Sitting of 12 November 2003

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

  Cotonou Process
  1. Tony Lloyd: If he will make a statement on the representations he has received about the development aspects of the Cotonou process. [137783]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): We are engaged in ongoing discussions with European partners and others on the future of European development and co-operation, including that provided to African, Caribbean and Pacific states under the Cotonou agreement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will meet European partners to discuss that issue, among others, in Brussels on 17 November at the General Affairs and External Relations Council. My right hon. Friend has received a representation from Traidcraft on economic partnership agreements—the trade pillar of the Cotonou agreement—and the Department of Trade and Industry, which leads on this issue, holds regular meetings with non-governmental organisations on those negotiations to discuss their concerns.
  Tony Lloyd: I am delighted to know that Traidcraft has made representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Will the Minister confirm, however, that there is real concern among the NGOs—but, more importantly, among the ACP countries—that the Cotonou agreement may act to sabotage the gains that were made in Cancun? In particular, if the European Union sees the Cotonou agreement as a way to drive region-by-region agreements, to the disadvantage of the poorest people, it will be disastrous in development terms. Will he make it clear that the Government will not go down that road, but that we will instead offer ways to provide practical support to developing countries to ensure that they can negotiate properly with the EU?
  Mr. Thomas: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. As we have made clear in the House and as other members of the negotiating team have made clear,
  270
  getting the Doha development round talks back on track is absolutely fundamental to our agenda. In that context, we recognise that we have to start from where the negotiations left off, and not move off into the sort of regional or bilateral negotiations that have been feared by a number of countries. So we remain absolutely committed to getting multilateral negotiations back on track that seek to achieve the development objectives that my hon. Friend and, indeed, the developing countries want to see.
  Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): Is not the real obstacle to the Cotonou process the subsidies that are provided to farmers in the EU and in the United States, producing unfair competition with farmers in Africa and other parts of the developing world? What can the Minister do, at least in the EU, to try to ensure that the common agricultural policy is reformed and still ensure that the US can lower its subsidies, too, as a consequence?
  Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is broadly right about the importance of making progress to reduce the adverse impact of agricultural subsidies. I am sure that he will have welcomed the historic decision taken in June this year by the EU in respect of the CAP negotiations that allowed us to make progress at Cancun. We are also seeking to secure a reduction in subsidies in relation to other EU commodity regimes, such as those for cotton and sugar, to continue the sense of progress that is being made.

  Colombia
  Lynne Jones: What progress is being made in Colombia towards the achievement of millennium development goals. [137784]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): Colombia is on track to achieve most of the millennium development goals. Good progress has been made towards the targets to achieve universal basic primary education, to eliminate gender disparity in primary education and to reduce maternal mortality. Progress towards the goal of reducing by half the proportion of people living on less than $1 a day remains fragile owing to the recent economic crisis.
  Lynne Jones: According to UNICEF education spending needs to increase by 50 per cent. if Colombia is to achieve basic education for all by 2015, yet the high level of indebtedness and the increased military spending owing to the conflict are squeezing out social spending. What help can the Government give to Colombia to ensure that it meets its commitment, given in London, to honour the UN recommendation that a consistent strategy will be developed to reduce illiteracy and unemployment and increase access to health care, education and housing?
  Mr. Thomas: I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured to hear that significant assistance is provided to Colombia to help with its social spending programmes in health and education through, for example, the World Bank, the European Commission and the Inter-American Development Bank. We

  271
  continue to have regular discussions and dialogue with those multilateral players to try to ensure that those spending programmes are focused on the efforts to reduce poverty in the areas that I have outlined.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: As the Minister will know, two of the goals lead with economic sustainability and development. He will know that large tracts of Colombia in the rain forests have been illegally logged to make way for coca plantations. What extra support can the Government give to President Uribe in trying to combat that illegal trade and ensure that the poverty associated with it can be eradicated?
  Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that the EU intends to publish a draft regulation on the issue of illegal logging following discussions that have taken place in Africa—recently in Cameroon—on making progress in this area, and following other work that has taken place in Asia. Further work is needed in the European Union, and we are active in those discussions, arguing for further action to be taken at European level to reduce the purchase of the products of illegal logging, in this country and other European states.
  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I recently visited Colombia, and was impressed by the programmes being sponsored there by Her Majesty's Government. Can the Minister tell me whether those are the very same programmes that are being threatened with cuts in order to pay for the mess created in Iraq?
  Mr. Thomas: The programmes in Colombia were coming to an end anyway, regardless of the decisions that we are taking in relation to Iraq. The significant resources going into Colombia through the multilateral financial institutions such as the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, with which we work closely, will help to continue to improve health care and education services in those countries. On the specific question of Iraq, given the ongoing needs of the Iraqi people, I think that we have taken the right decision to stay with them and to provide further reconstruction assistance.
  Tom Brake: In relation to millennium development goal No. 8, can the Minister say what discussions have taken place with the Ministry of Defence about the conditions that should be attached to UK military aid to Colombia? Can the Minister say whether there should be a link between progress in its human rights record and military aid, whether officers coming to the UK for training should be properly vetted and have their visas vetted, and whether, for instance, the Government should ensure that Colombian military units that are receiving aid are not currently involved in any alleged human rights abuses, and have not previously been involved in any alleged human rights abuses?
  Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the issue of human rights abuses, and we continue to be extremely concerned about the ongoing level of such abuses. I was struck by the figures that I saw showing that Colombia sees the highest number of
  272
  abuses in terms of the number of members of trade unions. Continuing to reduce the number of human rights abuses by the military and paramilitary forces is essential. In that respect, I am sure that he will be pleased that in July this year a meeting on international support to Colombia was held in London and major donors welcomed the Colombian Government's pledge to implement a series of recommendations from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

  AIDS
  Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: If the Government will press other G8 members to ensure more extensive concessions from the pharmaceuticals industry for poorer countries affected by AIDS. [137785]
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): We are seeking to make essential drugs, including those for the treatment of HIV/AIDS, more widely available in developing countries. That includes working with G8 partners, developing country Governments, multilateral institutions, the pharmaceutical industry, investors and non-governmental organisations to encourage companies to reduce their prices.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: The agreement on the supply of cheap drugs was of course very welcome, and I pay tribute to the Government's part in achieving that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will know, however, that some pharmaceutical interests in some countries are trying to limit the scope of the agreement that was arrived at. Does he agree that it is important that the poor and developing countries achieve maximum benefits from this agreement, and will he ensure that the Government work to achieve that in the continuing negotiations over its implementation?
  Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Having achieved this agreement, after the difficulties in securing its negotiation last December, it is important that the countries for which it is designed are able to make full and effective use of it. I assure him that the Government will continue to do all that we can both to support countries in building their capacity to make use of it and in making any necessary changes to our patent legislation in consultation with our European colleagues, to ensure that we have the framework in place, so that if requests are made for drugs to be exported from the UK, that can happen.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: While accepting the enormous importance of anti-retroviral treatment, especially for mother-child transmission, does the Secretary of State agree that for countries that have very limited health resources, the example of Uganda shows that the most important factor in combating the AIDS pandemic is education and the behavioural change that can thereby be achieved?
  Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The right approach is, in truth, a combination of all those things. In Uganda, political leadership—from the President down—has resulted in real reductions in the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in that country. That is an example of leadership that other countries would do well to follow. At the same time, the approach is about providing health support and better nutrition and also taking advantage of the opportunities for treatment that are available because the price of drugs is coming down. A combination of those things will give us the best prospect of supporting African countries, especially where the problem is so great, in tackling the enormous AIDS epidemic.
  Linda Gilroy: My right hon. Friend said in his initial reply that he is seeking to engage multinationals. Does that include multinationals that are not pharmaceutical companies because they have a great interest in the matter and need to build up their work forces? Will he say a little more about how he will try to engage such companies?
  Hilary Benn: As I have indicated, we are engaging the pharmaceutical companies because of the contribution that they can make to bring down the price of the medicines, and doing more research on the diseases to which we paid less attention in the past but that matter enormously to developing countries. My hon. Friend draws attention to what is happening in South Africa, for example, where several mining companies are making anti-retrovirals available to their work forces because they appreciate the benefit of that for not only the health care of their workers, but the impact on their productivity and ability to work. The public health challenge faced by the world and especially sub-Saharan Africa on HIV/AIDS means that there is increased understanding of the economic challenge. If HIV/AIDS is not tackled, the economic disaster that will affect countries will be significant.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Now that progress has been made on gaining a supply of cheaper anti-AIDS drugs, will the Secretary of State tell us what the Government are doing to ensure that there is improved distribution among the target countries? Does he accept that the scale of the health problem probably compares with that which faced the allies when they liberated the concentration camps, and does he agree that it really requires effort on an international scale? What steps are the Government taking, and what will be the role of international organisations, especially the United Nations, in ensuring that the cheaper drugs are distributed to the people who desperately need them?
  Hilary Benn: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box in his new capacity. In saying that he puts his finger on the real challenge, the answer to the question is that we should work with all international agencies and companies, including organisations such as the accelerating access initiative, which already has 150 arrangements in place in 56 countries. Donors, those who are concerned and those who provide money have to channel efforts in support of country-owned and country-led programmes. We do not want a multiplicity of people trying to do good. We want to focus our
  274
  energy on supporting country Governments, one AIDS commission and one AIDS programme so that we can ensure that we get the maximum benefit from the changes that he described.

  Maternal Mortality
  Ms Christine Russell: What recent progress has been made in meeting millennium development goal targets for reducing maternal mortality. [137786]
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): The proportion of women worldwide who gave birth with the assistance of a skilled health worker increased from 42 per cent. in 1990 to 52 per cent. by 2000. However, progress toward the millennium development goal target of reducing maternal mortality by two thirds by 2015 is too slow and unevenly spread across regions. We need faster progress, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, and that will only be achieved through commitment, international leadership and action where it matters, which is in the countries themselves.
  Ms Russell: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply? I am delighted to hear that he acknowledges the scale of the problem. I do not know whether the Ho use—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Please allow the hon. Lady to be heard or it is unfair. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Perhaps those who are cheering will agree with me.
  Ms Russell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The greatest health divide in the world today is on maternal health. More than 500,000 women die every year as a result of complications during pregnancy or childbirth. I am delighted to hear that the Secretary of State wants to give greater priority to safe motherhood programmes. What are his views on providing more resources for traditional birth attendants simply to help with basic hygiene and reproductive health in the countries of sub-Saharan Africa?
  Hilary Benn: There is a place for both within the system, although evidence from recent studies suggests that the biggest gain comes from enabling women who have complications in pregnancy to have access to a skilled birth attendant. So it is about training the traditional birth attendants to identify the signs and then to refer people. One of the programmes that we are supporting in Malawi, which I visited the year before last and where maternal mortality is a big problem, works with the ambulance service so that it understands that when it receives a call reporting complications in pregnancy, it prioritises the transport of the mother to hospital where she gets access to skilled advice and care.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that despite the reorganisation of his Department, the emphasis on reproductive health in the developing world will not change, because reproductive health clinics are very important in reducing maternal mortality? Will he take the opportunity next week during the visit of the US

  275
  President to persuade him to restore the funding he has cruelly withdrawn from United Nations Population Fund programmes all over the world?
  Hilary Benn: I am happy to give the hon. Lady the assurance she seeks on the Department's commitment to reproductive health. Although the Secretary of State has changed, that commitment will not. We give strong support, as she knows, to the UNFPA as an organisation. We take a different view of the UNFPA from the Americans precisely because—she will understand this only too well because of her experience—it is a way of making an important contribution to reproductive health and all the benefits that flow from that for women and their children.
  Tony Baldry: It is important to meet all the millennium development goals as much in middle-income countries as in least-developed countries. The Secretary of State may have missed the point. When extra money was needed in the past for Iraq or somewhere, the money would come from the Treasury's contingency reserve. One would expect the Secretary of State to get an extra £100 million out of the Chancellor specifically for that purpose rather than reducing mainstream budgets by £100 million. The concern is not just the £100 million, but the precedent that it sets for future spending on humanitarian and other crises. All that will happen is that DFID mainstream budgets will get screwed instead of the Secretary of State getting extra money from the Chancellor's contingency reserve.
  Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman will know from his experience that part of DFID's job has always been to respond to humanitarian crises that arise. That is not new. He will be aware that most of the funding has come from other sources, including the central contingency reserve and our own contingency reserve. That has not affected our funding for humanitarian work or emergencies elsewhere. For example, since the conflict in Iraq, we have given extra funding to the Palestinian territories, to Liberia and to deal with the food crisis in southern Africa.
  The hon. Gentleman also has to acknowledge that we have made a commitment to increase the proportion of the aid that we give to the poorest countries of the world. I am not prepared to change that commitment because with a rising aid budget, which is what we have got, we can provide greater benefit and do more good. Over the next two years, DFID's development budget will rise by nearly £1 billion a year.

  Millennium Development Goals
  Mr. James Plaskitt: If he will make a statement on the timetable for achieving the millennium development goals. [137787]
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): The millennium development goals include specific targets significantly to reduce poverty by, in most cases, 2015. The exceptions are the 2005 target for gender equality in schools and the 2020 target for improving the lives of slum dwellers. The headline target for halving absolute poverty between 1990 and 2015 looks likely to be met globally, but for most of the
  276
  other targets a significant increase in effort will be needed to meet the millennium development goal deadlines.
  Mr. Plaskitt: It is a matter of concern that the timetable on many important objectives is slipping. Does my right hon. Friend agree that funding is a key to getting back on target? To that effect, does he agree that all creditors need to deliver debt relief under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative? How quickly can we get the international finance facility under way?
  Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is right about the importance of making further progress on debt relief, although we must recognise the $70 billion-worth of debt relief that HIPC has already delivered. The international finance facility proposed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is the best option on the table for increasing the resources that we need to help meet the millennium development goals between now and 2015. We are working hard to persuade our international partners to adopt the idea because it would allow us to make genuine progress.
  Mr. John Bercow: I look forward to the truly formidable task of seeking to shadow such an eloquent Secretary of State. Given that all parties in the House back the millennium development goals of tackling extreme poverty and hunger, delivering universal primary education, promoting sexual equality, reducing child death rates, improving mothers' health, combating AIDS, malaria and other diseases, protecting the environment and developing a global partnership for development mainly by 2015, but also given the fact that the World Bank's recent report shows that in sub-Saharan Africa in particular progress is woefully slow, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he agrees that on current trends the extreme poverty reduction target will not be met for 147 years, the target on child poverty will not be met for 162 years, and others may not be reached for 186 years, as the Chancellor told the Select Committee on International Development only last Thursday?
  Hilary Benn: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post. It will be a pleasure to work with him and occasionally disagree with him at the Dispatch Box. I am glad that in his very first question he demonstrated his eneyclopaedic memory and knowledge of the subject. He is right to identify the fact that, on current trends, we are not making sufficient progress to meet the millennium development goals, which is why our contributions are, first, the rising UK aid budget—I hope that that is something that he will support—and secondly, the international finance facility, which I referred to a moment ago and is the best option on the table for getting additional finance to meet the objectives that he has just identified.
  Mr. Bercow: I accept some of what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I am afraid that in total it was not good enough. Given that middle-income countries are still home to at least 140 million people living in poverty, that the Prime Minister promised on 25 April that help for such people would continue as planned, and that the statement to the House on 14 October made no mention

  277
  of impending cuts, how does the Secretary of State justify the savage £100 million cut in funding involving the complete withdrawal of programmes from Anguilla, Croatia, Egypt, Honduras, Macedonia, Peru, Romania, and the Turks and Caicos islands, and cuts affecting at least a dozen other countries? Is it not a standing disgrace—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must trim his questions in future.
  Hilary Benn: I shall try to trim my answer, Mr. Speaker.
  Our decisions have not affected funding for humanitarian work and we were already planning to withdraw from a number of the programmes to which we referred long before Iraq because, as I explained to the Chairman of the International Development Committee, we made a commitment to increase the support that we give to the poorest countries in the world. It would be interesting to hear from him in his new capacity in due course whether or not he supports the Government's commitment that by 2005ߝ06, 90 per cent. of our growing aid budget will be spent on the poorest countries. I think that that is the right policy—does he?

  St. Vincent and the Grenadines
  Mr. Peter Pike: What discussions his Department has had with the Government of St. Vincent and the Grenadines regarding financial support from Her Majesty's Government. [137788]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): Following discussions in 2002, debt relief under the Commonwealth debt initiative was agreed for St. Vincent and the Grenadines. A total of £2,332,000 in aid debt repayments due to the UK over the period up to 2010–11 was forgiven. St. Vincent is also eligible for support from a DFID-funded education programme for the eastern Caribbean states, and has started activities under that programme.
  Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He will know that St. Vincent and the Grenadines is a very small country—in fact, its population is only just above that of our own constituencies. He will recognise that those people need education aid, particularly books and computers, but does he recognise that there is a particular need for a new prison? They accept that their prison does not meet the requirements of 2003: that is a major problem for such a small country. What help can the Government give to make the prison at least fit for people to stay in?
  Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Prime Minister of St. Vincent is considering building a new prison and has identified a site for it. We are providing technical assistance for that work and ongoing training support to the staff who work in the existing prison. I know that my hon. Friend has just come back from visiting St. Vincent, and I am happy to have a longer conversation with him if he would like that.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Before I list my engagements for the day, I am sure that the whole House would want to join me in expressing our deep condolences to the Italian Government, the Italian people and the families of those people who have been tragically murdered in the latest terrorist attack in southern Iraq; and also to the families of the 17 people recently killed in Saudi Arabia, five of them children, from the same type of terrorist source. That shows how very real and alive the terrorist threat is.
    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.
    Dr. Naysmith: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the recent research report from the TUC that indicates that 170,000 workers are being paid less than the minimum wage. Does he agree that that is a scandal; and can he tell the House what he intends to do to ensure that unscrupulous employers do not cheat their employees?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that issue. That is precisely why we are working very hard with trade unions and voluntary organisations to ensure that people are paid the minimum wage to which they are entitled. We on this side of the House are proud that we have introduced the minimum wage and proud that almost 2 million people have benefited from it. We intend to carry on raising the minimum wage as and when we can to provide a better deal for the low paid at work; and we are proud that the Conservatives seem to have recanted their opposition—although we are somewhat sceptical as to whether they mean it.
    Mr. Michael Howard: I begin by associating myself with the condolences that the Prime Minister expressed to the victims of both the outrages to which he referred. We send our sincerest sympathy to the families of the victims of those terrible events.
    Two weeks ago, the Health Secretary said that he wanted to cut administration costs in his Department by a third. Can the Prime Minister tell us by how much those costs have gone up in the past five years?
    The Prime Minister: Overall in the national health service, the biggest increase—I am sorry. First of all, I should welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman to his new position and say how delighted I am that someone who was written off under the last Conservative Government is now given the chance to rehabilitate himself under Labour.

    279
    As for staff—yes, it true that we want to streamline and slim down the number of staff at the centre of the health service, but the biggest thing that we are doing is increasing the number of nurses and doctors in the health service. Of course, that is the result of the extra money that the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposed when he had the chance to vote for it a few months ago.
    Mr. Howard: I am very grateful to the Prime Minister for his warm words of welcome, but 1 am afraid that he did not answer the question. Let me give him the answer. Administration costs in the Department of Health have gone up by a third, so an extra £229 million has been spent on running the Department of Health—and now the Health Secretary tells us that it was all a waste of money.
    Let us try the Treasury. Has anyone told the First Lord of the Treasury how much administration costs have increased there over the past five years? Can he give us that figure?
    The Prime Minister: I assume that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has already got the answer, but I can tell him about overall Government administration costs. As a proportion of spending, they have fallen under this Government.
    Before I come to the Treasury, I should like to deal with what the extra money in the national health service has bought. The other day, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that all the money had gone into administration and none into patient care. The extra money means that we have increased the number of people who have hospital operations by 250,000; we have increased the number who receive primary care and cancer specialists; we have cut the number of people who suffer from heart disease; we have got 24 major new hospitals built; and we have 50,000 extra nurses. Again, he opposed every penny piece.
    Mr. Howard: Well, Mr. Speaker, two questions asked and neither answered—not a very good start. Administration costs at the Treasury have increased by 52 per cent. Since the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister, the cost of running Departments, not front-line services, has gone up by 50 per cent. That is nearly £7 billion a year. Is not that eloquent testimony to the Government's ineffectiveness, ineptitude and sheer incompetence, all at the expense of the hard-pressed British taxpayer?
    The Prime Minister: Right, we want to talk about ineptitude and incompetence, do we? Fortunately, we have our record under the Chancellor, who is in charge of the Treasury, and that under the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he was an economics Minister in the last Conservative Government. Let us compare them and see who was inept and incompetent and wasted money. Under the Conservatives, when he was an economics Minister, we had 15 per cent. interest rates. When he was Employment Minister, there were a million extra unemployed, a million people in negative equity and £80 billion of Government debt. Under the current Chancellor, we have the lowest interest rates, inflation and unemployment for decades. A million and a half more people are in work.
    280
    Let me say one other thing: whatever we have done, none of us has introduced anything as bad as the poll tax. The right hon. and learned Gentleman introduced that, as well as giving us 15 per cent. interest rates and opposing the minimum wage. Same old people, same old policies, same old Tories.
    Mr. Howard: Let me make it clear that I am happy to debate the past with the Prime Minister any day he likes. I have a big dossier on his past, and I did not even have to sex it up. We can talk about his personal pledge to leave the European Union or the time when he criticised America's "state sponsored terrorism"—I wonder whether he will raise that with President Bush next week. We can talk about the time when he praised the "fortitude and resolve" of the Wapping strikers. I bet that he does not remind Rupert Murdoch of that.
    I am happy to debate the past with the Prime Minister any day of the week, but I rather think that the British people are more interested in today and tomorrow than in yesterday. We will take every opportunity to remind them of his discredited Government's failures today.
    The Prime Minister: I am very happy to debate today with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. For example, let us consider what has happened in his constituency, where 11 schools have benefited from the new deal for schools funding that he has pledged to scrap. The number of five, six and seven-year-olds in classes of more than 30 has fallen from 12,000 to 249. We have had the best results ever for primary schools, GCSEs and A-levels, and all the waiting times are down. That is precisely the difference: this party is putting money into our public services and getting results in every constituency in the country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not simply represent the past—he would take us back to the past.
    Mr. Adrian Bailey: In view of the timely visit by President Bush to these shores, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to raise with him the issue of the illegal US steel tariffs, the decision by the World Trade Organisation on Monday on the legitimacy of retaliatory action and the implications that the continuation of the US policy would have on world trade?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of the steel tariffs. It is a subject that we have raised with the American Administration constantly, particularly following the WTO ruling. It is important that that ruling should be complied with and that the steel tariffs should be lifted. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be meeting the US Treasury Secretary next week to talk about these issues. I hope, incidentally, that if we can get a resolution of this issue between the European Union and the United States, it will give us some momentum towards restarting the World Trade Organisation talks, which are immensely important for Europe, America and the wider world.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Staying on the subject of President Bush's state visit next week, presumably the Prime Minister will raise with him the continuing indefensible situation of the British citizens being held in illegal limbo at Camp

    281
    Delta. Will the Prime Minister confirm that he will raise that issue with the President, and can we now expect a positive outcome to it, once and for all?
    The Prime Minister: We have been in discussion with the American Administration about this issue for several months, and I hope that we can resolve it quickly. It is important to ensure—in the way that I have indicated to the right hon. Gentleman before—that it is resolved on the basis of a proper trial being held in respect of these people, any of whom can be charged. If that cannot be done, it is important that they should be returned. I do not want to say any more at this stage, other than that we are trying to resolve the situation, and that it is important that we do so. I hope, however, that the House and the country also take account of the fact that this situation—which I agree is exceptional—arose out of the situation in Afghanistan and out of a conflict in which British troops were involved. As well as ensuring that people get a fair trial, it is also important to protect the security of this country.
    Mr. Kennedy: We hope that the Prime Minister will achieve an acceptable outcome next week in the discussions that take place. Presumably, he will also discuss with the President of the United States the deteriorating situation in Iraq. The administration of that country is clearly in a state of crisis, the attacks on allied troops have escalated dramatically, the Red Cross has been forced to scale down its presence, and the American administrator has now been recalled to Washington for urgent talks. As the leading partner with the Americans in this situation, what input are the British Government having to those talks?
    After the state visit next week, will the Prime Minister undertake to come to the House personally to make a statement and to take questions on exactly what was discussed and what conclusions were arrived at?
    The Prime Minister: I am very happy to keep the House informed as to the state of the discussions, both on Iraq and on other issues. Let us be very clear as to what is happening in Iraq. Yes, there are tremendous difficulties—there are bound to be, when terrorist groups and former members of Saddam's Government are prepared to kill any number of innocent people. The American and coalition forces are not trying to bomb the UN out of Baghdad, bomb the Red Cross out of its compound or ensure that ordinary innocent Iraqis are killed, as these people are doing. Of course it is difficult, but the implication of the right hon. Gentleman's questioning and of some of the comment that I read is that because Iraq is difficult, we should somehow get out and withdraw from the position that we are in. Well, I think that that is the worst thing that we could possibly do. We have got to stick with this and see it through. Our dialogue with the US Administration is constant at every level on this issue. It is important that we stick with this, because the reality is that we are the ones who are trying to make the lives of ordinary Iraqis better, and these terrorists and Saddam supporters are trying to stop us. That is the reality, and we should not forget it.
    Mr. Patrick Hall: Does the Prime Minister agree that if a political party were to promise patients' passports, pupils' passports—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
    Mr. Hall: If a political party were to promise to spend more on all public services and to pay for that by cutting tax, might it not stand accused of trying to con the British people into believing that it is possible to get something for nothing?
    The Prime Minister rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is asking questions that the Leader of the Opposition is qualified to answer. Next time I call him, he should have a better question to ask.
    Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Is the Prime Minister aware of cases such as one in my constituency involving someone who, having had breast cancer surgery on 9 July, had to wait until the end of October to begin radiotherapy? Is he concerned about the current national shortage of radiographers? Has there not been a lack of joined-up action by Government to secure improvements in all stages of cancer treatment?
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry about the difficulties experienced by the hon. Lady's constituent, but it is important to recognise that there have been substantial improvements in cancer care over the past few years. The number of cancer specialists and MRI scanners has increased. Whole new cancer wards have opened. There has also been an increase in overall provision running into hundreds of millions of pounds.
    It is true that we still have a problem with the number of radiologists and radiographers, which is why we are substantially increasing the number of people in training. Training them takes several years, but we are considering how we can increase the number. Once we have solved that problem, we shall have closed the biggest gap between the cancer care system that we have and the one that we want.
    Let us be in no doubt about one thing: if we compare the present position with that six or seven years ago, we see that not only are cancer deaths down by some 10 per cent. but the service as a whole has improved immeasurably as a result of our extra investment.
    David Taylor: The Forensic Science Service is a hugely successful publicly owned organisation with an unmatched international reputation, but our Government, in their garage-sale privatisation drive, are putting this national treasure under the auctioneer's hammer. Does the Prime Minister understand why so many Labour Members feel unhappy about that and that we cannot stand by as mere silent witnesses?
    The Prime Minister: I do not entirely recognise the policy from my hon. Friend's description. What is important is enabling the Forensic Science Service to

    283
    attract private money and investment. This is all about improving the service, which plays an enormous part in combating crime. We must consider how we can run it and similar services more effectively, and secure more investment for them, both public and private.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Why was it necessary for the Prime Minister's spokesman to say yesterday that the relationship between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor continues to be one of the great strengths of the Government?
    The Prime Minister: Probably because he was asked the question.
    Mr. Howard: If the answer is true, why was that legendary peacemaker the Deputy Prime Minister brought in to mediate between them? Is it not an absolute disgrace that while the people of this country are feeling so let down over schools, hospitals and crime, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer spend their time squabbling over who should sit on the national executive committee of the Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: Is it not extraordinary that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with the record that he had in government, actually turns round and attempts to say that people in this country are suffering today under the Chancellor? If they are suffering under the Chancellor, what was it like when a million people's homes were repossessed through negative equity? What was it like when we had a million extra unemployed when he was Employment Secretary? What do the Conservatives think it was like when people experienced 15 per cent. interest rates?
    A moment or two ago, Mr. Speaker, when you rightly disallowed the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall), it was interesting to note the Opposition's reaction to any discussion of their patients' passport policy. If we are talking about the national health service, what would be a disaster for people in the health service today is to be forced to top up their treatment with a voucher that would cost thousands of pounds for basic health care, which would mean that ordinary people in the health service did not get that care. It is not just the right hon. and learned Gentleman's record in government that we will be discussing; it is his policies now, because they are just the same as the policies that brought disaster before.
    Mr. Ian Cawsey: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the dreadful house fire in Goole in the early hours of this morning, which sadly claimed the lives of three children under the age of six? The fire was of such intensity that firefighters' equipment melted and two firemen were injured. Will he extend his sympathies—as the whole House doubtless does—to the family concerned, and once again praise our emergency services for their excellent efforts in deeply harrowing circumstances?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to join my hon. Friend both in offering our sympathy and condolences to the family in his constituency and in praising the
    284
    emergency services, which, in that incident as in so many others, did a fantastic job on behalf of the people of this country.
    Mr. Andrew Mackay: Who does the Prime Minister believe would make a better Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone or Nicky Gavron?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, I always support the Labour candidate.
    Colin Burgon: My two recent experiences of participating in planning public inquiries that affect my constituents in Bardsey and Methley and in Allerton Bywater, have confirmed my belief that such inquiries are the natural domain of highly paid barristers, employed by powerful commercial interests. They talk in a language, and use procedures, that ordinary people do not understand. Is it not about time that we looked at democratising the public inquiry system, thereby giving the public a real voice in the system?
    The Prime Minister: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I suspect that he may have found something that the Leader of the Opposition and I agree on. On the second part, we are of course going to introduce measures to change the planning system. I entirely agree that it is important to ensure that it is far more effective than it is currently, and that it distinguishes far more clearly between the cases that merit being considered for a long time and those that should be handled quickly. We have got to understand that one of the biggest brakes on our ability to develop brownfield sites is the slowness of the planning system. For that reason, it is important that the measures that we are introducing are supported, and I take it from what my hon. Friend is saying that they are coming not a moment too soon.
    Andrew Selous: Does the Prime Minister agree that local people and local councillors are best placed to decide on local issues, as their not doing so undermines local democracy and causes resentment? Given the enormous impact of the Milton Keynes and South Midlands study on South Bedfordshire, will he please ask the Deputy Prime Minister to accept South Bedfordshire district council's invitation for him to visit the area to reassess these proposals?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly pass on to the Deputy Prime Minister what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is of course important that we consult local people about these plans, and it is also important that we get plans that are right for the whole of the region, rather than for a particular district on its own. That is why I have no doubt that South Bedfordshire district council will be consulted in the normal way.
    Jane Griffiths: The Prime Minister will know that the Department of Health has allocated £2.6 million to Berkshire under the choice

    285
    initiative, which is drastically reducing waiting lists. Does my right hon. Friend share my optimism that even if we have a flu epidemic this year, waiting lists will continue to reduce? Does he share my dismay at Conservative party policies on spending?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly tell my hon. Friend that the policies of extending choice and building capacity within the health service will continue. When we came to office, many people were waiting up to two years for their operations. Now there is a maximum time of 12 months and very few people wait longer than nine months; we are going to progress to six months by 2005 and, if given the chance, to three months as the maximum wait by 2008. All of that comes only with the extra investment going into the national health service. On the basis of the recommitment that we have seen over the past few days to the policies of the previous Conservative leader by the shadow Chancellor and the new Leader of the Opposition, I can say that this issue will run and run. There will be a clear choice between those who want to rebuild the health service and those who want to get their hands on it in order to destroy it.
    Angus Robertson: Given the importance of the Scotch whisky industry, is the Prime Minister concerned that the ongoing crisis following Diageo's redesignation of Cardhu single malt is undermining the standing of that industry? Does the Prime Minister support ongoing cross-party efforts in the all-party Scotch whisky group to find a solution and enhance the good name and reputation of this important product at home and abroad?
    The Prime Minister: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. To be frank, I am not an expert on how whisky is designated as opposed to drunk. It is true that we have frozen the duty on whisky for many years, which is important. As to the redesignation of Cardhu, I shall look further into it. I am not entirely sure that it is a matter for the Government—at least, I sincerely hope that it is not—but I will certainly study the comments of the all-party Scotch whisky group.
    Mr. Peter Pike: The Prime Minister will know that the two key difficulties that Burnley has faced over the past couple of years have been 4,000 empty houses and problems in our secondary schools. Lancashire county council has a bid in to deal with the secondary school problems and has the vision to provide improved secondary education opportunities for all our children. During next month, under the Government's housing pathfinder renewal project, Elevate will put in a bid for the programme next year. Does the Prime Minister recognise the importance of ensuring that we receive a favourable answer from the
    286
    Government to demonstrate that a Labour Government working together with Labour councils is the best way of solving Burnley's problems?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is making two points. First, on housing renewal, it is the case in some areas, particularly in constituencies such as his, that we have the opposite problem from that in the south-east, where there is pressure on housing and a desire to have more houses. In parts of the north-west and other parts of the north we have houses for which, frankly, we no longer have a proper use, and there is no market for them. That is why a housing market renewal fund of some £500 million has been established. I know that that will in part benefit my hon. Friend's constituency.
    What my hon. Friend says about the school system is important. Some 41 bids are currently being considered for extra capital investment in schools. The decisions will be taken shortly, but it will mean something in the region of £2 billion extra in capital investment for schools in this country.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: If things are going so well in the NHS, can the Prime Minister explain why my local hospital faces a deficit this year of £7 million or more? Can he give me a personal assurance that the pressure being brought to bear to tackle that deficit will not prejudice waiting times, waiting lists or patient care generally?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the commitment that it is important that the pressure on the deficit should not imperil the waiting lists and waiting times. I hope, however, that he recognises that in the past few years those have been falling substantially in his area and in other constituencies. The fact of the matter is that there is not a single in-patient or out-patient national indicator that is not in better shape today than it was six years ago, in 1997. As for the deficit, it is true that certain hospitals have deficits. They can carry them, obviously, but we are in discussions with them about it. But let us be clear: the implication of the hon. Gentleman's question is that we need even more money in our national health service, and I have to tell him that whereas Labour is committed to putting in that extra money, his party is committed to taking it out. That, I am afraid, is, was and will be the crucial difference between the two parties.
    Ms Oona King: May I turn the Prime Minister's attention to the review of local government finance? Many of us hope that it will make council tax fairer for pensioners and people on small fixed incomes. Can he assure us that, whatever the outcome, it will not have "something of the night" about it and will not return us to the nightmares of the past that have recently been haunting us?
    The Prime Minister: I can simply assure my hon. Friend of this: the review will consider many things, but one thing that it will not consider is a return to the poll tax.

