members who should be on our panel? The duplication may not be satisfactory and may not do the work as well as we do it, so what on earth is the point?".
The Lord Chief Justice very liberally accepted that the Court of Appeal should no longer issue guidelines and that they should be issued by the Sentencing Guidelines Council after proper consultation with the panel. But he said that sentencing was a judicial function and that therefore sentencers should sit on the council; they should not be diluted. It is terribly important that the guidelines are respected and that people have confidence in them. However, why should people have confidence in such a mixed organisation, to which there could be significant political input?
That is why I propose that we accept the unnecessary interference in what has gone on in the past, with the panel's position well endorsed by legislation, but purely on the basis that the Sentencing Guidelines Council consists of sentencers, including one or more magistrates. It should not include—I do not say this disrespectfully—odds and ends but laymen or laywomen. Accordingly, I have tabled an amendment to remove references to anybody other than judicial members.
It should not be overlooked that our Home Secretary, such is his ambition, will seek power to add to or detract from the membership of the Sentencing Guidelines Council. That merely lends support to the useful phrase coined by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that what is behind these proposals is sentencing by ministerial decree. I would have none of it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has moved amendments to modify the powers and composition of the Sentencing Guidelines Council. Having listened to him with great respect, he has made out a case for leaving out altogether the statutory proposals for a Sentencing Guidelines Council.
It is a very strange situation that the Lord Chief Justice presides over the Court of Appeal, which hears appeals on sentencing in criminal cases, but will also be a fundamental member of the Sentencing Guidelines Council. Somehow he will have to persuade the Sentencing Guidelines Council and the Court of

843
Appeal to reach the same sort of decisions. Presumably the Sentencing Guidelines Council is being created by statute to guide the Court of Appeal. That is a ridiculous situation, and I hope that at Third Reading we can leave out those clauses altogether.
6 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I shall try to confine myself to the amendments, which do not include the broader ideas discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I do not know the precise balance that there should be between judicial members and non-judicial members. However, there are amendments in front of us from the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the Minister, who has not yet spoken. The amendments represent changes since Committee.
I feel strongly that the council should contain some—a minority—of non-judicial members. However, as the clause provides, that minority should be people with experience of various aspects of criminal justice—including the police, the prosecution, the defence and those involved in the welfare of victims. My noble friend the Minister who has not yet spoken on this matter today has none the less said that two of the five non-judicial members already provided for should be the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Commissioner of Correctional Services. Some of us may agree that both of those people are appropriate non-judicial members.
We have heard today and in Committee the views of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. He has given us the benefit of his more detailed opinion, which is available in the Library. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said last time in Committee that the Lord Chief Justice had said that, "to carry real clout" the membership should be confined to the judiciary. However, the noble Baroness also said in Committee that, while the Lord Chief Justice speaks for the judiciary, it is most important that the Sentencing Guidelines Council should command the confidence of the general public as well as the judiciary. Why should the judiciary have good reason for lacking confidence in a body in which a minority contains people from the groups that I have described that have experience of the criminal law?
I took the opportunity in Committee of referring to the Parole Board as it has been called for some years, including 20 years ago when I happened to be a member. It has an important role in sentencing. It actually indicates the sentence that will be served by this or that individual prisoner. It has always contained a mixed membership and does not even have a majority of judges. I see great value in having a diverse range of skills in the council and I do not think, with due respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that the judiciary has an exclusive monopoly on wisdom in matters of sentencing.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for letting me intervene, but I have never suggested that it has. Had that been the case, judges would have resisted the panel. They would have resisted having to listen to
844
what the panel said and, if they did not agree, having to give their reasons. They would have resisted the suggestion that when they wanted to initiate guidance, they would have to consult the panel. All that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has said is that the Sentencing Advisory Council is performing a judicial function. It is deciding on the right sentence. To mix that up with lay views is asking for a lot of potential problems. In speeches on this Bill, there has been a clear indication that the public perception and reality with regard to sentences are often miles apart.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I had finished the remarks that I was going to make when the noble and learned Lord intervened. I do not wish to say more because I would have to get into the debate that others quite reasonably want to get into about the role of the Sentencing Advisory Council as a whole. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the Lord Chief Justice have very strong views indeed on its very existence. We may then return to the controversy we had in Committee when I thought that the Minister, among many others, had taken the view that the ultimate sentence awarded in court when there is a conviction is undoubtedly in the discretion of the judge. There may be an advisory council and guidelines may be laid down in the Bill that will be an Act about minimum sentences and so forth, but the ultimate discretion is that of the judge. Neither these provisions nor any other interfere with that.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether I am speaking or intervening in an intervention. However, I will speak and if I am wrong I will be stopped.
I have thought rather hard about this matter. I feel that I must support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, as the only possible way of making the point that I wish to make, without totally agreeing with the form of argument that he adduced. I do not believe that there is anything wrong in principle with having a Sentencing Guidelines Council that draws on a wider range of expertise, provided that its function is entirely advisory. What disturbs me about the proposal that we have before us is that it bears too many marks of the sociological/political context—if I may put it that way—from which this Bill has come. It does that as soon as one inspects the composition of the non-judicial members of the proposed body.
There are many people who could bring wisdom to sentencing. For example, some people who have been imprisoned would have a great deal of wisdom to bring to what sentencing should be. I spent this morning with a group of prison chaplains in the Kent, Sussex and Surrey area. There was a huge amount of wisdom in that room about the effect that sentences actually have on people, and that wisdom is worth having. There are people who might just be included in the list, although I am not sure, who are probation officers who have spent a lifetime in this work and have a great deal to give. I can think of people who have worked for the Howard League or the Prison Reform Trust who have thought enormously hard about this matter. I can

845
think of representatives of the Children's Society, whose wisdom and understanding have already figured so strongly in the debates that we have had on this Bill. They have enormous wisdom to give to the issue of sentencing.
I am not sure whether the best way to draw on such wisdom is to have representative figures on the Sentencing Guidelines Council, but their presence would bring wisdom at least as well as the people in the current list. However, when we look at the current list, it is difficult not to remember the comment of the Secretary of State that he wanted judges who inhabited the same real world as he inhabits. The list seems to contain people whom he regards as better representatives of that real world. I find that list alarming. I find it even more alarming that it is proposed that the DPP and the commissioner for correctional services are appropriate members of the council, when the list is not balanced by the presence of any categories of person representing a different view.
In those circumstances, how should I vote? The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, does not meet the case. Just increasing the number of judicial members does not balance the list of non-judicial members, if we accept that there should be such. Given the anxieties that I have about the proposal, I have no alternative other than to support the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. That would put us in the position of having to rely for advice to sentencers on the more informal arrangements of public debate, articles, letters and so forth, which allow the widest range of people to bring their wisdom to bear on the matter.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has overlooked the existence of the sentencing panel.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I remind noble Lords that we are at Report stage. There should not be additional interventions, once noble Lords have sat down for the first time, having made their initial contribution.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I appreciate that, but one is entitled to ask questions for clarification.
The right reverend Prelate said that he was limited on his approach and on mine to relying on public debate. That is factually wrong. He has overlooked the panel, which goes anywhere that it thinks appropriate, including prisons, to get the wider view of the public.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I accept the noble and learned Lord's correction of what I said.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am grateful for that. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is right about the species—if I can put it that way—of persons referred to by the right reverend Prelate, and by that I mean the species; of expertise represented by the panel. It is very much in evidence.
846
I start by reassuring the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, that we intend to make sure that a majority of voting members of the council will be judicial. I will explain how that majority should be constructed and give our reasons for thinking that her three-to-one majority is not, perhaps, the best.
I say straight away to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that by no means do we seek, in putting the provisions in the Bill, to criticise the guidelines that were issued by the Lord Chief Justice. Nor do we cast any aspersion on those guidelines. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that some of the comments that have been made about guidelines may not have been based on the experience of having read them. That, of course, is a matter of regret and concern to us all.
I also say to the noble and learned Lord that it is right to acknowledge that the senior judiciary has welcomed the council, even though there is concern about how the membership of the council is to be made up. The noble and learned Lord was right to highlight the fact that the judiciary has welcomed and participated in the change. That has been a good thing, and it is what one would have expected from the judiciary of this country, of whom we are justly proud.
The creation of the Sentencing Guidelines Council is a key provision. It will enable the judiciary, practitioners and Parliament to work together to improve the approach to sentencing. The Bill provides for a judicial majority on the council: the Lord Chief Justice, as chairman, with seven other judicial members drawn from each tier of court. I endorse the comments made by my noble friend Lord Borrie and am happy to give the detail of how the majority is to be made up.
There is also provision for five non-judicial members, who will together cover the whole spectrum of a criminal case from detection of the offender to completion of the sentence. That reflects the fact that sentencing does not take place in isolation. It is part of the process of dealing effectively with crime—an important part, but still a part.
Concerns have been raised regarding the possible appointment of the commissioner for correctional services as the person who would bring to the council experience of sentencing policy and the administration of sentences. We were pleased to note the welcome for that level of expertise and for the standing that that person has.
The issue here has been the role and responsibilities of a mainstream civil servant and the possible conflict between responsibility to Ministers and responsibility as a member of an independent body. We have reflected on those concerns with great care. I believe that it will be of great benefit to the council to have direct access to a person who can bring current and direct knowledge of such areas to its deliberations. However, I also see the force in the arguments regarding the possible conflict of interests. Therefore, we propose that the person bringing that experience should be an observer with a right to attend and speak at the meetings of the council, rather than a member

847
of the council. That means that the numbers are going down, just as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, would like. I see her smiling her pleasure at that.
The clause authorising the appointment of a civil servant can therefore be removed, with a safeguard to ensure that it will be possible for the Home Secretary to appoint the Director of Public Prosecutions as the person with experience of criminal prosecution. Technically, the director is a civil servant, though that does not raise the same concerns. On the previous occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, expressed his surprise that anyone could even describe the DPP in such terms. That demonstrates how independent and objective that role has always been and how diligently those who serve us in that office have discharged their duties.
It is important that the council provides a good balance between judicial and non-judicial members. The council must also be a manageable size. Although I am happy to confirm to the noble Baroness that judicial members will be in the majority, we do not think that it is desirable or necessary to have, as she suggests—I understand why she plucked the figure—a judicial majority of three to one. The council will be a partnership, bringing together wide experience and authority. It is unlikely that it will ever need to vote on issues or that there will be anything other than broad consensus in the management of its affairs. Extensive consultation will precede its decisions, and the judiciary will be involved in that.
We expect the council to be active and innovative. There must be a proper balance between members, demonstrating the importance of each member's contribution to the work of the council. We recognise that there should be a judicial majority. Our proposals will provide a ratio of 2:1. But it is also important that the council benefits fully from the wider experience provided through the non-judicial members. The current proposal provides the best balance.
I turn now to the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, supported forcefully and fully by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and, for different reasons, supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. The noble and learned Lord proposes that councils should consist only of judicial members. I resist that proposal.
The Government fully recognise the particular expertise in devising guidelines that judges and magistrates have built up over many years. We agree that the judiciary has a crucial role to play in creating guidelines. That is why we have ensured that judicial members are in the majority on the council and why we have provided that the council should be responsible for making the guidelines rather than Parliament.
However, the range of legitimate interest in the level of sentencing and the approach to different offences is much wider than the judiciary. The whole of society has an interest in sentencing: criminal law is the state acting on behalf of society as a whole. The Government's proposal enables that wider interest to be brought in, but still leaves the final decision with a
848
body of very high calibre with a judicial majority. The noble and learned Lord will know that when the Bill went to the other place for consideration, it was the Government's view that what the noble and learned Lord outlined should be the case. That was our first position.
In the other place there was good, proper, active scrutiny and debate. Many came forward; many thought that this was a lost opportunity; and many thought that we could improve and enhance the quality of the sentencing councils by broadening them. My noble friend Lord Borrie was right when he gave the example of the Parole Board, which had enriched its board by drawing together, as it did, a wider spectrum. We did what we have done throughout the Bill: we listened. When others have spoken powerfully, we have demonstrated that we are prepared not only to hear them but also to act on their good advice and seize the opportunity to introduce a provision which is the best that can be created. We do not listen only to ourselves and think that we are the font of all wisdom.
We need to remember the context in which we are discussing sentencing. One of the tragedies is that, as never before, there is real public disquiet about the criminal justice system. We know that recorded levels of confidence in the judiciary and in sentencing are low. I agree with the noble Lord that on many occasions it is because people do not understand the process. When they understand the process, they usually agree with the result. Throughout the Bill, we are trying to make that purpose clear to all. Confidence should not be reserved only to those of us who know intimately the workings of the legal system, know intimately how fair and just our judges are, and know intimately how hard they strive to do justice. It should be genuinely widely held.
Those of us who know judges and magistrates well are aware how able and committed they are. However, these are issues which must be faced. We cannot just ignore the fact that public confidence is low. We need to ensure that we build a stronger system that protects the independence of a judge or magistrate to make the right decision in the case before them. It should also provide a framework that gives confidence that the general level of sentencing accords with a good understanding of the causes of crime, the response to crime and the impact of different sentences.
Everyone appointed to the council will be of the highest calibre, highly regarded, independent minded and able to contribute effectively to the production of guidelines of the highest quality that will justifiably command the respect not only of the judiciary and of practitioners but also of the wider public and of Parliament.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester need have no concern that we believe that wisdom is the sole province of the judiciary. We do not believe that. He need have no concern that we do not believe that others can make a valid contribution. All those to whom he referred are brought in, listened to, worked with, consulted and relied upon on the panel. The panel has worked well. In Committee, we heard from

849
the noble Lord, Lord Chan, who sits on that panel. He spoke of the high quality of their work and the way in which they interact with the judiciary, which is a matter for congratulation. In moving the government amendments, I invite the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps she would answer the fundamental question that arises in this matter. When the Sentencing Guidelines Council offers directions or advice—call it what you will—which are not acceptable to the Court of Appeal, whose authority prevails?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the whole purpose of having the Lord Chief Justice chair the Sentencing Guidelines Council and having the majority of the council being made up of judicial members is to ensure that that does not happen. Guidelines and guidance are only that. My noble friend Lord Borrie was right to say that at the end of the day it will be for the individual judge, dealing with the individual case, to exercise discretion and to do justice. As is proper, he should take into account the guidelines and guidance that is provided both in the legislation and in the guidance. In the usual way, it will be a matter for the superior court to determine on appeal whether any judge has erred either in failing to discharge his duty in relation to legislation or in failing to take into account properly or at all the guidance issued in relation to the offences.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, so that she may ensure that her party in both Houses sing from (he same song sheet, would she ensure that copies of her remarks about the judiciary and her confidence in the judiciary are passed to her colleague, the Home Secretary? As I said at Second Reading, he often gives the impression of undermining public confidence in the judiciary.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I reassure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has the highest regard for our judiciary. There is no suggestion that comments made by him are intended to undermine the confidence that we should properly have in our judiciary. I hope that noble Lords have noticed that I have taken each and every opportunity available to extol the virtues of our judiciary. I do not say that, as a body, it is without blemish. Nor do I say that every member of the judiciary is of such an exemplary nature that no criticism could ever, on any occasion, be uttered. Rumour has it that they, along with the rest of us, are, indeed, human. To be human is to err. In terms of overall quality, our view—I say this somewhat immodestly—is that there is no other body to equal it. I say that with pride.
6.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, may I put one question to the noble Baroness before she finally sits down? I have accepted the correction of the noble and learned Lord that the panel will remain and I accept also the Minister's assurance that it will take every opportunity to consult some of the people I mentioned in my remarks. However, does she agree that, when considering the list included in the place where the decision is to be taken—although I grant that there will be a judicial majority—the list of non-judicial members hardly looks like a balanced representation of what we are invited to call the real world, but rather as though it has been constructed with a particular purpose in mind?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I understand perfectly the principles on which the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Renton would support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. However, I am not able to follow them in their support for the reasons I gave earlier. The principal reason is that I was able earlier to say only that there should be exclusively judicial members on the Sentencing Guidelines Council if that were part of the whole package, which has been rejected. So I cannot follow the route of the noble and learned Lord.
No doubt there will be other occasions during the remainder of our consideration when principled Members on my own Benches will find themselves supporting amendments that I cannot and would not support. I hope that does not trouble them; it does not trouble me because I respect totally their principles. We may well find that we enter different Division Lobbies, or I may abstain when they vote.
Turning to the remarks made by the Minister, I welcome the fact that once again, as she has now done so often, she carefully enunciated her confidence in the judiciary. At the beginning of the Report stage I omitted to do what I have tried to do at each stage of the Bill; that is, to declare an interest. I am married to someone who sits as a judge part-time; his appointment is not as a full-time judge. However, even if he were not my husband, I would in any case have confidence in the judiciary.
I accept the assurances given by the noble Baroness as regards her own amendments. As I guessed in advance, they will achieve the objective I seek; that is, to have a majority of voting members from the judiciary on the Sentencing Guidelines Council, even though that has been done for a reason different from that which I would have liked. None the less, I am delighted with her explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, I should take this opportunity to declare my own interest, which I realise that I have neglected to do. I declare a vested interest as one of Her Majesty's recorders and one of Her Majesty's deputy High Court judges.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 213:
Page 89, line 35, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move, with enthusiasm, Amendment No. 213.
I shall not spend time repeating any of the remarks that I have made, but I should like to refer to the question of the Parole Board. That board quite rightly has a mixed membership, but the issue before it is the evaluation of risk. Such an evaluation is not a sole judicial function. It needs the input of psychiatrists, social workers and a judge, among others. So, although it is an example of how the judiciary and the laity can work together, it is not a fair analogy.
I listened with interest to what the noble Baroness said about the enthusiasm of the Home Secretary for judges, but I shall reserve my observations until we come to Schedule 19.I beg to move.
6.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 213) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 113.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Renton, L. [Teller]

Colville of Culross, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Listowel, E.