Iraq (Reconstruction)
12.30 pm
The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on progress on reconstruction in Iraq.
As hon. Members are all too aware, security is a continuing concern, particularly in and around Baghdad. US forces are bearing the brunt of these attacks, but the UN and international aid agencies are also being targeted. I am sure that the whole House would wish to join me in condemning the recent bombing of the International Committee of the Red Cross and this morning's attack at the headquarters of the Italian military police in Nasiriyah, which has claimed a number of lives.
Of equal concern have been the attacks on the Iraqi people themselves, including the assassination of Aqila al-Hashimi—one of only three women members of the governing council—who was shot the day after I met her in Baghdad. Regrettably, there have been other victims, including religious and civic leaders, judges and police officers, and ordinary Iraqis caught up in bomb blasts.
Those who attack the Red Cross and Iraqis working to rebuild their country are desperate to stop reconstruction happening. We cannot let them succeed.
In these circumstances, however, it is understandable and right that the ICRC and the United Nations should review their security procedures and the way they work in Iraq, even if that means temporarily pulling back on some of their operations and pulling out some of their international staff. We stand ready to help them to finance additional security measures, where appropriate, to try to limit the effect on their capacity to help with reconstruction. We will continue to support those agencies, their local staff and the non-governmental organisations still working in the country.
However, that is only part of the picture. Political violence is largely concentrated in one part of Iraq: Baghdad and its surrounding areas. The situation is more stable in the northern provinces, and in the south-east, which I visited in September. Security is being maintained by the UK-led multinational division and the local police.
For most Iraqis, life is gradually improving. Last month, electricity supply rose above pre-conflict levels for the first time, which has allowed much-needed maintenance to take place during the cooler months when demand is lower. Food distribution is working, and supplies will continue after the UN oil-for-food programme ends this month. In addition, 1,500 schools have been refurbished; 70 million new textbooks are being distributed and attendance rates are back to pre-conflict levels. Fuel supply for domestic consumption is meeting demand. Almost all Iraq's 240 hospitals are now in operation and routine immunisation of children has resumed.
Clean water supplies are improving in much of the country, with sewerage plants being rehabilitated. Forty thousand Iraqi police officers are on duty. They are being trained and equipped. Criminal justice is being restored, but without the terrible repression that characterised Saddam's regime; and 170 newspapers are now on sale in the streets, enabling Iraqis to express their views freely.
288
As well as recognising the enormous contribution of the Iraqi people to these achievements, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the skilled and dedicated work of UK forces and of other UK nationals, both in southern Iraq and elsewhere, for their courage and for their determination to help Iraq to rebuild itself.
Progress is also being made on the political and constitutional process, with a healthy debate under way on how best to create a genuinely representative system. UN Security Council resolution 1511 expressed support for this process and asked the UN to strengthen its role as far as circumstances allow. It also asked the governing council to set out by 15 December a timetable for the electoral process. This will provide the context for decisions about the transfer of executive and legislative authority, recognising that the coalition's aim has always been to hand Iraq over to its people as quickly as possible so that they can have control of their own political destiny.
Iraq's Ministers, appointed at the beginning of September, are taking increasing responsibility for developing and implementing policies. The governing council has gained growing recognition internationally, including from the Arab League and the UN General Assembly. It played a prominent role at the annual meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in Dubai, and governing council members and Ministers made their presence felt at the Madrid donors' conference at the end of last month. That conference raised pledges of at least $33 billion in grants and soft loans in the three years up to 2007, significantly exceeding expectations. Seventy-three countries participated, underlining the breadth of international support for securing a better future for Iraq.
In Madrid, I set out our commitment to reconstruction in Iraq with a pledge of £544 million. This includes the £209 million that the Department for International Development has already committed for humanitarian and reconstruction assistance, and £296 million over the next two years. We are considering how best to use this funding to support reconstruction, development and poverty reduction.
The pledges raised in Madrid, alongside oil revenues, foreign direct investment and commercial loans, are expected to meet Iraq's investment needs for the next four years. I can also tell the House that agreement has now been reached between the UN, the World Bank and the coalition provisional authority on the terms of reference of the international advisory and monitoring board, which will oversee the use of Iraq's own resources being channelled through the development fund for Iraq.
The Iraqi people deserve the chance that they now have for a better future; they have waited for it long enough. Much remains to be done on security to counter the violence of Saddam loyalists and others who want to deny the Iraqis this chance, but the best way we can prevent them from succeeding is to continue with reconstruction and political change. As I am sure that the House will agree, that is why we must all remain committed to the economic and social reconstruction of Iraq and to a better life for its people.
Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement and for his courtesy in providing me with advance sight of it.

289
I shall begin on a consensual note by echoing the Secretary of State's condemnation, expressed on behalf of hon. Members of all parties, of the despicable terrorist acts that have been committed. Their purpose is to prevent reconstruction and a return to normality. They must not be allowed to achieve that purpose. I also endorse the glowing and justified tribute that the right hon. Gentleman paid to our troops and to the other British nationals who are working day after day in the public interest of the people of Iraq. We recognise and applaud that work, and hope that it will continue. Of course, some good work has been done, and the Secretary of State is entirely entitled to draw attention to the successes that have been achieved in relation to schools, hospitals, water cleanliness and so on. But we are the Opposition, with a responsibility constructively to probe, and I have a number of points to put to the right hon. Gentleman.
First, the Secretary of State referred with approval to the growing recognition of the governing council's work. I was pleased to hear what he had to say, but I ask him to tell the House how that squares with press reports about the evident dissatisfaction of the Bush Administration with the governing council, by which they are frustrated and which they believe to be divided and incapable of making the necessary decisions within the required time scale.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman will know that when the Foreign Secretary was asked on the "Today" programme this morning what he would like to see come out of the emergency talks in Washington between Ambassador Bremer and White House officials, the Foreign Secretary replied:
"I am not party to the talks, nor party to his return".
Why is Her Majesty's Government not party to those talks, given that HM forces are in southern Iraq, where security is, to put it mildly, highly precarious? Would it not make sense for us to be fully consulted? What kind of message does that send, ahead of President Bush's visit to the United Kingdom? Will it not seem as if he is coming here to tell the Prime Minister what will happen in Iraq, rather than to discuss with his staunchest ally what can most usefully be done to increase security and provide for reconstruction?
How can the Secretary of State explain or justify what his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) described as "poor preparations" for post-conflict Iraq, given that on 24 September 2002 the Opposition, in the form of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the shadow Foreign Secretary, underlined the need for a comprehensive plan for securing a new Iraq? We underlined that point on 15 October, 8 December, 16 December, 20 January, 21 January, 27 January, on 30 January, and—yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you can guess what comes next—a host of other occasions that time does not permit me to list today.
On 3 February, the Prime Minister tried to reassure the House that
"We are well aware that we must have a humanitarian plan that is every bit as viable and well worked out as a military plan".—[Official Report,3 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 36.]
That is on the record—but we, and millions of other people, see no evidence of the existence of such a plan.
290
Moreover, our suspicions were confirmed on 28 October when Sir Jeremy Greenstock, referring to attempted reconstruction, admitted:
"There was a slow start, and we are now trying to catch up on that".
Why does the right hon. Gentleman not undertake, in the public interest, to publish the Government's original post-war plan so that we, and others, can judge for ourselves how well or badly prepared the Government were? I call on him to give that commitment today.
On 8 November the Red Cross announced that it would temporarily close its offices in Baghdad and Basra. That followed similar decisions by Médecins sans Frontières, Save the Children and Oxfam. What confidence does the Secretary of State have—I hope that he does possess such confidence—that conditions will improve sufficiently to allow their safe return, and within what time scale does he expect that return to take place?
The Secretary of State again referred, with alacrity, to the Madrid conference last month and the plan for reconstruction outlined there. However, I must return to a crucial theme of concern to millions of the most vulnerable people in the world—the plight of those 140 million people living in poverty in middle-income countries. The Prime Minister said on 25 April that help would continue to be provided for those people, and that they would not be expected to pay the price or foot the bill for Iraq's reconstruction.
The Secretary of State's written ministerial statement on 14 October made no mention of imminent cuts to much-needed programmes; such news was provided only on 6 November, less than a week ago. In the light of the decision that he has made, I think I am entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman precisely which, and how many, needed projects will suffer, how development will be retarded, and what estimate he has made of the numbers of those who will suffer as a consequence?
A specific point of concern to many people is the prospect of re-establishing the spinal injuries unit. The right hon. Gentleman will be well familiar with that, and will know that it was blown up when United Nations headquarters were bombed. The Opposition, in the form of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), the former shadow Secretary of State, have repeatedly asked for some Department for International Development funding to be made available to help with the re-establishment of that vital unit. To date and to my serious regret, the Government have refused to take that simple but practical step, which would not only bring immediate relief to sufferers, but show the people of Iraq that we were genuinely committed in practical terms, through deeds as well as words, to their successful and secure future.
May I conclude by saying to the Secretary of State—whom I regard it as a great privilege to shadow—that no hon. Member doubts the decency of his intentions, but many people in the House and throughout the country doubt the capability of the Government to deliver in deeds what they have promised in words? On the strength of the track record to date, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that, while Ministers prevaricate in Westminster, the people of Iraq are desperately trying to get on with their lives. Is it not the truth that, whereas the Government, notably in the form of the Prime

291
Minister, displayed courage and statesmanship in the conduct of war, the reality is that they have been guilty of dither and abdication of responsibility in failing to prepare for the peace?
Hilary Benn: I welcome the hon. Gentleman on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box on a statement. I am sorry about the way that he ended his observations and his legitimate questions, to which I shall endeavour to respond, because no hon. Member listening to what I have described and the discussions and statements that we have had previously on Iraq could doubt the Government's determination—indeed, the determination of hon. Members on both sides of the House—to try to get this right.
I also welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about our forces and our staff, because it will be much appreciated by those people, who are working very hard, and his condemnation of the attacks—the result of the work of those who frankly will stop at nothing to try to undermine the process.
On security, I think the hon. Gentleman will recognise that while it is the case that life for ordinary Iraqis is getting better and their security is improving, for the coalition forces, the international aid agencies, the UN and the Red Cross, the security situation is getting more difficult. Those two things are happening at the same time.
On the governing council, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware it came together from a disparate group of people, some from outside the country and some who had remained throughout the Saddam years. It is finding its feet. Its members are getting to work together and they represent a range of interests. In taking the first steps towards establishing democracy in Iraq, we have to start somewhere, and it was entirely right and proper to bring together a group of people with a range of interests who represent different parts of that complex country.
All I would say in describing what I saw of the governing council's members in Madrid is that their confidence and authority are increasing as they are getting involved in the work of taking decisions, in consultation and discussion with the coalition provisional authority, about the future of the country. As the hon. Gentleman will recognise and as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear on the "Today" programme this morning, a process is going on to work out how best to do that and increasingly to transfer responsibility to Iraqis. That is the subject of continuing high-level consultation between the United Kingdom and America.
On preparation, we have already set out the steps that we took to prepare for the outcome of the conflict. As the hon. Gentleman will probably be aware, DFID, in particular, rightly prepared for the potential worst outcome—a humanitarian crisis—so all the things that we put in place were in anticipation of that because, frankly, if we had failed to prepare for that crisis, we would have been rightly criticised. Thankfully, that did not arise because the conflict was very short.
I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the start of reconstruction having been slow, but all I ask him to acknowledge is that real progress has been made, and I
292
simply ask those hon. Members—including the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—who have said that swift enough progress is not being made to acknowledge that we have seen real progress, particularly in the past couple of months.
Mr. Julian Brazier: What about the planning?
Hilary Benn: In a sense, never mind the planning when we can see the product of the improvement that results from the work that has been done and the planning that has taken place at every stage. So look at the evidence of the progress.
On the position of the Red Cross, I cannot say what the timetable might be for the return of the Red Cross's international staff. That is a decision for the Red Cross and other agencies to take on the basis of their assessment of the security position. What the House needs to remember, however, is that a considerable number of Iraqi staff of the international agencies, including the Red Cross, are continuing to work in Iraq. That is why the reconstruction work continues. It has an effect, but the Iraqis who work for those organisations, and the Iraqis in the Ministry of Health and others, are getting on with the job. That is why I hope that the reconstruction process will continue, and the evidence suggests that that is the case.
On the spinal injuries unit, about which the hon. Gentleman rightly says that his predecessor was very concerned, he may or may not be aware that the Ministry of Health and the CPA have undertaken to carry out repairs to it, which I am advised will create 30 beds. Our work through the World Health Organisation and others is to build the establishment of primary care, because, ultimately, we must focus our efforts somewhere. I understand the importance of the spinal injuries unit, and I am pleased to be able to report to the House that, as a result of representations made by ourselves and others, that process will take place.
On the middle-income countries, first, we made a pledge that Iraqi reconstruction would not affect humanitarian work or funding for emergencies, and it has not done so. Secondly, as was touched on in oral questions, it has not affected middle-income programmes this year, and the great bulk of the money for Iraqi reconstruction has not come from that source. In any event, we were committed to the change of moving to 90 per cent. of our bilateral funding being allocated to the poorest countries. I think that that is the right policy, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support it. My other point is that it would be a mistake to look at Britain's support for middle-income countries solely in terms of our bilateral programme, as we make a very significant investment through the EU and the multilaterals. In Latin America, for example, the UK share of EC spending and multilateral spending in 2001, which is the last year for which figures are available, amounted to £68 million. A significant programme of work continues in those countries, including those from which we propose to withdraw—in most cases slightly earlier than we already intended to do, long before Iraq arose as an issue—and it is important that we recognise the contribution that the UK is making.
Tom Brake: I join the shadow Secretary of State in thanking the Secretary of

293
State for providing an advance copy of the statement today. I also join him in condemning the attacks on Iraqi citizens, the Red Cross, UK and US troops, the Italian police, as we have heard today, and Iraqi governing council members. I, too, pay tribute to the work that is being done by the various organisations and forces in that region.
First, does the Secretary of State agree that the best way of speeding up reconstruction in Iraq is to increase and bring forward the involvement of the UN? Can he set out why he believes that there is a better prospect of the pledges that have been made on Iraq being delivered than, for instance, the Tokyo pledges on Afghanistan, in respect of which I am afraid to say the money has not been forthcoming? Can he comment on the reasons for Paul Bremer's emergency recall and whether there are any implications for Iraqi reconstruction? Can he also set out whether there have been any discussions between his Department or other Departments and Paul Bremer about the prospect of British companies and companies from other countries being involved to a much greater degree in the projects that will be funded by the US?
Can the Secretary of State comment on reports, to which the Conservative spokesman alluded, about the threat to the Iraqi governing council and whether it was going to be replaced by a Loya Jirga or something similar? What implications would that have for the reconstruction in Iraq, and what impact would it have on a timetable for elections and handover of sovereignty, which the Iraqi governing council is expected to deliver by 15 December? On an associated point, can the Secretary of State clarify exactly what Sir Jeremy Greenstock's role is in relation to Iraqi reconstruction? Does he in fact have a defined role? Can the Secretary of State comment on whether he has heard rumours of unhappiness associated with Sir Jeremy, and rumours that Sir Jeremy does not think that he currently has a particularly well-defined role in Iraq?
On the question of the Red Cross, clearly, the Secretary of State is not able to provide us with a timetable as to when the Red Cross is likely to return, but can he comment on any parameters or criteria that it will require to be met before it can consider its return? One of the unintended consequences of the reconstruction of Iraq, which has already been alluded to, is the diversion of funds away from middle-income countries. Can the Secretary of State clarify whether any assessment of those projects, and the impact on them, was made before the diversion of funds was announced? Can he explain why those projects, which were previously deemed priority projects, are no longer so deemed? Does he believe, as I do, that people in Romania and Egypt, for instance, will find it hard to understand the reasons why they are having to pay for reconstruction in Iraq?
Iraq's future clearly hangs in the balance, and I urge the Secretary of State to use his office to ensure that Iraq does not descend into chaos, which would be at great cost to Iraqi citizens.
Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his words on behalf of those who are working in Iraq and his condemnation of the bombings and attacks that have been taking place.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question, the best way to speed up the reconstruction process is to be able to maintain the rate of progress in improving the
294
lives of ordinary Iraqis, as that builds confidence in the process and people feel that things are getting better, which they are. A second way is to ensure that there is a clearly defined political process that the Iraqi people can see has as its purpose the quickest possible transfer of responsibility for decisions about the future of their country—something that has been denied to them for 30 years under Saddam. That is what the discussions that continue to take place between ourselves, the Americans and the governing council are all about. In response to the hon. Gentleman's point about Sir Jeremy Greenstock, he plays an extremely important part and is a pivotal figure in precisely those discussions.
On the question of pledges, it is for each country that has made a pledge to honour the commitment that it has given. I can speak only for the UK Government, and I assure the House that we intend to honour the pledges that we have given about the money that we will make available for the reconstruction of Iraq.
On the so-called threat to the Iraqi governing council, a live political discussion about the political process is taking place, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear earlier today, about how we balance the drawing up of a new constitution, the way in which that will be done, who will participate, and at what point it leads to elections. What the UN Security Council resolution, which was unanimously supported, achieved was international support for that process, and it is the job of the Iraqi governing council to report back by 15 December on exactly what should be the timetable for those different stages. That is the right process, because it is the Iraqis who should determine that and nobody else.
On the Red Cross, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman what criteria the Red Cross might use. It will depend on its assessment of the position. I simply point out to the House that the Red Cross is staying in the north of the country and it has said that the withdrawal is temporary.
On reallocation, in relation to Romania and Egypt, to which the hon. Gentleman referred in particular, we had already planned to withdraw from those countries. There has been a real debate within DFID, long before Iraq, about what we add in the work that we do in middle-income countries. We used to have a programme in the Pacific, but we no longer have one because we have been concentrating our efforts on the poorest countries of the world—hence the commitment to get 90 per cent. of our spending to those countries by 2005–06. I repeat that I believe that that is the right policy.
Finally, to return to threats to the Iraqi governing council, I simply say to the House that the threats to the Iraqi governing council about which I am worried are the threats from those who are trying to kill the people who are putting their lives on the line to try to give the Iraqi people the chance of a better future and who deserve the support of the entire House in that endeavour.
Ann Clwyd: My right hon. Friend is right that reconstruction in Iraq is continuing apace. I was there only a few weeks ago and saw exactly what was going on. There could be faster progress but the security situation, as he rightly described, makes it more difficult for reconstruction to happen at speed. The

295
governing council should be given responsibility as the interim government of Iraq until there can be elections. Also, the Iraqis themselves should be given responsibility for security because they know the people, streets and places and could find those who are responsible for some of the atrocities that are being committed. May I urge my right hon. Friend to consider those matters because such progress would be right for Iraq? Although the Iraqis should be given responsibility for security, the coalition should stay in Iraq until its stability and security are secured.
Hilary Benn: First, I acknowledge the role that my hon. Friend is playing, both as someone who has been passionately interested in Iraq for many years and as the Prime Minister's special envoy on human rights. I agree with her entirely about the need to build the Iraqis' capacity to take responsibility for security as quickly as possible with, of course, the continuing support of the coalition forces. That is precisely the process that is taking place. The new Iraqi army is starting to emerge and the civil defence force, the border police and the facilities protection service are looking after the products of reconstruction, which some people have been trying to undermine and blow up. There are now 40,000 police on the streets and training is taking place, so it is no accident that several of the bomb attacks have been against the people who are training the police and the places where that is happening. The Iraqi people want security, and providing more police officers will help to produce Iraqi-led and Iraqi-owned security. That should reinforce the determination of all of us not to allow the people who are cynically trying to undermine the process to succeed.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the concerns about the slowness of development, but could that be because of the speed of the success of the forces? Since we understand the problem of terrorism, I assure the Secretary of State that our sympathy is with the Iraqi people in these days. Has the west provided police trainers in the numbers that were wanted? There was an outcry last month about that, so why was there such delay? The Red Cross stands for the suffering servant and redemption, so we hope that the time will come speedily when it will return to where it was always needed. We welcome the continuing service of those in northern Iraq and elsewhere.
Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that because, with hindsight, part of the slow start to the process was due to the speed with which the conflict ended—people expected it to go on for much longer and anticipated a humanitarian crisis that did not emerge. He is right about police training. Efforts are under way as we speak to get more police trainers into Iraq because that is an important way to help with training. We all wish the Red Cross every success in trying to protect its staff and making a judgment in due course about when it will be safe for its international staff to return. It has played a really important role in the country for many
296
years and a significant part of the funding that we gave in preparation for the reconstruction was to back its work.
Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad on 19 August was not only a terrible tragedy in terms of lives lost and injuries caused, but dismaying because it led to the UN's decision, which was understandable enough, to withdraw its international personnel from Iraq? Surely it is important that there should be no perception that the UN has abandoned the field to terrorists and that it should be seen to be playing a full and authoritative role in Iraq during the period of reconstruction and transition. When does he expect UN international personnel to be back inside Iraq?
Hilary Benn: I agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of the UN's role and about the degree to which that was recognised by several resolutions, including resolution 1511, which gave UN authorisation to the multinational force in Iraq. I think that hon. Members will find that the resolution says that, in recognition of the difficulties and risks that the UN faces because of the attack, its involvement should be as circumstances allow. The UN has an important role to play in supporting the process and, indeed, that was the work of Sergio Vieira de Mello before he was killed in the bomb blast in August. The UN, with the governing council and the coalition, plays an important part in discussions to reach decisions on how to take the political process forward because that would be the most significant contribution, alongside improving the lives of normal Iraqis, that would allow the process to succeed and maximise the chances of Iraq having the better future that it deserves.
Dr. Andrew Murrison: The Secretary of State has painted a fairly upbeat picture of progress in Iraq, which is understandable enough. However, he cannot deny that the security situation is deteriorating. I fear that we will not see much progress unless it improves. In that context, will he comment on moves to establish a British theatre internment facility to take over much of the work currently done by the American internment facility in Umm Qasr? Will he explain how the approach of such a British facility would differ from that of the American facility?
Hilary Benn: The House will probably be aware that the hon. Gentleman has recently returned from service in Iraq. I acknowledge his point about security, as I did when I replied to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), because two things are happening. First, there is no point in hiding the fact that the security situation has become more difficult for our forces and international aid agencies because those who are trying to undermine the process have become more adept at attacking those who are leading the reconstruction and more determined to do so. Secondly, however, life is beginning to get better for ordinary Iraqis. There are two different types of security in the country at the moment and we need to acknowledge that when forming a judgment about how things are going. The standards that would be applied in the internment

297
facility would be in keeping with those that apply elsewhere and for which British forces are rightly well known.
Kali Mountford: The whole House will acknowledge that the Iraqi people suffered many hardships under Saddam before the conflict. The true measure of progress will be when a point is reached at which ordinary people feel that they are being delivered goods and services better than they were under Saddam, rather than by reference to plans that we made before the conflict. What progress is being made on achieving that? Although much has been said about the governance of Iraq, surely it is a sign of a truly civic society when governance happens locally. Has there been any progress on establishing such a society for local communities, districts and towns?
Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the glue that holds a democracy together and makes it work. Many things are happening in Iraq because of the freedom that has become available, and the development of the free media is one example of that. As I flew over Baghdad, I saw satellite dishes all over the rooftops, although they were banned under Saddam. The meetings that I held in Basra were with members of the local governing council, the local women's organisation, the chambers of trade and commerce and representatives of journalists and writers. A lively process is taking place in which local government plays an important part, although it does not get much coverage or publicity. The House will want to try to get a balanced view of what is happening. Everyone acknowledges that there are security difficulties because we read about them every morning in newspapers and see them on our television screens. However, another story is that of the Iraqi people taking advantage of the opportunity that they have to build themselves a better life. It is important that we encourage them in all the work that we do. Although we make an important contribution, the Iraqi people's contribution to rebuilding their own country will make the difference.
Sir Patrick Cormack: In view of the fact that continued close co-operation between British and American forces in Iraq and between the British and American Governments is essential to the safe reconstruction of Iraq, does the right hon. Gentleman think it appropriate for President Bush to share his thoughts with Members of both Houses when he is here next week?
Hilary Benn: It is not my place to be drawn on that particular question. However, it is important that the dialogue between the UK and the United States is shared as widely as possible because, frankly, the responsibility is shared between all of us in this House and Congress as well.
Lynne Jones: When does my right hon. Friend envisage Iraq ceasing to rely on imports to supply such a large proportion of its fuel needs? Does he agree that it was always unrealistic to suggest that Iraqi reconstruction could be financed from its oil revenues? Does he also agree that support should
298
be in the form of grants, not loans, with the occupying powers bearing the brunt of the responsibility for that burden?
Hilary Benn: Oil production is important to Iraq's economic future, as my hon. Friend knows. At the moment, oil revenue is used to support the process of reconstruction. The money goes into the development fund for Iraq and pays the salaries of teachers, doctors, police officers and others, many of whom receive higher salaries now than they did under the Saddam regime. One thing that needs to be done to improve oil production further is to ensure the continuity of the electricity supply to the pumping systems and refineries. That is why the sharp increase in electricity production over the past month and a half is so important. Iraq is also in a period of lower demand because of the colder weather. Further investment to increase production capacity to the target of 6,000 MW next year is important. In addition, we need to build up the security of the installations, infrastructure and pipelines. People are still trying to blow them up simply because they want to undermine oil production and the generation of revenue to support reconstruction. We need to do both those things.
As far as grants are concerned, if we give the right support now, which is why the Madrid donor conference was so important, get the politics right and deal with the security problem, Iraq's wealth, the astonishing capacity of its people—it is a highly educated population—and its proud culture and history will enable the country to take off. The House should remember that, 30 years ago, gross domestic product per head in Iraq was the same as that of Portugal, which demonstrates how much the Iraqi people suffered under Saddam.
Mr. Paul Marsden: I appreciate the genuine sincerity of the Secretary of State's commitment to rebuild Iraq, but seven months after the supposed end of the war he admitted in a written reply to me on 22 October that there were still shortages of antisera, anti-cancer and local anaesthetic drugs in Iraqi hospitals. Will he urgently review the situation with a view to ensuring that full medical supplies get through to the Iraqi people?
Hilary Benn: I gladly undertake to do that. I discussed the problem with four of the UK staff seconded from the Department of Health who were working at CPA south in Basra. They told me that the solution is to get the distribution system right and for hospitals to anticipate when they are about to run short of drugs so that they place orders sufficiently in advance of that happening, so it is partly about systems. The Red Cross played an important role in that and its national Iraqi staff will continue to do that work.
I shall look into the specific cases that the hon. Gentleman raised. Part of our funding has been used to support improved drug distribution. The Iraqi hospital system is recovering from the nightmare that it has been through. Iraqi doctors, nurses and other staff have worked hard to keep the system going. The hospitals

299
now function and we must support them to ensure that they have the drugs that they need to provide the best service for their patients.
Mrs. Helen Liddell: My right hon. Friend gave a welcome and balanced analysis of the situation, which I found greatly reassuring. People have inevitably concentrated on the public sector expertise available in Iraq, but there is considerable expertise in the private sector in the UK, not least among Iraqis who were exiled during Saddam Hussein's regime. What mechanisms exist to use that expertise? Is it realistic to use it now given the security situation in Iraq?
Hilary Benn: My right hon. Friend raises an important point about the long-term future of Iraq's economy, which was highly regulated with many state-owned enterprises. The real engine of reconstruction will be economic development, as is the case in many countries. It is important to make use of the resources and skills to which she refers. That process will take time. Economic reform must have regard to the circumstances that people are in now, including the unemployment level. One benefit of the reconstruction work, including the work funded by the UK, is to let contracts to Iraqi companies and to provide jobs for Iraqi workers. That helps to deal with the problem. In the long term, however, decisions need to be taken on the future structure of the Iraqi economy. It is my clear view that they should be taken by the governing council because they are so important for the country's future.
Mr. Archie Norman: While I in no way want to belittle the progress that has been made in rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the continuing decrepit state of the banking system? The Foreign Office still says that there is no way of getting cash to British citizens in Iraq, let alone foreign nationals or Iraqis, with the consequence that people like Mrs. Jones in my constituency cannot get money to her relatives. More serious than that, perhaps, is how hard it is for businesses to get funds to invest in Iraq and Iraqi businesses. The Foreign Office cannot offer advice on when the situation will change. Can the Secretary of State enlighten us?
Hilary Benn: I cannot, but I undertake to look into that problem and to get back to the hon. Gentleman. Many changes have taken place, including the successful currency transformation, which took up much time and effort. However, I understand the concern that he expresses on behalf of those who want to pass funds on to people in Iraq.
David Winnick: As one who fully supported freeing Iraq from Saddam's tyranny—that tyranny should be borne in mind by next week's demonstrators—I none the less have the feeling that not enough is being done to explain the objectives of the occupying forces to the Iraqi people. That plays into the hands of the terrorists and criminals. The mass media should be used far more in Iraq to explain what is
300
intended because there is much misunderstanding, to say the least, in Iraq over what is to be done over the next few years.
Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Having spoken about the satellite dishes that I saw on many Baghdad roofs, I suspect that they are pointed principally at al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya—
Mr. Chris Bryant: And BBC Parliament.
Hilary Benn: One would like to think that BBC Parliament was popular viewing in Baghdad and Basra. We live in hope.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) made an important point. It is the responsibility of the Iraqi governing council to explain the part that it plays in ensuring that the political process gives the Iraqi people the chance to take decisions on their future. I am sure he is right that more needs to be done on that front, in the same way as more needs to be done in the UK to give a more balanced picture of what is happening in Iraq today.
Hywel Williams: The Secretary of State will be aware of the dissolution yesterday of KADEK, the Kurdistan Freedom and Democracy Congress. That took place to facilitate the setting up of a new organisation that would be more democratic and decentralised, and untainted by the past. Does the Secretary of State welcome that positive move to allow Kurdish people to discuss matters with the dominant nation states in the area, and will he share with the House his thoughts on the value of greater decentralisation in Iraq and greater self-determination for the Kurdish people in the country's reconstruction?
Hilary Benn: I certainly welcome the opportunities for greater political diversity, discussion and free debate that are opening up in Iraq as a result of the disappearance of Saddam's regime. As for the hon. Gentleman's point about the way in which the country should be structured and run in future, my view is that that is a decision for the Iraqi people, which is why the constitutional process is such an important part of reaching a decision on the issue that he raised.
Chris McCafferty: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for confirming that food supplies will continue after the oil-for-food programme finishes at the end of the month. However, will he also confirm the existence of an unpublished Bremer directive to end the public distribution system by June 2004? What is the Government's position on maintaining the public distribution system, which is clearly important for Iraqi welfare?
Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to an issue that needs to be addressed. The fact that 60 per cent. of the Iraqi people were dependent on the food distribution system for their staple diet is an indication of the state of despair in which the country found itself. The fact that the public distribution system has continued to work effectively is important in providing stability while other reconstruction work takes place. Over time, however, the system will have to change, and

301
discussions are taking place on the right form of system, the pace at which changes occur, and the way in which the system will eventually work. The most important thing in the course of those discussions is to ensure that there is no disruption in the availability of food. We shall apply that test to any decisions that are made.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I am sure that the Secretary of State has read Simon Jenkins's article in The Times today which, if accurate, shows that his statement that there is a healthy debate about the political and constitutional process contains, unusually for him, more spin than substance. If the rest of Mr. Jenkins's analysis is correct, the fact is that there has been a catastrophic failure of British influence with the Americans in the past 15 months. The Foreign Secretary's statement today that he has not even been consulted on Mr. Bremer's talks with the Administration simply demonstrates that, with the Pentagon taking the lead rather than the State Department, and with the dismantling of the Iraqi army, some fundamental decisions have been made from which British influence was wholly absent. We are now in a position of having responsibility without power. Will the Secretary of State and the rest of the Government do their best to address the situation at which we have now arrived?
Hilary Benn: I have not read the article to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and I do not accept the description of the situation that he has just given.
Mr. Tom Clarke: In thanking my right hon. Friend for his comprehensive statement, may I ask whether he is aware of the concerns of the Kurdish representatives on the Iraqi governing council about northern Iraq? Those of us who have seen the tremendous transformation in health and education since the early '90s—there are now two universities, road infrastructure has improved and so on—share the view that that progress should continue. However, we also share concerns that have been expressed about neighbouring states and their objectives, and I would be grateful for his view on that. Is he convinced that the standing of northern Iraq and its boundaries and human rights are being respected by neighbouring states, including Turkey?
Hilary Benn: It is very important that all countries, particularly neighbouring states, act in a way that supports the political, economic and social process of reconstruction in Iraq. I am acutely aware of the position of the Kurdish part of Iraq, what it has gained from the protection provided in the past by the no-fly zone and the opportunities that have opened up with the fall of Saddam. It is important that we respect that, and that the Kurds play a full part in decisions within Iraq about the future structure of the country. One of the great merits of the governing council in the form in which it was established is that it recognised the Shi'a, the Sunni, the Kurds and the Iraqi Communist party in an effort to represent all the interests of the country, while acknowledging that Iraq is a complex country with a difficult history and that making decisions about its future governance will require much careful debate and discussion. I am sure that the process that is now in
302
place will ensure that the Kurdish people and the Kurdish part of Iraq can play their part in reaching those decisions, because we want to build on what has been achieved.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Is it not precisely because this is such a complex situation that it is unfortunate that Britain is not being consulted when the Americans are making key decisions about what is to be done? The Secretary of State, as always, was comprehensive in his reply to the shadow Secretary of State, but he did not address the point about the Foreign Secretary or, indeed, any Government representative not being included in the discussions between the Americans and Ambassador Bremer? I think that the Secretary of State is old enough to remember what happened in the run-up to our withdrawal from Aden, when the security situation was coming under control, only for a premature announcement to be made that we were going to withdraw. That was intended to pacify people, but it encouraged the terrorists. It is important that we are not panicked into hasty action and that the Americans are not either. With our experience, there may be some things that we can usefully tell them about such a process.
Hilary Benn: I shall resist the temptation, because I would probably be ruled out of order, to discuss the experience of our withdrawal from Aden in 1967. Discussions are taking place all the time between all the parties in the process, including Ambassador Bremer, whom I met when I was in Baghdad and with whom Jeremy Greenstock has regular discussions. One should not confuse what appears in some newspapers with the reality of the debate. Everybody in the process should reflect on what has worked and what has not, and the way in which we can change what we are doing in response to changing circumstances. That is the sensible thing to do. As a result of those discussions, the Iraqi governing council will take decisions and make recommendations on 15 December that will chart the way forward.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Saddam Hussein, like Adolf Hitler, had his people dragooned, incorporated and controlled by three mass organizations—one for women, one for young people and one for trade unionists? Now that those organisations are free to act, they are often in desperate need of office facilities, education and other provisions. The Foreign Secretary met the general secretary of the TUC and trade union leaders last week to discuss the situation of trade unions in Iraq, but what progress has been made in assisting those bodies, including organisations for women and young people, in playing a full role in the development of civic society?
Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend made an important point about the contribution that civil society can make to the rebuilding and reconstruction of Iraq. I can give him a practical example of support provided by the CPA in the south. Towards the end of September, I met a women's organisation in Basra that is being offered meeting space in the CPA headquarters so that it can come together to discuss issues in the town. It expressed

303
appreciation to Sir Hilary Synnott, the head of CPA south, and me for giving them access to those facilities. It is important that we do everything that we can to encourage people who are bringing Iraqi civil society back to life, because it was cruelly repressed, as my hon. Friend said, under Saddam. That is an important part of rebuilding the country.
Richard Younger-Ross: The answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) is that only two members of the police have been allocated. Although the Secretary of State did not say so, that was certainly the answer the last time that I asked. Will he expand on the restructuring of the power industry, particularly the rebuilding of power plants? I have asked before when that restructuring would begin, but I was given vague answers. No one would say when the contracts would be let or whatever. Will the Secretary of State tell us when they will be let, or are they still stuck in red tape in Washington?
Hilary Benn: I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman to give him a comprehensive answer on the current state of play in relation to those contracts.
Joan Ruddock: My right hon. Friend will know that in post-conflict situations, violence against women escalates. Will he ask his officials to look at Iraqi micro-projects such as the Baghdad women's shelter that is being run by the Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq, and which is giving support to women escaping honour killings? Small grants to such projects could do much to save lives and to give Iraqi women more confidence in the coalition.
Hilary Benn: I gladly undertake to ask my officials to look at the project to which my hon. Friend refers. I will write to her, and perhaps we can discuss it.

Speaker's Statement
1.31 pm
Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) raised as a point of order a complaint about a letter that he had received from the editor of The Sun.He regarded that letter as a threat that would in effect be a breach of his privileges as a Member of Parliament. I promised that I would look into the matter. The hon. Gentleman will recall that we had already exchanged letters on this matter. As I have indicated to him, "Erskine May" records, on page 121, that
"privilege applies in relation to obstruction of Members in the discharge of their responsibilities to the House or in their participation in its proceedings".
It goes on to point out that
"not all responsibilities assumed by Members fall within this definition".
I have considered the matter carefully, and I can understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but I am bound by the rules of the House relating to such matters, and I do not believe that the correspondence raises any issues on which I can intervene.
May I point out to the House that complaints of breach of privilege should always be made to me in writing? The procedure for doing so is set out on page 144 of "Erskine May".
Mr. Clive Soley: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for that clarification, and for making it clear to the House that the issue is as it is. I never claimed privilege on the issue. I think that when a multinational newspaper organisation uses an editor to reply to a Member when they have not been involved in any discussions, it is right that the House should be aware of it. I am very grateful that you have placed that on the record in the way that you have.

Points of Order
1.32 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I gave you notice earlier today. I can confirm that I have also drawn the matter to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie).
Yesterday, I received a letter from the Minister's diary secretary at the Department for Constitutional Affairs. It says:
"I am writing to inform you that Christopher Leslie will be visiting your constituency on 12th November 2003 for the opening of the Criminal Justice Centre in Staines. The Minister will be present between 13.00 and 17.00.
I would be grateful if you could send me any local information that you think will be relevant to Mr. Leslie's visit."
Mr. Speaker, you are the guardian of the interests of Members of this House. In the past, you have said that it is unreasonable not to give Members sensible notice of a ministerial visit. I believe that 24 hours is inadequate; and it adds insult to injury when a Minister asks one to do his homework 24 hours before he makes the visit. A formal opening is not something that is conjured out of the air at 24 hours' notice. Is there anything that you can do to persuade Ministers to give Members of this House sensible, adequate notice when they visit constituencies?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has put it on the record that in his opinion 24 hours is not sensible notice, so whenever the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) appears, or tries to appear, in his constituency, he will give more notice. I would not like to lay down an amount of time that should he considered reasonable: it is up to individual Members to decide what they feel is
306
reasonable in these matters. From time to time, I could do with a Minister visiting my constituency—perhaps I can put that on the record as well.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that in the newspapers today, and on the radio yesterday and today, there have been very serious allegations about the Minister for Children. A threatening letter that she sent to the chairman of the governors of the BBC has been published, in which she slurred the whistleblower in the child abuse scandal in Islington. Has she asked you if she can make a personal statement from the Dispatch Box? If not, she should, because it is an abuse.
Mr. Speaker: That may be the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, but there is no need for the right hon. Lady to make a personal statement. It is not a matter for the Chair.
Brian White: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw to your attention the latest Liberal Democrat money-raising scam? I am not often speechless, but on Monday my local Liberal Democrat council presented me with a bill for £63 for taking up the case of a woman whose friend's daughter had died. Will you make it clear to the Liberal Democrat administration how seriously you view any interference with the work of a Member of Parliament, and suggest that they make an apology in their next Focus newsletter?
Mr. Speaker: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman's council has accepted that a mistake has been made in trying to charge him for a legitimate inquiry on behalf of a constituent—[Interruption.] Order. I do not think that it is necessary for me to comment further, except to say that I hope that Glasgow city council reads Hansard.

Constitution for Europe (Referendum)
1.37 pm
Mr. John Maples: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for holding a binding referendum on any Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe before any Bill relating to the Treaty is presented to Parliament.
I do not know how many Members of this House are aware of just how enthusiastic the Government are about referendums. If we were all taking part in a session of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" and Mr. Tarrant were to ask us how many referendums the Government have introduced since 1997, I suspect that I am the only person who would get the answer correct—it is 34. We have had a staggering number of referendums. The Government are referendum junkies—except on the most important issue that faces this country at the present time.
Of the other 14 countries in the European Union, six are committed to holding a referendum and two—France and Italy—are debating the matter extremely seriously. The French Prime Minister has said that there should be a referendum, and Mr. Chirac has instituted a consultation process. France held referendums before, in 1972 and 1992. The United Kingdom Government are so worried about what the French Government are doing that our diplomats in Paris are apparently lobbying them not to hold a referendum because it would be extremely embarrassing to the Prime Minister. Yet polls show that 80 per cent. of people in this country—even in Sedgefield and among trade unionists—want a referendum, and that demand is growing. If France and Italy were to sign up to referendums, it would be unstoppable.
We have had a mass of referendums—some on very important issues such as the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, and some on trivial issues such as whether Hartlepool should have a mayor—but apparently we cannot have one on this. We had one on the Good Friday agreement, which is a reasonably close parallel in that the constitutional arrangements for governing Northern Ireland were changed and the approval of its people was sought.
I wonder how many Members of the House—or indeed, of the Government—are aware of the very first sentence of the draft constitution, which begins:
"Reflecting the will of the citizens and States of Europe to build a common future, this Constitution establishes the European Union".
How do we know that it reflects the will of the citizens of Europe if we do not ask them? It is a bit presumptuous to include such a sentence if there is no intention of holding a referendum.
One of the canards that the Government put about is that the Conservatives support a referendum because they want a no vote so that they can get out of the European Union. That is not my view. I do not believe that one has to be in favour of the constitution and a never-ending process of integration to be a good European. A no vote in a referendum would tell the Government that people were not prepared to support the constitution and that the Government should negotiate a different constitution or a different relationship between this country and the EU.
308
It is clear that the process of change is accelerating. From 1956 until the Single European Act in 1985, the treaty of Rome remained substantially unamended. However, there were only seven years between the Single European Act and Maastricht, five years between Maastricht and Amsterdam and three years between Amsterdam and Nice. It appears that there will be three to four years between Nice and the constitution. For 39 years there was almost no change to an economic community, yet in a few short years we have advanced substantially towards a united states of Europe. The direction is clear.
I have much time for those who say, "I want to be part of a federal Europe." There is an argument for that and I can understand it. There is also an argument—with which I agree—that that is not the future of this country. However, there is no case for the people who pretend that what is happening constitutes nothing. The former Minister for Europe compared the constitution to the Beano and said that it did not introduce anything.
On examination, one can find what bothers people such as me about the constitution. It contains some big changes—no one can deny that. Whether they are good or bad is another matter. It provides for a president, a foreign minister, a public prosecutor, a charter of fundamental rights, citizenship, legal supremacy, the sole right to make treaties, more Europol powers, a diplomatic service, stronger language on common defence, harmonisation of criminal law and procedure, and co-ordination of economic and employment policy. There is also the fact of its existence. The European Union already has a Parliament, a supreme court, a currency, a central bank, a common foreign and security policy and military capability. They may not constitute all the characteristics of a state but they amount to a great many of them. It does not need more to reach that point.
The constitution collapses the pillar structure that Maastricht introduced so that there is no veto on justice and home affairs matters. That means a common policy, with qualified majority voting, on asylum, immigration and border controls. We will cede control over those matters to the European Union. The foreign affairs pillar, which has hitherto been kept as a separate intergovernmental pillar, will be compromised by the dual hatting of the foreign minister, who will be secretary-general of the Council and a commissioner. The Commission will thus get a role in foreign policy that it has not previously played.
The pillar structure will go and there will be much more qualified majority voting, including on implementing foreign policy. There is a drive, which the Chancellor says that he will resist, to include social security and tax in qualified majority voting. Competition law is becoming an exclusive EU competence. We shall have no status in competition matters in the future.
We have come a long way since 1956, when we all happily signed up to an economic organisation. I am happy with the Single European Act, which introduced the single market. However, no one then signed up to what we are now approaching. A referendum took place in the 1970s. Before the next stage in the process, the British people should be consulted; there should he a referendum.

309
Perhaps there should have been a referendum on Maastricht. However, we had opt-outs from the two biggest items in the treaty—the social chapter and the single currency. Nevertheless, perhaps there should have been a referendum. Perhaps referendums should have been held on Amsterdam and Nice. However, the fact that there were no referendums strengthens rather than weakens the case for one now. It will not set a precedent. We have travelled an enormous distance since Maastricht. Since we did not hold a referendum then, it is imperative to have one now. At some point, people must be asked whether they want the process to continue.
One may hold the view that our future is an increasingly centralised European Union. 1 believe that that will inexorably lead to a single state. That is a tenable view and I understand the people who hold it, especially those who are honest about it and advocate it openly. We may see our future as an independent state in a more flexible European Union, co-operating on an intergovernmental basis to advance common interests. However, the issue bedevils British politics. It bedevils politics between parties and within parties. [Interruption.] There is no point in pretending that the problem does not exist.
The issue bedevils not only British politics between and within parties but British policy making. We have already witnessed that. For example, on defence, the Prime Minister is trying to do two incompatible things at once. He signed up to the St. Malo agreement and subsequently spent four years trying to ensure that European security and defence identity is pulled back into NATO. In the aftermath of the problems in Europe over the Iraq war, a little more leeway is being given on European defence. The Prime Minister must pull that back, too. We are becoming schizophrenic about the matter and that makes for bad policy. It is bad for the country because we are not clear about our destiny.
I would vote no in a referendum, but I would accept a yes vote because the direction of the country and our public policy aims would then be clear. A no vote would also make matters clear. However, if we continue as we are, we shall have schizophrenia in policy making—trying to be in and out, a good European and a good Atlanticist. The dilemmas, whatever they are, will lead to confusion. The issue must be settled so that the policy direction is clear, and that can happen only through a referendum. The time and the issue are right. If the Government are so confident that they are right, let us have a referendum.
1.45 pm
Mr. Chris Bryant: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) has given us an opportunity to debate the issue. However, I am saddened that he appears to have been hijacked by the extreme right of his party.
I confess that I am not a big supporter of referendums. I believe that they are especially inappropriate when trying to deal with the intricacies of creating a treaty. Let us examine the facts. The draft constitutional treaty has 565 clauses, five protocols and two declarations. The vast majority are almost identical to those in previous treaties, but it is important to scrutinise the document line by line, clause by clause,
310
not simply subject it to a question of yes or no. Although a referendum might be appropriate for "Pop Idol" when deciding whether Gareth Gates or Will Young should win, it is unsuitable for examining a treaty. That needs to be done with due diligence and only Parliament can do that. [Interruption.]
Referendums in many parts of the world have often left countries and regions[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to be heard.
Mr. Bryant: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Referendums can render countries ungovernable. Let us consider California, where subsequent referendums were passed on a cut in taxes every year and on an annual increase in education spending. That made California almost ungovernable. I note that the policies are remarkably similar to those that Conservative Members are trying to advance—a miracle of increasing spending and cutting taxation—but I do not believe that the people of the world will subscribe to it.
A principal problem with referendums is that, on the whole, people do not answer the question that is put to them. Let us consider the 1986 referendum in Spain on whether it should join NATO. I do not suppose that many Conservative Members wanted Spain to vote against joining. However, many people voted according to whether they liked the Government of the day, not on the issue. [Interruption.]I believe that we should hold referendums on only two conditions—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already asked that the hon. Gentleman be given the privilege of presenting his opposing view.
Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I cite one of the late Enoch Powell's points of order? He said that an hon. Gentleman is entitled to speak but not to be heard.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I shall not comment on that matter.
Mr. Bryant: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Conservatives are clearly in quite a state today.
I believe that a referendum should be held only when the question is susceptible to a yes/no answer, and I maintain that this treaty is not susceptible to such an answer. Let us take article I.14. I believe that that article needs changing, and I hope that it will be amended. I am certain that the Government are trying to get it amended. But let us say that it stays in. Would that be the issue on which people voted yes or no, or would it be some other part of the treaty? Would people vote against the quotation from Thucydides that starts the treaty because they had hated Thucydides at school? Why would people vote? Would it put Britain in a better position, after a referendum, to argue for a stronger treaty on our behalf, or would it put us in a weaker situation because we would not know what we wanted?

311
The first condition, then, is that if we are going to have a referendum, it should be susceptible to a yes/no answer. Secondly, it should be advanced only when a substantial change in how we are to be governed is being proposed. I would point out to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon that the ink is not yet dry on the draft constitution document. I should like to quote someone that he might have heard of, who said a few weeks ago in the House of Lords:
"I am concerned also that my own party…has so misled itself that it is ready at this stage to commit itself to a referendum on anything that may emerge from the constitutional Convention, not before the ink is dry but before half the wet ink has been put on it. We do not yet know what is going to emerge. It may prove to be an issue so dramatically different from those we have subscribed to in the past as to deserve that response. But I hope very much that my own party will consider carefully the wisdom of committing ourselves in advance to a referendum on this issue".— [Official Report, House of Lords, 9 September 2003; Vol. 652, c. 179.]
That was no wild lunatic; it was the former Conservative Foreign Secretary, Lord Howe.
If the ink is not yet dry on the document, how can the Conservatives already call for a referendum? They do not know whether the constitution will involve a substantial change. I believe that, so far, the document does not propose a substantial change in the way in which Britain is to be governed—certainly not as substantial as the changes in the Single European Act in 1987, or in the Maastricht treaty in 1992.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon tried to tell us that we were going to have a president, and that we would therefore be entering a superstate. Perhaps he studied a little bit of French at school. The word "president" in French just means "chairman". It is very simple: there is not going to be a president of Europe. The hon. Gentleman is misleading the House.
Let us deal with the pro-referendum—
Hon. Members: More! More!
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Bryant: They will be appearing in panto later in the season, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Let us deal briefly with the pro-referendum arguments. The argument that has already been advanced by so many Conservatives is, "It's good enough for all the other countries of Europe, so why can't we have one here?" For a start, that is factually wrong. I shall correct the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. Only three countries have so far committed themselves to holding a referendum. Five have said that they are thinking about it, two have said that they will definitely not hold one, and 15 have said that it is extremely unlikely that they will do so. The hon. Gentleman's argument does not hold water in terms of the facts, but it does not do so in terms of logic either.
The logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that, since everyone else is doing it, we should do it too, but that would take us down the route of having qualified majority voting for treaty ratification processes. Why is he not arguing for a single European referendum? That is where his logic is taking him. I believe that it is much
312
better for each country to follow its own tradition. Ireland's tradition means that it will have a referendum because it has to. Germany, following the tradition that we enforced on it in 1948 that it should not have plebiscites, will not hold a referendum because it is constitutionally impossible to do so.
It is particularly interesting that the Tory leadership and Front Benchers are arguing for a referendum. They did not do so for Maastricht. On 21 April 1993, 85 Conservative Members who are still Members of this House voted against a referendum; only 13 voted in favour. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) argued forcefully against a referendum, and he was practically manhandling people through the Lobby.
The truth is that the Conservatives want a referendum for nakedly opportunistic reasons, so that they can say no—as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon has already suggested that he would—and so as to start a complete unilateral renegotiation of all the treaties. But it takes two to tango, and it takes 25 to start a renegotiation of the treaties of Europe. The Tories have no one else to tango with or to renegotiate with. All that they are really talking about is withdrawal, and I urge the House to vote against this Bill.
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):—
The House divided:Ayes 145, Noes 233.
Division No. 359] [1:54 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (ESurrey)

Fallon, Michael

Allan, Richard

Field, Mark (Cities of London &

Amess, David

Westminster)

Arbuthnot, rh James

Flight, Howard

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Flook, Adrian

Bacon, Richard

Fox, Dr. Liam

Barker, Gregory

Francois, Mark

Baron, John (Billericay)

Garnier, Edward

Barrett, John

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Goodman, Paul

Bercow, John

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Blunt, Crispin

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Grieve, Dominic

Brady, Graham

Hague, rh William

Brazier, Julian

Hammond, Philip

Burnett, John

Hancock, Mike

Burns, Simon

Harvey, Nick

Burt, Alistair

Hawkins, Nick

Carmichael, Alistair

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Clappison, James

Heald, Oliver

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Heath, David

Collins, Tim

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hendry, Charles

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Hogg, rh Douglas

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Curry, rh David

Horam, John (Orpington)

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Howden)

Jenkin, Bernard

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Djanogly, Jonathan

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Drew, David (Stroud)

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Ewing, Annabelle

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Fabricant, Michael

Lamb, Norman

313

Lansley, Andrew

Rosindell, Andrew

Leigh, Edward

Ruffley, David

Letwin, rh Oliver

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Sanders, Adrian

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Sayeed, Jonathan

Lidington, David

Selous, Andrew

Lilley, rh Peter

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Loughton, Tim

Shepherd, Richard

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Simmonds, Mark

McDonnell, John

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Smitn. Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns &

Mackinlay, Andrew

Kincardine)

Maclean, rh David

Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Spicer, sir Michael

McWilliam, John

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Maples, John

Streeter, Gary

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Atcham)

Syms, Robert

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Tapsell, Sir Peter

May, Mrs Theresa

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Mercer, Patrick

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Coldfield)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Trend, Michael

Moss, Malcolm

Turner Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Tyrie, Andrew

Norman, Archie

Walter, Robert

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Waterson, Nigel

Watkinson, Angela

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Weir, Michael

Ottaway, Richard

Whittingdale, John

Paterson, Owen

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Pickles, Eric

Wilshire, David

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Dinefwr)

Wishart, Pete

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Randall, John

Young, rh Sir George

Redwood, rh John

Younger-Ross, Richard

Robathan, Andrew

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Tellers for the Aye:

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Mr. Eric Forth and

Roe, Mrs Marion

Mr. Andrew Mackay

NOES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Ainger, Nick

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Chaytor, David

Alexander, Douglas

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Bailey, Adrian

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

Baird, Vera

Chryston)

Beard, Nigel

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Beckett, rh Margaret

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Benn, rh Hilary

Coaker, Vernon

Bennett, Andrew

Coffey, Ms Ann

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Coleman, Iain

Berry, Roger

Colman, Tony

Best, Harold

Connarty, Michael

Blackman, Liz

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Cooper, Yvette

Borrow, David

Cranston, Ross

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Crausby, David

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Bradshaw, Ben

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Brennan, Kevin

David, Wayne

Browne, Desmond

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Bryant, Chris

Dean, Mrs Janet

Buck, Ms Karen

Dismore, Andrew

Burden, Richard

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Cairns, David

Dobson, rh Frank

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Casale, Roger

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

314

Edwards, Huw

MacDougall, John

Efford, Clive

McFall, John

Ellman, Mrs Louise

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

McIsaac, Shona

Etherington, Bill

McKechin, Ann

Fisher, Mark

McKenna, Rosemary

Fitzpatrick, Jim

McNamara, Kevin

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Mactaggart, Fiona

Flint, Caroline

Mahmood, Khalid

Follett, Barbara

Mallaber, Judy

Foster, rh Derek

Mandelson, rh Peter

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Mann, John (Basset/aw)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

&Rye)

Gardiner, Barry

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Gardiner, Barry

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Gilroy, Linda

Martlew, Eric

Goggins, Paul

Meale Alan (Mansfield)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Menon, Gillian

Hain, rh Peter

Michael, rh Alun

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Miliband, David

Hanson, David

Moffat, Laura

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Mole Chris

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Moran, Margaret

Healey, John

Morley, Elliot

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Mountford, Kali

Hendrick, Mark

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Hepburn, Stephen

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Heppell, John

Heyes, David

O'Hara, Edward

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Organ, Diana

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Osborne Sandra (Ayr)

Hoon, rh Geoffrey

Owen, Albert

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Pickthall, Colin

Howells, Dr. Kim

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Plaskitt, James

Humble, Mrs Joan

Pollard, Kerry

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Illsley, Eric

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Pound, Stephen

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Hatfield)

Prosser, Gwyn

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Purnell, James

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Quin, rh Joyce

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Quinn. Lawrie

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Rammell, Bill

Jowell, rh Tessa

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Raynsford, rh Nick

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Bellshill)

Khabra, Piara S.

Robertson, John (Glasgow

Kidney, David

Anniesland)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

King, Andy (Rugby)

NW)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

Ross. Ernie (Dundee W)

Bow)

Ruane, Chris

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Russell, Ms Christine (City of

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Chester)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Salter, Martin

Lazarowicz, Mark

Sarwar, Mohammad

Lepper, David

Savidge, Malcolm

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Sawford, Phil

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Sedgemore, Brian

Linton, Martin

Sheerman, Barry

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Sheridan, Jim

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Shipley, Ms Debra

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Singh, Marsha

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

McAvoy, Thomas

Soley, Clive

McCabe, Stephen

Southworth, Helen

McCartney, rh Ian

Spellar, rh John

McDonagh, Siobhain

Squire, Rachel

MacDonald, Calum

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

315

Stewart, David (Inverness E &

Ward, Claire

Lochaber)

Watts, David

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

White, Brian

Stinchcombe, Paul

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Sutcliffe, Gerry

wicks, Malcolm

Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Wills, Michael

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Worthington Tony

Tipping, Paddy

Wray, James (Glasgow

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Baillieston)

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Wright Anthony D. (Gt

Trickett, Jon

Yarmouth)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Wright, David (Telford)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Tellers for the Noes:

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Ms Bridget Prentice and

Walley, Ms Joan

Charlotte Atkins

Question accordingly negatived.

Fire Services Bill (Programme) (No.3)
Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
That the following provisions shall apply to the Fire Services Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 8th May 2003 and 3rd June 2003:

Consideration of Lords Amendments
1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at this day's sitting.

Subsequent stages
2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.
3. Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Mr. Ainger.)
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Fire Services Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Fire Services Bill
    Clause 1

      POWERS OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 1, at end insert "or disposal".
      2.8 pm
      The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment is intended to clarify the consultation arrangements for directions about property or facilities made under the power in clause 1(1)(b), which allows the Secretary of State to give directions to fire authorities about the
      "use or disposal of property or facilities".
      As originally drafted, the consultation requirements in clause 1(4) applied only to directions about the "use" of property or facilities. It is and was our intention that the same consultation requirements should apply to all directions under the clause 1(1)(b) power, whatever their content. The Secretary of State would therefore be required "as he thinks fit" to consult persons, or representatives of those persons, who
      "are, in his opinion, likely to be affected by the proposed direction".
      Concern has been expressed about the possible use of the power to require disposals of assets. In Committee, in response to some strongly expressed concerns, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr Leslie), then the Under-Secretary of State, said that the provisions were
      "not part of some…asset-stripping fire station closure plan".
      He went on to remind the House that, as the Bain review highlighted, there were
      "all sorts of ways…of making savings in the fire service that involve neither selling off nor reducing the facilities available for the protection"
      of the public,
      "nor creating redundancies".—[Official Report, 3 June 2003; Vol. 405, c. 89.]
      I want to repeat that we do not intend to use directions under clause 1(1)(b) for asset stripping, some sort of privatisation or a mass fire station closure programme. However, we want to ensure that the proper modernisation of the fire service can be implemented. I fully expect and hope that this can be done without the use of these powers, but that may not be possible. If it is not, we will consult fully, as the Bill requires. I would not want to leave anyone with the impression, however mistaken, that the Government thought that lesser or no consultation was needed for any orders dealing with disposals. Therefore, to ensure consistency between the two connected provisions, we accept that the words "or disposal" should be added to clause 1(4).
      Mr. Philip Hammond: Nobody could disagree with the notion that there
      318
      should be consultation in the case of a disposal, as well as a direction for use. However, I want to place on the record that this was a simple mistake—a word was left out of the Bill's original text, which is the sort of error that we would usually expect to be picked up during a proper Committee stage. That rather underlines the dangers of a rushed process—of taking a Bill through all its stages in one afternoon. It proved possible for it to go to the other place with an important word missing from the text, and for that fact to be overlooked, despite it being scrutinised in this House. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board and consider long and hard before trying to rush through legislation again. We owe a debt of gratitude not to Government Front Benchers, but to the noble Baroness Turner, who picked up this error from the Back Benches.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I, too, accept the Minister's emollient statement that this is a minor amendment, but it will be important to ensure that any consultation required under the Bill is full in respect of all of the proposed changes. It is worth placing on the record that the amendment does not make the Bill any better; overall, it is ill thought through and unnecessary. Although the Minister may say that the current impasse or delay in the negotiations justifies the Bill, the fact that both sides are negotiating suggests that it and the amendment are not needed. It is worth pointing that out, given what is happening outside this place.
      Lords amendment agreed to.