Selsdon, L.

Mar,C.

Stern, B. [Teller]

Palmer, L.

Walpole, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Worcester, Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Alli, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Andrews, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Filkin, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Fitt, L.

Bach, L.

Gale, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Gavron, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Bhatia, L.

Goudie, B.

Borrie, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bragg, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Brennan, L.

Greenway, L.

Brett, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Burlison, L.

Harrison, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Haskel, L.

Carter, L.

Hayman, B.

Christopher, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Hoyle, L.

Crawley, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

David, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.[Teller]

Hylton, L.

Desai, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Dixon, L.

Jones, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Judd, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Dubs, L.

Kirkhill, L.

852

Lea of Crondall, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Levy, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Lipsey, L.

Rooker, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Lockwood, B.

Sewel, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Simon, V.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Strange, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Thornton, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Turnberg, L.

Mitchell, L

Turner of Camden, B.

Monson, L.

Ullswater, V.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Warner L

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Warwick of Underclifie, B.

Nicol, B.

Weatherill, L.

Parekh, L.

Whitaker, B.

Pendry, L.

Whitty, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Wilkins, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Winston, L.

Radice, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 213A:
Page 89, line 35, leave out "five" and insert "four"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 214 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 214A and 214B:
Page 90, line 8, at end insert "and"
Page 90, line 9, leave out from "crime" to end of line 10.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 215 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 215A:
Page 90, line 11, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
"(5) The persons eligible for appointment as a non-judicial member by virtue of experience of criminal prosecution include the Director of Public Prosecutions."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment forms part of the group that we have just discussed. The purpose of reducing the number of non-judicial members is to recognise the force of the argument concerning the appointment of a mainstream civil servant to the council. The proposed five non-judicial members will bring experience that covers the whole spectrum of a criminal case, from detection of the offender to completion of the sentence—an issue we discussed in some detail earlier.
As I said, concerns have been raised about the possible appointment of the commissioner for correctional services as the person who would bring to the council experience of sentencing policy and the administration of sentences. The issue here has been

853
the role and responsibilities of a mainstream civil servant and the possible conflict between the responsibility to Ministers and the responsibility as a member of the independent body. It will be of great benefit to the council to have direct access to that person.
I have already resisted the previous amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and I shall resist his next one. The noble and learned Lord proposed that the council should consist only of judicial members and those amendments have been lost.
In the circumstances, it is essential that each of the specified areas of experience is covered, as I argued on the previous amendments. In view of what has happened, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his amendment.
I apologise for not being immediately fluent. I have repeated all that I said earlier because.I thought that I had dealt with the issue then. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to
[Amendment No. 216 not moved]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 216A:
Page 90, line 19, at end insert—
"(8A) The Secretary of State may appoint a person appearing to him to have experience of sentencing policy and the administration of sentences to attend and speak at any meeting of the Council."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 154 [Duty of court to have regard to sentencing guidelines]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 217:
Page 92, line 44. at end insert—
"( ) Nothing in subsection (1) shall fetter the judges' overriding discretion in the individual case to set the sentence he thinks is appropriate."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I do not know to what extent in this House I am pushing at an open door. It is very difficult to know. Certainly the noble Baroness has constantly referred to the fact that judicial discretion will not be interfered with in any way.
I took heart—not for very long—way back in January when the noble and learned Lord, the reluctant Lord Chancellor, was making a Motion on sentencing policy. He set out how everything is based largely on Mr Halliday, and then said:
"I also make it clear that the proposals do not for a moment undermine the basic principle that a judge must act independently on individual cases to decide what an appropriate sentence would be, based on the facts. Nobody would dispute the proposition advanced on all sides of this House that the range of offenders and offences is wide and each case must be considered on its individual facts".
He said a little later:
"We want Parliament and the Secretary of State to have a role … There must be a combination of Parliament and judges setting the guidelines, with the judges ultimately deciding, entirely independently, on individual cases.
854
"That is the correct approach, and it is the approach reflected in the Criminal Justice Bill that is currently passing through the Commons. It represents no infringement of the individual judge's right to decide on the appropriate decision in the individual case".—[Official Report, 15/1/03; cols. 253–254.]
I therefore hope that I shall be, if not interrupted, at least told that all that is still sterling silver and that my amendment is in no way resisted. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 226 in my name, which is in the same group as the amendment of the noble and learned Lord. It seeks to examine the effectiveness of paragraphs 7 and 8 of Schedule 19 in limiting the power of the executive to interfere in judicial discretion in the process of sentencing for murder.
I appreciate that we will come much later to a detailed discussion of Schedule 19 and its related powers, but I thought that it was right to group this amendment with that of the noble and learned Lord so that I could put my position on the record and invite the Minister to give what I hope will be the Government's main defence and justification to the noble and learned Lord.
When accused of undermining the role of the judiciary by their proposal in the Bill, the Government have in the past sought refuge in paragraphs 7 and 8 of Schedule 19. They have said that there is still judicial discretion in determining the length of a sentence for murder. The judge can vary it up or down, they say, from a starting point laid down in Schedule 19, by taking mitigating or aggravating factors into account. Paragraph 8 then says that detailed consideration of these factors may result in the judge passing a minimum term of any length at all, whatever the starting point may have been. Indeed, it may result in the judge making a whole life order. The decision is his, so they say.
My amendment reduces the level of consideration that the judge must give to the aggravating or the mitigating factors. My amendment would mean that the judge would give consideration rather than detailed consideration to the factors before passing sentence.
I would be grateful if the Minister could set out clearly on the record why the Government believe that this particular part of Schedule 19 leaves the judge with the power to exercise his judicial discretion with regard to the sentences within Schedule 19 rather than being directed by the Secretary of State.
Lord Ackner: Before that amendment is considered, it should be grouped—should it not?—with my Amendment No. 225C, which is immediately before it, and which says that nothing in Schedule 19,
"shall fetter the judge's own discretion in the individual case to set the sentence he thinks is appropriate".
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, since it is a question on Report, I am able, within the rules, to answer it. I purposely did not group my amendment as the noble and learned Lord suggests because I wanted

855
to give the Government, at this stage, the opportunity to give their defence on judicial discretion with regard to Schedule 19. I hope that I made it clear in our previous debate on sentencing that I am no longer able to go down the route taken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Therefore, because he has dismissed the package of proposals I put forward, I cannot support his amendments. I therefore do not group amendments of mine with his where I think there is any chance that I may need to divide the House. I do not wish to follow a Division pressed by the noble and learned Lord which he may win or lose but which would pre-empt my own action.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I strongly support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, on Amendment No. 217. We have just agreed, as a House, to the setting up of a Sentencing Guidelines Council. It will have great authority; it will have members who are respected, and I am sure their views will be respected. They will issue guidelines. However, there is nothing new in issuing guidelines. The Court of Appeal has been issuing guidelines for many years.
The Bill states specifically that every court must, in sentencing an offender, have regard to any guidelines which are relevant to the offender's case. That is the position at the moment. Yet no one suggests that the passing of guidelines by the Court of Appeal in any way overrules the final discretion of the judge who has tried the case to decide the appropriate sentence. I think, in fact, that the words used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner,
"the judges' overriding discretion in the individual case to set the sentence he thinks is appropriate"
should be on the face of the Bill when we are setting up a Sentencing Guidelines Council.
The Minister has on many occasions expressed her confidence in the judiciary. She has said that this Bill is in no way an attack on the judiciary. She tells us that her right honourable friend the Home Secretary has an equal confidence in the judiciary and that they have confidence in the way in which the guidelines have been used until now and the way in which the courts have interpreted them. The way in which the courts have interpreted them is by having regard to those guidelines but, in the end, the judge has an overwhelming discretion, based on everything he has seen and heard in that court, to decide what the appropriate sentence is, and the guidelines will not be able to overrule that discretion. I hope very much that the Minister, who has expressed that confidence in the judiciary, will be prepared to accept this amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the ringing sentiments which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has read out from earlier proceedings set out the Government's position as we have understood it throughout. I am quite sure that we will not hear any resiling from that position tonight.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give us something that can be put in the front of any Bench book on sentencing that the Sentencing Guidelines
856
Council issues so that every judge who deals with sentencing matters will know from the very beginning of the book that he has absolute discretion regarding what his sentence should be.
7 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am obviously tempted by the noble Lord's invitation, but he will know that the Judicial Studies Board would probably be very alarmed if I took it up. The Judicial Studies Board is independent and crafts its own guidance, and what goes into the Bench Book is not something on which we mere Ministers would ever attempt to trespass.
The principle of judicial independence is one of great importance and one that the Government have sought to protect in the provisions. The Government recognise that issues concerning sentences are very important to society as a whole, which is why we have built on the success of the Sentencing Advisory Panel by creating a process for formalising sentencing guidelines, which brings in a wide range of views but continues to leave the final decision with the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which is independent and will have a majority of judicial members.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, is absolutely right in saying that guidelines have been with us for a very long time and have been issued by various different bodies or parties—if one wants to refer to the Lord Chief Justice or the Court of Appeal, or any of the others that went before. On each occasion when the guidelines have been issued, they have been considered with seriousness and propriety by the judiciary in seeking to do justice in individual cases. They have been taken into account, but they have not provided a straitjacket out of which a judge cannot go in order to do justice on the merits of the case in point.
A guideline will be issued after extensive consultation and thought and will reflect a considered view of the right level at which to start thinking about a sentence in particular circumstances. Guidelines exist to help a court to develop a consistent approach to crime and to make clear to offenders, their advisers and the public the important factors in dealing with particular types of cases. The current provision, that a court shall "have regard to" a relevant guideline, emphasises that guidelines are important. However, as has always been the case, it is for the court to make the decision on the sentence in the light of the circumstances before it.
It is right that a court should have regard to those guidelines, and that is what is expected now. The provision in the Bill is complemented, as the noble Lords know, by Clause 156, which requires a court, in explaining its sentence, to give relevant reasons when the sentence passed is of a different kind or outside the range contained in the guidelines. The provision will help to ensure not only that a guideline has been properly considered, but that anyone with an interest in a case can understand the line of thought that has led to a decision different from that which might have been expected.

857
Every case is different, and no guideline can cover every eventuality, but it is crucial for confidence in the sentencing system that it is clear why a decision has been made—particularly when, at firs t blush, it may seem a little unusual. It is right that a court that passes a sentence should explain why it has reached its decision. That approach is already regarded as good practice, and the best of our judges do it anyway. Doing so by reference to guidelines will assist clarity and understanding by providing a common and easily accessible point of reference. Your Lordships will know that we have had difficulties with widely varying regional approaches to some issues, which does not give confidence.
The amendment states something that is already self-evident—that a court passing a sentence must make up its own mind about the appropriate sentence. Those decisions are not, and never have been, subject to unlimited discretion. There is always; the maximum sentence passed by Parliament, as part of the Act creating the offence, or statutory limitations on the availability of a particular penalty, which may set limits on the type of sentence available or the circumstances in which it can be passed. Justice requires a consistent approach and clarity about what circumstances will make an offence of a particular type more or less serious. For many years, guidelines have been issued by the Court of Appeal or the Magistrates' Association, all of which came through other decisions of the Court of Appeal or the Divisional—now Administrative—Court. All courts have recognised the authority of decisions coming from the two courts and have recognised that they are bound to apply the guidance that has come through them.
The creation of the council builds on that approach, removes some of the practical problems of the present system and enables wider guidance to be given. It is important to remember that in Committee it was emphasised by some of the judicial Members that often the Court of Appeal has felt constrained. It has not given guidelines about everything, but now the Sentencing Guidelines Council has the opportunity to do so. It is simply not possible to say that nothing in guidance shall fetter a court's discretion.
Judges have never been able to go on frolics of their own, and we do not propose that they should start now. It is clear that there is an obligation on a court to have regard to the guidelines and, in giving reasons for a sentence, to use the guidelines as a point of reference. However, it will continue to be the court's responsibility to decide sentences, and it will continue to be the case that any concerns over any sentence can be resolved only through the Court of Appeal.
Amendment No. 226 would remove the word "detailed" from the deliberation that the court must make of aggravating and mitigating factors. The effect of the amendment is not entirely clear, but I know why the noble Baroness has tabled it. I shall not deal with that amendment specifically, unless the noble Baroness wants me to—which she indicates that she does not. For that, I give her many thanks.
858
I hope that I have dealt with the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. We believe that the framework as drafted strikes a balance between promoting consistency and clarity in tariff setting while protecting the discretion of the judge to pass a tariff suitable to the particulars of each case. I hope that noble Lords, and the noble and learned Lord in particular, will find that I have said enough to make it plain that, while discretion will remain, it will be exercised with propriety within the guidelines, as it has always been.
I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness will not move her amendment and that the noble and learned Lord will feel a modicum of satisfaction, although I do not expect him to be content.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, will the Minister clarify one matter? She said in her final words that a sentence must be within the guidelines, whereas earlier she said that it could be without the guidelines if the judge said that it was just for it to be so.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I meant that the judge would have to take into consideration the guidelines. Within the parameters of the guidelines, one must identify that one has taken them into account, and clarify, if one is not going to abide by them, why one has departed from them. That is the normal way—it is what many of us who have had the joy of practising in the courts of this country have become familiar with.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, the Minister said that it was self-evident that the discretion existed, so it was unnecessary to add the words to the Bill. Is it not equally self-evident that, in sentencing an offender, the court must,
"have regard to any guidelines which are relevant to the offender's case"?
Why have the clause at all, in that case? Both are self-evident, so surely it is wrong to put the one in and not the other.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I believe that I am one of the leading admirers—alphabetically, probably the leading admirer—of the Minister's forensic skill and her charm in putting forward an answer to an unarguable case.
The noble Baroness overlooks the fact that I do not suggest that the judge who decides the case should have complete freedom to do whatever he likes. There is provision that enables the Attorney-General to take any decision of a trial judge that he thinks unduly lenient to the Court of Appeal. If the Court of Appeal agrees, its decision becomes the sentence of the court. I do not suggest that there is any infallibility about the trial judge; I merely want the noble Baroness to agree that he has complete and unfettered discretion within the law to pass the sentence and that nothing in the sentencing guidelines detracts from that important principle.

859
I stress that because the same problem arose—when I referred to it—some time ago. I said:
"There is a dangerous illusion that everyone supports judicial independence; but do they? I recently pointed out that that very question was answered by Lord Hailsham in a lecture that he gave in 1989.I shall shorten the quotation as follows:
'Certainly not the Opposition—whatever Party happens to be on the Speaker's left. Certainly not Party Conferences of any hue. And least of all I assure you, individual members of the Cabinet whose Departmental interests from time to time basically conflict, not only with the view of the judiciary, where they are entitled to differentiate, but in the provision of the necessary means to enable the Courts to discharge their functions'".—[Official Report, 6/10/ 03; col. 30.]
That is why I want that clearly stated. Here is a case in which the present Lord Chancellor, when he has only his one hat as Secretary of State, cannot be either of his own volition or bullied into saying that that is not a discretionary matter for the judges but that the guidelines council binds everyone in a way that is any way inimical to that discretion. I should therefore like to test the views of the House.
7.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 217) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 90.

Division No.3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Palmer, L.

Barker, B.

Rennard, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Renton, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Roper, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Russell, E.

Craigavon, V.

Saltounof Abernethy, Ly.

Dahrendorf, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Dholakia, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hamwee, B.

Stern, B. [Teller]

Harris of Richmond, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hylton, L. [Teller]

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Listowel, E.

Tope, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Maddock, B.

Walmsley, B.

Mar, C.

Walpole, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Weatherill, L.

Monson, L.

Worcester, Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Carter, L.

Alli, L.