      New clause
      Lords amendment: No. 2, after clause 1, to insert the following new clause—Interpretation of the June 2003 agreement—
      "For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act affects the possibility of the parties agreeing on a reference to mediation, conciliation or arbitration on the interpretation of the June 2003 agreement between the Fire Brigades Union and the local authority fire service employers.'
      John McDonnell: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 6, at end, add
      'or enables an action in tort on the ground only that it contravenes a statutory duty imposed by an order made under this Act, which would affect the possibility of mediation, conciliation or arbitration.'
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this we may discuss amendment (b), in line 6, at end, add
      'or enables the local authority fire service employers to impede the possibility of a reference to mediation, conciliation or arbitration by pursuing an action in tort on the ground only of contravention of a statutory duty imposed by an order made under this Act.'
      John McDonnell: I begin by preparing the background to the amendment. Lord Lea moved amendment No. 2 as an avoidance-of-doubt clause because he was anxious to clarify in the Bill that nothing stands in the way of mediation. In other correspondence, the Minister has made it clear that such clauses are seen by Governments as clearly helpful, if not regular. They are helpful in avoiding any future

      319
      misconstruction of the Bill by including in it an explicit statement as to its intent. I agree with, and support, this type of clause in principle.
      The purpose of my amendment is to seek to extend the avoidance-of-doubt clause to clear up—helpfully, I hope—a further doubt that entered into the debate after the Bill left the Commons and went to the other place. It is a straightforward amendment that explicitly overcomes that doubt, and it reflects the Government's intentions as stated in correspondence with Members of the other House and also in the debate in that House.
      That doubt was expressed in the other place at various stages by the noble Lords Wedderburn and McCarthy and by Baroness Turner. Those of us who have had any dealings with industrial relations and the related law during the past 30 years appreciate that Lords Wedderburn and McCarthy and Baroness Turner expressed a view on this subject that is based on decades of experience, and it comes from those who are the most qualified to express such a view. In fact, many in this House learned their industrial relations law at the feet of Lord Wedderburn, as an expert practitioner.
      The doubt expressed by those Lords is set out in a briefing note prepared by Lord Wedderburn, Professor Emeritus of commercial law at the London School of Economics, which was published on 1 November. I tried to place this note in the House of Commons Library, but I was informed that only Ministers or Mr. Speaker may do so. However, I have copies available in my office if Members wish to peruse the note.
      2.15 pm
      Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman has set out the credentials of the noble Lords who first raised this issue as amendment No. 3 in the other place. As the Government refuted their case entirely, can he tell the House whether he believes that the Government are simply poorly advised by their legal advisers or are being duplicitous?
      John McDonnell: I am trying to create a climate in this debate that is not confrontational. Doubt exists. The Government's advisers are not duplicitous or in any way incompetent; they simply have a view. The noble Lords, who have vast experience in these matters, have another view, and that leads to doubt. The situation is no more contestable or challengeable than that. This is not an "in your face" allegation.
      Mr. Edward Davey: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that his amendment would simply clarify what Ministers say is already the position, and that it would therefore be helpful to include it in the Bill?
      John McDonnell: That is exactly the purpose of the amendment, and nothing more. It is designed to take the Government's intention as stated in ministerial statements and enact it in the legislation.
      I shall explain the doubt that I described. On 30 June 2003, the Lords warned that the terms of the Bill contained a threat to the right of firefighters and the FBU to take lawful industrial action. This was not an intended threat by the Government—a point made
      320
      explicit by the Secretary of State and the Minister—but it is a possible threat. The TUC has also expressed this concern. The Lords argued that the Bill contains provisions that could enable a claimant to obtain an injunction against a strike, or the threat of a strike, by the FBU, even in a trade dispute in which all legal requirements, such as a ballot, had been fulfilled. Why is that so? I shall answer that by referring to what I shall describe as the Wedderburn doctrine. In the UK, there is no explicit right to strike, but trade unions are now afforded certain immunities in law. Under part V of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, trade unions are protected in a trade dispute, and after a ballot, from actions on the basis of a breach of contract. That provision was inserted into law by Sir Charles Dilke, a well-known liberal progressive, in 1906.
      Mr. Andrew Dismore: It was the Trade Disputes Act 1906, following the Taff Vale case.
      John McDonnell: Indeed. The Taff Vale case was part of the instigation of the Labour party's foundation and representation in Parliament.
      The problem is that the Court of Appeal, in the case of Meade v. Haringey Borough Council, held that this protection does not apply where the union induces a breach of duty imposed by statute, not by contract. Lord Wedderburn quoted Lord Eveleigh at length in this regard. The union
      "may, in proper circumstances, induce others to break a contract in furtherance of a trade dispute, but they are not entitled with impunity to order or solicit a breach of statutory duty."
      Lord Denning agreed. He said that the legislation gives the unions
      "immunity if they induce a person to break a contract. But it gives them no immunity if they induce a local authority to break its statutory duty."
      The Government have contested that point, saying that there is an uncertainty in the meaning of Denning and Eveleigh, but those statements could not have been more explicit. Indeed, although the judgment in that case may have been criticised in the generality, there has been no criticism of the reference to the statutory duty. In addition, that interpretation was even used in the case of R v. The Governors of J School, in 2003.
      The new Bill introduces a number of statutory duties. Of the many examples that Lords Wedderburn and McCarthy raised in their briefing for the Lords debate, I shall cite just one that was seized on by Lord Wedderburn. Under clause 1(1)(b), the Secretary of State may
      "give…directions to fire authorities about the use or disposal of property or facilities."
      The fire authority has a statutory duty to comply with the direction contained in such an order. Wedderburn considers the example of a fire station closure and said that firefighters from the station under threat might persuade other firefighters to take industrial action against the closure and the removal of pumps, which threaten public safety and, indeed, jobs overall within the service. It could be after a ballot and it could involve

      321
      all the members of the FBU nationally. The union, Wedderburn states, would "clearly be at risk" of liabilities
      "for inducing a breach of the fire authority's statutory duty to comply with the direction".
      Wedderburn further asserts:
      "At present it is lawful for firefighters to strike against the closure of stations. Under the new law as the Bill stands it would not be lawful."
      What was the Government's response to the noble Lords and Baroness Turner? Doubts were raised when the Bill was first debated on 30 June 2003 and the Government were warned about the problem. The noble Lords pleaded for delay and produced a detailed legal argument, suggesting helpful amendments. No legal argument came from the Government until four months later on 31 October. The response was contained in a letter from the Minister with a 10-page legal note three days before Third Reading.
      The first main point in the Government's response was that avoidance-of-doubt clauses are inserted only where doubt exists. I have to say that there is no doubt that there is a doubt on this matter. There is a contested doubt in the Lords from people who have a vast range of experience in industrial relations—they are challenging the Government's legal opinion. When noble Lords with great experience, as well as the TUC, express a doubt, there is a doubt.
      The Government also believe that it is "highly unlikely" that a union would not be protected by existing legislation, but highly unlikely is not certainty. The position enables an element of doubt to creep into any future actions. The Minister also stated clearly that the threat to firefighters' right to take industrial action was not present; that was not the Government's intention. I accept at face value the Government's assertion. I believe in the good will behind that statement, but the courts will not necessarily give effect to the intentions expressed by Ministers if those intentions are not enacted clearly in the Bill.
      In their note to the noble Lords, the Government relied on the case of Pepper v. Hart 1993, which has enabled ministerial statements to be considered, in limited circumstances, by the court as the background to legislation. However, ministerial statements do not govern the meaning of an Act. Pepper v. Hart enables construction of ambiguous, obscure or absurd statutory provision. In practice, it serves simply to remove ambiguity. Well, that is exactly what my amendment is designed to do—to remove the ambiguity at first stage.
      Lord Wedderburn drew Ministers' attention to the more recent case of Wilson v. First County Trust 2003, where the Law Lords again expressed a view on the general application of Ministers' interpretations. The result of that case was explicit: it is the words of the Bill, not the intentions of Ministers, that control the meaning of the Bill itself.
      Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend has talked about assurances from a Minister, which would at least morally bind an existing Government, but they would not necessarily bind a future Government who might be more hostile to trade unionism and take a different view of the legislation than the present Government. Is that not the case?
      John McDonnell: There are clearly elements of future interpretation of legislation and future ministerial statements that might have some impact, but that is yet to be tested in the courts. It is open to debate, leaving further room for doubt. I shall be quick now, because other. Members want to contribute to the debate.
      We have all experienced the danger of doubt in industrial relations in negotiations about individual words, but it is more dangerous in industrial relations when injunctions are flying around. Injunctions against trade unionists taking industrial action are granted in interim proceedings. Most of us who have been involved in trade unions in the past will have had injunctions made against us at the interim stage. It is not only when a claimant, an employer or a third party can prove their case that an interim injunction is awarded, but when a claimant can show an arguable case.
      Diplock expressed a test—whether there was a serious question to be tried—which amounts to a different burden of proof for an interim injunction than for a full trial. If there is any doubt that the law is working against the individual union, it will be an arguable case. The arguable case obviously needs to be accompanied by a balance of convenience, and the Government have argued that that balance in many of these issues will rest with the union—but Lord Wedderburn said that he could find not a single case in which the balance of convenience has weighed in favour of a trade union in an interim injunction of this sort.
      I shall now return to the real world—with apologies to Lords Wedderburn and McCarthy and Baroness Turner in respect of the legal arguments. The Bill was introduced after a long and, I have to say, bitter dispute. The Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire and the Fire Brigades Union all want to put that dispute behind them and move forward to a programme of reform and investment in the fire service. However, the climate of industrial relations in the fire service is already deteriorating over the non-payment of the first stage of the pay award. The Government need to send out the clearest possible message from this debate that the Bill does not contain any hidden threat to the FBU's right to strike. The best way to achieve that is, with the greatest respect to Members present, to remove any doubt from the Bill—not by making a ministerial statement, but by building a provision clearly into the Bill to the effect that no action could be taken on the basis of a breach of statutory duty.
      Ms Joan Walley: I shall be brief because I know that several hon. Members want to speak. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on the selection of his amendment and I am grateful that the Speaker has given us the opportunity to consider the amendments today, before the Bill becomes law. I cannot stress enough the urgency with which the Minister should respond to this brief debate.
      I was present at the Remembrance day parade in my constituency in Burslem on Sunday when I spoke to members of the Staffordshire fire service, and I am aware of a heartfelt demand and need to move on and leave what has happened behind, to embrace the modernisation agenda and to ensure that we have

      323
      proper industrial relations in place. That is why I feel that clarification of the issues raised by Lord Wedderburn and others in the other place is critical.
      I believe that little more than poor advice is contributing to the doubts currently expressed and that the concern felt by many hon. Members should not inadvertently deprive the Fire Brigades Union of its protection in law in the event of it taking industrial action. The bare bones of the matter is that the statutory trade union immunity applies where the union has induced a breach of contracts, but the immunity does not apply, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington set out, where the union has induced a breach of a statutory duty. If orders made under the Bill create statutory duties, it follows that industrial action taken against an order will, arguably—I say arguably—not be protected by the normal immunities. That is why I ask the Minister to respond to the concerns expressed today.
      The Government have made it clear that they do not intend to deprive the FBU of the right to protection for properly conducted industrial action. I do not doubt that for one moment, but that is why it is so important that adequate provisions to ensure that protection should be included in the Bill. That is the purpose of the amendment. If there is the slightest doubt that the Bill could lead to the removal of that protection—as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, it has been in place to help trade unionists for more than one century, I—and, I believe, many others—would expect the Government to take steps now to clarify the position.
      Anyone who has taken the trouble, as I have, to read the contributions of Lord Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy in the other place and to study the 10 pages of notes placed in the Library, and who knows of the integrity of our noble Friends and of all their work in employment relations, will conclude that a considerable element of doubt remains, although I saw that my right hon. Friend the Minister was shaking his head just now. The amendment will remove that doubt and it is difficult to see what possible objection the Government could have to that.
      2.30 pm
      In a celebrated court case relating to education, it was stated that the court can use Hansard only as an indication of the Government's intentions if the Act in question is ambiguous. If the Fire Services Bill receives Royal Assent and becomes an Act, following our deliberations today, it is in any way ambiguous, it is essential that I can take a message to those Staffordshire fire service members that we have been given a clarification by the Minister today. That would be helpful in the event of any action that the courts may take in future.
      Mr. Edward Davey: On this occasion, I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). As he knows, my colleagues and I disagreed with his position on the actual dispute between the Fire Brigades Union and the employers and the Government, but he and we agree
      324
      that the Bill is otiose and indeed odious. We agree that his amendment should be included so that we do not retain the doubts that he and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) expressed.
      I agree with the hon. Lady. As she made clear, the amendment would confirm rights that have been around for many years. It is about 97 years since those rights were enshrined, during the first year of that great Liberal Government of 1906, and it is important that they be retained. It would be bizarre if a Labour Government were unwilling to be clear about that right when previous Conservative Governments, of a right-wing nature, have upheld it. It is odd that a Labour Government would want to allow any ambiguity, so I hope that the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire will think again.
      The Minister wanted the power to impose a settlement through the Bill. We disagree, because we believe that mediation and arbitration—compulsory, if necessary—are a much better way forward. Ministers have always said, especially to Labour Back Benchers, that the measure would not make a strike illegal; it would not outlaw industrial action that followed a legally constituted ballot. However, given the evidence that we have heard—the remarks made by noble Lords who are extremely experienced in this area of the law—there is doubt. The Minister keeps shaking his head, but the fact that such opinions have been expressed suggests that there is a prima facie case to answer.
      The Government accepted Lords amendment No. 2 to ensure that there was no doubt about the status, in relation to the Bill, of the agreement made in June 2003. It would thus seem logical that the Government should allow the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington to be tacked on to the new clause so that there is no doubt that properly constituted ballots for strike action would not be made illegal by the backdoor.
      Even at this late stage, I hope that the Minister will think again; he will not only placate Liberal Democrats but Labour Members.
      Mr. Dismore: I declare an interest in that I remain a solicitor in a law firm that practises in industrial law, although I am not taking cases at present. I also spent a year working on it when, some years ago, I was a postgraduate student of Professor Lord Wedderburn, QC. Having completed that postgraduate degree, I practised in that area of law for 20 years, advising the Fire Brigades Union for most of that time—[Interruption.] I realise that I shall not be paid by the hour this afternoon.
      The FBU is law-abiding; it always has been and always will be—at least as far as I am aware. However, chief fire officers are incredibly litigious. During my time as an adviser to the FBU, I had to defend the union on many occasions in legal actions over trade disputes brought by chief fire officers. They seemed to think that was the way to sort things out, even though it usually made things 10 times worse in the fire service—as generally happens when people go to law over any form of industrial action.
      There is little doubt in this case. I know, from advising the FBU and many other public service unions over the years, that the whole tort of inducing breach of statutory

      325
      duty is incredibly problematical for them. Statutory law has never really got to grips with providing the correct immunity for the right to strike of public sector workers.
      The real issue relates to the consequences if we are wrong in advocating our position. If we and the Government are completely wrong about the right to strike, the consequence will be that the right to strike is taken away from the fire service, not only in the context of the Bill but of the Fire Services Act 1947 and whatever may replace it. If we are only partly wrong, the inevitable consequence will be that a chief fire officer will try his luck if he is met with trade union opposition when asked to implement an order under the Bill.
      Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) cited the judgment in Meade v. London Borough of Haringey. I was a member of Haringey council at the time. We closed schools for safety reasons and the subsequent case resulted in that judgment. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) accept that the case was brought in an atmosphere of spite and vindictiveness against the council, which had closed schools to ensure that children were safe on that day? The case was brought for that reason alone rather than for any of the other reasons claimed by Meade and others.
      Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He illustrates the fact that the point goes beyond the Bill. The tort of inducing breach of statutory duty is a major problem for the public sector in general and the Bill will make that worse for the fire service.
      Even supposing that we or the Government are only partly wrong, it means inevitably that a chief fire officer will test the position in the courts. Such a case would take place not against a background of civilised debate in this Chamber, but in the full spotlight of a major row in that industry. What view will a court take in those circumstances? Believe it or not, judges live in the world; they read newspapers and, in general, they come from a particular background. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, the judge has only to be satisfied that there is an arguable case on the facts in law. That is an extremely weak test, which was introduced by Cyanamid v. Ethicon—if I remember correctly from my law student days.
      If a union failed to comply with an interim injunction, it would end up in the great chain of legal consequences that we saw during the miners' strike. Fines for contempt of court would be imposed and ultimately there would be sequestration, with all that comes from that. A law-abiding union could be put in an incredibly difficult position simply because the Government did not decide to accept an amendment that would avoid the doubt that the Bill could create. The consequences for the fire service, both generally and in terms of industrial relations, are serious. The consequences for public sector trade unions are serious, yet the problem could be dealt with relatively easily if the Government recognised that a small amendment to the Bill would make the position clear. It would not be a big deal for the Government to accept the argument put forward by the pre-eminent figure in this area of law since the war. Professor Lord Wedderburn is the leading expert in the field.
      326
      Accepting the amendments would not even be a U-turn for the Government. If they do not accept them, the consequences for the fire service and public sector trade unions in general would be very severe.
      David Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend put the matter in the simplest terms, for those of us who are not solicitors? Should not the rights afforded to FBU members be the same for every trade union member? Is not that the bottom line, irrespective of legal arguments?
      Mr. Dismore: I know that the debate has been legalistic, but the question is: would the union be allowed to take industrial action if it objected to a direction given to the fire service by the Government? Such a direction might involve closing a fire station or redeploying a pump. There is grave doubt that the union could take industrial action legally.
      Mr. David Drew: This is the crux of the debate with the Government. Shutting down a fire station would be the most controversial possibility, but a dispute could be with the Retained Firefighters Union rather than with the FBU. The retained firefighters would be put in an invidious position. What is my hon. Friend's opinion: should they represent their community, or obey the demands of the chief fire officer?
      Mr. Dismore: If the retained firefighters were defending a station against closure for community reasons, the action would be illegal, as it would not be considered to be a trade dispute under existing law. If their aim was to defend their jobs, that would be a trade dispute, and therefore perfectly legal under existing law as well. However, it may not be legal under the Bill.
      Does the House believe that public sector workers should have the right to strike? That is the question. Such a major step is never taken lightly. There is no need to go into the reasons for the recent, terribly damaging dispute in the fire service, the first major dispute of its kind since the winter of 1977–78. I hope that the Bill does not cause a relatively minor problem that could be sorted out to escalate into something major and become the cause of confrontation.
      It is an essential human right that people are able to take industrial action. If we believe in that right, the amendment would avoid an awful lot of doubt. I urge the Government to accept it.
      Mr. Hammond: Before I deal with the amendments moved by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), I shall say a few words about Lords amendment No. 2. It is an avoidance-of-doubt provision, and it is bizarre to see it inserted in a Bill such as this. I can see whence the hon. Gentleman drew his inspiration.
      When the Minister responds to the debate, there are some matters that I hope that he will clarify. Although amendment No. 2 makes it clear that mediation, conciliation and arbitration over the implementation processes for the June 2003 agreement are possible, it does not preclude the possibility that the Secretary of State may use his powers under the Bill to negate the outcome. That renders amendment No. 2 superfluous. If it was inserted to send an emollient message. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that it is a matter of tone rather than substance.

      327
      I am not a lawyer, but I am astonished that the Bill refers to a specific trade union by name. That raises the question of hybridity. I always thought that hybridity was created when a particular individual interest was dealt with discriminatorily by a Bill. I should be grateful for an explanation from the Minister of why that is not the case with this Bill.
      The Bill is time limited, unusual and untidy, but that does not compel the Opposition to vote against it. The use by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington of amendments to amendment No. 2 is slightly artificial as a way of reopening the debate on amendment No. 3 in the Grand Committee stage in the House of Lords, but it is interesting. Opposition Members in the Commons attacked the Bill for being toothless, as it contains no sanctions against the union. The hon. Gentleman, and his colleagues in the other place, have raised the suspicion that the Bill may contain some hidden teeth, and that although it provides no power to impose a strike ban, it presents the possibility that a trade union that takes industrial action could be exposed to actions in tort.
      2.45 pm
      The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington noted that there were complex debates in the other place about the history of the law in this area. There was a clear ministerial statement that the Government's advice was that the Bill does not undermine the immunity of a trade union to take action in the circumstances outlined. The Opposition believe that the Bill needs to be more balanced in its treatment of employers and unions. I am prepared to accept the presumably well qualified advice that the Government have received, but it would not seem helpful to undermine the Bill's lack of teeth by inserting the sort of amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman.
      To use a slightly unfortunate phrase, the firefighters' dispute has flared up again recently. Anything that reduces the FBU's appetite for conflict is helpful, and likely to benefit public safety. I understand the suspicion felt by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, because if the amendments are redundant, the entire Bill is redundant too, because it contains no way of imposing the Secretary of State's directions on the employees. It has no sanctions in the form of a strike ban or exposure to action in tort, as the Government have confirmed. It does not allow the Secretary of State to do anything that the employers cannot do. The employers can impose terms and conditions unilaterally, move equipment about or dispose of premises. By abolishing section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 and recentralising the procedure, the Bill also goes against the thrust of Government policy.
      As drafted, the Bill is aimed not at the unions and employees, but at the employers. Its aim is to prevent the possibility that a recalcitrant employer will collaborate with the unions to avoid carrying out the modernisation process that the Government envisage. It allows the Government to pull the strings from the wings, without stepping into the limelight, as they can threaten to use the powers granted by the Bill. The employers are the only bodies to be placed under a direct obligation by the Bill.
      328
      The situation that we face now, however, in November 2003, is exactly the one that we feared. It is one that the Government should have foreseen. A settlement was reached early in the summer, and the employers negotiated the details with the unions. But now, the unions are suggesting—quite scurrilously—that the detailed terms of the employers' offer somehow breach the terms of the settlement made in June. One of the senior labour negotiators on the joint negotiating committee has described that charge as dishonourable.
      Far from the employers being recalcitrant, the union executive, under pressure from the hard-liners within the union, is seeking to renege on the commitments that it made in June, and by contrast the employers, the targets of the Bill, are standing firm, having made what I think the Minister would agree is a generous and conciliatory offer—to pay half the settlement now unconditionally, and the remainder once the conditions have been implemented.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. Will he also make it clear that the extra 3.5 per cent. in stage 2 of the payment will be backdated to 5 November, so no union member would lose a single penny—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are discussing the amendment rather than the terms of the offer.
      Mr. Hammond: That is right, Madam Deputy Speaker; none the less, it might be helpful to confirm that what the hon. Gentleman said is true.
      The question is whether the Government will now back the employers to stand firm so that the union executive, in turn, is minded to stand firm against the hard-liners in the union who are trying to undermine the settlement of the dispute.
      The Government have always painted the Bill as a fall-back and a last resort, so I was a little surprised to hear the Minister, in his opening remarks today, suggest that although he very much hoped that that would be the case, it might not now be possible not to use the powers. That somewhat alarmed me. Perhaps the Minister can tell us something about the contingency arrangements that the Government are putting in place—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I really must ask the hon. Gentleman to address his remarks to the words of the amendment.
      Mr. Hammond: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      I think that I have largely covered the issues in the amendment. We said during the Bill's previous Commons stages that we would support a Bill as a temporary measure, if it had teeth. The Bill as drafted has teeth in relation to the employers; the Opposition's concern is that it has no teeth in relation to the employees. The amendment would provide what the hon. Gentleman sees as at least a set of gums, if not teeth, in relation to the unions. However, in the context of the currently revived dispute, it would not be helpful to send the union any signal that would entrench the position that its executive now appears to be taking up.

      329
      For the reasons that I have explained, therefore, if the hon. Gentleman presses his amendment to a Division we will not be able to support him in that endeavour.
      Angela Watkinson: I shall speak briefly to Lords amendment No. 2, the new clause that is to be inserted after clause 1. I hope that you will not rule me out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, if my comments are inappropriate, because I want to highlight the importance of the word "interpretation". From my recent discussions with firefighters, I know that the two sides are in negotiations, but there are concerns about the interpretation of what has been agreed and what remains to be agreed.
      As we know, there is a staged pay award, but it depends on compliance with—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I must remind the hon. Lady of what I have said from the Chair before: comment must be germane to the amendments under discussion rather than to the offer or anything to do with it.
      Mr. Hammond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would I not be correct in thinking that Lords amendment No. 2 itself is part of the group, so comments dealing with "mediation, conciliation or arbitration" in connection with the implementation of the 2003 agreement would be in order?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: What I am trying to establish is that the amendment has nothing whatever to do with the pay offer. The words in the amendment, and the interpretation of those, are about
      "the possibility of…mediation, conciliation or arbitration".
      Angela Watkinson: I accept your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I shall have to adapt what I intended to say considerably, because I thought that the words
      "the interpretation of the June 2003 agreement"
      would enable me to refer to the content of that agreement. Are you ruling that that is not possible?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Yes, indeed. That is my ruling.
      Angela Watkinson: In that case, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall have to draw my remarks to an abrupt conclusion.
      Mr. Raynsford: There have been three contributions in the debate, from my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) and for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), about the issue raised by Lord Wedderburn in another place, which I will tackle in a moment. The other main contribution—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) was not able to cover the ground that she wanted to cover—was made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), who asked a number of questions about Lords amendment No. 2 and the Government's intentions in relation to the Bill.
      330
      Without straying into areas into which I cannot and will not stray, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the purpose of the Bill remains exactly as it was when we first introduced it. It is, as he says, a long-stop. We hope that we shall not have to use it, but as is clear from the recent discussions, there cannot be absolute certainty that the dispute will not flare up again. The Bill was intended to provide the Secretary of State with the ability to draw a line underneath what has been, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, a long and bitter dispute, to enable the fire service to look forward.
      As for hybridity, the reference to the Fire Brigades Union in Lords amendment No. 2 is a part of a description defining which agreement of June 2003 is being referred to. It in no way changes the rights and obligations of the FBU or the employers, so the concerns of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge about hybridity do not arise.
      The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington return to an issue discussed at great length more than once in another place—the impact of the Bill on the protection offered by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to unions representing staff, in this case the staff of the fire and rescue service.
      I shall again put on record what has been said repeatedly, particularly in another place, but also by members of the Government: the Bill does not jeopardise or alter the firefighters' or their union's protection or immunity under that Act. It is not about altering the framework of trade union law; it is simply about ensuring that if we need them, we have the powers to prevent the dispute, which I am afraid is still current, from affecting public safety.
      The two amendments take different approaches to that issue. Amendment (a) would provide that nothing in the Bill could enable an action in tort—in layman's language, that is an action under which someone has the right to sue—solely because of the contravention of a statutory duty imposed by an order under the Bill. The last part of the amendment appears to limit its effect to orders that would affect the possibility of mediation, conciliation or arbitration.
      I understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington tabled that amendment, but it would greatly restrict the impact of the provision, and I cannot imagine an order that would have that effect. Certainly, it is no part of our thinking that we might make an order about pay, hours of work or the use of appliances that would, or could, affect the possibility of mediation in any way. Therefore if the amendment really is limited to such orders, it would have no practical effect.
      Mr. Dismore: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Raynsford: Let me deal with amendment (b) first. Then I will give way to my hon. Friend.
      Similarly, amendment (b) would provide that nothing in the Bill should enable the employers to impede the possibility of mediation, conciliation or arbitration by pursuing an action against the union over the breach of a statutory duty imposed by an order under the Bill. We

      331
      do not believe that anything in the Bill would have that effect anyway. It is not our intention that any order would prevent the employers from seeking mediation.
      I shall now deal with the underlying point of the amendments, which is whether the Bill creates a new situation in which action could be taken against the union relating to a breach of a statutory duty created by an order under the Bill. As my noble Friend Lord Rooker repeatedly emphasised in another place, we say that it does not do so. Therefore none of the amendments is necessary or helpful.
      3 pm
      Mr. Dismore: My right hon. Friend gave a list of things that he thought would not happen under the Bill. Would that list include hours of work and shift patterns, for example, which could easily form part of a trade dispute, or the place of work, which could be important in terms of fire station closure?
      Mr. Raynsford: If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall deal with precisely that point, which would almost certainly fall under the powers in clause 1(1)(a) rather than those in clause 1(1)(b).
      Given the importance of the issue and the genuine concerns that have been raised, we have taken extensive legal advice, and we remain convinced that there is no need for the amendments. They all turn on the difference between a breach of a contractual duty and the breach of a statutory duty. Let us consider an example in which the Secretary of Sate uses the powers in clause 1(1)(b) to direct a fire authority to make equipment available to a neighbouring authority, and the union does not like the direction and calls for industrial action. The firefighters work for the fire authority and have a contract with it, so if they take industrial action, they will be breaking their contractual duty and not their statutory duty. However, as long as the procedural rules about balloting have been followed and the matter is a trade dispute, the union and firefighters will be protected from action by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act, just like any other workers. The Bill makes no change whatever to the position.
      What the union would be trying to achieve through the industrial action is however a breach of the fire authority's statutory duty under the direction, so it had been argued, following Meade v. Haringey Borough Council—my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington made this point—that a member of the public might be able to obtain an injunction against the union. One cannot obtain an injunction against the union preventing it from calling a strike, as by doing so, it will be inducing a breach of statutory duty.
      As I said, one has to remember that the Bill does not create new statutory duties. [Interruption.] No, it does not do so. It simply gives powers to the Secretary of State to make directions. We have stated on several occasions the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may make such directions. In any event, the powers are time limited to two years.
      332
      Might any directions, if made, create statutory duties? For a Meade-type claim to succeed, one would have to show that there is a statutory duty that is actionable for damages at private law. That is not the same as the authority having a public law duty to carry out the Secretary of State's directions. A public law duty would allow a person with sufficient interest to judicially review the fire authority in the administrative courts if it had failed to carry out those directions. That is an entirely different matter. However, to bring an action to obtain an injunction against a union, an individual would need to show that, if the fire authority did not carry out the directions, a member of the public could sue it for damages.
      We should remember that not even the fire authority's primary duty of firefighting under section 1 of the Fire Services Act 1947 gives rise to such a claim, so if a homeowner cannot make such a claim where there have been no directions under the Bill, it would seem odd that they should be able to do so if a direction is made under it.
      Ms Walley: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Raynsford: I am afraid that I do not have time to do so; I must finish my speech in order to give my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington the opportunity to respond, as we are discussing his amendment.
      We have considered the case very carefully and been extremely careful to discuss it with our lawyers. I have spoken at some length with Lord Wedderburn and sent him a very detailed exposition of the legal advice that underpins our position. We do not believe that there is any reason for amending the Bill. The Bill as it stands makes it clear that the measures cannot create a position in which the trade union's position would be undermined in relation to normal protection.
      I urge my hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment.
      John McDonnell: The clarity that we need has not been achieved today. The issue that we wish to address is whether a trade union would become vulnerable if it went on strike as a result of a statutory duty that had been imposed by the legislation. The statutory duty is imposed not on the union, but on the fire authority itself. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) tried to make earlier. Whether or not the Government's lawyers are asserting that they are right is not the point. The point is whether others are expressing a doubt. When Lord Wedderburn, the most pre-eminent industrial lawyer in this country, is expressing a doubt, we must understand that that doubt may well be used in a court of law. On that basis, the Fire Brigades Union will become vulnerable if it undertakes industrial action to preserve its service and jobs.
      The point of the amendment is not to contradict the Government, but to take their stated good intentions and place them in the Bill. It is no more challengeable than that. The Government have rejected that position, and I fear that there is only one way of seeking to test the opinion of the House—to press the amendment to a vote.
      Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:#x2014;
      The House divided: Ayes 85, Noes 412.
      Division No. 360] [3:05 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Allan, Richard

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Barnes, Harry

      Lamb, Norman

      Barrett, John

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Beard, Nigel

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      McDonnell, John

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Bruce, Malcolm

      McNamara, Kevin

      Burgon, Colin

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

      Burstow, Paul

      Atcham)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Moore, Michael

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Mudie, George

      Challen, Colin

      Öpik, Lembit

      Chidgey, David

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Dinefwr)

      Coleman, Iain

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Connarty, Michael

      Reid Alan (Argyll & Bute>

      Cotter, Brian

      Rendel, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Sawford, Phil

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Sedgemore Brian

      Davidson, Ian

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dismore, Andrew

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Lunesdale)

      Etherington, Bill

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Stunell, Andrew

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Taylor Matthew (Truro)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Thurso John

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Tonge Dr Jenny

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Tyler Paul (N Cornwall)

      Hancock, Mike

      Vis Dr. Rudi

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Abingdon)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Harvey, Nick

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Rhymney)

      Winnick, David

      Heath, David

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

      Jeremy Corbyn and

      Inverness)

      Mr. Kelvin Hopkins

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Battle, John

      Ainger, Nick

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Alexander, Douglas

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Allen, Graham

      Bercow, John

      Amess, David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Berry' Roger

      Best, Harold

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

      Blackman, Liz

      Darwen)

      Blears, Harold

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Blizzard Bob

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Blunt, Crispin

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Bacon, Richard

      Borrow, David

      Bailey, Adrian

      Boswell, Tim

      Baird, Vera

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Barker, Gregory

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Surrey)

      334

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Fallon, Michael

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Field, Mark (Cities of London &

      Brady, Graham

      Westminster)

      Brazier, Julian

      Fisher, Mark

      Brennan, Kevin

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Browne, Desmond

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Bryant, Chris

      Flight, Howard

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Flint, Caroline

      Burden, Richard

      Flook, Adrian

      Burnham, Andy

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Burns, Simon

      Follett, Barbara

      Burt, Alistair

      Forth, rh Eric

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Foster, rh Derek

      Cairns, David

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Cameron, David

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      & Rye)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Casale, Roger

      Francois, Mark

      Cash, William

      Gardiner, Barry

      Caton, Martin

      Garnier, Edward

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Barnet)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Chaytor, David

      Goodman, Paul

      Chope, Christopher

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Clappison, James

      Grayling, Chris

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Pentlands)

      Greenway, John

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

      Grogan, John

      Chryston)

      Hague, rh William

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hain, rh Peter

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hammond, Philip

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hanson, David

      Collins, Tim

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Colman, Tony

      Hawkins, Nick

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Heald, Oliver

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Healey, John

      Cranston, Ross

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Crausby, David

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

      Hendrick, Mark

      (Copeland)

      Hendry, Charles

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Curry, rh David

      Heppell, John

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hesford, Stephen

      David, Wayne

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Heyes, David

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

      Hinchliffe, David

      Stamford)

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Howden)

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Howard, rh Michael

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

      Doran, Frank

      Sefton E)

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Urmston)

      Edwards, Huw

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Efford, Clive

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Evans, Nigel

      Illsley, Eric

      Fabricant, Michael

      Ingram, rh Adam

      335

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Jack, rh Michael

      MacShane, Denis

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Highgate)

      McWilliam, John

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Mallaber, Judy

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Hatfield)

      Maples, John

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Martlew, Eric

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Merron, Gillian

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Miliband, David

      Kemp, Fraser

      Miller, Andrew

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Coldfield)

      Kidney, David

      Moffatt, Laura

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Mole, Chris

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

      Moran, Margaret

      Bow)

      Morgan, Julie

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Morley, Elliot

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Mountford, Kali

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Mullin, Chris

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Lammy, David

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Lansley, Andrew

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Norman, Archie

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Leigh, Edward

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Lepper, David

      O'Hara, Edward

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Organ, Diana

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Ottaway, Richard

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Owen, Albert

      Lidington, David

      Page, Richard

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Linton, Martin

      Paterson, Owen

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Pickles, Eric

      Loughton, Tim

      Pickthall, Colin

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Plaskitt, James

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Portillo, rh Michael

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Pound, Stephen

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      MacDougall, John

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      McFall, John

      Prosser, Gwyn

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Purnell, James

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Quin, rh Joyce

      McIsaac, Shona

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Randall, John

      McKechin, Ann

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Maclean, rh David

      Redwood, rh John

      336

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Bellshill)

      Syms, Robert

      Robathan, Andrew

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Anniesland)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      NW)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Rooney, Terry

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Ruane, Chris

      Tipping, Paddy

      Ruddock, Joan

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Ruffley, David

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of

      Trend. Michael

      Chester)

      Trickett, Jon

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Truswell, Paul

      Salter, Martin

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Turner' Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Turner' Neil (Wigan)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Selous, Andrew

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Sheerman, Barry

      Walter, Robert

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Ward, Claire

      Shepherd, Richard

      Waterson, Nlgel

      Sheridan, Jim

      Watkinson, Angela

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Short, rh Clare

      Watts, David

      Simmonds, Mark

      White, Brian

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Whittingdale, John

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Wick Malcolm

      Singh, Marsha

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wiggin Bill

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

      Willetts, David

      Finsbury)

      Simth, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      William, Betty (Conwy)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Wills, Michael

      Soley, Clive

      Wilshire, David

      Southworth, Helen

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Spellar, rh John

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      C)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Woolas, Phil

      Spring, Richard

      Worthington, Tony

      Squire, Rachel

      Wray, James (Glasgow

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Ballieston

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

      Steen, Anthony

      Yamouth)

      Stevenson, George

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E &

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Lochaber)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Young, rh Sir George

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Streeter, Gary

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stringer, Graham

      Charlotte Atkins and

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Ms Bridget Prentice

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being more than one hour after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to conclude proceedings, pursuant to Order [this day].
      Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

      Taxes
      3.19 pm
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): I beg to move,
      That the Stamp Duty and Stamp Duty Land Tax (Variation of the Finance Act 2003) (No. 2) Regulations 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 2816), dated 5th November 2003, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th November, be approved.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
      That the draft Stamp Duty Land Tax (Amendment of Schedule 5 to the Finance Act 2003) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 30th October, be approved.
      Ruth Kelly: I welcome the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) back to the Dispatch Box. I have always enjoyed debating against him, and I look forward to his continued contribution.
      We have taken a bold step in modernising the stamp duty regime. That essential task was long overdue, but it was one that Conservative Members fluffed when they had the opportunity to carry it out. It was one that the industry had often requested. Today, I can tell the House that the Treasury has laid the formal order to implement the new regime on 1 December. We are in the middle of a major customer education programme aimed at ensuring that solicitors, licensed conveyors and other practitioners are fully aware of the changes that are about to take place. The new arrangements will create a more robust tax regime for land and building transactions in the United Kingdom by addressing long-standing distortions and loopholes in the current charge that have been increasingly exploited by big commercial players at the expense of the majority of taxpayers.
      In last year's Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that, as a result of tax avoidance, only half the stamp duty owed on all large commercial property transactions—worth £10 billion a year—is paid and that the 2003 Finance Bill would introduce new anti-avoidance powers to close those loopholes. It did. We now have a modernised, streamlined stamp duty system, with effective enforcement powers in line with other taxes. My right hon. Friend also committed the Treasury to reviewing the lease duty regime to ensure that businesses pay stamp duty on a fair and consistent basis. I shall deal with those lease duty regulations first.
      Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: The British Retail Consortium says that those changes will lead to three quarters of retailers limiting their expansion plans. Does the hon. Lady consider that fair?
      Ruth Kelly: To be honest, I do not think that the British Retail Consortium has credible figures to argue its case and I will shortly come to the impact of the new lease duty regime on small businesses in particular.
      Mr. George Osborne: Will the Financial Secretary clear up something right at the beginning? This is called the stamp duty land tax. In what sense is it a stamp duty—there is no stamp and no duty?
      Ruth Kelly: I know that the hon. Gentleman, whom I much respect, has a long-standing interest in the name
      338
      of the stamp duty land tax—he referred to it frequently in debates on the Finance Bill—but the name is commonly understood by practitioners, and it also clarifies for the first time that the new tax regime applies to land transactions rather than to any other sort of transaction.
      Jonathan Shaw: My hon. Friend will understand the concern of David Chesover, who is a general practitioner at the Thornhills medical group in my constituency. The group is due to move to new premises, and he has written to me saying that it expected to pay £4,000, but that the sum could now amount to about £36,000. What assurances can my hon. Friend give me that she has had discussions with the Department of Health to ensure that GPs are not put off moving to new premises and being involved in LIFT—the local improvement finance trust programme—which we both obviously support?
      Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case on behalf of his constituent, and I commend him for that interest. I assure him that the Department of Health was consulted fully in developing these proposals. If he has specific concerns about the LIFT programme in his constituency, I would be very happy for officials in my Department to work with officials in the Department of Health to ensure that any concern that he has can be met.
      Let me describe how the stamp duty regime has changed. Under the current stamp duty regime, lease duty is charged at different rates according to the term of the lease. That structure is unfair, arbitrary and distorts business decisions. For example, a 35-year lease is charged at 4 per cent. of the upfront premium paid, plus 2 per cent. of average annual rent, whereas a 36-year lease is charged at 4 per cent. of the premium, plus 12 per cent. of the average annual rent. If transactions relate to freeholds, 4 per cent. is charged on the entire purchase price. Given such cliff edges and the lack of coherence between leases and freeholds, decisions on transactions are driven by tax considerations, rather than by commercial ones.
      Mr. Mark Simmonds: Will the Financial Secretary give way?
      Ruth Kelly: I must make some progress with the argument.
      Under a modernised regime, without widespread avoidance, such distortion would become increasingly clear. However, recognising the distinct nature of leases, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that the Finance Bill would make provision for a charge of just 1 per cent. of the rental value of all new leases—four times lower than the usual stamp duty rate, on which we consulted in 2002. He also allowed further time for consultation with business and commerce on how to reduce avoidance and promote a more level playing field between leases and transfers. He added:
      "If I have to trigger the change, I will increase the exemption from stamp duty for commercial property from £60,000 to £150,000… Therefore, in any event, there will be no duty on 60 per cent., of commercial rental contracts."—[Official Report, 9 April 2003; Vol. 403, c. 279.]
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Ruth Kelly: I give way to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, who speaks from the Front Bench.
      Mr. Mark Prisk: Can the Financial Secretary confirm that the data on which that 60 per cent. promise is based erroneously include lock-up garages, advertising hoardings and car-parking spaces and not just businesses?
      Ruth Kelly: I certainly will not confirm that because that is not the case. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asks from a sedentary position whether I will publish those figures, but let me deal with that 60 per cent. figure for a moment. That figure, which was estimated at the time by the Inland Revenue, has since been independently verified by the Investment Property Databank, which is very well respected, using research funded by the property industry. In fact, the database is far larger than that used by the Inland Revenue. It is based on £100 billion of commercial property and includes 15,000 leases. The data were circulated to the consultative committee, and I am sure that, if the hon. Gentleman asked the IPD, it would probably be prepared to publish the data.
      Mr. Prisk: I have a copy of that survey, which the Financial Secretary has also obviously read. Can she confirm that it deals with only 5.000 hereditaments and that it had to be enhanced to become a representative sample by adding the erroneous data from the Land Registry that I criticised earlier?
      Ruth Kelly: I do not think that that is the case. In fact, the figures are 5,000 leases a year and 15,000 leases in total. I think that the hon. Gentleman's argument is that 60 per cent. is too high a figure. I could make the opposite argument: it is probably too low a figure, because the data to which it had access were primarily on those properties that must be registered, which are primarily the higher-value properties. The sorts of properties that might be excluded from the survey are precisely the small shop fronts, shop leases and lock-up garages in which I know that he has a particular interest. If anything, the figure is biased downwards rather than being too high.
      Mr. Prisk: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for allowing us to clarify the situation. She started by saying that the figure is 60 per cent., and now it is possibly 87 per cent., but it could be higher or lower. What is worrying business is that the promise made at the Dispatch Box in the Budget by the Chancellor is based on false data. I have asked the Chief Secretary once to publish it so that we can clear up the problem. He has refused. Will she do it so that we can make sure that we are basing this tax on proper information?
      Ruth Kelly: As far as I understand it, the Chief Secretary in no way refused to publish that data. They were not his to publish. They belong to the IPD. I am absolutely sure that if he asks it to publish its data, it would do so. I would certainly support that information being putinto the public domain. if anything, more than
      340
      60 per cent. of all leaseholds will be exempt from this tax. The figure of 60 per cent., or a figure greater than that, compares with around 9 per cent. of commercial leases that are not chargeable to stamp duty under the current regime. Many leases taken out by small and medium-sized enterprises and business start-ups that currently require the payment of stamp duty will therefore not do so under the new system.
      Mr. George Osborne: While the Financial Secretary is clarifying matters, will she answer the question from the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), who is normally an enthusiastic—indeed, over-enthusiastic—supporter of the Government? He Points out that in his constituency a medical business will see its land tax bill go from £4,000 to £36,000. Does she think that that is possible?
      Ruth Kelly: It is certainly the case that the contract could be restructured so that it would not have to pay that amount of money—[Interruption.] I would certainly be prepared to look at the example that has been given, to see whether we can work with Department of Health officials to ensure that there is no impact on LIFT programmes.
      In addition, around 93 per cent. of residential leases will not be chargeable for duty under the new structure. The modernised structure was based on five key principles. It was designed to minimise the scope for avoidance, to adjust the distortions inherent in the current system, to better reflect modern commercial practice, to be based on clear economic principles, and to be more in line with the charge on freehold transfers. The regulations today put the final legislative provisions in place for implementation. During the extended consultation process, a number of alternative proposals were submitted to us. Many were based on average annual rent. Because of the potential for avoidance, and because average annual rent does not assess the full economic value of the tenant's interest, it could not be a suitable basis for a new structure. I believe that net present value represents a commercially and economically justifiable way of assessing the economic value of the tenant's interest.
      Mr. Prisk: The Financial Secretary is generous to allow me to intervene on this important issue. The Treasury is seeking to use a discount rate in this net present value valuation methodology, which is completely detached from the real market. Can she explain why?
      Ruth Kelly: I am about to refer to the discount rate if the hon. Gentleman will allow me. Before I do so, I want to explain how the net present value represents the economic interest of the tenant. First, it recognises that shorter leases are economically of less value than longer leases, which in turn tend to resemble freeholds. Secondly, we have set the rate of tax on the net present value of the rental element of a lease at a significantly lower rate than that of freehold transfers.
      To turn to the discount rate, in which I know that the hon. Gentleman is interested, we have chosen a discount rate of 3.5 per cent., because that takes account of the fact that future increases in these payments will not be

      341
      included in the NPV calculation, and that the level of lease payments will already have been set taking risks into account—it is the Government's assessment of a risk-free discount rate. I am sure that the property industry would recognise that.
      Mr. Prisk: I must dig into my land management class as a chartered surveyor, but the Financial Secretary seems to have just said that she will use contradictory valuation methods. On the one hand, the Treasury is seeking to provide what is known as an all-risks yield, yet in fact the valuation methodology is discounted cash flow. Why is there a contradiction?
      Ruth Kelly: As I have already explained—this was also debated during the Finance Bill—this represents the risk-free level of the discount rate. Any other calculation would artificially benefit those who take out longer leases—generally larger businesses in their commercial property transactions—rather than the small business element.
      Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: Will the Financial Secretary give way?
      Ruth Kelly: I must make some progress. I have taken a lot of interventions, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands.
      Other proposals suggested raising the nil rate threshold, having a starting rate or both. We shall of course continue to keep rates and thresholds under review. However, the figures that I gave earlier on the percentage of commercial leases that would not be chargeable under the new structure suggest that the proposed thresholds would exempt a large number of leases, especially those entered into by small and medium-sized businesses and business start-ups.
      During the consultation process, many commentators expressed the view that the slab structure, under which the whole amount of net present value comes into charge when the threshold has been exceeded, created distortions. I accept that and, for that reason, propose to change the structure so that only the excess over the threshold would be taxable. That will mean that every time that a lease is chargeable, the duty will be £1,500 less than it would be under the original proposals. The relief will be of particular benefit to small and medium-sized businesses and business start-ups.
      Mr. Prisk: Now that the Minister is to have a slice approach on business leases, will the Government do the same for residential properties?
      Ruth Kelly: We constantly keep the stamp duty system under review. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we have undertaken huge modernisation of the stamp duty regime, which Conservative Members avoided doing when they had the chance. I hope that he will give us credit for our action to date.
      The amendment to the Finance Act 2003 to achieve the change is set out in paragraph 1 of the schedule to the regulations. Paragraph 2 of the schedule makes a technical change. Under both the current system and the new regime, a premium on the grant of a lease is charged at a rate of nil if it does not exceed the threshold.
      342
      However, the nil rate applies only if annual rent does not exceed £600, which prevents avoidance by recharacterising a premium as rent. Paragraph 2 will ensure that when assessing the annual rent, any linked transactions will be taken into account. That will prevent avoidance by splitting up a single transaction into smaller transactions. We do not believe that the change will have any effect on genuine commercial transactions.
      I turn to the Stamp Duty and Stamp Duty Land Tax (Variation Of The Finance Act 2003) (No. 2) Regulations 2003. The changes to the Finance Act 2003 are contained in the schedule to the regulations and I shall give a brief, non-technical description of each of them. [Interruption.] I am sure that Conservative Members are interested in what I am saying.
      Paragraph I relates to the charge to tax when a contract is substantially performed because the purchaser takes possession. It will ensure that that includes possession by someone connected with the purchaser, such as a company in the same group. It will also clarify a potential ambiguity in the definition of taking possession.
      Paragraph 2 will give partial relief for sale and leaseback transactions. It will exempt the lease-back leg of such a transaction from charge, subject to certain conditions. That reflects the fact that companies that sell and lease back their property commonly do so purely to raise finance rather than to acquire any new economic interest in the land.
      Paragraph 3 introduces schedule 6A, which will give relief for a number of acquisitions of residential property, which were the subject of debate earlier this year when my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave a commitment that relief would be considered. The schedule will replace the current limited reliefs for part exchanges and relocations, provisions for which are in sections 58 and 59 of the Finance Act. We believe that the reliefs will help to smooth the process of house buying for many people.
      The transactions covered are: the acquisition of residential property, either by a house builder or a third party, when individuals buy a new house from a builder; certain acquisitions of residential property by chain-breaking companies—companies that specialise in stepping in when prospective sales fall through; the acquisition of residential property by either an employer or a third party in connection with the relocation of an employee; and acquisitions of residential property from personal representatives of people who have died by companies that specialise in that business. In each case, there are conditions to ensure that the relief is not abused and to permit withdrawal of the relief in cases of abuse.
      Paragraph 4 will give relief when a unit trust is set up by seeding it with property. That will happen if the company that sets up the trust transfers property into it in exchange for units in the trust.
      Paragraph 5 will make provision for a further return if additional tax becomes chargeable because of a later transaction. An example of that is the grant of an option followed by its exercise.
      Paragraph 6 will permit the holder of a power of attorney to sign a return on behalf of a purchaser—we received several representations on that matter.

      343
      Paragraph 7 will ensure that transactions by the Crown will be subject to stamp duty land tax in the same way as they were to stamp duty. I should perhaps mention that existing exemptions from stamp duty for public bodies, such as Government Departments and health authorities, have been carried forward into stamp duty land tax.
      Mr. Liddell-Grainger: My constituency has an enormous amount of Crown land. Three generations are covered on one lease for such land, and after the death of a lessee, the land will automatically go to the next person—there will be a family transfer. Will such a procedure still be exempt?
      Ruth Kelly: Whether it is exempt would depend on the terms of the original lease and how it was drawn up. I am willing to consider any example that the hon. Gentleman sends me and reply appropriately.
      Mr. Adrian Flook: Taunton has the same problem as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) because much of it is also Crown Estate land. Has the Crown Estate advised the Treasury on the impact that the measures will have on most of its leases?
      Ruth Kelly: We have treated the Crown Estate in the same way as it was treated under the old stamp duty regime and it is content with the proposals.
      Paragraph 8 introduces schedule 17A, which relates to leases. As that is a distinct matter, I shall deal with the remaining paragraphs first. Paragraph 9 clarifies that the £5 fixed stamp duty is abolished for duplicates and counterparts of land transactions within the scope of the stamp duty land tax. Paragraphs 10 and 11 make minor changes to the transitional provisions in response to representations.
      On schedule 17A, hon. Members will know that we had extensive consultation on the treatment of leases, much of which related to the charging structure, the subject of the other set of regulations. We also received many comments on technical aspects. The provisions address those concerns, although some are also intended to counter avoidance. The first issue is the treatment of leases if either the length cannot be ascertained at the start of the term of the lease or the lease continues beyond its stated end date. That often happens with both business and residential tenancies for a number of reasons, including statutory provisions giving security of tenure and, in Scotland, the doctrine known as tacit relocation. We consider it right that tax should be charged by reference to what turns out to be the actual length of the lease. Not to do so would permit avoidance by the grant of a very short lease when all parties know that the tenant will stay in occupation and pay rent for a much longer time.
      Paragraphs 3 and 4 of schedule 17A therefore provide that for tax purposes a lease can grow beyond its stated term, one year at a time, and that additional tax may be payable as a result. The additional tax becomes due as the lease grows and interest on the additional tax is not backdated to the start of the lease. That is unlikely to be
      344
      of concern to most residential tenants, for whom periodic tenancies are most common, since 93 per cent. of residential leases are not chargeable to tax. Paragraph 5 applies the same treatment if a number of successive leases are granted as part of a single arrangement. Paragraphs 6, 10, 13, 16 and 18 reproduce existing provisions in the Finance Act 2003 for convenience, so that all material on leases is brought together.
      Paragraphs 7 and 8 deal with leases with uncertain rent, such as those under which rent varies with turnover; the intention is to give certainty and reduce the compliance burden on tenants. They provide for an initial return by the tenant on the basis of his or her best estimate of the rent that is to be payable while ignoring any changes that might take place more than five years after the start of that lease. After five years, or at any earlier time when uncertainties are resolved, the tenant makes a further return in the light of what he or she now knows the rent to have been, again ignoring any changes that might take place more than five years after the start of the lease. Any additional tax due is then payable or tax overpaid is repaid. Those provisions replace the provisions on rent reviews in the Finance Act 2003.
      Mr. Simmonds: If a lease is purely a turnover lease and there is no base rent for the first five years of that term, does that mean that no stamp duty will be paid because it comes under the £150,000 threshold?
      Ruth Kelly: It will depend on whether the best estimate comes under the £150,000 threshold. As I outlined, an estimate has to be made of what rent is payable. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will reach the same conclusion when he studies the provisions.
      Paragraph 9 gives relief when a lease is surrendered and replaced by a new lease. That often happens when landlords and tenants want certainty for the future or when renegotiations take place. The paragraph provides that rent that has already been taken into account in calculating the net present value of the surrendered lease is not taken into account again in calculating the net present value of the new lease.
      Paragraph 11 is designed to counter avoidance. Without it, a lease could be granted in circumstances where no tax is payable, such as within a group, and then assigned for a nominal amount to a third party. The assignment would normally be chargeable only on the consideration given. The paragraph ensures that in those circumstances tax is chargeable as if there were the grant of a new lease.
      Paragraph 12 deals with situations where a lease is assigned and there is an obligation to make a further return. It specifies that the assignee is responsible for that obligation. That is necessary because often assignors are impossible to trace, or are companies in liquidation.
      Paragraph 14 is designed to counter avoidance. As I said earlier, events taking place more than five years after the start of a lease are usually ignored. However, that would permit a large increase in rent five years and one day after the start of a lease to escape tax. The paragraph therefore provides that where a rent increase exceeds a certain amount, determined by a formula related to the retail price index, tax is charged as if that were the grant of a new lease.

      345
      I am grateful to the eagle-eyed people who spotted that the formula in the earlier version of the regulations contained a slight but vital error—I put my hand up to that. Hon. Members will appreciate that there is no facility for amending a statutory instrument, so the regulations had to be remade. That is why we are debating the second version instead of the original.
      Mr. Prisk: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary, who informed me of the error last week. In relation to paragraph 15, will she clarify which of the three formulae in the six-step process that tenants use to work out what they have to include as an abnormal rent was incorrect?
      Ruth Kelly: One number was missing from one of the formulae. I am afraid that I cannot remember the order in which the formulae are presented in the regulations, but I shall respond later to that specific question.
      Paragraph 17 makes it clear that on an assignment of a lease, and except where paragraph 11 applies, the assumption by the assignee of the obligation to pay rent and observe and perform the other covenants in the lease does not count as a chargeable consideration. In other words, the assignee is charged only on what he pays to acquire the lease.
      In conclusion, we have consulted business, and we have listened. We are taking further action to protect small businesses and enterprise while reducing distortions and securing a fair amount of revenue from those transactions. The regulations before us will remove 60 per cent. of all commercial transactions from the charge completely, and businesses that pay more under the proposals will pay at a flat rate of 1 per cent.—considerably less than the 4 per cent. on an equivalent purchase. The regulations remove the vast majority of residential leases from the charge.
      Mr. David Laws: Will the Financial Secretary clarify the net effect of the Government's proposals on the Exchequer's aggregate revenue for the next two years?
      Ruth Kelly: The reliefs that we are granting today will reduce the aggregate revenue that has been published in the Red Book by £20 million, which will bring first-year revenue down to £170 million from the lease duty proposals.
      We have listened to business on sale and lease-back transactions, chainbreaking companies and employee relocation, and have introduced measures requested by the industry to reduce the compliance burden. I therefore commend the regulations to the House.
      3.48 pm
      Mr. Mark Prisk: May I reciprocate the Minister's remarks? I must confess that it is rather worrying to be welcomed back when I was not aware that I had been away in the first place, but she made a generous comment. In turn, may I say that all of us who served on the Committee that considered the Finance Act 2003 are pleased that she is back? It is true that we had some fun with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in Committee, but hopefully we will get some serious answers now.
      346
      We are considering two sets of regulations. The first set seeks to amend schedule 5 to the Finance Act by revising the tax structure as it applies to business leases. The second tries to answer some of the many questions that the Government failed to address in the Act itself. I shall preface my remarks by telling the Financial Secretary that the piecemeal introduction of the new tax is wrong in principle and mistaken in practice. The Government are using section 109 of the Act to push large parts of the tax through Parliament without due consideration, and I hope that in her reply she will assure us that the Government do not intend to use that as a precedent for other tax changes.
      In considering these two regulatory instruments, I suspect that the House will wish to recall the original aims of this new tax as set out by the Minister, who was then Economic Secretary, in April 2002. In the document, "Modernising Stamp Duty", she told us:
      "Our aim is to create a stamp duty that better reflects modern commercial practice".
      Above all, we were told that fairness would be at its heart. Sadly, those laudable aims have gradually been replaced by the one overwhelming and desperate need of this Government—to collect the maximum amount of tax revenue to fill the black hole in their finances. As Bill Moyes, director general of the British Retail Consortium, put it only today:
      "The Treasury claim—that they are tackling avoidance—is a red herring. This latest tax is a bid to refill the Treasury coffers, by milking the only sector that has refused to be beaten by the burgeoning weight of tax and regulation."
      How right he is.
      I shall consider the regulations concerning schedule 5 later, but I come first—hoping to be somewhat more technical than was the Financial Secretary—to the Stamp Duty and Stamp Duty Land Tax (Variation of the Finance Act 2003) (No. 2) Regulations 2003. Unfortunately, as the Financial Secretary said, it is the second set of regulations issued by the Treasury. I am grateful to her for drawing our attention to that problem. As a result, outside organisations have had fewer than five working days in which to consider the correct regulations. Sadly, that is part of a pattern as regards this tax—from conception to consultation to legislation, the whole process has been rushed through with little time for business or Parliament to get it right.
      Mr. Simmonds: As always, my hon. Friend makes a forensic case. Is he aware that with only 13 working days to go until 1 December, when the duty is supposed to be fully operational, neither set of regulations contains details about sub-sales and securitisation?
      Mr. Prisk: My hon. Friend hits on a point that is of real concern to businesses.
      Mr. Djanogly: Is my hon. Friend further aware that the Government say that they have to restart the consultation process on partnerships from scratch? How will they do that in 13 days?
      Mr. Prisk: The root of the problem is that the tax is being made up on the hoof. On Third Reading, the Chief Secretary told us that it would take a couple of years to refine it. That is no way to make tax law. Many outside

      347
      bodies and experts in the field concur with that conclusion. Today, we have a maximum of three hours in which to consider 26 pages of detailed changes—the result of this mad rush will be bad law.
      I understand that even as of yesterday, the tax return forms that taxpayers will have to complete are yet to be issued, with only 12 working days to go. Can the Financial Secretary tell the House whether those forms have been published or distributed? She is nodding, so we will take that as a yes.
      The regulations contain several specific issues that give considerable cause for concern. I turn first to the question of sale and lease-back arrangements. We welcome, in general, the reinstatement of relief for that common form of transaction. When I first drew attention to that oversight in Committee, the Chief Secretary seemed remarkably unaware of its significance. I am glad that the Financial Secretary saw sense and responded, but I have questions relating to the qualifying conditions in the regulations. Subsection (3)(a) of new section 57A states that the property must not be residential. How will mixed-use properties be treated? For example, how would an old mill be treated if the lease-back arrangements envisaged a part residential accommodation? Similarly, can the Financial Secretary define the phrase "same premises" under subsection (3)(c)? Does that mean the same hereditament or something else? Subsection (4) refers to market value. Does that mean open market value? If so, what valuation method is envisaged?
      The Financial Secretary referred to exchanges. The amendments, which relate to residential property exchanges, follow discussions in Committee. At one point, the Government's plans bizarrely denied relief to elderly people who sought to trade down in their retirement yet exempted those who wanted to trade up to, for example, a mansion. That was a peculiarity and, to be fair to the Government, they relented after we questioned the Financial Secretary about it.
      Will the Financial Secretary confirm that the meaning of "new dwelling" in schedule 6A covers the conversion of properties, including a change of use? That is unclear in the drafting. For example, would a former workhouse that was converted into flats be acceptable? That is a change of use and a conversion. The financial viability of many urban regeneration schemes will be directly affected by her answer.
      Why does paragraph 8 of the same schedule specifically exclude sole traders and the self-employed from the definition of property trader? What is the ground for discriminating against unincorporated enterprises? Was it simply an oversight?
      Why do the Government feel the need to set a maximum figure for expenditure on refurbishment schemes under paragraph 9? How will that be enforced without creating a new raft of bureaucracy? Are people to provide receipts or invoices? Who will check the evidence of work done and its value and ensure that the figure of £20,000 has not been exceeded?
      Mr. Liddell-Grainger: My hon. Friend makes serious and interesting points. What about the position when
      348
      the purpose of a grade 2 listed building has been changed and a subsequent refurbishment is undertaken, in which the façde is VAT exempt because the building is listed? I can find nothing about listed buildings in the provisions.
      Mr. Prisk: Perhaps listing is separate from the immediate regulations that we are considering, but my hon. Friend makes a good point. He draws attention to the question of whether the Government have thought through the unintended consequences.
      I want to ask the Financial Secretary about value as well as practicalities. It is fair to say that many people might consider the figure of £20,000 per unit for refurbishment a reasonable cap. However, the sum could prove wholly inadequate when, for example, asbestos needs to be removed. The result could be that the most dilapidated buildings remain empty. What assessment has the Treasury made of the effect on urban regeneration projects? How will the Government ensure that the worst buildings do not continue to stand empty?
      The Financial Secretary referred to paragraphs 2 and 3 of schedule 17A. Paragraph 3 deals with the extension of fixed-term leases. She claimed that the change was fair, but is it fair for tenants to face an additional tax bill because of an event beyond their control? If a building is expected to be demolished for a planned new road, a fixed-term lease might be granted. If a long delay occurs or demolition is cancelled, is it fair to tax again? Do the Government intend to tax people in those circumstances?
      I have received several professional and business representations, including from the Institute of Indirect Taxation, on leases for indefinite terms. There is considerable anxiety about the bureaucracy that the regulation will create. When a tenant exercises his or her statutory right to renew, how will the new lease be treated? Will it be linked with the original lease or not? There is a significant tax difference.
      The treatment of variable and turnover rents is important and my hon. Friends have referred to that. The Financial Secretary partly responded. As members of the Committee that considered the Finance Act know, the legislation failed to account for variable rents. They typically occur in the retail sector, but they also exist in the licensed and hospitality sectors. As the original legislation stands, the occupier would have to submit a new tax return every time the rent varied. That would create an unbearable compliance burden. I welcome the Government's acknowledgement of our anxieties, but I remain to be convinced that the offered solution makes business sense.
      Paragraph 7 on page 13 of the regulation allows for just one return after the fifth year. Up to that point, each new rent level means a new tax return, but under these proposals, just one return would be required after the fifth year. A lot of people in business—particularly in small businesses—argue that that is illogical. After all, it is the first few years that make a difference when setting up a business, so why leave business start-ups with the greatest compliance burden?
      Paragraph 14 on page 16 of the regulation deals with the treatment of so-called abnormal rents. The Financial Secretary told us that that this was an anti-tax-avoidance measure. I hope that she will not be

      349
      giving any advice on that aspect of it today. As drafted, this paragraph and paragraph 15 are misguided in purpose and hideously bureaucratic in form. Indeed, all the independent experts believe that they run counter to modern commercial practice. I say that because the regulation provides that where there is an increase in rent after the fifth year, the tenant must assess whether that increase is abnormal.
      I am sure that hon. Members are beginning to wonder what "abnormal" means, and the answer lies in paragraph 15 of the regulation, which sets out a two-page, three-formula, six-step definition. Believe it or not, this is what tenants are going to have to understand in order to work this out. In step 1, they will need to define the start date, which is
      "the beginning of the period by reference to which the rent assumed to be payable after the fifth year of the term of the lease is determined in accordance with paragraph 7(3)".
      So that is a nice easy start.
      Then we move on to step 2, in which the tenant will need to divide
      "the period between the start date and the date on which the new rent first becomes payable"
      and they are given two ways in which to deal with that. I trust that hon. Members are keeping up with this so far. Step 3 moves us on to finding
      "the factor by which the retail prices index has increased over each period identified in step two",
      so I hope that we are all aware of what happened in step 2. We are then told:
      "This is a figure expressed as a decimal and determined by the formula—
      (RD-RI)/R1
      where—
      RD is the retail prices index for the month in which the last day of the period in question falls, and
      RI is the retail prices index for the month in which the first day of the period in question falls."
      I should warn Members that it gets quite complicated after this.
      In step 4, tenants are asked to find
      "the relevant factor for each period identified in step two."
      If I may help the Financial Secretary, I suspect that this might have been the point at which there was a figure missing, resulting in the Treasury having to pulp all the original regulations. Step 4 goes on:
      "This is a figure expressed as a decimal and determined by the formula—
      1 + {0.05 x m/12} + r
      where—
      m is the number of months in the period in question…and
      r is the increase in the retail price index over the period in question, determined under step three."
      Obviously. What could be simpler? I do not know how the Treasury could have got that wrong, but there we are.
      350
      Tenants have reached step 4, and they are obviously doing very well, so they are now asked to move on to step 5. Here, they are asked to find
      "the uplift factor for the reference period",
      and there is just a seven-paragraph section to explain what that is. I will not detain the House with that at this point.
      Finally—I suspect that hon. Members will enjoy that word—we come to step 6. Here, the tenant—should they still be awake—must assess, using the third of the formulae, that the
      "rent increase will be regarded as abnormal if the new rent is greater than
      R x UF
      where—
      R is the rent previously taxed…and
      UF is the uplift factor for the reference period."
      So there we have it. It could not be simpler.
      I have to say that this is Sir Humphrey Appleby at his worst. I recognise that some large organisations will be able to put in place the systems needed to handle this process, but hon. Members will understand, having listened to all that, that to ask small or even medium-sized businesses to try to work their way through a six-step, three-formula, two-page regulation process is entirely unreasonable. Given that the Treasury got the formula wrong, could the Minister tell us how on earth a humble taxpayer is expected to cope? Will she assure us that when businesses—not surprisingly—make reasonable errors in this form of calculation, there will be no attempt to impose fines?
      There is also a wider point of principle. Is it not inherently unfair for a tenant facing a large and inflationary rent rise, for reasons outside his control, to incur a substantial liability for this tax at the same time?
      Will the Minister clarify paragraph 10, on page 20, which relates to substantial performance and the implementation date? Many in the property and, indeed, the business world fear confusion over which leases will and will not be affected. Will the Minister give examples of transactions covered by the paragraph?
      I have not been able to deal with the whole range of areas in which errors or ambiguities might arise. The Minister has been very reasonable so far. Will she confirm that if the regulations are found to have further defects, she will come to the House in person and explain what has happened? We do not want a written ministerial statement; people outside are very concerned and want to hear exactly what the problems are.
      May I be the first to congratulate the Minister on the regulation that amends schedule 5? I thought that the quality of her spin was magnificent. Alastair Campbell would have been proud. As she explained that the tax burden would not be too onerous, it seemed that if we listened carefully enough we would hear the sound of business men dancing in the streets in unalloyed joy at the generosity of Ministers. But, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) and others, despite all the warm words and soothing assurances the order represents not a reduction but a fourfold increase in tax revenue, from £50 million to £230 million in a full year.
      Mr. George Osborne: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I have a constituency interest in Marks and Spencer, as one of the largest and most successful branches in the country is in my constituency. The head of its tax group has said:
      "The new lease duty regime…will increase our anticipated leasehold transaction costs by a factor of 8 over the next six years. This type of increase, which is standard for the sector, will inevitably have adverse economic effects".
      Mr. Prisk: I met him this morning, along with a number of other representatives of business organisations. His case is typical of the problems faced by businesses.
      I must say, to be fair, that the regulations have managed one significant achievement: they have brought businesses together as never before. This morning the shadow Chancellor and I hosted a press conference jointly with seven leading business organisations, including the main consultees who met Inland Revenue representatives and the Chief Secretary over the summer. We did so because the regulations have united businesses in opposition to the Government's plans. Miraculously, they have brought together landlords, tenants and professional advisers, who have joined the Conservative party—the official Opposition—to challenge this stealth tax, not just because of the extreme rises such as that mentioned by Marks and Spencer, but because of the impact it will have on business mobility, business investment and jobs.
      The Minister spoke of the consultation that preceded the order. Let me tell her the views of the consultees whom I met this morning. All reject the Government's plans. They believe that the consultation itself was a sham. On behalf of Business in Sport and Leisure, Hugh Siegle said:
      "We have fallen over ourselves this summer to work with officials from the Treasury and Inland Revenue, to try and find a solution. They just have not listened and see Stamp Duty as a revenue raising measure."
      How right he was.
      In practical terms, this regulation will restrain business investment and severely distort the property market by favouring short leases. Information from property experts such as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors shows that longer leases of 15 to 35 years will be taxed the most. A typical 25-year lease faces a possible sevenfold increase, and a 35-year lease faces an almost ninefold increase. And as was pointed out earlier, Marks & Spencer expects an eightfold rise in its tax bill. Gary Grant, managing director of The Entertainer toy stores group, told me that for just one planned store expansion in south Wales his tax bill will rise sixfold to £6,000.
      The licensed trade faces a similar problem. Because of high set-up and fitting-out costs, the average leasehold pub has a lease length of about 14 years and an annual rent of about £30,000. Such a lease will be subject to a duty of £1,776—almost 300 per cent. more than the current rate. Indeed, the British Beer and Pub Association has reported that almost a quarter of all leases in the pub sector are currently of 30 years in length. The average rent for those leases is £39,000 per annum. Current lease duty is £800, but to renew a lease
      352
      on the same terms under stamp duty land tax will now cost £5,673. That is £4,873 more—or in excess of a 700 per cent. increase.
      Nick Bish, head of the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers, said to me today:
      "As they stand at present, the proposals would create major distortions in the market for leasing, dramatically increase the costs faced by businesses dependent upon leasehold property, threatening ongoing investment, business expansion and jobs. Moreover, stamp duty"—
      on land tax—
      "would become a major capital cost when setting up a business, creating a…real barrier to entry for individual tenants and small pub companies."
      Why has the Treasury chosen to ignore the expressed views of its outside consultees? Why did the Revenue refuse to change either the thresholds or the peculiar discounting rate that it has chosen? Can the Financial Secretary tell us today which of the six trade bodies that were consulted have backed her proposals? Does she not accept that her Department's consultation has been a shambles? When every consultee rejects the result of a consultation, surely something has gone badly wrong.
      The regulations before us represent not, as the Financial Secretary said in her written statement, another step forward in modernising stamp duty, but two steps back for business. First, they impose a fourfold tax hike that is unfair to businesses and sectors alike. Secondly, this is a bad, ill-conceived and ill-considered tax that is being rushed through Parliament expressly against all independent advice.
      I am aware that these regulations are temporary and may have to be rewritten back into the next Finance Bill. I therefore ask the Financial Secretary to listen to the complaints and concerns expressed, and now to commit herself to revising her plans for next year's Bill. Both business and my party will continue to campaign for a fair deal on this issue. It is now time that the Government responded.
      4.13 pm
      Mr. David Laws: I join the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) in welcoming back the Financial Secretary, although I appreciate that she has been back at her desk for some time now. She must have hoped when she was away, however, that by the time that she returned to her desk to deal with the outcome of the consultation, some of the heat would have gone out of this subject, which was the cause of great concern when the Finance Bill was debated earlier this year. She will be aware that, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, she and the Government have not succeeded in satisfying the professional, business and other groups that expressed concern at the Government's proposals earlier this year. Indeed, the chairman of the Institute of Indirect Taxation's stamp taxes committee said the following in a letter to her of 24 October:
      "We note that this consultation has generated vigorous differences of opinion and approach between the Government, on the one hand, and the professional and commercial bodies who participated in the consultation, on the other."