Chandos, V.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Clark of Windermere, L.

Andrews, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Crawley, B.

Bach, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.[Teller]

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Desai, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Dixon, L.

Borrie, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Brennan, L.

Dubs, L.

Brett, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Burlison, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

860

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Filkin, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Gale, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Gavron, L.

Mitchell, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Goudie, B.

Nicol, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Pendry, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Grenfell, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Radice, L.

Harrison, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Haskel, L.

Rogan, L.

Hayman, B.

Rooker, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Sewel, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hoyle, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L,

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Jones, L.

Thornton, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Turnberg, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lockwood, B.

Warner, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Whitaker, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Whitty, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Wilkins, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.23 p.m.
Clause 165 [Intermittent custody]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 218:
Page 99, line 18, at end insert—
"( ) An order under subsection (8) shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now come to Clause 165, which establishes the framework for the new sentence of intermittent custody, which was recommended in the Halliday report. It would allow certain offenders who are serving short sentences of imprisonment to serve part of the week in prison and part on licence in the community. The classic example, of course, is weekend jail where an offender is allowed into the community during the week, perhaps in order to keep his job or look after his family, but is then required to return to prison at the weekend. The difficulty is that Clause 165 does not lay out in detail how the new proposals are to work. Subsection (8) leaves the mechanics of when offenders will be required to be in prison and when they will be allowed to leave prison entirely to secondary legislation to which only the negative resolution procedure is to apply.
In Committee, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said of this order-making power:
"That power allows the Secretary of State to make an order specifying that intermittent custody licence periods will consist of a prescribed duration; that they will begin or end at prescribed

861
times of day; or that they should include or not include certain days of the week … The specifications in the order will be drawn up and if necessary amended for the optimal functioning of intermittent custody"—
not a very felicitous phrase, but I think that I know what she meant—
"as shown by the two pilot schemes that are due to be launched in January",—[Official Report, 8/10/03; col. 381.]
We agree with the Government that it is important to learn from those pilot schemes to see what works well and to identify any difficulties, so that before the scheme is applied more generally the Government would know better what to do—or, as the Minister colloquially said, the Government would have a better handle on how it should be crafted.
The difficulty is that we are yet again being asked by the Government to give our blessing in statute to something that is very shadowy. The Bill gives complete discretion to the Secretary of State to determine the way in which intermittent custody will work. Over the past two years, since the Halliday report, the Home Office's own assessment of how this custody is to work has been sketchy to say the least.
As we have said, because of the level of uncertainty surrounding the detail of the Government's plan so far and the wide-ranging scope of this order-making power, we believe that the whole procedure should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure instead of the negative. I beg to move.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Anelay. We have really been told nothing at all about how intermittent custody will work. I think that it is a very good idea in principle. I support it and said so in Committee. However, I do not think that we have had any explanation of how it will work. I raised one simple point in Committee—that all previous arguments against such an arrangement were based on the difficulty of accommodation. I do not know what thought has been given to where these people who are to spend merely their weekends in prison will in fact be imprisoned. Will the beds in those cells be available for the rest of the week? There are many such problems.
Moreover, it is not at all clear how this clause and these proposals on intermittent custody fit in with the previous clause dealing with custody plus. If I understand the position correctly, one person could commit an offence and receive a sentence of nine months but then be told that his custody period is only two weeks. Another person could be given a sentence of six months but be told that he has an intermittent custody period of up to 90 days. Which is the longer sentence? Which is intended to be the graver sentence? I am not sure that full care has been given to how to marry the two. I find it very difficult to understand. As I am sure the Minister herself has said, one of the problems with sentencing is the complaint that the sentence bears little relation to that which is served. On this basis, people who serve up to nine months may come out after 14 days, but someone with a shorter sentence may stay inside longer.
862
I make those remarks in as helpful a tone as my cold will allow. I hope that the Minister will be able to say a little more about how this important new proposal will operate.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as the Minister will be looking for accommodation that is free at weekends and not in the week, and looking also for purposeful activity for the prisoners concerned, and prison education is the responsibility of the Department for Education and skills, perhaps we could find space in schools and do something with these prisoners who are often in need of education. The point has been well made on many occasions that short periods of custody generally do not have a beneficial effect because the people concerned do not get involved in anything. I hope that the two departments, having decided to co-operate, might co-operate on this issue too.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that matter is slightly wide of this amendment but I can certainly reassure the noble Lord that we are getting the highest level of co-operation with our colleagues from the Department for Education and Skills who have worked with us on a number of issues in relation to education in prisons. I am sure that we shall continue to work diligently together to improve the educational opportunities that are made available in our prisons, as the noble Lord suggests.
Amendment No. 218 seeks to change the negative resolution procedure to the affirmative resolution procedure. I understand the noble Baroness's arguments in that regard, but I respectfully say that I do not agree with them on this occasion.
This order-making power is necessary to enable the Secretary of State to prescribe the duration, times or parts of the week for the period of intermittent custody. That will ensure that we are able to administer the sentence effectively through the Prison Service and the probation service. The details of the length and timing of licence periods is best left to delegated legislation given the need to respond flexibly in the light of experience of the two intermittent custody pilots.
What we have in mind for the first order is a choice between weekend and weekday release. This new sentence will require close working between the Prison Service and the probation service throughout the term of the sentence. We need to ensure that the sentence patterns are manageable for many of the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, identified. How will this work, if it is to work effectively? What are the schemes which the court can be invited to adopt in dealing with a particular offender? We believe that the negative resolution procedure provides an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny given the non-controversial nature of the subject matter. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee shared that view and did not raise any concerns about the nature of the order-making power. Therefore, Amendment No. 218 is one with which I cannot agree.

863
I wish to say a few more words about the pilots. We hope that pilots will take place in two purpose-built sites in Derbyshire and Lancashire. We hope too that those pilots will start about the end of January 2004. We obviously want to create these opportunities in a way that makes sense for the service that has to deliver them and for the offenders. Custody plus, which will involve longer sentences, will enable the court to do something slightly different. The court may decide, because of the nature of the defendant's offending pattern, that there is a process through which the defendant might successfully be able to go which would include in part imprisonment and in part proper controlled supervision in the community. That will enable the defendant to be rehabilitated so as to reduce the risk that that defendant might create of continuing in the cycle of crime. For example, one could have a block period of a number of months in custody followed by—because of the assessment process that the offender has gone through—either DTO or curfew or some other form of therapeutic intervention with supervision. It enables the court to look at the nature of the offence, the nature of the offending behaviour and any underlying difficulties which may cause or contribute to that offending. For example, if there is abuse of drugs or alcohol or something of that sort, that cycle has to be addressed and dealt with. Those are the two differences. We believe that the negative resolution procedure will enable us to do this.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for providing some more helpful information on the record than was available in Committee. We shall still disagree on the fundamentals. She quite rightly told the House that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not agree with me on this occasion. However, on occasion I do not agree with the committee and still wish to press a matter. However, this is not one of those occasions. I agree with all that my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow said. We remain concerned about the lack of advance thinking on some of these schemes. However, like my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, I recognise the importance and, I hope, the value of this particular scheme. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, may I suggest that the Report stage begins again not before 8.36 p.m.
Moved, That further consideration on Report be now adjourned.— (Lord Bassam of Brighton. )
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I wish to raise a point. Amendment No. 221 is still a long way down the Groupings List and it is the amendment which was moved at 7.15 p.m. on a previous occasion to make the penalty for murder no longer mandatory but discretionary. There was a plea that we—I was conjoined with the noble and learned Lord,
864
Lord Lloyd of Berwick—should not press the amendment to a Division. That was at 7.15 p.m. on that occasion. I respectfully inquire whether it is proposed to reach the same amendment, Amendment No. 221, much later tonight. If so, I should tell the House that I shall not move it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has had to leave. I shall seek to table the amendment again at Third Reading. It was not proceeded with on the previous occasion following a plea to bring it back so that the House could reconsider this important matter. It is quite clear that there will not be many noble Lords to consider it at about 9.30 p.m. or 10 p.m. when we reach it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am in the hands of your Lordships' House. Speaking on behalf of the Government there is nothing I can do to ensure that the amendment is dealt with any earlier. Looking at the clock and the number of groups of amendments before us, it is not a particularly considered view but my suspicion is that we may not reach Amendment No. 221. When we return from dinner there will only be one hour and 20 minutes before 10 o'clock. I am afraid that I can say no more that that.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, will the Minister say that we shall not go further than the amendment before Amendment No. 221?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is not for me to say. It is very much a matter for the House and the way in which it conducts itself.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before we move on, I inform the House that I shall not move Amendment No. 221. If it is not reached, I ask that I come back to it at Third Reading. That will stop people staying behind unnecessarily for it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education (Amendment of the Curriculum Requirements for Fourth Key Stage) (England) Order 2003
7.40 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th October be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the order be approved. The order is made under Section 86 of the Education Act 2002. It is designed to provide greater flexibility in the curriculum at key stage 4, so that schools can offer programmes that better meet young people's individual needs and strengths.
Our Green Paper, 14–19: extending opportunities, raising standards, set out why we need to change the 14 to 19 year-old phase of education and training in England. Too many young people continue to drop

865
out at 16, and only three out of four 16 to 18 year-olds were in education and training in England at the end of 2000, well below European and OECD averages. If young people are to be motivated to continue in learning after the age of 16, they must be able to follow courses in key stage 4 that meet their aspirations and match their abilities. We have high expectations of young people, and in order for us to meet their and our expectations we need a curriculum that is more flexible and responsive to students' individual needs.
At the same time, we set out a clear rationale for the new requirements for 14 to 16 year-olds. Subjects should be mandatory at that stage only if they meet one of two overlapping criteria: they provide an essential basis for progression, or are essential for personal development. In our strategy document, we confirmed our intention to amend the statutory requirements at key stage 4 to enable schools to put our Green Paper proposals into effect. That is what the order now does. It amends Section 85 of the Education Act 2002 by substituting new provisions in respect of the requirements for the fourth key stage of the national curriculum for England.
The order removes design and technology and modern foreign languages from the compulsory foundation subjects, to enable schools to offer greater flexibility and choice to students. It also introduces a new category of entitlement areas. Those include design and technology and modern foreign languages, as well as the arts and humanities. Schools must ensure that they make courses in those areas available to any student who wishes to study them, including the opportunity for students to take a course in each of the four areas should they wish to do so.
The order specifies the entitlement subjects falling within each of the new entitlement areas. In relation to arts, those are art and design, music, dance, drama and media arts. In relation to design and technology, that means design and technology. In relation to humanities, they are geography and history. For modern foreign languages, that means a European Union language. To meet the entitlement, a course must give students the opportunity to obtain an approved qualification. That requirement emphasises the significance and substance of the new entitlement areas at key stage 4.
The order also introduces a requirement for work-related learning within the curriculum. Schools will determine the nature of their provision, but a non-statutory framework has been developed which sets out the minimum experience that schools should provide. The legislation requires the local education authority, the governing body and the head teacher to have regard to guidance issued by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority relating to the provision of entitlement subjects and work-related learning. It also removes the requirement to specify attainment targets and assessment arrangements in relation to each of the core and other foundation subjects at that stage.
That explains the main functions of the order, which is to come into effect in schools in the academic year beginning in September 2004. Let me add that the
866
QCA consulted a wide range of stakeholders on the details of the key stage 4 proposals and their implementation. Overall, the proposals received a positive response. We have taken steps to prepare schools for the changes, to ensure that they are supported in their implementation. Essentially the changes are enabling. They allow schools greater flexibility to meet the individual needs of their students and to keep young people at the centre of their curriculum development. Therefore, I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th October be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for explaining the order. In the Government's own words—she repeated them tonight—the percentage of our 16 year-olds leaving school is disappointing. As has been said, between 25 and 30 per cent of our 16 to 18 year-olds were not involved in education and training at the end of 2000. That record compares very poorly with other EU and OECD countries. It is therefore essential to get education for 14 to 16 year-olds right, and to stop that awful waste of talent.
Flexibility for students, especially after the ages of 13 and 14, is good when it allows a student to exploit their aptitudes and talents by making appropriate choices. However, one must have an eye to balance, and on how in practice flexibility will work. For example, the very real practical issue is that it could create havoc in schools, which face the challenge of staffing, resourcing and timetabling very uncertain class sizes. When choice of such magnitude is introduced, it is not easy for teachers to know whether they will have a class at all in some subjects.
The order and the wider strategy of which it is part are not the right way to introduce flexibility. It reveals the most extraordinary priority when one considers that they are the end of a very long process in the department since the Act was passed.
I shall turn specifically to the order. We are told that targets and assessment arrangements will disappear for the courses. My understanding is that all the courses are defined as leading to a qualification. Does that mean that there will be no assessment arrangements, or that the assessment arrangements will not be prescribed? Does it mean that the department's targets will be abolished, which most of us would welcome? Nothing in the order specifies that targets and assessment arrangements are removed. Do I assume that the result of the substitution means that Section 85 of the Education Act 2002 falls? If not, nothing in the order abolishes targets and/or assessment arrangements.
I want to comment on some of the compulsory subjects. Of course it is welcome and absolutely right that maths, English and science should remain core subjects. I shall not comment on information and communication technology, physical education and, outside all that but compulsory nevertheless, religious

867
education, but why is citizenship compulsory for every child in all our schools? For many of our schools, citizenship is implicit in the way they run the schools and the way they teach the subjects. It does not necessarily have to be a subject on its own. Why is it more important than, for example, studying a humanity, whether geography or history? A child could grow up studying citizenship from no choice at all of their own—they would be compelled to study it.
The next compulsory subject that I have a question about is work-related learning. Everyone welcomes work-related learning. It was pioneered many years ago and takes many forms in some schools. It can be anything from time out of school to visit local companies and factory places, to having really good and concrete vocational courses in school. A definition of a work-related learning place would be helpful. Why should the subject not also be from choice? Why should someone who is entirely given to an academic curriculum have to be forced to give time up in their curriculum for work-related learning? It seems an extraordinary choice to make that a compulsory subject.
My next point is on an absurd matter. The order mentions any pupil who "so elects", so a pupil who does not elect to study an art, design and technology, humanity or modern foreign language can opt to do nothing. They can do the compulsory elements of the national curriculum and other foundation subjects, but they do not have to choose any. They can elect not to choose a subject from sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c) or (d) in paragraph (6).
Secondly, why are the pupils restricted to one choice from each of the sectors? If it is possible for them to choose no subjects from any of the sectors, why can they not choose two from one sector and not be restricted, as they are in paragraph (5)(b)? That sub-paragraph states:
"in relation to any pupil who so elects, one subject from each of such one or more of the four entitlement areas"—
that is, only one subject from art and design, music, dance, drama and media arts. Design and technology is a single subject in one area of entitlement. They cannot study geography and history; they must choose geography or history because one subject must be taken from each area. Then they must choose one modern foreign language. That seems extraordinary.
It may have been better, and would have made more sense, to list all the subjects from sub-paragraphs (a) to (d), including all the different options for modern languages, and to have left young people to choose one or more of the following subjects. There is no requirement that they must study humanities, arts, modern foreign languages or design and technology. Therefore, the order seems to place an incredibly incomprehensible restriction on what is meant to be the area of flexibility in the curriculum.
868
Paragraph (8) states:
"A pupil in the fourth key stage shall, if he so elects"—
if he elects not to do so, it does not matter—
"be entitled to follow a course of study in a subject within each of the four entitlement areas".
However, it also states that,
"this entitlement is satisfied where one subject within each of those entitlement areas is made available to him by or on behalf of the school at which he is a registered pupil".
That means that the teacher makes the choice. The order does not say, "subject to the choice of the child not being met". That means that if a choice is made available to the child and he does not accept it, the school will have honoured its entitlement liability. It will have offered the child an entitlement, although the child may not take that choice. That seems extraordinary.
The order may not state this but it is my view that if some children, for one reason or another, are unable to make a choice and do not receive the kind of help at home that would help them to make that choice and the schools want to offer a guided choice, that is one thing; but it is another to say that if a school teacher makes the subject available to the child, the school is then deemed to have met its obligation under the law. That is what the order states. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, is looking puzzled, but I repeat that the order states,
"this entitlement is satisfied where one subject within each of those entitlement areas is made available to him by or on behalf of the school at which he is a registered pupil".
Paragraph (9) states that a school,
"shall have regard to any guidance relating to work-related learning or the entitlement areas",
which will come from the QCA. I wonder whether we need the interference of the QCA. Cannot schools now be trusted to get on with this matter? It seems to me that this is an unnecessary piece of direction that will come from the QCA because the order states that schools must have regard to it. I believe that that is one area where the Government could have given some power back to schools. That would be very welcome to many professionals in our schools.
My next point concerns the definition of "work-related learning" as it appears in the order. There is not one mention of the words "vocation", "skills course" or "practical activity". However, the order states that,
'"work-related learning' means planned activity"—
not a course in vocational education or in basic plumbing, electrics or bricklaying—
"designed to use the context of work to develop knowledge, skills and understanding useful in work, including learning through the experience of work, learning about work and working practices and learning the skills for work".
It would have been lovely if some plain English had been included there to give an idea of whether that means courses in plumbing, bricklaying or other work-related practical courses planned for in schools.
That leads me to a point raised by the longer explanatory note given to me by the Government Whips Office. The information relating to the cost-assessment of this order is that some slight costs arise