      353
      It seems as if the Financial Secretary and the Government have been entirely unsuccessful in addressing the concerns of professional and commercial bodies in relation to this matter.
      The impression was created in the Financial Secretary's speech a few moments ago that the Government were seeking to deal with several anomalies and unfairnesses in the existing system for dealing with leases and their taxation. However, as has been pointed out, the net effect of the measures that the Government are pressing through will be a significant increase in the tax burden on business. Although the Financial Secretary rather rattled off the numbers in the same way that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is inclined to do when revealing to the House increases in borrowing figures, I thought that I detected the admission that in the coming financial year the measures that we are debating today will raise some £170 million, even after the Government's concessions. The full-year cost of £230 million was mentioned earlier. If I have those figures wrong, I would appreciate the Financial Secretary's clarification later.
      Mr. Simmonds: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the British Retail Consortium has assessed that the cost to its retail members will be £200 million alone, so the estimates provided by the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary grossly underestimate the real cost to businesses in this country?
      Mr. Laws: The hon. Gentleman is right that that is the assessment of business bodies. We will have to deal with that serious underestimate in the next few months. I hope therefore that the Government will eventually change their minds on the proposals.
      Mr. Djanogly: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are implications for sectors other than business? The pensions industry is now only just cottoning on to the fact that transfers between members' retirement benefit schemes will also be caught, so pensions will be affected.
      Mr. Laws: The hon. Gentleman is right that the proposals will be another blow to pension funds, which are already struggling as a consequence of recent changes in asset prices.
      Without straying off the specific issue before us today, the background to the debate is obviously the concern among business about the overall level of business taxation in this country. The Financial Secretary will be aware of the report issued by the CBI recently, which compared business taxes in several different countries. The Government reacted in a robust and agitated manner to that report, but it was useful for highlighting the fact that, although our corporate tax levels and rates—and, to some extent, the social costs on businesses—are lower than in many of our European competitor countries, we have much higher taxes on property and transport costs, for example, which must be taken into account. The net increase in business taxation contained within the measures before us is highly unwelcome to business.
      The Financial Secretary will be aware of the strong comments that the CBI made about the amended proposals that the Government have brought forward.
      354
      A couple of weeks ago its press release talked about the "mass opposition" of companies in this country and complained about the Government pressing ahead despite that opposition. It said that the Government's decision
      "would drive up prices, cost jobs and damage regeneration".
      The CBI also said that the Government are underestimating the potential cost to business of this measure, and it states explicitly that the Government are
      "understating how many leases will be affected and overestimating the present value of leases."
      The hardest hit, as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) has already mentioned, will be particular sectors in which there are long leases—for example, the retailing and consumer services sector, many pubs and restaurants.
      The director general of the CBI commented on the Government's latest proposals:
      "It's extremely disappointing that the government, in its inexorable search for new areas to tax, is targeting the one sector that has kept the economy afloat: the high street…The majority of business premises are leased and duty increases on this scale will be damaging. This tax hike could easily swing the balance against marginal projects—Long term investment will be hit as firms look for shorter leases."
      Surely, in the light of that criticism from business, the Financial Secretary must look again at the measures, especially at their net impact on business as a whole, rather than giving us the impression that they are simply designed to reduce avoidance and to tackle unfairness within the existing tax structure.
      The hon. Lady must also address the fact that the measures hit particular sectors extremely hard. We have already heard examples of the effects on the leisure industry in particular constituencies, and reference has been made to Business in Sport and Leisure, an umbrella organisation that represents more than 100 private sector companies in the sport, leisure and hospitality industry. That organisation has pointed out that many parts of the leisure industry face an eightfold increase in stamp duty under these proposals. It cannot be the Government's intention to increase business taxes in such a penal way for some parts of the business sector. Business in Sport and Leisure stresses that there has been no suggestion from the Inland Revenue that the sector is involved in any avoidance of tax, so it cannot be the case that the Government designed the measures simply to capture tax avoidance.
      The impact of the measures will be especially acute in those sectors where there are long leaseholds. Obviously, that is relatively common in the leisure sector, where there are leases of between 20 and 25 years due to the high cost of investment in leisure properties and the need to refurbish them regularly. For that reason, there is concern about the unfairness embedded in the measures. The tax increases will fall especially hard on some sectors and the Financial Secretary seems to have done nothing to address that concern. I hope that she will attempt to amend the proposals in future so that those hard-hit sectors will not be so severely affected. Although the hon. Lady said that about 60 per cent. of businesses will be exempt from the increase, she will be aware that in the leisure sector the figure will be 30 per cent. or less, as a consequence of the thresholds that the Government have set.

      355
      We must also consider fairness between different parts of the country. Earlier, the hon. Members for Taunton (Mr. Flook) and for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) were in the Chamber. Their presence made me realise that there was a Somerset phenomenon in terms of unfairness, although the phenomenon goes well beyond Somerset. Can the Financial Secretary confirm that a leisure business—for example, one in the eastern part of my Yeovil constituency, quite a deprived area—which is above the threshold and affected by the totality of the Government's proposals on stamp duty land tax on leases, will pay increased taxation; yet for businesses in other parts of the country, such as a pub in Canary Wharf or Harvey Nichols in Leeds, there will be no increase in taxation because deprived area relief will interact with the measures?
      Mr. Simmonds: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Is he aware that deprivation is measured on residential areas and not on the amount of commercial activity that takes place? That would create anomalies; for example, removing all the stamp duty from the Meadowhall shopping centre, just outside Sheffield, would add £50 million to its value—equivalent to 1p on the net asset value of the share price of the company that owns it. That is neither a sensible nor a wise use of public money.
      Mr. Laws: The hon. Gentleman is right. He echoes the comments made by the Lords Committee on the Finance Bill. The House of Lords Committee urged the Government to reconsider the measures before the House today, and to look at how the deprived area relief interacts with them. It makes no sense that a leisure business in a deprived part of Yeovil should suffer as a result of the proposals, when a pub in Canary Wharf serving well paid investment bankers or a major department store in Leeds remain exempt. That is irrational.
      The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) mentioned many of the detailed concerns about the proposals felt by businesses and professional organisations, and I shall not repeat them. My criticism, and that of my party, is that the proposals represent a significant tax increase for business, and hit specific sectors very hard. There is no good economic rationale for hitting businesses with long leases, unless the Government are determined to change the maturity structure of leases. However, there seems to be no good reason to do that in the leisure sector. We also consider the proposals to be unfair in the way that they affect businesses in deprived areas.
      The Government held a consultation and listened to the results, but they do not seem to have heard the points made by business. It may be too late to get them to change their mind today, but I hope that the Financial Secretary will return to these matters in the future. At present, the Government have got the proposals wrong.
      4.26 pm
      Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I begin by declaring a personal interest. I am a director and shareholder of a trading company that occupies
      356
      leasehold property. As far as I know, we are not involved in renegotiating any leases, so I do not anticipate that the proposals would have any immediate effect. However, at some time in the future I could have a direct personal interest.
      The Government say, euphemistically, that they want to modernise stamp duty. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) made a compelling case against the policy, in terms of detail and, more importantly, of strategy. What the Government describe as modernising stamp duty is, in fact, a policy of raising extra revenue through a new tax structure that they hope that voters will not notice.
      We in this House have a responsibility to look beyond the immediate effect on voter perception and to consider the economic effect of the Government's tax policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford was right to say that the Government have ambitious spending plans and want to raise revenue without voters noticing. For that reason, they are looking for opportunities to use tax policy to squeeze extra revenue out of parts of the economy that they hope that voters are unaware of. However, getting extra revenue from stamp duty will do substantial economic damage, along the lines described by my hon. Friend.
      The Minister herself identified why stamp duty is an especially damaging tax. She said that the reforms would remove cliff edges from the operation of stamp duty. Yet stamp duty is a cliff edge in itself—that is the nature of a tax on capital transactions. Cliff edges cannot be removed from it. In a nutshell, that is why the Government are wrong to use this tax to close their revenue gap.
      The more tax that the Government raise out of capital transaction taxes, the more distortions they build into the economy, and the more economic damage is done. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford was right to focus attention on the effect that taxing new leases will have on encouraging urban regeneration and the establishment of new businesses. If we tax something we make it less likely to happen. That is one of the basic rules of economics. The Government are putting up taxes on urban regeneration and new business creation, and we must assume that they understand that the likely economic effect of their policy will be less urban regeneration and less new business formation, especially in the leisure industry.
      Mr. John Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when Lord Lawson was Chancellor of the Exchequer and halved the rate of stamp duty, he doubled his revenue from that source?
      Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right—although he will probably remember that there were some secondary effects, which at the time were controversial. None the less, that example is a clear illustration of the principle that reducing the rate of tax on something tends to increase the activity, and increasing the rate of tax on something tends to reduce the activity. That is what the Government must be assumed to be planning as a result of this policy, and that is the fundamental objection to it.

      357
      I shall make two other points about tax policy, and explain why I think this tax is even worse than other forms of capital transaction tax. My first point is that when a new lease is taxed, what is really being taxed is a prospective revenue flow. Inevitably, an estimate has to be made. If both parties to the lease go under as a result of signing it, huge damage will have been done, but the Government will in the meantime have made off over the hills with their sack of gold. To tax a prospective revenue flow is to tax something that is particularly risky within the spectrum of economic activity.
      My second point is that if we choose to focus on that tax base, we introduce a huge incentive for people to distort their estimates. Listening to the Minister justifying this draft of her policy, I noticed that she was describing the introduction of a tax system that already, before the structure comes into effect, the Government recognise will be riddled with avoidance and tax planning opportunities.
      When I held the Financial Secretary's job, I learned that whereas in my previous existence—I am happy to say that this also applies to my present emancipated existence—I was allowed to call such activity tax planning, in her rather sterner existence she has to learn to call it tax avoidance, and sometimes tax evasion. No doubt she is better than I was at remembering the difference between those two. One is legal, and the other is not, but I could never remember which was which.
      Introducing a new higher tax on an uncertain future revenue flow condemns us, without peradventure, to a new industry of tax planning experts, who even now, in the big accountancy firms, will be planning ways in which their clients can avoid the tax that the Financial Secretary is introducing. I guarantee to the House that, as with capital gains tax, the further this policy goes on, the more the Treasury will come to the House year after year with page after page of what it will describe as anti-avoidance legislation. At the moment, the phrase used is "abnormal rents"—but what the Treasury describes as abnormal rents is today's normality. When we tax today's normality, that creates tomorrow's abnormality, because that is where the tax planning industry will go.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford on the case that he has made against the measure. It is objectionable because it will introduce a new and higher rate of tax on something that we should be encouraging, and because the only thing that the new set of taxes will encourage is the tax planning industry and the big accountants, who must even now be rubbing their hands with glee.
      4.34 pm
      Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: I wish to declare an interest in rented property.
      Everything that I have read or heard about the regulations on stamp duty land tax points towards a Government who have failed to listen to the representations made to them by almost everyone who takes an interest in the issue. To my mind, we are now cruising towards the onset of a disaster, which is what will occur when the tax takes effect in what is now not many days' time. I therefore fully support my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) in once again asking the Government to reconsider their position on the tax.
      358
      In short, it is my contention that the main result of the tax as amended by the regulations will be to increase hugely the stamp duty payable on leases and unnecessarily to increase the complexity of the calculation of tax, despite the provision in the regulations to vary the way in which it is calculated, which I believe will make the process even more complicated. In particular, retailers will be penalised and people in industry who want to enter into long-term leases will have to opt for short-term leases instead, depriving them of the security and certainty that they would otherwise have. That is not in the interests of British industry. I also wish to suggest on the basis of the regulations that this tax is the precursor to a massive Labour tax-raising exercise on property.
      The Government seem to maintain that the ending of stamping leases will somehow simplify the system. While I agree that that may be a precursor or a necessity in respect of their proposals for electronic conveyancing, I regard the suggestion that the tax will become simpler to administer as defying belief.
      Mr. Prisk: My hon. Friend referred to e-conveyancing, which is an important issue. Is he aware that the tax forms can now be submitted only in a handwritten form? Does he share my concern that that is a step backwards in terms of e-commerce?
      Mr. Djanogly: My hon. Friend is right. I shall return to the form itself, as the regulations deal with it in passing, but not as they should do, which is a particular concern.
      The formulae that the process now involves are making most professionals' eyes water. Indeed, I have heard from professionals that they simply cannot calculate them without using a computer programme. For most business men, the formulae have become a mystery. Unfortunately, that mystery is having a harsh impact, as up to 15 times as much is being paid at the end of it. The changes relating to the proposed charging of a 1 per cent. minimum will only make the matter even more complex.
      The Government also seem fixated on the idea that the new tax is required to tackle tax avoidance and to ensure that everyone pays a full share. Indeed, the Financial Secretary keeps using the word "fair". For the majority of traders, however, the acquisition of a lease is simply a necessity in conducting their business, rather than a means of tax avoidance. In any event, over recent years, the inventiveness in the use of stamp duty avoidance schemes has been part of businesses' reaction to the no fewer than five previous stamp duty increases that we have seen since Labour came to power. Under the Conservatives, stamp duty was 1 per cent. on amounts of more than £60,000, and that was generally seen as acceptable. However, as the level has been ratcheted up, many companies have increasingly been forced to consider using avoidance schemes to avoid the rates of tax that have started to make their deals appear uneconomic.
      Scrutiny of this new tax has been haphazard to say the least, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford pointed out. The original consultation was conducted unfairly, not least because of the Government's decision to abruptly end it in early

      359
      January this year. Then, because of the Government's unfairly short timetable for the Finance Bill, we did not even talk about this tax in Committee. It was only on Report that we addressed it for the first time, at which point the Government tabled more than 40 amendments. That alone shows that they do not have a handle on this tax.
      The Government admitted that they did not know how the tax would work and said that they would reconsult over the summer, which has led to the orders that we are discussing today. As I mentioned earlier, further consultations are continuing, especially in relation to partnership, on which the Government have admitted that they need to start again from scratch. On Report and earlier today, we have gone into various technical aspects of the new taxes and highlighted various failings of the legislation. I have made the point that the new taxes will increasingly be unacceptable to professionals and business people alike.
      The Government reconsulted over the summer and it is worth reviewing some of their comments. The verdict from pretty much everyone who was asked about the proposals was "zero points", and I shall address some of the technical points that were made. In a recent article in the Solicitors Journal, a Mr. Nock, a barrister, said that
      "the Government intends, lemming style, to rush headlong into bringing in stamp duty land tax on 1 December despite the many deficiencies in the Finance Act 2003. It appears the Government accepts it will take up to two years to discover the major defects and put them right, but is prepared to leave taxpayers and their advisers to live with the mess in the meantime."
      If Mr. Nock is right, and having heard the debate today I fear that he is, how can it be acceptable that the Government can pass legislation that they know will not work? Mr. Nock gave the example of monthly or other periodic tenancies that are subject to tax as if they were a lease for a term of 12 years. However, if drafted as a lease for one month and thereafter from month to month until terminated by notice, the tax is assessed on the basis of a two-month lease. As Mr. Nock continues:
      "Hundreds of…potential professional indemnity risks abound in the current legislation."—
      I declare my interest as a solicitor—
      "It is to be hoped, although not with any great degree of confidence, that the Inland Revenue Stamp Taxes Office will seek to apply the legislation contrary to the letter in most cases to produce a reasonable result."
      That is a dramatic comment, because it means that if the Government are to be fair to taxpayers, the tax man will have to apply the law loosely. That will hardly be a comfort to most business people. Mr. Nock continues:
      "In the paranoid pursuit of anti-avoidance rather than technical precision in setting the conditions for relief, transactions that were previously non-eligible for relief are now potentially exempt. The grant of a new lease 'in connection with' a company reconstruction, if part of an undertaking, is exempt or eligible for the lower rate even in the case of rent. Practitioners must therefore bring open minds to much of the legislation and not be too influenced by apparently similar stamp duty provisions. Clearly, these newly created reliefs have the potential for tax mitigation that would not exist with even moderately sophisticated legislation properly drafted."
      360
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) made a similar point in his excellent contribution to the debate. So there we have a tax barrister saying that the new legislation, which was introduced to counter avoidance, could attract avoidance schemes because of its complexity.
      Many other technical issues arise in relation to the orders. We could see an increase in negligence claims against professional advisers, with the consequence of increased costs for clients. That could happen because many entries in the land transaction return require valuations or estimates and, because it is a self-assessment tax, judgments will be required on such matters as market value, market cost and estimates of what is likely to be produced by variable consideration. That will put a lot of pressure on the professionals.
      Certain actions—for example, substantial performance, such as the payment of rent or entering into the possession of property without any formal grant—are not notifiable, even though no SDLT is payable by reason of the low rent, and even though the grant of the tenancy may not be notifiable. The rules on notification in the case of the acquisition of freehold or leasehold interest in property might necessitate multiple notifications.
      For example, where a developer acquires land and, without taking a transfer, enters into possession of the land, having paid the purchase price, he will be required to make a return. A fresh return may then be required each time a plot is sold or leased to third parties. In some cases, both the developer and the purchaser, or tenant, will be required to file returns. Of course, the term "acquisition" also includes releases, surrenders and variations—so more form filling and more red tape. Nothing in the schedule to the order will deal with that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford has said.
      Service charges are not subject to this new tax, provided that they are not included as part of the rent. However, if they are taxable as rent, and since service charges are variable, an uncertain rent will be produced, so the tenant will be obliged to notify the stamp taxes office every time the landlord increases the service charge—again, more red tape, more hassle.
      The complexity and length of the land transaction return might well increase in the light of the publication of regulations in the near future. Some professionals have made it clear that although the Revenue is currently attempting to make the form appear short, it is deceptive and advisers should take care not to be misled by the simplicity of the form.
      Only a couple of weeks ago, Mr. Gordon Keenay of KPMG Stamp Taxes Group, who happens to be a former business director of the Inland Revenue stamp taxes office, noted:
      "The downside on the legislative front, though, is the unprecedented breadth of the powers to modify this tax by Statutory Instrument. The Government ought not to use it as a more painless way to change the tax rules than waiting for the next Budget."
      We will increasingly see a series of Statutory Instrument Committees, digging the Government, bit by bit, out of the mess that this tax has already been shown to be. Of course, we are seeing something similar to that happening today.

      361
      The problems with the orders go far beyond the technical. Other hon. Members have referred to important practical points. Yes, there is complexity. Yes, there is bad drafting. Yes, there are technical weaknesses. However, a whole host of practical issues have been raised, particularly by business people. The British Retail Consortium has been mentioned, but the director general has also noted:
      "The Government has ignored all our advice and seems determined to hurt the very sector which is keeping the economy afloat at the moment."
      Digby Jones, the director general of the CBI has said:
      "Duty increases on this scale will be damaging. The Chancellor must promise an early review of the effects of this legislation."
      I have a feeling that, because of all the debate that is going on, there will be regular reviews of this legislation, but not for reasons that the Government particularly want. Digby Jones also cited an example of a retailer, leasing a shop for 25 years at an annual rent of £120,000, who would now pay £2,400 in duty. Under the new rules that retailer would pay about £19,000, so the new £1,500 reduction, as proposed in the order, is not a sizeable relief in the context of the deals that businesses actually do. What we have seen over recent days is business people trying to understand where the Government are coming from in relation to the orders and this new tax, as it all seems nonsensical. Mr. Griffin, the head of stamp duty at Ernst and Young, said that the inevitable conclusion is that this is a political fudge.
      We know that pubs, retailers and restaurants in particular will be hardest hit by of the tax. One of the reasons for that is that they typically take long leases of 20 to 35 years to amortise the multi-million pound cost of fitting out their buildings over the duration of the lease. The British Retail Consortium, too, has said that it reckons that about 74 per cent. of retailers will look to get shorter leases.
      What about the Government's new concession in the order? A lot has been said about it, and I will not go over new ground. It is important to make the point, however, that the Government's figures are consistently being seen as underestimates by business. B & Q in particular expects that the average cost of its lease per store will increase from £35,000 to £285,000 because of this regulation.
      With seemingly everyone either opposed to or critical of this new tax, what is behind it all? Mr. Griffin addresses it in the context of the new form, which was discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford and is touched on in paragraph 6 of regulation 3. He notes:
      "Whereas the old stamp duty form was a one-page document, which took solicitors five minutes to complete, the new form will run to eight pages, with a further 30 pages of explanation."
      He says that the new form is effectively an "an information-gathering exercise." He says:
      "It's an ideal platform for the chancellor to introduce a wave of property taxes…The Inland Revenue will compile a vast database of residential property…This system gives the chancellor enormous flexibility for future changes to stamp duty, and a launchpad for an array of new property taxes."
      362
      That gets to the nub of why we are here today. We are at the start of a massive Government offensive against property and property owners. They are going to start it through stamp duty, but they will use the build-up of information on the new forms to extend it across other sectors of property and the economy. Today, we are seeing only the start.
      4.52 pm
      Mr. Mark Simmonds: Before I begin, I want to draw the House's attention to my interests, which I have declared in the Register of Members' Interests. I join my colleagues and others who have welcomed the return of the Financial Secretary to the Front Bench—it is the first time that I have taken part in a debate on this topic when I have had a feeling that at least somebody on the Treasury Bench understands and takes this matter seriously. That is not the conclusion that I have reached in relation to her two colleagues who have partaken of these debates previously.
      I have spoken at length on this topic in previous debates, but I have no desire to continue at length today. Suffice it to say that I do not agree with this additional tax. It is not about closing loopholes, as the Financial Secretary and her colleagues have said previously. It is purely about raising additional revenue. It is nothing to do with modernisation; it is about trying to fill the gap in the Treasury finances created by the disparity between the increase in public expenditure and the reducing revenues coming into the Treasury.
      The first point of contradiction that I want the Financial Secretary to explain relates to why, initially, the Chancellor and his Treasury team said that these measures would be revenue-neutral. The Treasury then gave a figure of £250 million, which was reduced to £230 million, and I understand from her opening remarks that it is now £170 million. As I told the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), the figure from the British Retail Consortium—which relates to retailers who are members of that organisation, and not the totality of retailers in the United Kingdom by any means—is £200 million alone. That ignores businesses in the industrial market and the office market and businesses that take out smaller leases in different sectors, including the licensed premises sector and the restaurant sector.
      The Government appear to believe that all leases are tax-avoidance schemes, but that is simply not true. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) said, businesses need leases to create flexibility and ensure that their capital is not tied up in property so that they have spare capital to invest in opening new stores or expanding their factories or office premises, which generates additional employment and allows them to go forward. The briefing for the debate written by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors supports that point.
      It is worth pinpointing several serious side effects of the measures, although I have highlighted them before. The Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers has produced pertinent statistics that we should all take on board before deciding whether the additional tax will be good for the economy, businesses and jobs. Its survey shows that the impact of the new lease duty will mean that 85 per cent. of retailers will not invest in certain

      363
      areas, 80 per cent. will limit expansion, 61 per cent. will want shorter leases and 40 per cent. will cut jobs. If that would not be serious for the economy, I do not know what would be. We would have to cope with that in our constituencies. Marginal sites will be hit and such sites tend to be in areas with socio-economic deprivation. We need to regenerate those areas, not hit them hard with additional taxation.
      The measures will affect employment. The retail sector employs a significant number of people in our constituencies. Some 5,500 people—12 per cent. of the work force—are employed in the retail sector in Boston and Skegness, which is a slightly higher percentage than average. In East Ham, 23 per cent. of the work force are employed in the retail sector and the figure is 24 per cent. in Thurrock—one in four people are employed in the retail sector in that constituency. The measures will have a dramatic impact on job creation and sustainability in the retail sector. They are diametrically opposed to what the Government have been talking about, although such contradiction is not peculiar, because they go against a flexible, entrepreneurial and dynamic economy.
      I have asked several specific questions about the measures before but no answers have been forthcoming, so I hope that the Financial Secretary will answer them in her winding-up speech. How did the Government arrive at the net asset figure of £150,000 because no one seems to know where the figure came from? More appropriate figures have been proposed, such as the much more sensible threshold of £500,000 that was suggested by the consortium led by the CBI that wrote to the Financial Secretary during the summer. I was interested to hear her cite the results of the Investment Property Databank regarding the collation of the property market information. As far as I am concerned, it did not say that 60 per cent. of leases will be caught but that 98 per cent. of the value of all leasehold transactions in the United Kingdom will be caught by the measure—almost all leases. It has been argued that the average length of a lease is 10 years but leases are generally longer than that, especially those for prime properties. Therefore, if a lease had a net asset value of £150,000, the rent paid would be between £10,000 and £12,000 a year, which is low for commercial property these days.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) mentioned the subject of my second question during his polished and articulate speech. Where does the 3.5 per cent. figure for discounted cash flow come from because it bears no relation to commercial practice? The team that was led by the CBI suggested alternative figures. One cannot borrow money commercially at an interest rate of 3.5 per cent. or issue bonds with a gilt yield of 3.5 per cent., so there is no correlation between the Government's figure and the reality in the marketplace.
      I was intrigued and surprised to hear the Minister confirm that 60 per cent. of leasehold transactions would be exempt. According to a written answer to the Leader of the Opposition, the then shadow Chancellor, that figure was 87 per cent. The British Retail Consortium says that only 30 per cent. of leases will be exempt. The British Property Federation says that no leasehold transactions will be exempt in the City of London. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
      364
      strongly supports the IPD's view that 98 per cent. of the value of commercial leases will be subject to lease duty. I know whom I would believe.
      It is highly unlikely that the changes in stamp duty will be limited to increases of four to eight times. That will have a direct impact on the money that those with longer leases, up to 35 years, will be prepared to invest in new properties. I have in mind those who occupy retail warehouse units or those with licensed premises who need that length of lease to enable them to write off shop-fitting costs.
      Why did the Treasury reject the proposals alluded to or specifically suggested by the group led by the CBI? If we accept the need to tidy up or, to use the Treasury's term, modernise, then a graduated tax rate, an exemption threshold of £500,000 and an increase in the discount rate from 3.5 to 7 per cent. are eminently sensible ideas.
      The tax increase has serious implications for the commercial property market. Not only will there be market distortions, but shorter leases, which will inevitably affect the capital value of property and the capital and human investment that firms are prepared to make in their businesses. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) said, it will reduce Exchequer yield because it will reduce and lessen economic activity.
      The tax increase will also affect the UK's competitiveness in the global economy. Retailers make decisions on an international basis. They do not necessarily decide just to go from one town to another. International retailers that are based in the United States, parts of continental Europe or the UK have branches abroad. The United States and Germany have no taxation on the granting of new leases, so we are making ourselves uncompetitive. Potential investors outside and inside the UK are worried about whether they should leave their money in this country as the commercial property market is hit.
      We discussed the impact on the UK property investment market, but it is not simply the traditional property investment sectors—retail, industrial and offices—that will be affected. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) made a pertinent point. The proposal will have significant impacts on tangential investment sectors based on the premise that, as the stamp duty takes a hold, leases will become shorter and capital values will be lowered. The only way to support the value if capital values decrease is by increasing rent, but as tenants cannot afford to pay increasing rents, some investors will withdraw from tangential sectors.
      The specific examples given to me of sectors that will be hardest hit are those that should most concern the Government. They include hospitals, nursing homes, learning disability units and brain injury units. The main investor in that market said that, if the stamp duty regime is introduced, it will withdraw from the sector, having a direct impact on the Government's ability to increase their public sector provision.
      The Treasury has provided an online calculator for small businesses. That is obviously on the internet. My constituency in rural Lincolnshire does not have broadband. People do not have access to such facilities. I hope that the Treasury has other ways to communicate

      365
      with businesses and professionals to ensure that information is disseminated to the relevant people as soon as possible, especially in light of the fact that there are only 13 working days to go.
      When the rate increases are combined with property costs, the second biggest factor facing employers after wages, that challenges all the Government's lines on job creation and regeneration, which supposedly encourage a thriving, dynamic and entrepreneurial business sector. That does not fit comfortably with those reassurances. I am pleased that there is now some clarity in the orders, particularly regarding sale and lease-backs. However, it is not obvious whether, in the sale and lease-back proposals, the relief applies just to freehold to leasehold, or long leasehold to normal leasehold.
      David Taylor: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that there is relief without limit for the conveyancing and leasing of non-residential property in disadvantaged areas. Could the Treasury not tackle the problems in his constituency and elsewhere by broadening the definition of those areas?
      Mr. Simmonds: The hon. Gentleman made an interesting intervention, but he may not understand a point made by both the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) and myself. A change would not necessarily help because the definition would still be based on the affluence or otherwise of the residential population, not commercial activity in those areas. It is ludicrous, for example, that an enormously affluent and successful business environment such as Canary wharf should be completely exempt. Meadowhall shopping centre just outside Sheffield is also exempt, adding £50 million to its value. I think that it equates to 1p for the net asset value of the company that owns it.
      Mr. Laws: The hon. Gentleman is making an effective point. Does he agree that the Government define many major city centres as deprived, so all the businesses in the area, even those selling to affluent shoppers, are exempt? In many other parts of the country, businesses are bearing a burden that they can ill afford to bear.
      Mr. Simmonds: The hon. Gentleman made a good point, and he is right. My understanding is that in Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds the whole city centre is exempt, which is not right, as other commercially disadvantaged areas will be hit by the proposals.
      There are two remaining issues that I would like the Financial Secretary to deal with today, or respond in writing if she does not have the facts at her fingertips. What happens if there is a 10-year lease with a three-year break clause? Is the stamp duty based on the length of lease up to the break clause, or on the entire lease? That would make a significant difference to the sums involved. I should like to have a much more detailed conversation about turnover leases, because I am not sure that the Financial Secretary understands how they operate, given her answer to my intervention, but I shall not ask about that now. However, what happens when a tenant takes a five-year lease in a shopping centre, trades for only one year, and then the shopping centre
      366
      shuts? Do they get their money back? Is there a rebate system, or is it a case of the Government taking their whack, and it is just tough for the tenant? Such situations can arise in deprived areas.
      In conclusion, the orders make provision for a minimum eightfold increase, and will damage flexibility in the marketplace. They may lead to lower investment, reduced margins and job losses. Furthermore, the Government have ignored the consultation process. The regulations will have an unnecessary and negative impact on a vital area of the economy merely to correct the Chancellor's financial and fiscal irresponsibility. I very much hope, therefore, that the Government will reconsider their proposals.
      5.8 pm
      Ruth Kelly: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall wind up our debate on the regulations. It is worth reminding hon. Members why we introduced the reforms in the first place and on what basis we did so. The reform of stamp duty land tax is a wholesale reform of tax on land transactions, and is not something that hon. Members should shy away from. It is a long overdue tax reform, which was welcomed in discussions of the Finance Act 2003 as a much-needed measure to modernise the system.
      Mr. Laws: Do any professional or business bodies welcome the proposals as they stand?
      Ruth Kelly: I am putting these lease duty proposals in the context of the broader package to reform stamp duty—an absolutely essential, but complex, tax reform that previous Administrations long shied away from. Reforming tax on leases, specifically on their rental element, is an integral part of that root and branch reform.
      The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) argued—to put it in one sentence—that he could not support an increase in the rate on leases because stamp duty is a transaction tax. I recognise his point, but the reality is that Governments of all persuasions, in many countries, have used stamp duty as a cheap and efficient way of raising revenue. Indeed, many countries have far higher levels of stamp duty than those currently operating in the UK. Given that stamp duty embraces an important quantum of revenue, it must be right to address anomalies, distortions and avoidance.
      Mr. Dorrell rose—
      Mr. Laws rose—
      Ruth Kelly: I want to finish my point before giving way.
      Stamp duty land tax does just that. It ensures that the tax is fair to all taxpayers, including those who were previously avoiding it. The charge on new leases is an integral part of that, as leases represent an interest in land.
      Mr. Dorrell: The Financial Secretary seems to he arguing that although she recognises that capital transaction taxes cause distortion, because other

      367
      countries have them we should feel free to close our revenue gap by increasing the yield from precisely those taxes. Can she explain her case a little further?
      Ruth Kelly: Is the right hon. Gentleman arguing for the abolition of all capital taxes? If so, where would he raise the revenue from?
      Mr. Dorrell: All taxes distort; but in raising revenue, we should recognise that the more we raise taxes based on capital transactions, the more economic damage we do. That should be an even further incentive on the Treasury to begin to exercise some control over public expenditure.
      Ruth Kelly: I am sure that we could debate this subject for hours, but this is not the appropriate forum in which to do so. It has long been accepted on both sides of the House that there is an argument for taxing transactions and interests in land. What we have done, and propose to do, is to modernise the way in which that tax regime operates.
      David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the right hon.—and unjustly overlooked—Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) was wrong in one aspect of his critique of capital taxes, in that he suggested that they were innately cliff-edge taxes? That is not so if a graduated form is introduced. Might the Chancellor receive submissions to that effect?
      Ruth Kelly: I have listened to my hon. Friend's comments, and I will draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
      It is only fair that the granting and transfer of leases is also subject to lease duty where transactions and transfers are subject to that tax.
      Mr. Laws: Will the Minister give way?
      Ruth Kelly: I want to make some progress: I shall give way in due course.
      The distortions apparent in stamp duty, where the rate of duty is increased at eight and 36 years, are not a feature of stamp duty land tax. The tax is charged at a flat rate of 1 per cent. of the net present value over the relevant threshold. A business takes into account the economics of the transaction when it enters into it. Stamp duty land tax places a value on the benefit received by a business entering into a lease transaction using lease length and rental payments as determining factors. That is no different from modern valuation and accounting practice. For example, the International Accounting Board is to recommend that all leases are shown as assets on the balance sheets of companies that have them. Stamp duty land tax uses a method to calculate that value, then applies a tax rate to it.
      The proposed structure for taxing lease rentals is more in line with the structure for taxing freeholds, but it acknowledges that leases are not the same as freeholds because the rate is set at a flat 1 per cent. instead of being dependent on value. That contrasts with the old stamp
      368
      duty regime, which it replaces. It determined tax rate by the term of a lease. To assist smaller businesses and start-ups, the new regime taxes only the excess value over the appropriate threshold.
      Mr. Laws: I do not know whether I heard the Financial Secretary correctly earlier. Will she confirm that she gave an indication to the House that, in tackling the distortions and threshold effects in stamp duty, she will actively consider them in the residential market? The latter arise as a consequence of the application of stamp duty thresholds. Will she introduce proposals to deal with that in the next pre-Budget report?
      Ruth Kelly: I shall take the hon. Gentleman's comments as an early Budget representation and convey them to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
      In determining the form of stamp duty land tax, I have been acutely aware that the reforms are not welcomed by the whole leasing community. Conservative Members have made comments to that effect. However, the reforms will exempt far more leases from the duty than the old stamp duty regime. In my opening statement, I made it clear that 60 per cent. of all leases would be exempt from stamp duty land tax. I listened to the comments of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds). Although I understand that the IPD said that 98 per cent. of the value of leases will be subject to tax—I have no reason to dispute those figures, which are consistent—it underlines my point that small leases and start-ups will be exempt from the impact of the tax. We specifically designed it to be consistent with a small business agenda.
      As I said earlier, 93 per cent. of leases in the residential sector will be exempt from the tax. In the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor offered more consultation with the industry and we undertook precisely that. The process provided much valuable information on the leases that businesses take out. For example, for the first time, we had genuine data on sale and lease-back transactions. Those data informed our subsequent judgments.
      The consultation was fully taken into account in the decisions on the new regime. Through the consultation process, we could preferentially target small businesses and start-ups to ensure that they were significantly less likely to face an increase in tax from the measures and that most small businesses would be exempt from the tax.
      Mr. Prisk: Will the Financial Secretary give way?
      Ruth Kelly: I must make some progress because time is passing.
      Earlier, I outlined the five principles against which we would test any measures that were proposed in the consultation process. I do not propose to repeat them. We did not receive a significant representation that fulfilled the tests. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness mentioned the CBI proposal that received much support from the industry. It was one of several comprehensive proposals that were considered in detail. Although it claimed to be simple, it reintroduced a

      369
      stepped duty rate and extended it over 40 years. That is a step backwards from modernisation and reminiscent of the old stamp duty regime.
      The CBI proposal also used a discount rate of 7 per cent. For short leases, that makes little practical difference to the net present value, which is calculated using a discount rate of 3.5 per cent. The main effect of a 7 per cent. discount rate would be on longer leases, which larger, more mature businesses, rather than start-ups and those with smaller value leases, typically take out. We consider that the longer the term of a lease, the more like a freehold it becomes. Given that the tax is set at a flat rate of 1 per cent.—a quarter of the rate of tax on freeholds—I could see no justification for lowering the discount rate on the longer-term leases.
      Earlier, I also explained why 3.5 per cent. represents a risk-free rate.
      Mr. Laws: Does the Financial Secretary accept that a specific sector—the leisure and pub sector—has a problem with the proposals? The nature of the business means that members of that sector have long leases. Does the Financial Secretary accept that the vast majority of businesses in that sector will be hit? Will she therefore agree to reconsider the effects on it?
      Ruth Kelly: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is not possible to ensure that the measures will impact exactly equally on each sector across the economy, as each sector has its own particular requirements. I am confident, however, that in general the increase in the threshold will mean that, in most sectors, more businesses will be exempt from the tax than were exempt under the old stamp duty regime.
      The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) mentioned the licensed trade sector. Representations from the licensed trade were made throughout the consultation process, and we are grateful for that input. From the information supplied by a representative body in that sector, we learned that very few leases in the licensed trade were exempt from stamp duty under the current regime. The effect of the increase in the threshold will be that more than 30 times the number of leases in that sector will be exempt from stamp duty land tax as were exempt from stamp duty. The introduction of the slide system will mean that a further 5 per cent. of such leases will pay less stamp duty land tax than they are paying under the current system.
      I shall try to address a few of the other points that have been raised today. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) argued that long-term leases would be penalised and that there would he a move towards short leases with less security. I would argue that our policy encourages flexibility in the lease market. Shorter leases provide a form of flexibility, and should that happen, it would be in line with Government policy. The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the security of businesses, but that is taken into account in the net present value calculation, wherein longer, more secure leases will have a higher net present value, reflecting that security, and will consequently pay more stamp duty land tax.
      370
      Several hon. Members mentioned pension funds, and I think that I can lay their fears to rest. When there is a change in the trustees—in other words, when there is a transfer between different pension schemes—there is now no charge imposed by the stamp duty land tax. I hope that I can reassure Members that the measures should not have a direct impact on pension funds.
      The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford asked whether the forms had been distributed, and I promised that I would return to that point during my winding-up speech. I have examined the forms closely, which I believe are currently being issued. Starter packs of forms are currently being dispatched to every relevant firm in the United Kingdom, and bulk orders are being taken by the Inland Revenue forms order line. However, if any solicitor or conveyancer should find themselves without a form, they can, as a fallback, get them from their local stamp office. I am not saying that I expect that to happen, but that facility exists, in case anyone is worried about that before the introduction of the new tax.
      I was very impressed by the level of very detailed knowledge that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford showed when examining the regulations. I am sure that that derives from his previous experience of working in this field. I could address all those points—or, at least, as many as I managed to write down while he was speaking. He mentioned the complexity of the formula, and we will of course be providing an online calculator. For those firms that do not have access to that, the Inland Revenue will be perfectly willing to help anyone who phones in and asks for the calculation to be made on their behalf. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman need not be too worried about many of the points that he raised. I can write to him in due course to set the record straight. For example, he asked what was meant by "same premises" in relation to sale and lease-back relief, and I can assure him that it means the same area of land, not the same building. He also asked about chain breaking, and why we were excluding sole traders. I can inform him, following the consultation in which we have engaged, that the businesses active in this market are companies, or companies that organise themselves into partnerships, so the relief is targeted at those who need to benefit from it.
      The hon. Gentleman's points on chain breaking were also relevant. He mentioned asbestos, and asked whether the threshold was high enough to allow firms to refurbish their properties when dealing with asbestos. I can assure him that the cost of dealing with asbestos does not count as part of ordinary refurbishment costs and would therefore be exempt from that limit.
      I remind the House that the regulations that we are laying today will modernise the system. They are fair, and they will ensure that all businesses pay their fair share of lease duty.
      They relieve companies in many ways. There is relief for chain-breaking companies and those involved in employee relocation, sale and lease transactions and surrender and re-grant of leases. There are provisions to reduce the compliance burden, and to provide certainty with regard to leases involving uncertain rents.
      For those reasons, I commend the regulations to the House.
      Question put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 189.
      Division No. 361] [5:25 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Ainger, Nick

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Allen, Graham

      Dismore, Andrew

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Darwen)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Doran, Frank

      Bailey, Adrian

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Baird, Vera

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Barnes, Harry

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Battle, John

      Edwards, Huw

      Beard, Nigel

      Efford, Clive

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bennett, Andrew

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Etherington, Bill

      Berry, Roger

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Best, Harold

      Fisher, Mark

      Blackman, Liz

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Blizzard, Bob

      Flint, Caroline

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Borrow, David

      Follett, Barbara

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

      Brennan, Kevin

      & Rye)

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

      Gardiner, Barry

      Wallsend)

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Browne, Desmond

      Gerrard, Neil

      Bryant, Chris

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Burden, Richard

      Gilroy, Linda

      Burgon, Colin

      Goggins, Paul

      Burnham, Andy

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Grogan, John

      Cairns, David

      Hain, rh Peter

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Casale, Roger

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Caton, Martin

      Hanson, David

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Challen, Colin

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      & Rhymney)

      Chaytor, David

      Healey, John

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Pentlands)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Chryston)

      Heppell, John

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Coaker, Vernon

      Heyes, David

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      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, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Sefton E)

      Cousins, Jim

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Cranston, Ross

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Crausby, David

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

      Cruddas, Jon

      Urmston)

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Illsley, Eric

      David, Wayne

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Davidson, Ian

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Highgate)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jamieson, David

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      372

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      O'Neill, Martin

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Organ, Diana

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Owen, Albert

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Perham, Linda

      Kemp, Fraser

      Pickthall, Colin

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Kidney, David

      Plaskitt, James

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Pollard, Kerry

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Bow)

      Pound, Stephen

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      E)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Lammy, David

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Purchase, Ken

      Lepper, David

      Purnell, James

      Leslie, Christopher

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Rammell, Bill

      Linton, Martin

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Bellshill)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Robertson, John (Glasgow

      McCafferty, Chris

      Anniesland)

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      NW)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Rooney, Terry

      McDonnell, John

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      MacDougall, John

      Ruane, Chris

      McFall, John

      Ruddock, Joan

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of

      McIsaac, Shona

      Chester)

      McKechin, Ann

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Salter, Martin

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McNamara, Kevin

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McWalter, Tony

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McWilliam, John

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mallaber, Judy

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Short, rh Clare

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow

      Singh, Marsha

      Shettleston)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

      Martlew, Eric

      Finsbury)

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

      Merron, Gillian

      Lunesdale)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Miliband, David

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Miller, Andrew

      Soley, Clive

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Spellar, rh John

      Moffatt, Laura

      Squire, Rachel

      Mole, Chris

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Moran, Margaret

      Stevenson, George

      Morgan, Julie

      Stewart, David (Inverness E &

      Morley, Elliot

      Lochaber)

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mountford, Kali

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mudie, George

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Stringer, Graham

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      373

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Watts, David

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      White, Brian

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Wills, Michael

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Winnick, David

      Trickett, Jon

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

      Truswell, Paul

      C)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

      Twigg, Stephen (Eniield)

      Yarmouth)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Wyatt, Derek

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Ward, Claire

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Derek Twigg and

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Jim Fitzpatrick

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Fallon, Michael

      Allan, Richard

      Field, Mark (Cities of London &

      Amess, David

      Westminster)

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Flight, Howard

      Bacon, Richard

      Flook, Adrian

      Baker, Norman

      Forth, rh Eric

      Baldry, Tony

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Francois, Mark

      Barrett, John

      Garnier, Edward

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Bercow, John

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Gidley, Sandra

      Blunt, Crispin

      Goodman, Paul

      Boswell, Tim

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Grayling, Chris

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Surrey)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Brady, Graham

      Greenway, John

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Brazier, Julian

      Hague, rh William

      Breed, Colin

      Hammond, Philip

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Hancock, Mike

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Harvey, Nick

      Burnett, John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Burns, Simon

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Burstow, Paul

      Heald, Oliver

      Burt, Alistair

      Heath, David

      Butterfill, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Hendry, Charles

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Hermon, Lady

      Cameron, David

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Cash, William

      Howard, rh Michael

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Barnet)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Chidgey, David

      Jack, rh Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Clappison, James

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Cotter, Brian

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

      Curry, rh David

      Inverness)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Howden)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Lamb, Norman

      Doughty, Sue

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Leigh, Edward

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Evans, Nigel

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lidington, David

      374

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Selous, Andrew

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Loughton, Tim

      Shepherd, Richard

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Simmonds, Mark

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Maclean, rh David

      Soames, Nicholas

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Malins, Humfrey

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Maples, John

      Spring, Richard

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Atcham)

      Steen, Anthony

      Mates, Michael

      Streeter, Gary

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Stunell, Andrew

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Syms, Robert

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Coldfield)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Moore, Michael

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Teather, Sarah

      Norman, Archie

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Tredinnick, David

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Trend, Michael

      Öpik, Lembit

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Page, Richard

      Walter, Robert

      Paterson, Owen

      Waterson, Nigel

      Pickles, Eric

      Watkinson, Angela

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

      Weir, Michael

      Dinefwr)

      Whittingdale, John

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Willetts, David

      Randall, John

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Redwood, rh John

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Wilshire, David

      Rendel, David

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      (Macclesfield)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Wishart, Pete

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Young, rh Sir George

      Ruffley, David

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sanders, Adrian

      Gregory Barker and

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Mr. Peter Atkinson

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Resolved,
      That the Stamp Duty and Stamp Duty Land Tax (Variation of the Finance Act 2003) (No. 2) Regulations 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 2816), dated 5th November 2003, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th November, be approved.

      Taxes
      Motion made, and Question put,
      That the draft Stamp Duty Land Tax (Amendment of Schedule 5 to the Finance Act 2003) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 30th October, be approved.—[Ruth Kelly.]
      The House divided: Ayes 317, Noes 186.

      Division No. 362]

      [5:40 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Baird, Vera

      Ainger, Nick

      Barnes, Harry

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Allen, Graham

      Battle, John

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

      Beard, Nigel

      Darwen)

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Bennett, Andrew

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Berry, Roger

      375

      Best, Harold

      Flint, Caroline

      Blackman, Liz

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Follett, Barbara

      Blizzard, Bob

      Foster, rh Derek

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Borrow, David

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      & Rye)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Bradshaw, Ben

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Gerrard, Neil

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Wallsend)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Browne, Desmond

      Goggins, Paul

      Bryant, Chris

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Burden, Richard

      Grogan, John

      Burgon, Colin

      Hain, rh Peter

      Burnham, Andy

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Cairns, David

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Hanson, David

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Casale, Roger

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

      Caton, Martin

      Rhymney)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Healey, John

      Challen, Colin

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Chaytor, David

      Hendrick, Mark

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Pentlands)

      Heppell, John

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

      Hesford, Stephen

      Chryston)

      Heyes, David

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Colman, Tony

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Connarty, Michael

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Sefton E)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cousins, Jim

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

      Cranston, Ross

      Urmston)

      Crausby, David

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Illsley, Eric

      Dalyell, Tam

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

      David, Wayne

      Highgate)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jamieson, David

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Doran, Frank

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Kidney, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Efford, Clive

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Bow)

      Etherington, Bill

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Fisher, Mark

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Lammy, David

      376

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Lepper, David

      Purchase, Ken

      Leslie, Christopher

      Purnell, James

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Linton, Martin

      Rammell, Bill

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Bellshill)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Robertson, John (Glasgow

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Anniesland)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

      MacDonald, Calum

      NW)

      McDonnell, John

      Rooney, Terry

      MacDougall, John

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McFall, John

      Ruane, Chris

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Ruddock, Joan

      McIsaac, Shona

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of

      McKechin, Ann

      Chester)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Salter, Martin

      McNamara, Kevin

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McWalter, Tony

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McWilliam, John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mallaber, Judy

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Short, rh Clare

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Shettleston)

      Singh, Marsha

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Finsbury)

      Merron, Gillian

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

      Michael, rh Alun

      Lunesdale)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Miliband, David

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Miller, Andrew

      Soley, Clive

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Spellar, rh John

      Moffatt, Laura

      Squire, Rachel

      Mole, Chris

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Moran, Margaret

      Stevenson, George

      Morgan, Julie

      Stewart, David (Inverness E &

      Morley, Elliot

      Lochaber)

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mountford, Kali

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mudie, George

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Stringer, Graham

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Tipping, Paddy

      Organ, Diana

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Owen, Albert

      Trickett, Jon

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Truswell, Paul

      Perham, Linda

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Plaskitt, James

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Pound, Stephen

      Ward, Claire

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

      Wareing, Robert N.

      E)

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Watts, David

      377

      White, Brian

      Worthington, Tony

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Yarmouth)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Wills, Michael

      Wyatt, Derek

      Winnick, David

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      C)

      Derek Twigg and

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Paul Clark

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Allan, Richard

      Fabricant, Michael

      Amess, David

      Fallon, Michael

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Field, Mark (Cities of London &

      Bacon, Richard

      Westminster)

      Baker, Norman

      Flight, Howard

      Baldry, Tony

      Flook, Adrian

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Forth, rh Eric

      Barrett, John

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Bercow, John

      Francois, Mark

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Garnier, Edward

      Blunt, Crispin

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Boswell, Tim

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

      Goodman, Paul

      Surrey)

      Gray, James (TV Wilts)

      Brady, Graham

      Grayling, Chris

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Brazier, Julian

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Breed, Colin

      Greenway, John

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Grieve, Dominic

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Hague, rh William

      Burnett, John

      Hammond, Philip

      Burns, Simon

      Hancock, Mike

      Burstow, Paul

      Harvey, Nick

      Butterfill, John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Heald, Oliver

      Cameron, David

      Heath, David

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Hendry, Charles

      Cash, William

      Hermon, Lady

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Barnet)

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Chidgey, David

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Chope, Christopher

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Clappison, James

      Hughes, Simon (SouthwarkN)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Jack, rh Michael

      Cotter, Brian

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Curry, rh David

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Stamford)

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Howden)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Lamb, Norman

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Doughty, Sue

      Leigh, Edward

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Evans, Nigel

      Lidington, David

      378

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Loughton, Tim

      Shepherd, Richard

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Simmonds, Mark

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Maclean, rh David

      Soames, Nicholas

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Malins, Humfrey

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Maples, John

      Spring, Richard

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Atcham)

      Steen, Anthony

      Mates, Michael

      Streeter, Gary

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Stunell, Andrew

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Swire- Hugo (E Devon)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Syms, Robert

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

      Tapsell, sir Peter

      Coldfield)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Moore, Michael

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Teather, Sarah

      Norman, Archie

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Tredinnick, David

      ÖOpik.Lembit

      Trend, Michael

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Page, Richard

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Page, Richard

      Walter Rober

      PatersonOwen

      Waterson, Nigel

      Pickles, Eric

      Watkinson, Angela

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Webb Steye (Northavon)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

      Weir Michagel

      Dinefwr)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Whittingdale,John

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Wiggin Bill

      Willetts, David

      Randall, John

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Redwood, rh John

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Wilshire, David

      Rendel, David

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Wishart, Pete

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Young, rh Sir George

      Ruffley, David

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gregory Barker and

      Selous, Andrew

      Mr. Peter Atkinson

      Question accordingly agreed to.

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

      EDUCATION
      That the draft Education (Amendment of the Curriculum Requirements for Fourth Key Stage) (England) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 30th October, be approved.—[Mr. Ainger.]
      Question agreed to.

      School Transport (Essex)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
      5.53 pm
      Mr. Alan Hurst: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the important matter of free transport to denominational schools in Essex. I am pleased to see my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), in his place this evening, and my hon. Friends the Members for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard), for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) and for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) are here too.
      The genesis of the provision of free school transport lies in the Education Act 1944. That landmark legislation was brought before the House by the great reforming Minister—the great Prime Minister that the Conservative party never had—the right hon. B.A. Butler. He was a part-predecessor of mine in that he represented the three villages of Gosfield, Earls Colne and White Colne, which are now in the Braintree parliamentary division, but were then in Saffron Walden.
      Since that time, it has been the invariable practice of education authorities to provide free school transport for pupils whose parents have chosen to enrol them in a denominational secondary school. Such provision is subject to the school being more than 3 miles from home and the nearest school of that denomination. In Essex, with one exception, all the schools affected will be Catholic schools in practice. In 1998, the county council ended free school transport for Catholic sixth forms, but it now proposes to end all free transport for Catholic secondary schools in the county, unless the school is more than 3 miles from home and is the nearest school of any type. In practice, that would mean that a child is compelled to go whatever school is nearest if the distance is more than 3 miles.
      Thus, free transport to secondary schools would be ended for every Catholic child in the county, irrespective of their parents' financial circumstances and the school's distance from home. Instead of the free system, the county proposes a charge of £100 per term per child. In its generosity, it is to reduce that amount to £40 for parents whose income is below the qualifying level for income-based jobseeker's allowance. Essex county council indicated that the change would take place for the next school term, which is barely eight weeks away. At least, that was the position until some point this afternoon, when a county policy meeting occurred and the council backtracked somewhat on its earlier proposal. It is now proposing to introduce whatever changes it will make next September.
      Frankly, I do not see that as a major concession to the principle of free school transport in our county. The original proposal breached the departmental guidelines, which say that, unless there are compelling reasons, policy should be changed only at the beginning of the school year. I believe that the faith of the county council is also being tested further than that. An implied contract exists not in law, but in ethics, between the county and parents, who will have read the prospectuses
      380
      of Catholic secondary schools in deciding which school they would send their children to and would have been assured that free school transport was available.
      Mr. Ivan Henderson: There are two Catholic primary schools in my constituency—St. Joseph's in Harwich and St. Clare's in Clacton. The only option that children from both schools have is to go to St. Benedict's in Colchester. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unfair to force a charge of £100 a term on those children's parents now they are attending that school in Colchester? Those parents only option is to pay the money if they can afford to do so or to pull their children out and send them to another school, which would completely disrupt their education.
      Mr. Hurst: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, the position that he describes replicates that of children in my division who attend the same secondary school in Colchester as those in Clacton and Harwich. In my judgment, there is a lack of good faith in allowing parents to put down their child's name for one school on the basis a particular premise, after which the authority changes the rules halfway or a few weeks into the process. That does not seem an even-handed system for parents. Hon. Members will realise that the proposals have caused uproar in Essex.
      Mr. Kerry Pollard: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a problem not only in Essex, but in my county, Hertfordshire, where many parents are worried that the same thing may happen? Does he agree that some new thinking is required? For example, school starting times could be staggered so as to let older pupils start at 8 o'clock in the morning or transport, could be collectivised in the same way as county supplies so that several counties could join in providing the transport system.
      Mr. Hurst: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Imaginative ideas are needed to resolve these difficulties, but provision for children should be at the forefront in our minds.
      I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) in the Chamber. He no longer represents a division of the county, but one of the lost territories, if I can put it that way. He may have the opportunity to tell us how the borough of Southend is dealing with the matter.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I know that the hon. Gentleman always tries to be fair, so will he make it clear to his colleagues—who are listening carefully to him—that no decision has yet been made, and the only reason why the county has to consider this and other horrible plans is the appalling financial settlement that Essex has received from the Government? On that particular point, does he realise that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) went to see the Minister only yesterday to try to obtain further money for education because we are so short of it in Southend, even though we are very careful? He said that we could put the rates up more. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the county is in a difficult position because of the

      381
      appalling financial settlement that it has had from the Government, and it does not want to do nasty things like charging for school transport.
      Mr. Hurst: Generosity is a virtue in humankind, but fear that it was misplaced in allowing such an intervention. I have tried to avoid even naming which party is running the county council or the borough of Southend, and it was not my intention to inquire into the financial management of either, notwithstanding the fact that both have received substantial increases in the past six years. It is for residents in both county and borough to consider whether the financial resources allocated to those areas are properly managed. I had hoped to avoid partisanship, and I shall seek to continue to do so for the remainder of my speech, unless misled in another direction.
      The county council has conducted a consultation exercise. If there is one word that strikes terror into the minds of everyone in public life, it is the word "consultation", which should usually be put in inverted commas. The council omitted formally to consult school governors, who are now an important part of any education system and bear great responsibilities. There was no formal consultation of governing bodies. The council heard from school governors because parents speak to them, and that was how they learned about the consultation exercise.
      I understand that a petition with more than 2,500 names has been delivered to the county council, objecting to the proposals. Some 1,000 letters of protest have been received, and only five in favour. If consultation has any meaning close to that shown in a standard English dictionary, I would have thought that the county council would concede that the consultation has reached a verdict and abandon its proposals. Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that that has not, alas, been the case.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Yet.
      Mr. Hurst: The hon. Gentleman says "Yet", if my ears do not deceive me. I accept that the council met this afternoon and has slightly diluted its proposals by putting back the start date. I understand that it has also raised the prospect that because of the disruption and hardship that could be caused to children in their GCSE year, it may re-examine that aspect of the proposal. Frankly, that does not satisfy me and it will not satisfy the parents in the county of Essex.
      The Braintree parliamentary division does not include a Catholic secondary school. The children from Catholic families travel to Colchester, to St. Benedict's, or to Chelmsford, to St. John Payne. I have spoken to parents and governors of both schools. The headmaster at St. Benedict's, Mr. Alan Whelan, tells me that he has about 500 children in receipt of free school transport. Mr. Frank McAvoy, headmaster of St. John Payne, has about 680 children in receipt of free school transport. The best estimate one can make is that some 250 children from the Braintree parliamentary division travel to Catholic secondary schools every day.
      The arguments against the proposal are overwhelming. For a start, it would discriminate against poorer families. A family with three children in
      382
      secondary education would be charged £900 per annum from taxed income. Even those on benefit would need to find £120 a year, or more than £2 a week. The poorest would suffer, and the threat is already demoralising parents and children. One school fears that it has already lost four pupils.
      There is also discrimination against the Catholic community. Catholic parishes originally paid 25 per cent. of the cost of constructing the two secondary schools that serve mid and North Essex, and today they continue to contribute 10 per cent. of the cost of external maintenance and renovation. In fact, I am told that the Catholic community has recently paid £20,000 towards the cost of a new roof for St. Francis Catholic primary school in Braintree. Catholic parents already pay over and above what other parents pay towards their children's education. As a consequence, they are saving the county council costs that it would otherwise have to find. To add transport costs is unfair and, frankly, demeaning to the county council.
      Savings are like a will-o'-the-wisp: exactly what the savings are and where they will come from can never be pinned down. If the charging policy is introduced, Catholic schools rolls may well reduce. Without being an advanced mathematician, I can say that, as a consequence, the average cost per child to the county will rise if there are fewer children but the establishment remains much the same.
      Many Catholic children who live in rural areas will still be entitled to free school transport to their nearest county school. The transport costs will remain, but they will go to a different school. I know that hon. Members can imagine the disruption that that will cause to young children's education, so it is not for me to say more about that. Those children will be taken away from a secondary school, where they had friends whom they have been with ever since they entered primary school, and they will go to a school where they know virtually no one, part way through their school careers. I cannot understand how the consequences of that will produce any saving of any kind to the county, the parents or the children.
      I cannot speak for other parts of the county, but most of the schools in Braintree district are already oversubscribed. Accommodating extra children who have been driven out of their schools of choice by the charging policy will produce a cost to the county for new buildings, extra teachers and equipment. The costs will just move along. How the county council could imagine in its great foresight that introducing that policy would not outrage all right-thinking people way beyond the Catholic community I do not know. How it thought that it could introduce it without medium and long-term costings I do not know. How it thought that it could introduce it at the beginning of January, when it has not even completed the process in mid-November, is beyond comprehension.
      The consequence of the policy and driving out poorer children from the schools of their choice will be to change the nature of Catholic secondary schools. Those schools admit children irrespective of parental background or academic achievement. If the ending of free school transport causes children from poorer backgrounds to transfer to other schools, their places