869
in the production of new guidance and the Government will meet those costs. I am sure that that will be welcome to schools. However, the note then goes on to say:
"No new costs to the public have been identified".
That means that if there are to be more vocational options, those will incur costs and schools will be on their own. They will have to provide for those because the Government have said that there are no new costs and therefore they will not provide funding. It would be helpful to know whether, where schools do not currently provide very practical courses for 13, 14 and 15 year-olds, those courses will be available.
My final point relating to curriculum subjects concerns languages. In this respect, the order seems extraordinary. Alongside the curriculum subjects it would have been very good to introduce languages at the ages of six and seven so that children studied languages up to the age of 13. After that, the likelihood of a considerable number of them opting to study languages post-14 would have been greater. However, if children start to learn a language at the age of 11, there is no obligation whatever to continue with that beyond the age of 14.I fear for the future of languages. I fear also for the subjects of history and geography in the curriculum.
I agree with Damian Green, my honourable friend in another place, who said:
"The down-grading of language teaching is a backward step. Is this really the part of the curriculum that is least useful? At a time when the Government is cramming citizenship lessons into an already overcrowded curriculum, dropping languages is an act of educational vandalism. It sends a signal to the rest of the world that Britain intends to be more aloof than ever before".
European ambassadors claim that UK-based businesses are losing one in 10 contracts as a result of a lack of languages. In Germany, it is compulsory to learn English from the age of seven, a second language at the age of 12 and a third at the age of 14. Yet, as I said, we are making it an option not to study a language as well as an option to do so.
If the order is a culmination of all the discussions that have taken place in the department, I find it singularly unimpressive.
8 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for explaining the order to us. As she said, it implements the 14-to-19 proposals set out in the Green Paper. In that, we support the Government in many of their proposals. We also recognise that, in some senses, the current proposals rest on those that will be put forward by Tomlinson when he reports on the whole question of A-levels and the alternative to A-levels, which will have repercussions on the key stage 4 curriculum.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I have a number of detailed questions for the Minister about the order. Many of them echo ones that have already been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. My first point concerns the whole question of dropping modern foreign languages as part of the core
870
curriculum. When we have discussed that matter in the past—it has been discussed at considerable length in this House on a number of occasions—the trade-off has always been that we shall see the introduction of a modern foreign language at the age of six or seven within the primary school curriculum. It would be useful if the Minister could tell us how those proposals are proceeding.
If we succeed in ceding modern foreign languages at that stage, then the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is right that we shall not see many children enthused with learning languages and continuing to study them. That is desperately important. In a sense, at present it is sending out all the wrong messages to say that we can drop modern foreign languages at key stage 4. We should be placing more emphasis on them rather than the reverse. I believe that, without the complementary emphasis in primary schools and the development of that curriculum, the wrong message is being sent out.
Secondly, I also have questions about the whole issue of work-related learning. I had not realised or appreciated that that was to be a compulsory part of the key stage 4 curriculum for all pupils. I thought that it was to be a selective issue. I do not object to it being compulsory, but I question what it will mean. Perhaps the Minister will explain the definition, given that "work-related learning" is in the text of the order. I gather that the order applies to all pupils. Is there to be an equivalent amount of time for all pupils or will the time that they spend on work-related learning vary from pupil to pupil? Will it apply to work experience only? Clearly, for some pupils they will learn the skills and technical knowledge associated with work, but for other pupils that will not be so. It may be just work-related learning. Will the Minister explain a little more of the thinking behind the concept of work-related learning? It is a broad concept as defined in the text of the order. Will it mean different things to different pupils?
Am I right in interpreting the wording,
"one subject from each of such one or more of the four entitlement areas",
as one subject from one or more of the entitlement areas? If so, does the "one subject" mean just a minimum entitlement to one subject that schools have to provide and that there is nothing to stop students from studying, for example, in the area of arts, both art and design and music and drama, if they want to do so? Can the Minister say why the order states,
"design and technology (comprising only that subject)",
when we may have within design and technology such matters as textile technologies? Will it be broken down into different areas? There may be manufacturing technologies and textile technologies.
It seems to be very unsatisfactory to have one area where many different subjects are identified but another area that is limited to one subject only. Can the Minister say what is meant by "media arts"? That is a very broad term so what precisely is meant by it? Can the Minister tell us the implications for teacher training targets of the inclusion of such subjects as dance and media arts in the list of the arts subjects,

871
when neither is a recognised subject for teacher training? If we are to offer this curriculum, will people be available to teach those subjects? Has any labour market research been undertaken to see whether people are available to teach them?
At present, subjects such as psychology, law, economics and sociology are offered within key stage 4 and yet they do not appear in any of the entitlements within the regulations. What will happen to them? Are they now being cut out of the curriculum?
What about religious education? As we understand it, at the moment it is part of the compulsory element within the curriculum, but it is not mentioned as such. We recognise that it has been written into various education Acts over the course of time and that it is part of the basic curriculum, but if that is so, why is it not included as part of the national curriculum? Surely it is unsatisfactory that it is not mentioned anywhere in this order.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, in putting the order before the House the Minister said that her objective was to meet young people's needs better and to ensure that they receive education essential to their progress and to their personal development. That is a reasonable set of criteria by which to judge the order, but it falls very far short of what one hoped for. I do not attach any blame to it; I am pleased that the Government have started to shift away from the status quo. Looking at the order, it is clear where they are going, but it is profoundly unsatisfactory. There is a great deal further to go.
I shall deal with the various clauses as they appear in the order. On the core subjects of mathematics, English and science, how is it essential to the progress of someone who knows that they want to study hairdressing to study differential calculus or trigonometry or the reactivity series of elements or any of the other boring pieces of trivia that are part of GCSE science, or indeed the deconstruction of a poem? If one is proceeding towards that kind of career, a great deal can be said for learning the joy of poetry and literature, but why do so in a way that would suit one for an academic career at one of our dustier universities rather than to a life of enjoyment and appreciation of literature and the arts? Why learn a set of mathematical tools that are beyond those that I have ever used in my life?
I have been involved in finance, accountancy, computing and areas on the border of science and mathematics and what I have been helping my son learn for his GCSEs is irrelevant. I have not used any of it in my life. There are vast swathes of people who do not need what is in the mathematics curriculum. Why should it be core for people who do not want to go down that road?
We have not addressed the fundamental questions that better meet young people's needs and is essential to their progress. We are stuck in the business of individual subjects. Yes, the subject of mathematics is useful. It can be tied in to many other interesting
872
subjects so why not teach more people surveying? Why not have a GCSE in surveying? Through that, with luck, one would learn a good deal about architecture, history, mathematics and following the example of Millais School it could be taught in a foreign language.
The structure does not allow for that kind of combined learning. We just add subjects to the list and allow the new subjects to crowd out the old. We have subjects like information and communication technology, and citizenship. They are both essential, but they should be part of other areas of learning. Citizenship combines enormously well with English and history. One could fit it in with geography or cover it to some extent in combination with languages. There is no need to think of it as an individual subject, or at least not much of it. Certainly, information and communication technology should be, and is increasingly, embedded in other subjects.
Schools will do a course in basic computing and, if they are up to it, the basic skills, so that one can learn touch-typing and how to use a computer. The rest of the GCSE course is incredibly boring. However, when those skills are embedded with other subjects, they become fascinating because you are using them how you want to use them. So this rigid sticking with subject barriers is not enabling us to reach the goal of better meeting young people's needs. That really should be what guides us.
I am delighted to say that on this issue the present headmaster of Winchester is an ally. He also is railing against limitations imposed by subject barriers. If one was aiming to do a certain degree at a particular university, these divisions channelling people down to do a narrow academic degree may have a function. They still have a function in terms of preserving the core of a subject. There is a core to history, to geography and, indeed, to most subjects, which should be taught separately. Many other parts can be taught much more interestingly and usefully to pupils in combination with other subjects where the knowledge is not central to the life young people see in front of them. If we are going to better meet young people's needs we must be responsive to that kind of issue, rather than imposing these old structures—these arthritic arrangements—on children.
I am delighted by the Government's progress in that direction. I know that the noble Baroness has been engaged in this kind of thinking regarding languages. But we need to go a great deal further.
My understanding of paragraph 6(c) is that at last we get rid of the horrible subject of humanities. Pupils will have an entitlement to either geography or history. So they cannot be fobbed off with, "We do humanities here". That is a nice thing; it is encouraging. However, I find that the imposition of the structure on children does not respond to their individual needs. If a child wanted to be a politician, it would be a jolly good idea to do art, design and drama together. They are pretty good talents to have as a politician. If one was going to be involved in the arts, one might want to do music, dance and media arts. They should not be compelled to learn either history or geography.

873
We should be finding ways to offer children much more flexibility. If one is aiming a child towards a degree in languages, to allow a school to get away with offering them only one language—circumstances may dictate—is really dumbing down our ambitions for what schools should be offering children. Putting it in this way encourages schools to offer much less ambitious provision than they really should be trying for.
I am particularly disappointed, as my noble friend was, with paragraph 8. It seems to say: "No, we don't do music here. We satisfy paragraph 6(a) by offering you dance. Since we can offer you dance, we don't have to offer you anything else". That is a very disappointing climb-down from even the ambition there appears to be in setting out the variety in paragraph 6.
We must work to meet people's needs and to focus on how we can satisfy their individual ambitions; how we can engage children in learning; and when they have developed an idea of what they want to be and where they want to go, how we can make sure that the learning provided is relevant to the life they envisage and is set in the context of that life. It is a great challenge. It requires much mould-breaking and rethinking. I hope that the Government are set on that course. I do not expect it to be completed in 10 or even 20 years, but my overall impression of the order is that there is a great deal further to go.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I begin by sharing with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the passion he has demonstrated and the desire to set a course which provides flexibility for our young people and education which is relevant and equips them for their adult life. I am sorry he is disappointed, but I think that all noble Lords share that same objective.
In the time that remains I shall try to address noble Lords' questions, but I shall do so against the backdrop of some comments that I wish to make. I hope that noble Lords will see the spirit in which they are made. Sometimes there is tension between the desire to offer flexibility and to ensure that everything is offered to all students at all times. We have tried to address that very real tension in how we have set out flexibility for schools. On the one hand, we seem to be saying that we need to trust schools more. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in particular, that that is a critical part of what all governments need to do. However, on the other hand, we seem to be saying that we cannot trust schools to offer the kind of curriculum diversity that we seek. We wrestle with that; but we should trust schools to enable pupils to get the best that they can from their education. That framework sets out the entitlements that I will discuss.
I shall respond first to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. She asked what we have done to prepare schools for the arrangements. I talked about the QCA guidance in my opening remarks. We have been giving support to schools and showing them how to accommodate the different kinds of curriculum entitlements and how different types of whole-school planning can achieve that, through case studies and so
874
on. The QCA guidance has been extremely well received by schools, as I am sure the noble Baroness will be pleased to hear. It seems to have addressed the support needs that schools identified.
There was a tidying-up of attainment and assessment aspects. The kind of attainment and assessments done at year 7 and key stage 2 have never been done at key stage 4. We have had GCSEs and very clear qualifications. We are now saying that at key stage 4 schools need to ensure that they give young people the opportunity to identify qualifications and to study to the point of receiving that qualification. That is the reason for the current position.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Sharp, spent time discussing work-related learning, so I shall address the issue in more detail. We have defined it as activity that uses work as a context for learning. It is about getting the broad range of experiences and activities that allows students to experience working life. Preparation in education for working life is critical. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, preparation is critical to ensure that people reach working life with the right kind of experiences, education and understanding of working life. It is about learning about working practices, the workplace environment, developing skills for working life and learning through activities and challenges set in a work-related context. There has been guidance from the QCA on the subject from September 2003, and there will be more guidance to enable schools to learn about it more effectively.
We describe this as a three-strand approach. It is about having the knowledge and understanding about work, employability and enterprise, about providing opportunities to learn from direct experiences of work and about acquiring skills necessary for enterprise and employment. We do not want to impose on schools a blueprint for how they should deliver that new strand. Instead, we have adopted the framework approach and allowed schools the flexibility to develop it.
As noble Lords will know, we introduced GCSEs in eight work-related subjects last September and seek to add two more—construction and performing arts— next year. Those were provided with support for schools, and there is funding for courses delivered in collaboration between schools. We are investing £120 million in the programme, which is in its second year. We have partnerships between colleges and schools, meeting the needs of about 80,000 pupils from 1,800 schools. We are very comfortable that we have in place the support and funding for schools that noble Lords seek, and the flexibility within that that noble Lords are keen to see in how we develop the programme.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, mentioned the compulsory nature of citizenship teaching. We allow for it to be delivered through different subjects. It is compulsory in that we ensure that children are taught about citizenship, but schools have flexibility to teach it in appropriate ways through other subjects. It might be taught as part of lessons in history, geography or

875
religious education. It is an important part of the development of education. We feel strongly that it should be a core thread that runs through schools.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was concerned that we would offer only one of each subject. We will encourage schools to offer as many as possible of the subjects that I have identified. Students can choose more than one subject from each of the four areas; they are not restricted. At present, we do not have an entitlement for geography and history. It will be an entitlement to offer at least geography or history, or a combination of the two. Where it is offered, students will be able to take both subjects. It is also true in the arts, humanities and in modern foreign languages that, when schools offer more than one subject, students will be able to choose within their options. However, we have made it clear that the entitlement is to offer at least one within those different subject areas and we encourage schools to ensure that that is the absolute minimum that they offer.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked specifically about costs, which are about £100,000 between each partnership on the different elements of work-related learning. So far that is proving to be satisfactory.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Sharp, talked at some length about language provision and both indicated that we have discussed the matter on many occasions in your Lordships' House. It is our ambition to have good quality language learning not only for secondary school pupils but for lifelong learning. Noble Lords will know that we are looking to introduce new systems of accreditation—a grading system that will enable people more easily to continue with language learning. Good progress is being made, with several schools already offering language learning at primary level. We have set a realistic deadline for all primary schools to be able to offer this by 2010. Pathfinders are under way. We are working closely with the "Nuffield Foundation, which has been incredibly helpful in helping us to develop this strategy.
As I have said many times, however, developing a languages strategy appropriate to this country and enabling students to have a wide availability of options is about lifelong opportunities. The matter is not about trying to ensure that a group of children who do not wish to study languages at a particular point in their lives are continually forced to do so. We must get better and cleverer about creating opportunities and enthusiasm for learning.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, mentioned design and technology and was concerned that it was not just design and technology. Schools will be able to offer GCSEs in food, textiles, graphics, resistant materials, system and control and electronics. We are also funding teacher and curriculum development projects in electronics, textiles, software and primary food technology that will update teachers' skills and enhance the curriculum. Those were points well made by the noble Baroness in her comments on the subject.
876
I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that we do have teacher training initiatives that are intended to help develop the 14 to 19 strategy. We are ensuring that, when we introduce anything new, especially in work-related learning, we have an extensive support programme in place that we believe is being effectively used in schools.
With the exception of saying to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that doing a drama course to become a politician is quite a good and useful talent, I hope that I have answered all noble Lords questions. As always, I shall check carefully to ensure that I pick up any points that have been missed. This has been a useful discussion. I will take back comments made by noble Lords. It is our ambition to introduce flexibility and ensure that we provide high-quality education and retain many more of our young people in good-quality education in the years 14 to 19 and see many of them to go on to further and higher education. I commend the order to the House.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I am confused by an answer given to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and to myself. We both asked about costs and the Minister said to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that £100,000 was made available for each partnership. I am assuming that that is for a school and the partnership with which it is working. However, I have in front of me David Miliband's explanatory memorandum for this order. He says:
"The Department for Education and Skills will meet the costs of production of new guidance for schools on the new National Curriculum at the Fourth Key Stage from existing budgets. No new costs to the public have been identified. The changes to the curriculum are not considered to impose any new costs on business".
I do not believe either of those statements, but what the Minister said today is rather different from what David Miliband said and probably more welcome.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, those costs are already identified in the spending that the department has undertaken to introduce work-related learning. If I have caused confusion, and things need rectifying, I will, of course, write to the noble Baroness.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Regulatory Reform (Business Tenancies) (England and Wales) Order 2003
8.25 p.m.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker) rose to move, That the draft regulatory reform order laid before the House on 17th September be approved [25th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft regulatory reform order laid before the House on 17th September 2003 be approved. This is

877
the fifth order from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to be brought forward under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001.
The order streamlines procedures for renewing and terminating business tenancies under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. It applies to commercial premises—offices, shops, factories, warehouses, leisure facilities et cetera—but not to residential property. The provisions are uncontroversial, stemming mainly from Law Commission recommendations published as long ago as 1992. They are highly technical but aim to make the whole process of renewing or terminating tenancies easier, quicker, fairer and cheaper for landlords and tenants of business premises.
Perhaps the most notable of the provisions is the one dealing with agreements to exclude security of tenure. Since 1970, landlords and tenants have been able to agree, before entering into a lease, that the normal statutory right of security of tenure should not apply. At present, that requires court approval. However, the Law Commission found that courts merely rubber-stamped applications, and it recommended that, instead, the prospective tenant should receive a "health warning" about the potential loss of rights. As an added safeguard, the order requires the notice to be given at least 14 days before the parties ere committed to the lease. Alternatively, the tenant must make a statutory declaration before an independent solicitor that he or she has read the "health warning" and has accepted its consequences.
Your Lordships' Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform rightly wanted to be fully satisfied that abolishing the court procedure would not disadvantage tenants. With the committee's agreement, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister commissioned research to see what the courts did when dealing with applications to exclude security of tenure. The research, by Bristol University and Sheffield Hallam University, found that the courts rejected only a handful of cases, mainly on technical grounds. I am pleased to note that, in its; 25th report, the committee concluded that "no … protection was lost" under the new provisions—the provisions in the order.
The order contains other provisions reforming the procedures under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. They include new arrangements for agreements to surrender business tenancies, similar to those for agreements to exclude security of tenure. The order introduces better and more effective arrangements for the parties to obtain preliminary information from each other, before carrying out renewal or termination procedures. The procedures themselves will be faster and more efficient, preventing parties carrying out delaying tactics.
The order abolishes some notorious time traps for tenants. It encourages landlords and tenants to agree terms without having to go to court. In particular, parties still in negotiation may agree to extend deadlines for applications to court, avoiding unnecessary court proceedings simply to preserve the
878
tenant's right to renew the tenancy. The order contains fairer provisions for interim rent—rent payable pending renewal of the tenancy—allowing tenants as well as landlords to apply. It establishes more clearly and logically which parties have rights and obligations under the Act.
The proposals have been the subject of no fewer than four public consultation exercises. It is worth putting them on the record. In 1989, there was a Law Commission consultation on the original proposals, set out in working paper No. 111. In 1996, there was the Department for the Environment's consultation on the Law Commission's final proposals, which were published in 1992. In 2001, there was the consultation by the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for the purposes of the Regulatory Reform Act, and, in 2003, there was a small-scale consultation of small business organisations, which was carried out in response to the request by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform.
The ODPM has also benefited from helpful guidance of a sounding board of property law experts to whom we are very grateful. We have incorporated some minor amendments suggested by the Regulatory Reform Committee of another place and some others which the sounding board and consultees have suggested. The order applies to both England and Wales. We have obtained the consent of the National Assembly for Wales. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform has recommended that the order, as it now stands, is in a form satisfactory to be submitted to this House for affirmative resolution. I therefore commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulatory reform order laid before the House on 17th September be approved [25th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee].—(Lord Rooker. )
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, this order will probably not delay us an enormous amount of time, particularly as the supper hour is running out. It is, perhaps, the security of tenure aspect that has caused the most concern to the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. Probably, quite rightly, that has caused some delay in the order being put forward.
It seems that often it will be small businesses that take on short tenancies. Therefore, I have just two questions for the Minister. It is indicated that the health warning letter will be served. Who will serve it? Will it be the responsibility of the landlord to ensure that the tenant is aware of the health notice? Or does the tenant have to collect it from a post office? It is not suggested that that is what will happen. But there must be a guarantee that the tenant will receive the letter: a small business may be very short of staff and may need to obtain outside legal advice.
The letter of the 6th February 2003 from the ODPM to the Delegated Powers Committee indicated that there would be a review of the new procedures. I

879
assume that that is not the consultation which took place following the letter, but that it is a promise that the process of the health warning letter will be reviewed. How does one audit a review of a letter? Am I am correct that that review will take place a year after the order and is that still the commitment? What audit will be undertaken of a letter which, by and large, will not pass through the courts any more, but will pass only between lawyers? It would be helpful if the Minister knows the answer. If he does not, perhaps he will let me know at a later date.
As the Minister said, these are technical amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, which do not seem to have caused too many ripples. Therefore, if the Minister would answer my questions, I should be grateful.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the Minister for clearly explaining these technical regulations. I congratulate the Government on the level of consultation carried out over quite a period. It is interesting that different business groups have responded in slightly different ways. When an order comes before us and people are not thrusting e-mails and information at us, we know that some agreement has been reached.
Generally, the organisations involved are pleased that the Government have listened to the Delegated Powers Committees in both Houses. As the Minister explained, they have agreed to introduce changes, particularly on security of tenure, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, also referred. I, too, hope that the Minister will reiterate that the Government will review how the new procedures are working after a year. Among business groups, there was disagreement on the effects that the changes would have and the degree to which they would affect contracting out. Therefore, it is in everyone's interests if that is considered during the year and a report or consultation is put forward.
To finish, it is true that business groups very much welcome the work of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in trying to reduce the burden on small businesses. They are always asking for more, although I am sure that the Minister is aware of that. However, they are slightly concerned because as soon as one burden is removed, another appears to come on to the scene. In all, small businesses would like the whole burden to be reduced rather than to take one step forward and then one step back.
With those few comments, and in anticipation of a positive response from the Minister on the review process, Members on these Benches are happy for the order to proceed.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am full of positive answers. In my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, I should admit that I know absolutely nothing about this area—it is as well to admit it. In my former role looking after businesses, I was told that the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 must be one of the most successful Acts on the statute book. It has been
880
in place for almost 50 years without suffering the fate of many other Acts: it has not been overturned or subjected to massive amendment.
The noble Baroness put two questions to me. The landlord will be responsible for serving the letter, so there is a duty on the landlord. In response to the second point about the review, we shall organise a review audit to be done in conjunction with our property sounding board—a body we have to bounce ideas off. The exercise will not be simply one within the department; outside professionals and people working in the industry will take part. I do not doubt that, because we are transparent and believe in open government, the results of the review will be made known to the industry to ensure that it is successful.
It is true that this is the fifth order from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, representing a large process of regulatory reform running to over 40 pages. It is a substantial reform and wholly to be applauded, I believe. With those remarks, I hope that I have answered both questions in a positive fashion. The order now requires in due course the assent of the other place when it finds time to get round to it. After that, the order can take its necessary effect.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice Bill
8.37 p.m.
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 168 [Further provisions relating to intermittent custody]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 218A:
Page 100, line 18, at end insert—
"( ) In section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 (c. 39) (prison rules), in subsection (3) for "The days" there is substituted "Subject to subsection (3A), the days" and after subsection (3) there is inserted—
"(3A) In relation to a prisoner to whom an intermittent custody order under section 165 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 relates, the only days to which subsection (3) applies are Christmas Day, Good Friday and any day which under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 is a bank holiday in England and Wales.""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 218A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 220E, 220F, 220H and 220J. This is a series of what are essentially technical amendments. Amendment No. 218A excludes intermittent custody officers from the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 which prevent prisoners from being kept in at weekends if they are due to be discharged on a Saturday or a Sunday. The other four amendments in this group substitute references to a prisoner serving a sentence of intermittent custody with "an intermittent custody prisoner", a new definition that was introduced in Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Breach or amendment of suspended sentence order, and effect of further conviction]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 218B:
Page 260, line 30, leave out "requirements of the community" and insert "community requirements of the suspended sentence"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 218C:
Page 260, line 36, after second "the" insert "community"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 209A. I beg to move.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am not quite clear on the explanation of the need to insert the word "community" here. Would the Minister explain that?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Amendment No. 218C, to which the noble Lord refers, is a drafting correction. That is its sole purpose. I do not know whether the noble Lord requires further explanation.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I was confused because the amendment seeks to insert the word "community". The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, did not explain it when he spoke to the other amendments in the group and I wondered what was its implication. If it is simply a drafting amendment, I have no problem.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is a drafting amendment. I shall certainly undertake to look more carefully and if that is not correct I shall come back to it. I believe that these are all technical amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 189 [Mental health treatment requirement]:
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 218CA:
Page 111, line 1, after "periods)" insert "or under the direction of a specified person having the necessary qualifications or experience"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords;, in moving Amendment No. 218CA, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group.
The amendments were originally tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, who, because of some confusion about timing, was unable to move them at that time. I have brought them forward today with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, who is unavoidably detained by the very important work that he does at Turning Point.
The Government's intention is to widen the range of those receiving treatment as part of a community sentence. The proposed new single generic community sentence should enable people with less severe misuse and less serious patterns of offending to benefit from
882
treatment. It will also allow courts to introduce the mental health treatment required as part of a community sentence for the first time.
Perhaps I may speak first to Amendments Nos. 218CA, 218CB and 218CD to 218CG. The new requirement will allow the court to direct an offender to undergo mental health treatment for certain periods. Treatment may be provided in an independent hospital or care home, a hospital or as a non-resident patient at a place specified in the order. The noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, and I, and his organisation, are concerned that treatment envisaged under the mental health requirement will be carried out only under the direction of a registered practitioner or chartered psychologist.
It is important that staff from voluntary agencies work alongside psychiatrists and psychologists. The clause does not recognise the role of the voluntary sector in delivering effective interventions, despite the fact that the sector delivers around 10 per cent of the Government's spend on mental health services. Indeed, in the health field in general, it has been acknowledged that the potential rewards of the NHS-voluntary sector partnerships are very considerable. The sector provides local, community-based, flexible and responsive services, often with strong user and carer involvement. This helps to reduce relapse, prevent crises from escalating and promote recovery.
Turning Point's experience is that staff often do not have the opportunity to contribute to a multi-disciplinary team and there is a risk that the clause will compound the problem within the criminal justice system. Indeed, staff from the voluntary sector are often better placed to see how other factors over and above a medical response may be impacting on and contributing to, or even exacerbating, a person's mental health. Lack of housing or stable relationships, unemployment or poverty are all crucial factors. These are understandably outside the remit of the psychiatrist, whose role is more clinical. Yet successful interventions will be dependent on a multi-disciplinary approach, which I know the Government are keen on.
This group of amendments would ensure that the provision for the mental requirement is put on a par with the drug rehabilitation requirement, which allows for a suitably qualified or experienced individual, such as a drug agency, to supervise the treatment.
We should not lose sight of the fact that a mental health requirement may be combined with another order, such as a drug rehab requirement or an alcohol rehab requirement. It will often need the involvement and engagement of the voluntary sector to ensure that someone's broad needs are met. That is why we have put down this group of amendments.
I will speak briefly to Amendment No. 218CC. I know that the debate on "may" and "shall" can unduly exercise the minds of noble Lords. However, the word "shall" creates a greater obligation on the court— namely, that the magistrate will not be able to impose a mental health requirement unless he or she is satisfied that the necessary arrangements are put in place. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which

883
introduced the concept of drug testing and treatment orders, uses "shall". If the Minister is not inclined to accept this amendment, I would be grateful if she could explain the merits of "may" over "shall" in this respect and the rationale for departing from the terminology used in the 1998 Act. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this is an interesting group of amendments. I am sad that the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, is not here to add to the points which have been made by the noble Baroness in her customary very attentive and considered approach.
Amendments Nos. 218CA, 218CB, 218CD, 218CF and 218CG seek, as we understand it, to expand the definition of persons under whose treatment or direction offenders undergo mental health treatment as part of a community order or suspended sentence order. As drafted, these persons have to be registered medical practitioners or chartered psychologists. In the drug treatment provisions, treatment can be carried out by a specified person having the necessary qualifications or experience.
Drug treatment is very different from mental health treatment. While mental health treatment is essentially clinical, drug treatment may be much broader in scope. Drug treatment may, and currently does, under the drug testing and treatment order include clinical treatments such as substance substitution, but may also include interventions to address offending behaviour and to change an offender's lifestyle. It is likely to involve counselling and group work as well as the provision of education and training opportunities, all of which are designed to develop skills to reinforce and sustain rehabilitation and assist those who are going through rehabilitation programmes to work in the wider world.
There may be non-clinical elements in a mental health requirement and there is scope for voluntary sector involvement in the delivery of this, provided that it is under the direction of a registered medical practitioner or a chartered psychologist. There may also be other interventions that fall short of treatment, such as counselling or education on mental health matters. They may be delivered by the voluntary sector under other requirements of the community order.
Amendment No. 218C concerns the circumstances under which an offender can be given a mental health treatment requirement. As drafted, the court may not include such a requirement unless it is satisfied that certain conditions have been fulfilled. It must be satisfied that the offender's mental condition requires, and may be susceptible to, treatment, that suitable arrangements can be made for treatment, and that the offender has expressed his willingness to comply.
The amendment would change "may not" to "shall not", presumably in order—and the noble Baroness might help us here if we are wrong—to emphasise that the conditions must all be fulfilled before a mental health treatment can be imposed. The amendment is
884
unnecessary, as it does not bring anything new or any further elucidation to the operation of the clause. As currently drafted, Clause 189(3) already ensures that the stated conditions are fulfilled before a court may impose a mental health treatment requirement.
In considering the clause, the noble Baroness asked particularly why "shall" had been changed to "may" from an earlier drafting. We re-enacted the clause from the 2000 police courts legislation, and did not think that we had changed any wording.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, perhaps it might help the Minister if I clarified my question. I said that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which introduced the concept of drug testing, used the terminology "shall". I wondered why the Government had decided to move from that—perhaps to the 2000 legislation.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe that it is because we were drawing our drafting from a different piece of legislation. Because the noble Baroness has raised the question in my mind and in the minds of other noble Lords, we shall go back and check that point and discuss it. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing that out, as there may be some confusion on everyone's part, not least on our own.
Clause 189(4) provides that when an offender is under residential treatment the responsible officer shall carry out supervision,
"to such extent only as may be necessary for the purpose of the revocation or amendment of the order".
Amendment No. 218CE would include the treatment provider in the provision, but that is a misunderstanding of the purpose of the provision, which exists only to limit the role of the responsible officer in situations in which the offender receives residential mental health treatment. The treatment provider provides treatment—fairly obviously—but does not have the duties of the responsible officer.
I hope that those explanations have satisfied the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness. I hope that having heard my remarks—although not entirely convincing on the subject of "may" to "shall"—the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and confirmation that voluntary organisations will be able to play a full role in the services. That is very important. I am also grateful for his attempt at explaining Amendment No. 218CC. I am sure that when he has checked the matter, he will come back to me if there is any doubt about the situation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 218CB to 218CE not moved.]
Clause 190 [Mental health treatment at place other than that specified in order]:
[Amendments Nos. 218CFand 218CG not moved.]
Clause 191 [Drug rehabilitation requirement]:
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 218CH:
Page 112, line 30, leave out "by the responsible officer"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to the amendment, I shall speak to the rest of the amendments in the group. The amendments fall into a number of categories, but I shall deal first with Amendments Nos. 218CH and 218CK. The amendments are also supported by the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, who is not able to be with us today.
Testing is regarded as a means of reinforcing the authority of a community sentence and to provide a more accurate indicator of offenders' drug use. It acts as a deterrent to continued drug use and as an incentive to become and remain drug free. We strongly feel that testing must be integrated fully with treatment programmes and that testing regimes are tailored for individual offenders.
Amendments Nos. 218CH and 218CK are intended to ensure that the treatment provider, not the probation officer, is responsible for determining the times and circumstances governing testing and treatment, and should be expected to communicate the results to the probation officer. That provision was in Section 62(4) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
Multi-agency working is perhaps the biggest challenge faced by the DTTO scheme. DTTOs require professionals to work together in a co-ordinated way. Developing effective inter-agency protocols for the operation of the scheme is essential. The energy invested in that at the developmental stage will pay dividends in the longer term with respect to the operation and management of the orders.
We are concerned that allowing probation officers to determine the times and circumstances of testing will blur the professional parameters between probation officers and drug agencies. We must be clearer about the divisions of labour between the two teams. Requiring probation staff to assume competence in medical decisions is an inefficient use of resources. Probation staff should be responsible for the overall accountability of the DTTO and reporting back to the criminal justice system and treatment providers responsible for providing the treatment. That is what the amendments would achieve.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 218CL, 218CJ, 218CM and 218N. To take Amendments Nos. 218CJ, 218CM and 218N first, we return to the issue of "may" and '"shall". They would strengthen the provision for drug rehabilitation by the use of "shall" rather than "may".
Amendment No. 198CL expresses our concern that the court will have discretion whether to include a mandatory court review for those sentences for fewer than 12 months. The amendment would remove that discretion. We strongly believe that the court hearing should be mandatory and retained for all who receive a community sentence because research has consistently shown that individuals respond well to direct dialogue between magistrate and offenders, with the magistrate
886
showing a real and active interest in a person's progress. The offender's confidence in the programme thereby increases.
That is especially important for shorter sentences, when every encouragement is needed to ensure that early criminal justice interventions really work, can successfully reduce patterns of offending and can encourage the person to develop a drug-free lifestyle. Put simply, we also want to make sure that the offender does not feel that he is 'getting away with it' by avoiding a court review hearing.
Of course, magistrates are not there simply to expedite orders and to get as many people as possible through the system; magistrates themselves do not believe that. They must be encouraged to take the time to understand the complexity of drug use and the importance of treatment as well as punishment. The court hearing will ensure that magistrates are more committed to making community sentences work and deliver positive outcomes. I think we all agree that that is what we want to achieve. That also ensures that the accountability of the offender through review is clearly understood. That is crucial for all sentences and there should be no distinction between sentences of 12 months or fewer and longer sentences.
There is much to learn from the American experience in which community courts such as Red Hook allow the courtroom to take centre stage and provide a base for criminal justice and social services, so that offenders have quick and easy access to drug treatment, training and mediation services. The lesson of the Red Hook community court is that people must feel connected to a criminal justice system that works not only for the victim but also for the defendant drug user. Both must have confidence that the system is there to make it work. The more people involved in the solution, the greater the success.
Turning to alcohol treatment, Amendment No. 218CP would add a maximum of three years to the minimum of six months provided for in the Bill and Amendment No. 218CQ would insert a new clause. Much of the criticism of the old approach to the DTTOs—as, indeed, of treatment in the community— was that interventions were delivered in a rigid, problem-specific manner and did not recognise that it is wrong to label people as having one problem when they usually have many.
Put simply, it is common for a drug-dependent user to have accompanying mental health needs or a problem with alcohol misuse as well. Until now, poly-drug use or secondary drug use has not been easily addressed in the DTTO system.
Secondly, in non-inner city areas the DTTO focus on class A drugs has not been helpful. In rural areas, people may have a main problem with a class C drug, but the DTTO addresses only their class A use. For example, in the rural North East of the country, crack use is almost non-existent. The combined use of heroin and benzodiazepine is more common, but it is difficult to address benzodiazepine use in the DTTO since heroin use reduction is likely to be the target for success. Even if heroin use is stopped or reduced, the

887
combined use of alcohol and Temazepam together can be very dangerous and lead to violent behaviour which can cause other kinds of offending. However, as neither of those are class A drugs and one is legal and the other is not, tackling their use has not been seen as a priority.
Turning Point has campaigned for the problems of alcohol to be addressed. Alcohol is very frequently used when users are off opiates. However, although alcohol is legal, it is still an extremely dangerous drug, especially when combined with other drugs such as benzodiazepine. The new proposed single generic community sentence should enable people with less severe misuse and less serious patterns of offending to benefit from treatment. I am quite sure that that is one of the Government's objectives. It will also allow courts to introduce an alcohol treatment requirement and mental health treatment requirement as part of the community sentence for the first time. That is really welcome news, but only if matched by new resources to deliver more alcohol treatment.
A Turning Point report showed that more than half of users said that they had a mental health problem in addition to their alcohol dependency, and yet we know that people's needs often fall between mental health and alcohol services because of disagreements on who should be the lead agency or because both agencies are not involved at the stage when that person is assessed and referred to services. We know that some areas do not take people with mental illness because those clients are assessed as not being able to cope with the available treatment such as group work and cognitive therapy. Clearly, the onus should be on providers to develop suitable programmes. We have great fears that those problems will be compounded within the criminal justice system unless notice is taken of this problem.
Therefore, this amendment places a requirement on the Secretary of State to produce guidance on how the different requirements will relate to one another. That should explain how drug agencies, mental health services and alcohol services should adopt an integrated, shared and caring approach to meeting people's complex needs. It should spell out how services should be co-ordinated across requirements and how to link with the specialist support and advice from the voluntary sector. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I welcome this group of amendments. It is excellent that the Bill, in Clause 191, at the top of page 113, enshrines the voluntary principle in drug rehabilitation because that will make any treatment on offer far more effective. I also welcome Amendment No. 218CP, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which would increase the time during which rehabilitation treatment can take effect. That seems to allow for the possibility, which quite often occurs, of relapses and second efforts and
888
so on. Finally, Amendment No. 218CQ is very important as regards the interrelationship between services and kinds of treatment.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to this group of amendments, which contains a variety of points. I hope that I can help the Minister over "may" and "shall". This is really only a semantic matter concerning the use of the English language. Notwithstanding whatever precedent may have existed in other legislation, if you think of the question, "May I hit that old lady over the head?", the response, "No, you may not", is a definite prohibition. It does not allow for any kind of doubt whether or not that is a permissible act. The phrase, "You may not do it" is definite. I do not object to the use of "may" in the various contexts that we are discussing.
I do not want to speak about the responsible officer but I want to say a little about the alcohol treatment requirement into which we are moving. It is very welcome indeed that that has found a place within this legislation. It is a desperate and urgent need that has been far too little addressed in the past. However, I am not sure about the amendment containing the words,
"not more than three years".
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, seemed to suggest that that was a permissive extension from the six months, which of course it is, but it seems to me unnecessary that it should be limited. Clearly, there is an enormous history of relapse in alcoholism. It is a desperately persistent condition. If anyone has ever been to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, they will know that every member at the meeting introduces himself or herself by saying, "My name is such and such, and I am an alcoholic" because people recognise that such people are never cured of alcoholism. It goes on for ever. To put a limit even of three years on the treatment is neither necessary nor desirable. I resist the relevant amendment. However, I very much welcome the provisions of Clause 194.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for his welcome of Clause 194.I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for his welcome of the measures. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, implicitly welcomes the Bill's provisions although she wishes to modify them. Noble Lords are right to say that we have waited a long time for these measures. It gives the Government a great deal of pleasure to introduce these provisions to assist those who suffer so gravely. I endorse what the right reverend Prelate said in relation to alcoholism. I believe that sufferers usually say, "I am an alcoholic and I have not imbibed for X number of years"—quite often 30 or more. Alcoholism is a pernicious and persistent condition.
We are now dealing with the drug rehabilitation treatment clause—the last group in relation to mental health. We have looked at the previous provisions under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act. The relevant provisions are identical to those of that Act. We did not change the drafting. Any inconsistency that the noble Baroness detects may

889
arise not from the nature of these provisions but from the legislation she was looking at. It is a different piece of legislation with different roots. We cannot find any inconsistency at this stage but I shall confirm that when we reconsider the matter at greater leisure.
Amendment No. 218CJ seeks to change "may not" to "shall not", to emphasise that the conditions listed in Clause 191(2) must all be fulfilled before a drug treatment requirement can be imposed. The conditions state that the court must not impose a requirement unless it is satisfied that the offender is dependent on, or has a propensity to misuse, drugs; that, his dependency or propensity requires and may be susceptible to treatment; that arrangements for treatment have or can be made; that a probation officer or youth offending team member has recommended the treatment; and that the offender is willing to comply with it. This amendment does not bring anything new to the operation of the clause.
As currently drafted, Clause 191(2) already ensures that the stated conditions are fulfilled before a court may impose a drug treatment requirement. Currently, under the drug treatment and testing order, it is the treatment provider who determines how and in what circumstances the offender is required to give samples for testing in accordance with the provisions of the order and guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
In giving directions as to how testing is done, the treatment provider can either do the test himself or delegate the task to others. The clause, as drafted, extends these powers to the responsible officer in order to achieve maximum flexibility and efficiency in determining the arrangements for drug testing. The test itself does not require specialist skills, although training is given on the use of equipment. Restricting the powers to specialists can make it difficult to arrange drug tests, as they are not always; on probation premises. There are safeguards, as arrangements are subject to the provisions of the order and guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
We do not suggest that the analytical process be undertaken by anyone who is not skilled to do that. However, as the noble Baroness may know, the taking of the test itself can be relatively easily done by someone of modest skill who is trained how to do it. We want to be able to give people that opportunity. People in Turning Point, for instance, regularly have to try to do it to assist people on the ground. We do not want to do anything that would disable people from helping in that very helpful and proper way. Amendment No. 218CH would thwart that policy change and be unnecessarily restrictive. We understand the noble Baroness's concerns, but we do not think that they have any foundation in fact.
Amendments Nos. 218CK and 218CP seek to limit the length of the drug treatment and testing period and alcohol treatment to three years, as has been alluded to by the right reverend Prelate. That is again not necessary, as they can be imposed only as part of a community order or a suspended sentence order. Community orders cannot last longer than three years, as provided in Clause 159(5), and suspended sentences
890
orders cannot last longer than two years, as provided in Clause 171(3). That safeguard is already there, but it does not detract from what the right reverend Prelate said: that the measures could be extended on a voluntary or other basis.
Amendment No. 218CL would make all drug rehabilitation requirements subject to court review, rather than making that discretionary where the requirement is imposed for less than 12 months. Currently, DTTOs provide intensive drug treatment and testing, along with court reviews to monitor the offender's progress. The Bill brings the DTTO under the umbrella of the new generic community order, but also provides for a less intensive form of drug treatment which lasts less than 12 months and is not subject to a mandatory court review.
The aim is to provide for offenders whose drug problem is not so serious that it requires intensive treatment. To impose court review in all cases would be unnecessary and time-consuming. It might divert proper attention from those cases that really need intensity to try to make the difference. Nevertheless, the court has the option of imposing a court review for short drug rehabilitation requirements where it is considered appropriate and helpful.
Amendments Nos. 218CM and 218CN change the wording of Clause 193(2)(a) and (b) to emphasise that the court cannot amend a drug treatment requirement unless the offender is willing to comply, and cannot make any amendments to an order which has the effect of reducing the period of treatment below the six-month minimum. As with Amendments Nos. 218CK and 218CP, those changes are unnecessary. That is partly for the reasons that I have already given, but also because the current drafting is adequate in ensuring that the conditions are fulfilled.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to courts responsible for community orders when deciding to introduce orders that impose two or more treatment requirements. I confess that when I looked at the wording of the draft clause, it appeared somewhat confusing, and it is not clear of what the guidance would consist and what its purpose would be. I was very grateful to the noble Baroness, who elucidated what she meant in her comments.
The probation service already provides advice to sentencers on suitable interventions for each individual offender in the form of a pre-sentence report. That would cover how requirements would fit together where a number are imposed as part of the same order, as well as any other relevant issues of which the court should be aware. In addition, the Sentencing Guidelines Council will issue guidance on sentencing matters for all courts. I believe the noble Baroness will find that, put together, all those issues meet her concerns in a fairly comprehensive way and do what she most wishes to be done. I hope that that explanation is helpful.
I, too, acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, has been very concerned about this issue. I know that he is not here today. He raised this concern and noble Lords will know that I wrote to him

891
on 4th November setting out our response in relation to mental health requirements, the court review hearing, the guidance on community sentencing, and resourcing and implementation of the alcohol and mental health requirements. He was right to be concerned about those matters. I believe that a copy of the letter has been placed in the Library for those who may not have participated in the debate. It is on the record for the assistance of noble Lords.
I thank the noble Baroness for giving me the opportunity to state clearly, I hope, why we believe that the Bill as currently structured meets all the concerns that she reasonably has about this very difficult and sensitive issue.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for her patience in going through all the amendments in such detail. I believe that much of what she said will give a great deal of comfort to the voluntary sector, to the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, to myself and to Turning Point.
She will be aware of the difficulty that the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, had in raising these matters in Committee. We all accept that that would have been a more appropriate stage at which to obtain clarification. However, I believe that the Government Whips are aware of the situation that arose then. Therefore, I thank the Minister for her patience in giving such detailed explanations on Report. We are most grateful to her, and I shall read with great care what she said. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 218CJ and 218CK not moved.]
Clause 192 [Drug rehabilitation requirement: provision for review by court]:
[Amendment No. 218CL not moved.]
Clause 193 [Periodic review of drug rehabilitation requirement]:
[Amendments Nos. 218CM and 218CN not moved.]
Clause 194 [Alcohol treatment requirement]:
[Amendment No. 218CP not moved.]
[Amendment No. 218CQ not moved.]
Clause 198 [Petty sessions area to be specified in relevant order]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 218CR:
Page 117, line 29, leave out "periods" and insert "period".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 14 [Specified offences for purposes of Chapter 5 of Part 11]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 218D:
Page 278, line 3, at end insert—
"An offence under Part II of the Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994 (S.I. 1994/570) (offences relating to Channel Tunnel trains and the tunnel system)."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this very large group of amendments, which starts with Amendments Nos. 218D to 218H and includes Amendments Nos. 220A to 220C, 220G, 236T, 237A, 238A and 246C, makes minor changes to provisions in the Bill to take account of other Bills going through Parliament.
Amendments Nos. 220G, 238A, 218G, 218H, 220B, 220C, 236T, 237A and 246C all make small changes to provisions in the Bill to take account of the Sexual Offences Bill. Amendment No. 218F makes a small change to Schedule 14 to take account of the Female Genital Mutilation Bill. Amendments Nos. 220A, 218D and 218E make minor drafting improvements. I hope that noble Lords will not test me on all those. However, if they do, I have an explanation for each and I warn them that it will take some time. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 218E to 218H:
Page 278, line 11, leave out paragraph 59.
Page 278, line 16, at end insert—
"An offence under section 1 of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 (female genital mutilation).
An offence under section 2 of that Act (assisting a girl to mutilate her own genitalia).
An offence under section 3 of that Act (assisting a non-UK person to mutilate overseas a girl's genitalia)."
Page 279, line 25, at end insert—
"An offence under section 33 of that Act (keeping a brothel)."
Page 280, line 6, at end insert—
"An offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape).
An offence under section 2 of that Act (assault by penetration).
An offence under section 3 of that Act (sexual assault).
An offence under section 4 of that Act (causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent).
An offence under section 5 of that Act (rape of a child under 13).
An offence under section 6 of that Act (assault of a child under 13 by penetration).
An offence under section 7 of that Act (sexual assault of a child under 13).
An offence under section 8 of that Act (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity).
An offence under section 9 of that Act (sexual activity with a child).
An offence under section 10 of that Act (causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity).
An offence under section 11 of that Act (engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child).
An offence under section 12 of that Act (causing a child to watch a sexual act).
An offence under section 13 of that Act (child sex offences committed by children or young persons).
An offence under section 14 of that Act (arranging or facilitating commission of a child sex offence).
An offence under section 16 of that Act (meeting a child following sexual grooming etc.).
An offence under section 17 of that Act (abuse of position of trust: sexual activity with a child).
An offence under section 18 of that Act (abuse of position of trust: causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity).
An offence under section 19 of that Act (abuse of position of trust: sexual activity in the presence of a child).
An offence under section 20 of that Act (abuse of position of trust: causing a child to watch a sexual act).
An offence under section 26 of that Act (sexual activity with a child family member).
An offence under section 27 of that Act (inciting a child family member to engage in sexual activity).
An offence under section 31 of that Act (sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder).
An offence under section 32 of that Act (causing or inciting a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity).
An offence under section 33 of that Act (engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder).
An offence under section 34 of that Act (causing a person with a mental disorder to watch a sexual act).
An offence under section 35 of that Act (inducement, threat or deception to procure sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder).
An offence under section 36 of that Act (causing a person with a mental disorder to engage in or agree to engage in sexual activity by inducement, threat or deception).
An offence under section 37 of that Act (engaging in sexual activity in the presence, procured by inducement, threat or deception, of a person with a mental disorder).
An offence under section 38 of that Act (causing a person with a mental disorder to watch a sexual act by inducement, threat or deception).
An offence under section 39 of that Act (car; workers: sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder).
An offence under section 40 of that Act (care workers: causing or inciting sexual activity).
An offence under section 41 of that Act (can: workers: sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder).
An offence under section 42 of that Ac: (care workers: causing a person with a mental disorder to watch a sexual act).
An offence under section 48 of that Act (paying for sexual services of a child).
An offence under section 49 of that Act (causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography).
An offence under section 50 of that Act (controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography).
An offence under section 51 of that Act (arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography).
An offence under section 53 of that Act (causing or inciting prostitution for gain).
An offence under section 54 of that Act (controlling prostitution for gain).
An offence under section 57 of that Act (trafficking into the UK for sexual exploitation).
An offence under section 58 of that Act (trafficking within the UK for sexual exploitation).
An offence under section 59 of that Act (trafficking out of the UK for sexual exploitation).
An offence under section 61 of that Act (administering a substance with intent).
An offence under section 62 of that Act (committing an offence with intent to commit a sexual offence).
An offence under section 63 of that Act (trespass with intent to commit a sexual offence).
An offence under section 64 of that Act (sex with an adult relative: penetration).
An offence under section 65 of that Act (sex with an adult relative: consenting to penetration).
An offence under section 67 of that Act (exposure).
An offence under section 68 of that Act (voyeurism).
An offence under section 70 of that Act (intercourse with an animal).
An offence under section 71 of that Act (sexual penetration of a corpse)."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 211 [The assessment of dangerousness]:
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 219:
Page 124, line 1, leave out "may" and insert "must"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 219 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 220. The purpose of these amendments is to provide additional safeguards for children and young people convicted of sexual and violent offences in relation to the court's assessment of their dangerousness. The amendment would ensure that in deciding whether to impose an indeterminate sentence under Clause 208 or an extended sentence under Clause 210, the court is obliged to take into account all the relevant information available to it and the child's welfare and the capacity for rehabilitation.
The sentences in Clauses 208 and 210 represent a massive leap in the restriction of liberty for children and introduce a mandatory element for a wider range of offences. Children's organisations are concerned that without additional safeguards for children, that will result in more children being locked up and for longer. They mirror the adult provisions in Clauses 207 and 209 and contain insufficient safeguards to ensure that children are not disproportionately detained.
It is hard to see how the new sentences meet the UK's legal obligations under the United Nation's Convention on the Rights of the Child to ensure that custody should be used only as a measure of last resort and for the minimum appropriate period of time. On many occasions in your Lordships' House I have referred to the response of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child to the UK Government's report on the implementation of the UNCRC. In the response the committee is extremely critical of the UK Government with respect to the youth justice system in England and Wales. It expressed particular concern about the increasing use of custody for children, especially young children, and their treatment in custody.
I could go into great detail about the criticism, but I shall not. In any event, the length of the sanction should be determined by judicial authority and on the basis of an assessment of the individual circumstances in the case. That is not the way in which the Bill has been drafted. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the House may or may not recall—it seems it does not recall— that I moved similar amendments in Committee and I made the same comments as have been covered so admirably by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. At that stage I listened carefully to the response from the Minister. I considered it further when we had our meeting with her on matters to do with children. I also

895
read e-mails from the Children's Society and on reflection, having considered the Minister's response carefully, I felt that it was not appropriate for me to go further on these matters and I shall accept the assurances of the Minister.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I invite the Minister to assure the House that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has been fully taken into account in the drafting of this part of the Bill.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can tell your Lordships and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that the Bill complies with all the commitments made by the UK in relation to any convention that we have signed and implemented in relation to children.
Amendments Nos. 219 and 220 would require the courts to take into account additional factors about the offender, including his or her welfare and rehabilitation needs when undertaking the assessment of dangerousness in the case of juveniles. I understand why the noble Baroness pressed these issues upon us on the previous occasion and I know the reasons that she does so again. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for indicating her satisfaction with what the Government said. If I shortly respond to the amendment, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will be similarly satisfied.
As I stated in Committee, these amendments are unnecessary because the purpose of the assessment is to establish whether the offender poses,
"a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm".
In order to inform the assessment the court is required to take into account all information available to it about the nature and circumstances of the offence. Additional information about the offender may be taken into account by the court when undertaking the assessment, but it is not considered appropriate to require the court to take such additional information into account as the assessment must hinge upon the risk that the offender poses as opposed to that individual's needs.
We may be entirely sympathetic to the offender and the offender's needs but that does not detract from our need to assess the level of risk that that offender presents for whatever reason, because once the court has identified the nature and quality of the risk and has made an assessment of whether the young offender presents a significant risk of harm to the public, it can then go on to consider, bearing in mind that risk, how best to deal with the offender in all the other circumstances of the case.
The court, to be advantaged in order to make an informed judgment, has to assess that risk. The risk does not involve an assessment of the offender's need because the risk the offender presents to the members of the public is not mitigated by virtue of the fact that the offender may justifiably have had a terrible time, be incapable of controlling emotions, be spontaneously violent, unable to control himself and cannot reasonably be expected to control himself.
896
That does not detract from the risk that that individual may present to unsuspecting people who come across him. There is a separation.
I very much understand and welcome the passion the noble Baroness has for ensuring that the welfare of the child is considered at all material points, but, we would say, not at this particular stage. It is a two-stage process.
While I acknowledge that information about the offender and his welfare and rehabilitation needs may in some circumstances be relevant for a risk assessment such as this, it will not be relevant in all cases. The focus of sentencing in this clause is upon the risk that the offender poses in reoffending and the degree of harm that would be caused by the commission of any further offences. The sentences provided for in this chapter are a response to that.
Therefore, we do not wish to place a requirement upon the court to consider this information when it may not be relevant and its inclusion could undermine the relevance of any risks posed, thus potentially jeopardising the safety of the public. I hope that with that response the noble Baroness will better understand why we have made the distinction.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation. It is very clear that we need to separate the welfare of the child from the level of risk to the public. Having accepted and understood her explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 220 not moved]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 220A to 220C:
Page 124, leave out lines 15 to 22 and insert—

"(a) a specified offence,

(b) an offence specified in Schedule 15 (offences under the law of Scotland), or

(c) an offence specified in Schedule 16 (offences under the law of Northern Ireland)."

Page 284, line 13, at end insert—
"An offence under section 1 of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 (female genital mutilation).
An offence under section 2 of that Act (assisting a girl to mutilate her own genitalia).
An offence under section 3 of that Act (assisting a non-UK person to mutilate overseas a girl's genitalia)."
Page 285, line 36, at end insert—
"An offence under section 16 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (meeting a child following sexual grooming etc.)
An offence under section 17 of that Act (abuse of position of trust: sexual activity with a child).
An offence under section 18 of that Act (abuse of position of trust: causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity).
An offence under section 19 of that Act (abuse of position of trust: sexual activity in the presence of a child).
An offence under section 20 of that Act (abuse of position of trust: causing a child to watch a sexual act).
An offence under section 48 of that Act (paying for sexual services of a child).
An offence under section 49 of that Act (causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography).
An offence under section 50 of that Act (controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography).
An offence under section 51 of that Act (arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography).
An offence under section 53 of that Act (causing or inciting prostitution for gain).
An offence under section 54 of that Act (controlling prostitution for gain).
An offence under section 57 of that Act (trafficking into the UK for sexual exploitation).
An offence under section 58 of that Act (trafficking within the UK for sexual exploitation).
An offence under section 59 of that Act (trafficking out of the UK for sexual exploitation).
An offence under section 67 of that Act (exposure).
An offence under section 68 of that Act (voyeurism).
An offence under section 70 of that Act (intercourse with an animal).
An offence under section 71 of that Act (sexual penetration of a corpse)."
On Question, amendments agreed to
Clause 221 [The Parole Board]:
9.30 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 220CA:
Page 127, line 26, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee, on 14th October, I raised the issue of the rules of the Parole Board and indicated that I had been unable to trace them on the Parole Board's own programme. A very interesting and important contribution was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who was a member of the Parole Board. He gave us background to the matter when he pointed out that he and his colleagues had written out their own rules, having failed to obtain from the Home Office rules for governing their procedures in the particular area with which we were concerned. He said:
"We sent them to the Home Office and said, 'This is the best we can do. We will have to train the members of the Parole Board on the basis of these rules because you will not produce any'".— [Official Report, 14/10/03; col. 807.]
He said that, in the end, he received rules that bore a marked similarity to the draft that had been sent to the Home Office. In reply, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, made the point that it was not his Bill—that was the case—and said:
"Having made those two general commitments"—
that rules would be made in time and that training would be provided—
"and, aware that I am—how shall I put it?—speaking on another's Bill, it is better that I put in writing to those Members of the Committee and others any further points on those issues that go to the heart of what they have raised, so that we provide as much clarity as possible before Report".—[Official Report, 14/10/03; col. 808.]
On that basis, he suggested that our amendments were not pressed. In response, I said:
"We were tempted to press the matter to a Division, but I have heard what the Minister said and await with interest—within the next two weeks—his further response that will make absolutely clear what is the Government's position on the issue".—[Official Report, 14/10/03; col. 809.]
That was the state of play on 14th October. I was not cognisant of any communication from the Bill team or any Minister, so I checked, and I understand that there has been none. We do not seem to have got very far. I seek guidance and light, on the basis of which we will consider what to do on this matter. At present, there has been no response. I am obliged to move the amendment to discover the current state of play. However, it looks as though I may well have to wait until Third Reading. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I apologise if the noble Lord did not receive a copy of the letter. I know that a letter was written to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I shall check whether the noble Lord was also sent a copy. If not, I give him a fulsome apology for that neglect. I do not have a copy to hand, so I cannot check, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, is not in his place. Perhaps the noble Lord will accept my abject apology.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, it is too early; I am not that efficient, so I may have received it and not read it. But I have checked with the Bill team, and they have no record of my being sent a letter.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, perhaps we should await our joint apology. I shall deal with the amendment.
I reassure the House that we fully respect the independent status of the Parole Board. It has the unique responsibility for determining the early release of prisoners. Therefore it is essential that it can perform its decision-making duties free from political interference. The board itself would be the first to point out that it is allowed to conduct its business without interference. When recently giving evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, the board's chairman, Mr David Hatch, was at pains to stress during his term that the board had never once come under,
"any pressure of any kind on any of the decisions that we have made; not one".
The import of the complaint of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Colross, was almost that they should have come under a little more pressure in relation to the direction and it should have been forthcoming.
With Mr Hatch's comments in mind, I turn first to the provision enabling the Home Secretary to set down directions, which is being carried forward from the Criminal Justice Act 1991. As I have already said, this is not about interference, but about accountability. The Home Secretary is responsible for criminal justice policy and is accountable to Parliament for all aspects of that policy. He is also ultimately responsible for the supervision of all offenders on licence and again is answerable to Parliament in respect of their release arrangements. It is therefore wholly reasonable that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary should be able to set down the considerations to be taken into account when determining whether to grant early release and held to account by Parliament if these considerations are felt to be in any way ill advised.

899
Having said that, that does not give my right honourable friend the Home Secretary unfettered discretion to set down excessive or unreasonable criteria to be met before release can be granted. I must also point out that the board is always fully consulted on the drafting of directions and any amendments it might suggest are always given due consideration. As far as concerns the rules, they have no influence on the determination, as noble Lords will appreciate, of applications for early release. They offer a transparent and fair procedural framework for the Parole Board to operate when it is sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity. Although the rules are drawn up by the Home Office, the Parole Board is fully consulted. In fact, a working party is currently reviewing the existing rules and I can report that the board is represented on that working group and is playing a full and active part.
I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that all is well and that the amendment is not necessary. I do not know whether he now has a copy of the letter that was sent.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, indeed, I have a copy of a letter dated 28th October that was directed to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, that deals with several matters, including the Parole Board rules. It was copied to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who handed it to me, to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, who did not contribute on this topic, to the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, and to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton—but not to me. That is why I accept the apology that was so freely offered earlier. It is important, because it was my point and my experience that I was relying upon.
The Minister may not have been here, but I pointed out—and I do so again—that, in a later Clause, Clause 306 on page 173, there is provision for the making of rules. The section applies to:
"any power conferred by this Act on the Secretary of State to make an order or rules",
or a
"power conferred …on the Lord Chancellor".
Subsection (2) states:
"The power, unless it is a power to make rules under section 221(5), is exercisable by statutory instrument".
Out of 314 clauses, the only time that statutory instruments are not to be utilised for the making of rules is in relation to this part. That is the basis of my complaint. Why on earth should there be this exception for the rules of the Parole Board? I cannot expect the noble Baroness to reply to that now, because I have not tabled an amendment in relation to that particular expression in Clause 306. I shall do so at Third Reading, when, perhaps, we can have a full explanation of why the exception is made.
I made the point in the course of argument. I thought that knocking out subsections (5) and (6) would automatically remove the exception from Clause 306, but it does not. It still remains. At Third Reading, I shall table an amendment, and I imagine that, in the absence of a full and satisfactory
900
explanation, we will seek to divide the House on the issue. We want to know why the exception should be made. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 225 [Persons extradited to the United Kingdom]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 220D:
Page 130, line 14, after "a" insert "designated"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 228 [Power to release prisoners on licence before required to do so]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 220E to 220G:
Page 131, line 24, leave out "a prisoner serving a sentence of intermittent custody" and insert "an intermittent custody prisoner"
Page 131, line 28, leave out "a prisoner serving a sentence of intermittent custody" and insert "an intermittent custody prisoner"
Page 132, line 7, leave out "Part 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (c. 51)" and insert "Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 220GA:
Page 132, line 22, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this group of amendments deal with foreign national prisoners who make up a rising proportion of the prison population. About 800 foreign national prisoners are deported or otherwise removed each year. Those liable to deportation at the end of the custodial portion of their prison sentences are currently ineligible for the early release arrangements available to other prisoners.
The purpose of these amendments is therefore to introduce an early removal scheme for this group of prisoners. Eligible prisoners will be deported up to a maximum of 135 days early, depending on sentence length. The scheme will save a small number of prison places. But, as importantly, it will provide fairer release and removal arrangements for prisoners who are ineligible for the early release provisions available to other prisoners.
At present prisoners serving sentences of less than four years are automatically released at the half-way point of their sentence. Those liable to removal may be detained under immigration powers until they are removed. In practice, many prisoners are held in Prison Service establishments until they are removed. Prisoners serving determinate sentences of four years or more are considered for early release at the half-way point in their sentence. However, the decision to release is made by the Secretary of State rather than the Parole Board. If not released earlier, prisoners will be released after having served two-thirds of their sentence. If they are liable for removal, they may remain detained under immigration law until they are finally removed from the United Kingdom.
The amendments create two versions of the scheme. The first is set out in Amendments Nos. 220M and 220N, which will apply to prisoners sentenced under the new sentencing arrangements proposed in this Bill. The second version is set out in Amendments Nos. 220 P and 225A, which will apply to those sentenced under the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The latter version will come into force early in 2004. Both versions of the scheme will have the same effect.
The maximum period for early removal will be tapered according to length of sentence. Prisoners serving extended sentences for certain violent and sexual offences will be statutorily excluded, as will sexual offenders, subject to the notification requirements of Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Bill. These will replace the notification requirements set out in the Sexual Offences Act 1997.
Early removal under the scheme will be discretionary. Prisoners who are statutorily eligible will be required to pass a risk assessment. Prisoners serving a sentence of four years or more for a sexual or violent offence, but one which does rot statutorily exclude them for consideration, will be subject to an enhanced risk assessment. Those considered to present an unacceptable risk to public safety in their home countries will not be approved for early removal.
The provisions will also ensure that an offender cannot avoid serving his sentence while he is in the United Kingdom by claiming asylum at the last minute. They will also provide that if the prisoner returns prior to the date that the sentence expires he or she will become liable to be detained again in pursuance of the sentence. The provisions include an affirmative order-making power—I hope that will please the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay—which will enable changes to be made to the requisite period to be served before early removal, so that it can be reduced or increased as appropriate to circumstances prevailing at the time. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, these provisions are part of the release on licence provisions. Clause 228 states that,
"the Secretary of State may,
"(a) release on licence … a fixed-term prisoner, other than a prisoner serving a sentence of intermittent custody, at any time during the period of 135 days ending with the day on which the prisoner will have served the requisite custodial period, and
(b) release on licence under this section a prisoner serving a sentence of intermittent custody when 135 or less of the required custodial days remain to be served".
That is the basic power that Clause 228 provides for release on licence.
Subsections (2), (3) and (4) set out provisions where subsection (l)(a) or (b) would not apply. The provisions include—this appears to be the scheme of it—the situation where a prisoner is subject to a hospital or transfer direction and so forth, and where the sentence was imposed in a case where the prisoner has failed to comply with the curfew requirement of a community order.
902
I wonder whether noble Lords will give me a moment to confer. A certain amount of discussion is taking place behind me, the purport of which I would not dare to reveal to this House, although I am very much tempted to do so.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to be discreet at this point, I am sure we will all be very happy.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I think that I am rather obliged to do so.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 220H:
Page 132, line 41, leave out "a person serving a sentence of intermittent custody" and insert "an intermittent custody prisoner"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 231 [Duration of licence]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 220J:
Page 133, line 37, leave out from "where" to "is" in line 38 and insert "an intermittent custody prisoner"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 239 [Additional days for disciplinary offences]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 220K to 220N:
Page 138, line 15, after "Chapter" insert—
"(aa) any period which he must serve before he can be removed from prison under section (Early removal of prisoners liable to removal from United Kingdom)."
After Clause 240, insert the following new clause—
"PERSONS LIABLE TO REMOVAL FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM
For the purposes of this Chapter a person is liable to removal from the United Kingdom if—

(a) he is liable to deportation under section 3(5) of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) and has been notified of a decision to make a deportation order against him,

(b) he is liable to deportation under section 3(6) of that Act,

(c) he has been notified of a decision to refuse him leave to enter the United Kingdom,

(d) he is an illegal entrant within the meaning of section 33(1) of that Act, or

(e) he is liable to removal under section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33)."

After Clause 240, insert the following new clause—
"EARLY REMOVAL OF PRISONERS LIABLE TO REMOVAL FROM UNITED KINGDOM

(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), where a fixed-term prisoner is liable to removal from the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State may remove him from prison under this section at any time during the period of 135 days ending with the day on which the prisoner will have served the requisite custodial period.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a prisoner unless—

(a) the length of the requisite custodial period is at least 6 weeks, and

903

(b) he has served—

(i) at least 4 weeks of his sentence, and

(ii) at least one-half of the requisite custodial period.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply where—

(a) the sentence is imposed under section 209 or 210,

(b) the sentence is for an offence under section 1 of the Prisoners (Return to Custody) Act 1995,

(c) the prisoner is subject to a hospital order, hospital direction or transfer direction under section 37, 45A or 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

(d) the prisoner is subject to the notification requirements of Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, or

(e) in the case of a prisoner to whom a direction under section 222 relates, the interval between the date on which the sentence was passed and the date on which the prisoner will have served the requisite custodial period is less than 14 days.

(4) A prisoner removed from prison under this section—

(a) is so removed only for the purpose of enabling the Secretary of State to remove him from the United Kingdom under powers conferred by—

(i) Schedule 2 or 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77), or

(ii) section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33), and

(b) so long as remaining in the United Kingdom, remains liable to be detained in pursuance of his sentence until he has served the requisite custodial period.

(5) So long as a prisoner removed from prison under this section remains in the United Kingdom but has not been returned to prison, any duty or power of the Secretary of State under section 226 or 230 is exercisable in relation to him as if he were in prison.

(6) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) amend the number of days for the time being specified in subsection (1) or (3)(e),

(b) amend the number of weeks for the time being specified in subsection (2)(a) or (b)(i), and

(c) amend the fraction for the time being specified in subsection (2)(b)(ii).

(7) In this section "the requisite custodial period" has the meaning given by paragraph (a), (b) or (d) of section 226(3)."

After Clause 240, insert the following new clause—
"RE-ENTRY INTO UNITED KINGDOM OF OFFENDER REMOVED FROM PRISON EARLY

(1) This section applies in relation to a person who, after being removed from prison under section (Early removal of prisoners liable to removal from United Kingdom), has been removed from the United Kingdom before he has served the requisite custodial period.

(2) If a person to whom this section applies enters the United Kingdom at any time before his sentence expiry date, he is liable to be detained in pursuance of his sentence from the time of his entry into the United Kingdom until whichever is the earlier of the following—

(a) the end of a period ("the further custodial period") beginning with that time and equal in length to the outstanding custodial period, and

(b) his sentence expiry date.

904

(3) A person who is liable to be detained by virtue of subsection (2) is, if at large, to be taken for the purposes of section 49 of the Prison Act 1952 (c. 52) (persons unlawfully at large) to be unlawfully at large.

(4) Subsection (2) does not prevent the further removal from the United Kingdom of a person falling within that subsection.

(5) Where, in the case of a person returned to prison by virtue of subsection (2), the further custodial period ends before the sentence expiry date, section 226 has effect in relation to him as if the reference to the requisite custodial period were a reference to the further custodial period.

(6) In this section—

"further custodial period" has the meaning given by subsection (2)(a);
"outstanding custodial period", in relation to a person to whom this section applies, means the period beginning with the date of his removal from the United Kingdom and ending with the date on which he would, but for his removal, have served the requisite custodial period;
"requisite custodial period", has the meaning given by paragraph (a), (b) or (d) of section 226(3);
"sentence expiry date", in relation to a person to whom this section applies, means the date on which, but for his removal from the United Kingdom, he would have ceased to be subject to a licence."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 220P:
After Clause 240, insert the following new clause—
"PRISONERS LIABLE TO REMOVAL FROM UNITED KINGDOM. MODIFICATIONS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1991
Part 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c. 53) (early release of prisoners) shall (until the coming into force of its repeal by this Act) have effect subject to the modifications set out in Schedule (Prisoners liable to removal from UK: modifications of Criminal Justice Act 1991) (which relate to persons liable to removal from the United Kingdom)."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a formal technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, before Amendment No. 221 is called, I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, knows of the reservations that were expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, about the matter. He may think it preferable that we have a debate on it at the beginning of the next Report day, which is next week. There is only a quarter of an hour to go.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I may be able to help the House. There are always occasions when we find it inconvenient to move business. The House has said that it wants to go to as close to 10 o'clock or thereafter as is appropriate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was made aware of that.
On these Benches, we consulted earlier and said that we were prepared to keep to the pre-arranged agreement, of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was aware, that we would go to 10 o'clock. That is appropriate.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Baroness speaks with great wisdom. I agree with what

905
she says. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, made it plain before the supper break that he would come back to the issue at Third Reading. He is perfectly entitled to do that. It is our intention to press on until 10 o'clock.
[Amendment No. 221 not moved.]
Clause 247 [Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence]:
[Amendments Nos. 222 and 223 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 224:
Page 142, line 31, at end insert—
"( ) Before making an order under subsection (6), the Secretary of State shall consult the Sentencing Guidelines Council."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, that took me by surprise because I fully expected the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, to move Amendments Nos. 222 and 223 on behalf of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, because they also stand in his name.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I would have been pleased to have done that, but having regard to the communication I received a moment ago, I felt that it was not appropriate to do so.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I was concerned that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, should be able to move amendments to which he has added his own name.
Amendment No. 224 relates to the order-making power the Government propose to take to alter the arrangements for the determination of the minimum term to be served by murderers as set out in Schedule 19. Under Clause 247(6), the Secretary of State has an unfettered power to amend the schedule by order, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
The whole issue of Schedule 19 is subject to great controversy and no doubt at Third Residing we shall return to it with serious and powerful speeches, I am sure., from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and others on their objections to Schedule 19 as it stands. Noble Lords will be aware that in Committee I put forward a whole series of amendments to try to ameliorate the operation of the schedule, but since part of the package was dismissed by the House, that series could not return. I therefore sought to approach Schedule 19 in a different way.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, made a powerful point when he remarked that once Parliament had passed Schedule 19,
"It could then be amended at any point by the Secretary of State; therefore Parliament does not have the control. The noble Lord said that he was not suggesting that Parliament should have that degree of control over the particular differentiations between one type of murder and another, but certainly that the Secretary of State should not".—[Official Report, 14/10/03: col. 864.]
906
In his memorandum on the Bill, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice stated at paragraph 35 that:
"If the Home Secretary were to take legislative authority to set the guidelines himself, this would almost certainly be inconsistent with the law as it has now been developed by the courts. The question that therefore arises is: is it appropriate for him indirectly to do what he cannot do directly?".
It is our view that if the Secretary of State's power to amend the schedule is to be retained in the Bill, the Sentencing Guidelines Council ought at least to be involved in the process and in the drawing up of the Secretary of State's proposals before they are put before Parliament in an affirmative order. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the council before making an order that amended what is now set out in Schedule 19.
The Government have said much about how the new Sentencing Guidelines Council is intended to restore public confidence, and earlier this evening the Minister repeated those assurances. The Government have stated that they intend to bring together experience in sentencing from across the criminal justice system and yet, under the Bill, the new council will be excluded completely from the arrangements for determining amendments to the sentencing framework in the most serious crime of all, that of murder.
My right honourable and honourable friends in another place made the point very forcefully that it seems extraordinary that we have a controversial package of sentences in Schedule 19 and, under the same Bill, the Sentencing Guidelines Council is to be established, and yet the Government appear not to have confidence in their own creature, the Sentencing Guidelines Council, to put all the new guidelines for murder through it first.
We sought originally, of course, that the new sentences for murder should go through the SGC. We have had to resile from that position. I said earlier that I do not like resiling—and I do not—but on that occasion I could not get the support of the House. My first preference remains but, alas, it is not to happen and on this occasion I have gone back to a lesser position.
Originally I considered putting my name to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, which seeks to knock out the Secretary of State's power altogether. Looking with embarrassment at the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I must admit that that is the more honourable procedure. However, because I am not able to take my original position again, I have to do what I consider to be almost unacceptable to myself— I am having a hard time today—and say that at the very least the Government are honour bound to put the proposals through the SGC first. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am very sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, feels embarrassed for embarrassing me. I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, will wish to return at Third Reading to his Amendments

907
Nos. 222 and 223, which we will support. I am grateful to hear an indication of support from the noble Baroness.
We shall come in due course to Amendment No. 227—perhaps next week—which seeks to leave out Schedule 19 altogether. The noble Baroness is not herself satisfied with her amendment—it does not give her what she seeks—and we would be very unhappy if we were to end up with something as anodyne as Amendment No. 224.
However, there are dark forces at work, which I do not fully understand, and we will sort out these issues outside the Chamber, as I was told on a previous occasion—but not in respect of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I listened with great interest to members of the Sentencing Advisory Panel who visited the House of Lords a month or so ago. What most struck me about that meeting was the sense that those panellists felt that they were being sidelined. I am afraid, from listening to the brief debate today, it appears that the new Sentencing Guidelines Council is already being sidelined. I may have misunderstood the debate, but that is my impression.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I disassociate myself—as I know would the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia—from the dark forces at work and say to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that virtue will always have its reward.
I was not going to trespass on Amendment No. 223 because it has not been moved, but I have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has said. Confident in the knowledge that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, will assiduously read his Hansard, I will say a word or two about Amendment No. 223 so that we can better appreciate the gift that is about to be bestowed on Amendment No. 224.I hope that after I have done that, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, will better appreciate the value and enormity of Amendment No. 224.
Amendment No. 223 would remove the power of the Secretary of State to amend by order the principles for setting the minimum term of those sentenced to mandatory life, as detailed in Schedule 19, which would have been the noble Baroness's preferred option.
Amendment No. 224 places a duty on the Secretary of State to consult with the Sentencing Guidelines Council before amending by order the principles detailed in Schedule 19.
We have provided the power because we cannot foresee all the changing circumstances or social developments which may mean that the principles will require amendment at some stage. We have no current plans for use of the power, but it is intended to deal with changes to details of the schedule rather than its basic tenets.
908
I understand that noble Lords fear that the order-making power may be used. In particular, if I understood the thrust of the Committee debate and the brief comments made in this short debate this evening, there is a fear that a future Secretary of State may wish to amend Schedule 19 so as to provide less flexibility in individual cases. We intend no such thing. We are very aware that the framework must allow flexibility to deal with the wide range of circumstances giving rise to murder. It has been drafted with that in mind.
As I explained to the House in Committee, the offence of murder is the most serious known to our criminal law, and the public rightly expect the authorities to ensure that the arrangements for sentencing for the offence afford adequate punishment for the guilty and adequate public protection. The order-making power is a logical extension of the framework. As I have also said before, the power is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I believe that this House would have no hesitation whatever in rejecting any unacceptable or inappropriate use of the power. The beauty of the affirmative resolution procedure is that you either take it or you reject it. That puts pressure on both sides to behave with propriety and reasonableness or suffer the inevitable consequence.
I now turn to Amendment No. 224, which proposes that the Secretary of State would have a duty to consult the Sentencing Guidelines Council before amending Schedule 19 by order. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that we have no intention of sidelining the council; we understand the anxiety that may be expressed by the panel, because all and any change is always unsettling. People always feel unsure until they settle down with the new arrangement. That is totally understandable, even if unjustified.
While, as I have explained, we defend the power of the Secretary of State to amend by order the principles contained within Schedule 19, we recognise the concerns that have been expressed in debate in this House. We hope it will do something to allay those concerns if we accept this amendment. We are grateful for this sensible and helpful amendment and will be more than happy to undertake consultation with the Sentencing Guidelines Council, should amendments to these principles be suggested at a future date. I propose, therefore, that this amendment, tabled by the noble Baroness, should be accepted without further drafting or amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, before the wedding bells break out, bearing in mind that the provisions of Schedule 19 double the minimum sentences that are currently the guidelines, will the Minister confirm that if the Sentencing Guidelines Council recommended a reduction of what is infamously, in my view, contained in Schedule 19, to its current level, the Secretary of State would follow the council's advice? In other words, the power to amend the schedule includes a power to reduce the minimum sentences if they are shown not to work.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord will know the import of what he has just said,

909
with his usual smoothness. Noble Lords will know that I am probably too long in the tooth to swallow that one whole. I recite that the Government stand by their current position: we have presented a framework in the Bill that will apply, and the Sentencing Guidelines Council will have the role that I have outlined in excruciating detail in Committee and now at Report stage. I have said what 1 have said, which I do not believe can be misinterpreted, in relation to Amendment No. 224.
Usually we say that we will take amendments away and redraft them, but I am not going to do that. I say to the noble Baroness, without reservation, that she has her reward.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, we had a little bit of darkness from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, but, with the right reverend Prelate in the Chamber, it is a case of let there be light on this occasion. Naturally, I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to accept the amendment.
I have to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, yet again this evening. He tried to discern a measure of support for knocking out the Secretary of State's
910
power. Of course, I have made it clear throughout the evening that that was dependent on the whole package, so I am no longer in a position to do that. That was why I introduced the amendment. The Minister got it absolutely squarely right when she said that an affirmative resolution in this case would be tested by the House. As sure as eggs is eggs, if the Secretary of State decided to increase the sentences set down here, he would find a great alliance in both Houses against such a move unless there were extraordinary circumstances requiring it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Transas Group Bill
Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at eight minutes past ten o'clock.

  Northern Ireland: Employment Tribunal Waiting Times
  Northern Ireland: Employment Tribunal Waiting Times
  North/South Language Body: Budget
  North/South Language Body: Budget
  Northern Ireland Education and Library Boards: Cultural Parity
  Northern Ireland Education and Library Boards: Cultural Parity
  Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan Pipeline
  Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan Pipeline
  Crown Prosecution Service: Staffing
  Crown Prosecution Service: Staffing
  Departments of State: Hospitality Budgets and Alcohol
  Departments of State: Hospitality Budgets and Alcohol
  Communications Data: Retention Orders
  Communications Data: Retention Orders
  National Policing Plan
  National Policing Plan
  Extradition: Consultation on Draft Code of Practice
  Extradition: Consultation on Draft Code of Practice
  Renewable Energy: Planning Policy Statement 22
  Renewable Energy: Planning Policy Statement 22
  Caravans: Disabled Facilities Grant
  Caravans: Disabled Facilities Grant
  Colombia: UK Military Aid
  Colombia: UK Military Aid
  Gulf War 1990–91: Vaccines
  Gulf War 1990–91: Vaccines
  ISAF: UNSCR 1510 and Afghanistan
  ISAF: UNSCR 1510 and Afghanistan
  Gulf War 1990–91: Veterans' Illnesses
  Gulf War 1990–91: Veterans' Illnesses
  Regional Prime Contract: South West
  Regional Prime Contract: South West
  House of Lords: Political Affiliations of Life Peers and 2001 General Election Votes
  House of Lords: Political Affiliations of Life Peers and 2001 General Election Votes
  Magistrates' Courts Service: Chief Inspector's Annual Report 2002–03
  Magistrates' Courts Service: Chief Inspector's Annual Report 2002–03
  Wellington Arch, Hyde Park Corner
  Wellington Arch, Hyde Park Corner
  Safety Camera Partnerships
  Safety Camera Partnerships
  Heavy Lorries: Overnight Parking
  Heavy Lorries: Overnight Parking
  Airlines: Overbooking
  Airlines: Overbooking
  Railways: Power Supply
  Railways: Power Supply
  Drivers: Eyesight Tests
  Drivers: Eyesight Tests
  A1 Roundabouts
  A1 Roundabouts
  Felixstowe: Rail Freight
  Felixstowe: Rail Freight
  UK Ports: Empty Container Units
  UK Ports: Empty Container Units
  Train Protection and Warning System
  Train Protection and Warning System
  Wales and the Borders Franchise: Through Ticketing
  Wales and the Borders Franchise: Through Ticketing
  SchlumbergerSema
  SchlumbergerSema
  NHS Expenditure Per Head of Population
  NHS Expenditure Per Head of Population
  Cod Stocks
  Cod Stocks