      383
      may be taken by non-Catholics from better-off families. The character of those schools may be imperilled over time.
      Almost finally, I wish to deal with traffic congestion because this is partly a transport debate as well as an education debate. In some ways, although it would be a conceit, perhaps two Ministers should reply to the debate rather than one, but I appreciate that it is not beyond my hon. Friend the Minister's ability to speak about transport as well as education. All hon. Members know the effects of taking children to and from school on travel congestion. What joy it is, when the school holidays come, to be able to drive to any place that one wishes and arrive on time and, occasionally, even before time.
      It has been estimated that between 8 and 9 o'clock in the morning, 11 per cent. of all cars on the road in term time are taking children to school. When we reach the magical point of 10 minutes to 9, 20 per cent. of all cars on the road are involved in school trips. To take away free school transport can only aggravate the situation and a greater burden will he placed on parents, children and other road users. There is a particular problem for parents with children at both a local primary school and a secondary school. The primary school, particularly one in the Catholic faith, is likely to be in one town, and the secondary school is highly likely to be in another town many miles distant. There is some considerable distance between Chelmsford and Braintree, so it would be necessary for those parents to be in two places at the same time as they transport their children to school.
      The single most effective way, in my judgment, to reduce car traffic congestion is to increase rather than diminish school transport. It is for that reason that the Government have tested yellow bus schemes in three separate areas and are bringing forward proposals in a jauntily named document, "Beating the traffic—a new approach to the school run". I raised this matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and he replied to me in a letter dated 13 October. In that letter he indicated that local authorities would be invited to pilot schemes to support children travelling to denominational schools. It is my judgment that the county council would be far better advised to work closely with the Secretary of State to see not only how free school transport can be retained in our county, but how it can be increased and enhanced.
      The action of the county council flies in the face of all considered thinking about both transport and education. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister who is kindly replying to this debate to seek to persuade those in charge at Essex county council to reconsider and to return free school transport to Catholic secondary schools in the county of Essex.
      6.12 pm
      Mr. Simon Burns: May I thank the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), my neighbour, for allowing me to take part in this debate which refers to a matter of importance not only to mid-Essex but to the entire county? I found little with which to disagree in his elegant speech, which was equally interesting in terms of what he did not say, quite apart from what he did say.
      384
      A serious problem is affecting the whole county. but it is focused on mid-Essex, because, as the hon. Member for Braintree said, he has a Catholic secondary school in his constituency, and I have a Catholic secondary school in my constituency, St. John Payne school. Great concern has been expressed by parents, teachers and governors of both schools about the proposals by Essex county council that are currently out to consultation. I, too, have met both pupils and representatives of the teaching staff of St. John Payne school, and have had an opportunity to discuss their concerns with them and to learn at first hand about the proposals. I have also received many letters about those proposals. They pose a significant problem and if there is a way around it that avoids school transport being withdrawn from denominational schools, all of us in the Chamber would obviously be united in agreement that that is how we would want the process to end.
      There is a problem, however, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) alluded earlier in an intervention: the formula for funding local government finance was changed for this financial year, and it had a significant impact on the county of Essex. As I understand it, the average increase in local government finance this year was just over 5.5 per cent. Essex got the third worst settlement, just ahead of Kent and Sussex, with 3.5 per cent.
      As the Minister and the hon. Member for Braintree know, the significant majority of a local authority's budget is spent on education and there are specific requirements on that spending that must be fulfilled. As Essex county council received only a 3.5 per cent. funding increase, it had significantly less money to provide its services than it did the previous year. Owing to the statutory requirements on its education spending, it had considerable problems funding other services, such as social services. Ironically, it did not have sufficient money for its education budget either and had to decide the best way forward when it was faced with that problem. The council wants to avoid cutting back on teaching staff or spending for books and equipment in our schools, so it has examined its transport budget. Colleagues and county councillors have given me no inkling that the Government are prepared to think again, but perhaps the Minister will give us some good news during his speech. In the light of the consultations and representations, however, I hope that a solution will be found so that some of the problems that the hon. Member for Braintree rightly raised will not be realised. I hope that the council will be able to come up with a solution.
      The simple way in which we could get around the problem and secure proper funding for the county council would be for the Government to re-examine the funding formula for Essex and ensure that they rectify the fiddling that many people in local government and Conservative Members believe to have happened. There is a strong body of opinion that the formula was changed solely to take money away from the shire counties that, ironically, tend not to be controlled by Labour so that it could be pushed into Labour heartlands to try to stave off any problems in the local election last May when the party faced re-election.
      The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): Disgraceful.
      Mr. Burns: The Minister may say that that is disgraceful, but he goes around the country a lot and must talk to local education authorities throughout England. He must be aware that there is a school of thought that the situation that I outlined is why the funding formula was changed.
      If we are to prevent the problems faced by Essex county council from happening, the Minister should use his not inconsiderable influence to encourage the Government to re-examine the basic funding formula and ensure that Essex county council gets a fair funding increase so that it is able to provide education services. That would have a knock-on effect on other services, which would mean that it would not have to take extremely difficult decisions such as that on which it is consulting. I hope that a compromise can be reached that will put off the implementation of the policy.
      Andrew Mackinlay: There is little point in arguing party political points this evening. Does the hon. Gentleman understand the gravity of the situation for the continuation of Catholic education? If the policy were sustained, Catholic schools would change beyond all recognition within a generation—there would be none left. That is the gravity of the situation, so the matter should be a priority for Essex county council, as it is for other hard-pressed authorities.
      Mr. Burns: I thought I had made it plain that I hope the proposals do not come to fruition. I fully accept and recognise that they will have an impact, which for some families will be significant, on all denominational education, which in my constituency is primarily Catholic. I assume the hon. Gentleman, like me, fully supports the concept of denominational education.
      Andrew Mackinlay: I am a beneficiary of it.
      Mr. Burns: I am glad to hear it.
      I understand why the hon. Gentleman says that the matter is not a party political issue, but he misses the point. The nub of the problem is the local government finance settlement, which was particularly detrimental to the county of Essex, as it was to Kent and Sussex, when the money arrived in April this year.
      6.20 pm
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I remind the Minister and the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) that the problem has a great effect on my constituency and other places in Essex. Southend has two Catholic schools, St. Thomas More, which is a school for boys, and St. Bernard's, which is a school for girls. A substantial number of pupils come across the border from Essex county council, which we have escaped from, to go to our schools. We also have four grammar schools, two for boys and two for girls, which hon. Members know about.
      Children come from Essex to attend our schools because it is well known that the standard of education generally in Southend is high compared with neighbouring areas. A huge number of children want to come to Southend first, for the good education, secondly, for the grammar schools and the two good Catholic schools and thirdly, for their traditions. The
      386
      hon. Member for Braintree made a good point about the effect of the proposals on poor families. That is encouraging. I hope that we unite against legislation on top-up fees because of their effect on poor families.
      There is a big problem, which the Minister can resolve. Yesterday morning, I took the head teacher of that splendid school in Southend, St. Thomas More, and others to meet the Minister. They told him the terrible things that were happening in Southend. Does the hon. Member for Braintree, who takes a great interest in Southend, know that for the first time we are having to discontinue the teaching of Latin, not because we want to or because it is horrible, but because there is not enough money? Not only has Southend-on-Sea borough council spent every penny the Minister provided, but it has been given an extra £700,000 on top because of the financial crisis it faces. Despite that extra money, a teacher called Mr. Gulley from Temple Sutton school told the Minister yesterday that he had to sack teachers because the necessary money was not available.
      The Minister must know, on the basis of what happened yesterday and what he has heard today, that Essex county council and Southend-on-Sea borough council have to contemplate doing horrible things that they do not want to do simply because the money is not available. Why is the money not available and why are they thinking of introducing such strange plans? First, the pay scale has been shortened, so teachers have to be paid more in a shorter time. Secondly, the increase in superannuation payments has not been fully funded by the Government. Thirdly, there are national insurance increases to consider. All those mean that the county and the borough have to consider doing things that they do not want to do.
      Let us solve the problem that faces the parents of children going to Catholic schools in Essex and the splendid ones in Southend-on-Sea. The only way to do that, however, is to find a financial solution. There is no other way. We could put the rates up. but we have already done that. The Minister must be aware that the poor ratepayers in Southend and Essex have been hammered. I am sure that we could do a deal. I am sure that if the hon. Member for Braintree, my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford and I told the county council that, despite the appalling financial settlement, the Minister had announced in an Adjournment debate that he was providing an extra £2 million for the county of Essex, the proposals would be dropped and a comprehensive, sensible arrangement would be agreed.
      I am sure that, like me, hon. Members believe that the proposals that the council is considering are not advantageous. As has happened in Southend, the financial difficulties would stop educational training and prevent us from getting good teachers. If the Minister tells us that he will provide an extra £2 million for the county, I am sure that we can meet the county officials and councillors and solve the problem. The only thing that worries me a wee bit is the fact that people may play at politics. I hope that that will not happen, because it is in children's interests that we find solutions.
      We have good Catholic secondary schools in Southend, and want to preserve the opportunity for the people of Essex, with all their problems, to come to our excellent schools. It would be tragic if they were

      387
      prevented from doing so. The Minister alone can solve the problem. If Members from all parties presented a popular front we could resolve this with our friends from Essex, if only the Minister were sensible and gave the county a fairer deal, as he has done for other counties.
      6.26 pm
      The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): It is always a pleasure to be offered the chance to make six or seven friends with a quick bit of spending, but I fear I would make a large number of enemies if I followed the advice of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor).
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) on securing this debate and on his long-standing interest in the topic. I believe that he secured a debate in July 2000 on related issues, and throughout his time in Parliament he has made Ministers and the House aware of the links between transport and education, and the importance of transport to successful education. He therefore deserves the thanks of the House for his work.
      The Government recognise the problems and frustrations experienced by many parents regarding school transport, whether provided privately, such as travel by car, or by a local authority. The latest figures show that over the past 20 years car use has doubled, and that one in five cars on the road at 8.45 am or 8.50 am are taking children to school. Many of those cars are taking children to primary schools, some of which are denominational, and many make journeys of between one and three miles. The House will know that the public purse spends more than £0.5bn a year on school transport, about half of which goes towards special needs provision, leaving about £0.25 billion for other school transport.
      For the benefit of the House, I shall deal with the legal position, then turn to issues affecting Essex in particular. The contribution of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) will tempt me into areas of local government finance, and I look forward to illuminating the House on some of the finer points of the matter. However, it is important to make it clear that transport is always necessary for a pupil of compulsory school age who attends the nearest suitable school if it is beyond statutory walking distance. Local education authorities do not have a duty to provide free transport for pupils whose parents have chosen to send them to another school, even if it is beyond statutory walking distance. Those cases are entirely at the discretion of individual local authorities.
      I shall set out the legal position for the House. The Education Act 1996 sets out LEA responsibilities to provide free transport to school for pupils of compulsory school age. Section 509(1) requires LEAs to make arrangements for the provision of transport that they consider necessary for pupils to attend school. That transport must be free. Section 509(3) enables authorities to pay all or part of a pupil's travelling expenses where transport is not "necessary", and I shall say more about arrangements for discretionary transport later. The purpose of the legislation is to make
      388
      sure that every child can attend school, and section 444 of the 1996 Act states that no parent can be prosecuted for their child failing to attend school if the LEA fails to provide suitable transport for children who live beyond the statutory walking distance.
      As my hon. Friend said, LEAs must provide free transport to denominational schools where pupils live beyond the statutory walking distances and where a denominational school is designated as the nearest school. Where pupils live closer to a non-denominational school, LEAs may provide free transport to a denominational school of a parent's choice if they consider that it is "necessary", or they may exercise discretion and provide free or subsidised transport.
      Current DFES guidance to LEAs on denominational transport is that the Secretary of State hopes that LEAs will continue to think it right not to disturb well established arrangements of the kind that I described, some of which have been associated with local agreements or understandings about the siting of denominational schools. The Secretary of State continues to attach importance to the opportunity that many parents have to choose a school or college in accordance with their religious convictions. It is important to say, however, that there is no statutory duty requiring LEAs to provide free transport to denominational schools.
      I remind hon. Members that statutory school transport is not the only source of assistance for young people with travel costs. Local authorities have powers to establish concessionary fare schemes for young people in their area under the Transport Act 1985. About 40 per cent. of shire counties have such schemes, many of which assist pupils making the home-to-school journey. In the metropolitan areas, all six passenger transport authorities provide flat fares or half fares on local buses. Tempted as I am to delve into the role of passenger transport authorities in transport policies, I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not go too far down that route. In the capital, Transport for London, not the local authorities, operates a season ticket discount scheme for young people at roughly half fare. That is a commercial scheme without Government subsidy. Under-11s will be entitled to free bus and tram travel from January 2004.
      My hon. Friend did not ask about post-16 transport, either in general or in relation to denominational schools, but I am happy to write to him if he is interested in that particular issue.
      I shall move on to the management of budgets, which involves critical decisions for LEAs. There are many calls on LEA budgets and school budgets. Funding for home-to-school transport forms part of an authority's LEA budget. We do not seek to influence the level of that budget, unlike the schools budget: it is for authorities to decide on the level of their LEA budget within the total resources available. In doing so, they will of course need to provide a level of service consistent with their statutory duties. There are often calls for improvements in home-to-school transport financed from the education budget—although it is worth repeating that expenditure is already at a high level and has risen fast in recent years. Over the past 10 years, annual increases have been between 6 per cent. and 11 per cent.—well ahead of inflation—and the cost of

      389
      transporting pupils with special needs has accounted for an increasing proportion of the total spend on home-to-school transport.
      In preparing for the debate, I was struck by the fact that some authorities have sought to contain costs and improve services through a range of measures such as integrating education and social care transport provision—for example, in Oxfordshire and Worcestershire—and introducing staggered school starting times, which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) mentioned, and which has been done in the Isle of Wight and in west Sussex. Elsewhere, LEAs have developed dedicated bus services to raise the standard of provision: that has increased uptake at minimal cost and helped to ameliorate pollution. Transport authorities, education authorities and schools are working together to put in place cost effective, high quality provision for schoolchildren—for example, the new services provided by bus operator Harrogate and District, in Harrogate, and by the Greater Manchester Passenger transport authority, in Wigan and Stockport.
      I turn to the situation in Essex. I know that Essex LEA's proposals are of great concern to that county's residents, including county councillors and hon. Members who represent Essex constituencies. Most recently, on 16 October, the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) asked the Secretary of State what representations he has received over proposals by the LEA to charge travel costs for pupils attending faith schools. The Department has received more than 50 letters from hon. Members, councillors, parents and schools. All opposed the proposals, and a number complained that the consultation process was flawed. The local education authority will obviously want to take that seriously. The matter needs to be considered in the appropriate way in due course.
      Let me deal with funding. The pot of money is limited and that requires difficult decisions about priorities. The position in Essex is different from that which the hon. Member for West Chelmsford described. Since 1997–98, per capita spending on pupils aged three to 19 has increased by 24 per cent. in real terms. That is £670 per pupil. In 2003–04, Essex received an increase of 3.2 per cent. per pupil on top of a separate transfer, which compensated for teachers' pay and the transfer of nursery grant and infant class size grant. Apart from the education formula spending share, there is the important revenue support grant. In Essex, it increased by 3.8 per cent. on top of a transfer of £586 million to provide funding for teachers' pension contributions.
      Mr. Burns: What about the rest of the country?
      Mr. Miliband: I shall deal with that shortly.
      A further increase of 3.2 per cent. reflected the end of some standards fund grants. Like other local education authorities, Essex has also received generous standards fund increases, from a mere £7 million in 1998 to £46.8 million in 2002–03. Capital funding has increased
      390
      from £13.8 million in 1998–99 to £64.4 million in 2003–04. For this year, the education formula spending total is £666 million, of which £20 million is spent on free home-to-school transport for approximately 21,000 pupils. Next year, the floor increase will he 5 per cent. per pupil—
      Mr. Burns: What about this year?
      Mr. Miliband: The hon. Gentleman says that he wants to talk about this year, but Essex county council's proposals are for next year. That is the focus of the current debate. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East mentioned the meeting that I held with his constituents yesterday. I do not deny that some schools in some parts of the country have experienced genuine problems this year. The Secretary of State has dealt with them in successive statements in the House.
      Last week, my right hon. Friend announced a floor of 5 per cent. per pupil for every LEA in the country. That is significant protection for LEAs. In addition, he announced a transitional grant of £9.8 million for next year—I was disappointed that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford did not mention that. It is intended to target problems in school budgets. The hon. Gentleman also made the extremely serious allegation that the Government were somehow fiddling the local government funding system. I reject that. He should know that there are three simple parts to funding education. First, there is an entitlement of £2,100 per pupil.
      Mr. Pollard: Will the Minister enlighten us about the way in which Essex fared in the pecking order for transitional grant?
      Mr. Miliband: Much as I should like to give my hon. Friend a full recitation. I cannot do that.
      Mr. Pollard: I was trying to help my hon. Friend. Essex came second after Kent, and Hertfordshire came third.
      Mr. Miliband: I am sure that all hon. Members are pleased that Essex benefited from the Government's decision to ensure that every LEA has at least a 12 per cent. increase over two years.
      The hon. Member for West Chelmsford said that the education formula was fiddled.
      Mr. Burns: The Minister must have misunderstood me. I said not that the education formula was fiddled but that the funding formula for the whole of local government was fiddled this year in the way it was changed.
      Mr. Miliband: I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's statement that he does not believe that the education formula was fiddled. I understand that he is making a wider point about local government funding and that is probably a subject for another debate.
      Let me try to end the debate on a more harmonious note. Hon. Members know that the Government launched a document about school transport on

      391
      17 September. It offers a way forward for several LEAs, including Essex. The plan set out ways in which walking, cycling and bus use could be extended for journeys to school. The document explained that we were planning to legislate as soon as possible to allow LEAs to trial new approaches to school transport.
      We envisage enabling legislation which would allow a number of pilot schemes to run for several years, trialling new approaches to school transport. LEAs will be able to charge for school transport, but not to the extent that parents find that the family car is a more cost-effective option. We want LEAs interested in trialling new arrangements to consult their schools, pupils, parents, bus operators and further education colleges on an alternative scheme, along the lines of the new post-16 arrangements that have been discussed in the House on several occasions. Authorities might, for example, design and consult on a scheme that supersedes the statutory walking distances; enter into innovative arrangements with schools or other agencies to provide school transport services fitted around an extended school day; and investigate school transport provision catering for the circumstances of denominational schools.
      392
      The primary objective of any local scheme would be to increase the choices available to parents and pupils for ensuring effective home-to-school transport. If we create such flexibilities, we envisage that we would look carefully at the experience of the first few authorities pioneering new arrangements before proceeding further. I hope that Essex county council, along with the schools and parents in the area, will reflect on the opportunities that are presented by the scheme. I hope that when they reflect on the strong statements that have been made on both sides of the Chamber, expressing concern about the proposals that have been made, they will also examine the value-for-money arguments that are important to any decision on the priorities for school spending, and bear in mind the powerful case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree, whose expertise has really helped to enlighten the House today.
      6.42 pm
      Sitting suspended, pursuant to Order.
      7 pm
      On resuming—
      Question, That this House do now adjourn, put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. JOHN McWILLIAM in the Chair]

Child Support Agency
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
9.30 am
Mr. Robert Syms: I was pleased, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to see you arrive in the nick of time for such an important debate. The Child Support Agency is 10 years old. I have been a Member of Parliament for only six of those years, but my predecessor has told me of his massive work load, and says that things have now tailed off. However, in recent months more people have been coming to my surgery and wanting to get on to the agency's new system. I have the feeling that the issue is moving up the political agenda for many of our constituents.
It would be wrong to pretend that everything is going well for the agency. We heard that it had arrears of £2.8 billion. The National Audit Office calculated that 76 per cent. of the agency's calculations were wrong—that is three out of every four cases, a substantial figure. Nevertheless, I shall speak first about the computer problems that seem to be preventing people from getting on to the new system.
Originally, we were promised that the new system would be in use by October 2001. We were then told that it would be by April 2002, but the date was put back again. The system eventually went live for new cases on 3 March 2003. Although the figures may have changed a little in recent weeks, in the region of 132,000 cases have gone on to the new system since March, of which about 23,000 have been assessed. However, 1 million people remain on the old system, and many people are coming to my surgery—most are old cases, but some are new—because they cannot go on to the new system until the migration of cases has taken place.
I read the evidence given to the Work and Pensions Committee a few weeks ago, and it is clear that the process is at least 11 months behind schedule. Despite the efforts of EDS, the computer company, to make the system work properly, the software necessary to ensure the migration of old cases is delayed. The Committee was originally told that it would happen in the summer of 2003, and then that it would happen at the end of the year, with the migration taking place in the spring of 2004. Will the Minister update us on the installation of the new software, and does he have a more accurate date than spring next year?
The computer project is large. The original contract was for £427 million, and the latest estimates are that it will cost £456 million, but it was supposed to reduce the cost of processing cases by 20 per cent. Because of the problems, the agency has suffered a fall in productivity of between 20 and 30 per cent., and evidence suggests that the cost of processing cases is now 20 per cent. higher. I hope that that change is not permanent. We know that the agency plans to reduce the number of
72WH
employees from 12,000 to 8,000 in order to make savings, but delays in moving to the new system because it does not operate correctly will have major financial implications for the agency's viability.
The chief executive of the CSA stated clearly to the Work and Pensions Committee that the computer system has not failed. I accept that glitches and difficulties will always occur when introducing new computer systems, particularly with projects that cost more than £400 million. However, many of our constituents, particularly the 1 million who were told that they would move to the new system, may feel that they are not getting the deal that they expected when they expected it.
The question of whether compensation should be paid has been raised, because some are paying more under the old system than they would under the new. I understand that the agency has discussed whether some of those 1 million cases should be given priority. I understand also that the CSA intends to recalculate the payments of those 1 million people, to have a vesting day and to try to deal with them together. I am not sure whether that would be a good or a bad thing, but given the problems, I wonder whether the agency ought to do it in bite-sized chunks, to get on with it and to prioritise.
In the last Work and Pensions questions the Minister was asked about dates. He took the line that the agency wants to get it right, and will not rush things. However, people are looking for dates and, now that things have slipped so much, for some reassurance about when they will move on to the new system, and when they will be able to enjoy the simpler, more transparent and more understandable formula for which they have been waiting quite a long time.
I hope that others will be able to make their points, and I am glad to see so many hon. Members present to debate an agency that has an impact on all our surgeries. People want more definite answers from the Minister and the CSA about where matters are going and what dates will need to be met. One million people need to be migrated, and although some would be worse off, many would be better off. That means 1,200, 1,300 or 1,400 people per constituency—not an insubstantial number of people. It is not unreasonable for them to want to be reassured about when the new system will be delivered.
I want to consider some of the people who regularly come to my surgeries. They are principally non-resident parents, predominately men, who still feel that the system does not treat them well. Dr. Nick Paré, of Oakdale in my constituency, comes in fairly regularly. His main complaint is that he feels like a second-class citizen and that, although we all understand that the interests of children are paramount, many people are bruised by the experience of being dealt with by the Child Support Agency. He has discussed the matter with other non-resident parents in my constituency. Many feel that they are not given the same amount of information or the same degree of support as the parent with care, and that the system does not listen to their concerns. I have a long list of examples, but I will not go into them all.
Even when such parents take up complaints with the agency, they feel like they are dealing with jelly. That is because, I have been told, officers mysteriously disappear, names seem never to have existed, and the

73WH
parents feel that they are not given a fair deal by the CSA. One perennial complaint crops up when the parent with care is wealthier and in a relationship. They sometimes use the CSA and the system to put the nonresident parent into a situation of financial disadvantage, so that they cannot visit the children. That is particularly a problem when they have moved away, and such situations have caused difficulties.
When the non-resident parent is poor, disabled, blind and so on, legislation does them no favours. The new system may provide a better outcome, certainly in those categories, but many people are still bruised. The principal complaint that I receive is that the system makes people become single parents by making reconciliation difficult, and that injecting the CSA into people's lives makes their relationship with their former partners, and sometimes their children, very difficult.
There are still many bruised people out there, and many who feel that they are not treated well. We should take into account the fact that there are two sides to the coin. Children need to be looked after and the parent with care needs a decent service in terms of money from the CSA, but many people still feel that they are persecuted—that may be too strong a word, but a lot of people would use it to describe their position.
Several hon. Members wish to speak, so I will not go on much longer. My principal purpose today is to get some answers about the migration of the computer system. One million people want answers about when that will occur, so that they can plan their lives. We need to understand that, having been promised a new formula and looked forward to it, they do not want to hear more excuses. They want action and delivery.
9.39 am
Mr. Mark Todd: I shall touch briefly on three points, as many Members want to speak.
First, as those who have assiduously followed debates on the administrative process of introducing the new system will know, I asked a series of parliamentary questions about the robustness of the computer system throughout its development, but the Government declined several times to provide information, as they regard it as commercially sensitive. If one rings up the Child Support Agency, as I do on behalf of constituents, and talks to those who handle cases, it is quite evident that the computer system has not functioned adequately for some time. I have been told numerous times, "Well, I'm afraid the system is down, so I can't obtain the information that you're after. Please give me your phone number and I'll call you back."
One of the reasons I take up cases is that it is useful to learn at first hand about the administrative problems that our constituents face. I have a background in IT and took considerable interest in, and was extremely sceptical about, the system. To say that I have been disappointed by its implementation and performance is an understatement.
Secondly, there was particular confusion about handling cases, which tells me that there is a massive administrative overload with which the CSA is not competent to deal. I cite as an example the case of Mrs. W. I am sure she would not mind if I gave all the details,
74WH
but I will not do so as the other party is also a constituent, and I am sure that he would not want their affairs to be discussed openly in Parliament. Mrs. W first applied in December 2002. In May 2003, she was told that there was no trace of her application. In June, she applied again by phone, which a new system allows our constituents to do, and was told a few weeks later that there was no trace of that application, either. At the end of June, she applied for the third time by post.
Apparently, the case was first taken up at Dudley. Dudley is one of the centres that deal with cases from my constituency, although they are sometimes dealt with in Belfast. In July, the case was, apparently, passed to Stockport. The staff there thought it had been sent to Long Benton, although I cannot imagine why they thought that. It transpires that the case was actually sent to Plymouth. Despite several phone calls made by my staff and me, no one checked where it had got to until I persistently rang a number at Long Benton. The person who answered was clearly surprised to hear from me. They told me that they did not have the case, but promised to track it down. To give them their due, they set about the task with determination and located it in Plymouth. I believe that it is now being processed. It is hard to understand why these cases are shuttled around the country without a proper log of where they have gone.
Thirdly, there is the question of how cases closed under the old system are handled. A case can be closed for several reasons. Sometimes, the two parties agree not to proceed with the CSA, and there are no benefit implications. That is the happy part, although it can be temporary because people may, and sometimes do, change their minds. A case can be closed because someone's assessment is zeroed, as I understand it, by the fact that their costs are too high to merit a payment. Again, the person involved has sometimes chosen not to pursue the sums involved.
My constituent, Mr. H, was paying arrears under the old system at about £5 a week, but the case was formally treated by the CSA as having been closed in 1999. His ex-partner, having carefully examined the rules of new system, decided that it was an opportune moment to reactivate the case. Much to his surprise, my constituent was contacted by the CSA and told that he was now likely to pay not £5 a week in arrears, but £41 a week, which was the correct assessment for two children, with a factoring in of one child from his second relationship.
Strangely, if the case had been open and my constituent had continued to pay £5 a week under a normal assessment, not only would it have been impossible to pass him to the new system, but he would have received phasing-in assistance for the transition between the payment that he was making and the payment for which he was now being asked. Instead, he faces a huge change in his personal circumstances that I am sure will prompt a review of his position.
A conversation with a third constituent demonstrated that the rules on closed cases are becoming known in the CSA community, and we all recognise that there is a network in the community that passes on information that may be advantageous to others. It is also clear that a perverse incentive is being built in—I see a nod from the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb)—for people to cease work, for example, since one needs to be out of work only for a while to get the case closed for a

75WH
time and then reopened as a new case, which cannot be advantageous in any circumstances. I have asked the Government before to consider how closed cases will he handled in the transition to the new system, and I hope that they will take the opportunity to do so today.
9.46 am
Mr. Simon Thomas: I shall concentrate my remarks on the case of a constituent, of which I have given the Minister notice. It shows a number of the CSA's failings. It is perhaps not a useful case, but I hope that hon. Members will find it interesting.
The case goes back almost exactly four years to 10 November 1999, so I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on his good timing in almost hitting the anniversary. It concerns Mrs. Carolyn Gowman, who lives in Aberporth. On 10 November 1999 she won an appeal against her ex-husband Mr. Bruce and was granted maintenance of £147.38 a week. However, the CSA made no liability order against Mr. Bruce until February 2002, more than two years later, when the arrears stood at more than £40,000. That was the CSA's first failing.
There is no doubt that Mr. Bruce was playing the system—those in the CSA community know how to do so, as the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) said. For instance, Mr. Bruce was claiming a benefit during some of that period, yet Mrs. Gowman was awarded a departure on 3 April 2000 on the grounds that his lifestyle was not compatible with his claimed income. I am sure that that example will strike a chord with other hon. Members. The icing on the cake was that Mr. Bruce was a solicitor, so not only should he have been able to afford the payments, but he knew how to screw the system.
When the CSA made the initial liability order, it compounded the two-year hiatus by failing to locate Mr. Bruce and pay Mrs. Gowman the money that she was and still is owed. In fact, the only money that she has received from the CSA in four years is £170 in compensation for delays, inaction and poor service, although I regret to say that it took my intervention even to get that. I have other constituency cases that relate to the CSA, but Mrs. Gowman's is the worst, because it shows such a history of inaction, desk-bound lethargy and failure. She and I have both been fobbed off, which does not make me feel very happy towards the CSA as an agency.
I shall give an example of the CSA's lethargy and its unsympathetic approach. Using her contact, Mrs. Gowman found a likely address for Mr. Bruce in August 2002 and she immediately gave it to the CSA. By then I was also involved in her case. On 8 April 2003 I received a letter from the chief executive of the CSA, Doug Smith, stating that
"to date, written and telephone contact has proved unsuccessful. We have arranged for a visit to be made to the address she gave."
An address was given to the CSA in August 2002, and I received a letter in April 2003 saying that a visit to that address had been arranged. Mr. Bruce has a history of working the system and avoiding his responsibilities, yet all the CSA had done by then was send letters to the address and make telephone calls. That is utterly pathetic and incompetent. I do not even know that anything has been done now, because, after promising
76WH
to keep me informed, the CSA promptly ignored both Mrs. Gowman and me. That is why I am pleased to able to raise the matter in the House today.
It took more effort to get another letter on 15 July 2003. The CSA completely ignored questions about whether it had ever properly investigated the address—I suspect that Mr. Bruce has long since flown the nest—and lamely said that it would deal with enforcement when it had a confirmed address. It missed every opportunity to confirm the address and to make certain, through the Inland Revenue checks, that it had the right person. This has had a profound effect on Mrs. Gowman and her family. One can imagine what impact losing £150 a week has had on her income stream. She became disabled in 2002, and retired from work on the grounds of ill health. On Monday, the current outstanding arrears stood at £60,274.25, accruing at £187.53 per week, or £1.75 per hour and a half of debate in Westminster Hall. I made that calculation while listening to the hon. Member for Poole.
I have contacted my constituent throughout the week. Every time she or I contact the CSA we are told that a trace action will be instigated that very day. Mrs. Gowman was told that on 20 October. On 10 November, she was informed that there was a different trace action from the previous one. I do not know how many trace actions can be put in train. I understand that a trace action goes through the Inland Revenue, and that it is only possible to have one of them. Is it the same trace action that I was promised on 15 July? Three trace actions have been mentioned, but the problem is the CSA's inactivity and the fact that it has been fobbing us off, to use the technical term.
I have written to the Minister's colleague in the House of Lords about this case. I hope that the Minister will say something today or write to me about it. More importantly, I hope that he will address the wider issue. How can so many people be left sick, unable to work and owed £60,000 and more, with the CSA doing nothing to get that income to them? It does not matter whether it is the woman or the man who has been left behind; it is the principle. The CSA was established because so many people—particularly men it has to be said—were leaving marriages and not providing for their children. The CSA is perpetuating that problem. Indeed, it is exacerbating it in the case of Mrs. Gowman. I hope that the debate will enable the Minister to reply to the concerns of hon. Members, and to give a considerable push into a certain part of the CSA's anatomy.
9.53 pm
Mr. Bill Tynan: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise a couple of cases that I have been involved with in the past few years.
When discussing the weaknesses of the CSA, we should consider also some of the changes that have taken place. Whenever a marriage or partnership breaks up, it is important that the children are protected as much as possible. I should like to share with hon. Members my knowledge of how cases are processed and how calculations are made. Delays are caused because of the time taken by the agency caused by the apparent failure of the computer system. We are still awaiting the migration of old cases to the new system. That should be done as quickly as possible.

77WH
The agency often relies on clerical calculations. I have discussed cases with the parent with care, and they are often told that the computer system has broken down. Only after my intervention as a Member of Parliament has the agency been prepared to make a manual calculation. Some people are seriously in need of the finances that the system should produce for them, yet many suffer in silence—they feel unfairly disadvantaged—because the revision of a manual calculation is not available.
I shall concentrate on three cases. The first is an individual in a neighbouring village to my constituency. Her partner is a chief engineer working for Shell who earns £4,000 a month tax-free. According to the CSA, he does not have residency in this country. Every three months, he comes to Scotland and has the children for the weekend. We know that he has an address in the local village and that he stays with his partner, but the CSA was reluctant to become involved.
When the case was raised in 2002, we had to get as much information as possible. We spoke to Shell, and were told that the man was based on the Isle of Man but works out of Singapore. The company said that it could do nothing. The CSA originally rejected jurisdiction, because the man had no habitual residence in the UK. Only when the parent with care went to an appeal tribunal was the agency's decision overturned. She pursued the case herself, and the appeal decision was made on 24 June this year.
An interim assessment of £214 per week was made, and it was carried out in October 2002. Investigations subsequent to the appeal decision have taken a long time. Constituency workers in my office did all the ground work. The investigation team was proactive; it provided full bank details, the registration number and the make and model of his car, and details of the collection and dropping off of the children. We argued that the CSA had the opportunity to serve papers, but the agency dismissed our case.
The agency is now putting together an investigation team, but because all the ideas that were put to the CSA investigation team came from my office and the parent with care, I feel extremely frustrated that it will not give us feedback on the case, and will not tell us whether it is likely to bring it to a successful conclusion. It is important that the CSA works to its maximum to ensure that a parent who is not living up to his responsibilities and not paying money is brought into the system and made to pay.
Maladministration was a major problem in a case that involved the loss of an application form submitted in February 2001. My constituent was getting no response, and only after my intervention was a clerical calculation made. For gross inconvenience over a three-month period, £85 was awarded. The financial loss has yet to be calculated; that will be done at some time in the future. The CSA has accepted responsibility for the loss of the paperwork, but £85 was a derisory payment. It is important that we move forward when dealing with such cases.
There are weaknesses in the phone line for MPs. It fails to integrate with the public phone lines, so the two are not tying up. After an MP has intervened in a case
78WH
and it has been passed on, the constituent can get progress updates only through the MP's office. That aspect of the system is bad and must be rectified. It must either be resolved or constituents must be updated by the CSA, because the situation is causing frustration.
I know of other cases in which there is apparent insufficient recognition of hardship. People can suffer dramatically while waiting for payments. When lost cases and correspondence delay payment of maintenance, that should be properly reflected in the payment made. There is concern that a non-resident parent may be sent several letters requesting details of income and not respond. In that case, fewer letters would suffice and the threat of further action could be more swiftly invoked leading to earlier payment and a shorter delay in the resident parent receiving the money.
We must recognise that the CSA is a service provided for those who need it. All too often, absent parents in my constituency complain that they have become an easy target. They complain that the CSA concentrates not on difficult cases but on cases that are easily resolved. We have to change the culture of the CSA.
I apologise that I must leave at 10.30, but I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on giving us the opportunity to debate the CSA. I hope that we can resolve the weaknesses in the system and, if we do so, we are doing our job.
10.1 am
Bob Russell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on initiating the debate. So far, nobody has spoken in support of the Child Support Agency, and I suspect that that will continue. I do not envy the Minister, who must try to defend the indefensible.
I am sure the Minister has been advised that I have asked numerous questions, both written and oral, about the Child Support Agency. From what we have heard today, it is clear that I am not alone in feeling grave disquiet, and I could echo the cases mentioned by every hon. Member so far. I am in such regular correspondence with the chief executive that I can recite his name and address, including the postcode. The CSA dominates my advice bureau and postbag, and from what I have heard today, that is matched across the country.
I shall not cite individual cases by name, but I endorse the comment that the CSA picks cases that are sitting ducks and easy targets. Those are usually fathers, but sometimes mothers, who have no way of escaping from the system. It may be going too far to say that they are harassed and pilloried, but that is how many feel.
I shall concentrate on the other end of the spectrum, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), and on people who know how to abuse the system to avoid paying what they should. Generally, those people can afford to pay substantial sums for their offspring. How any man—it is mostly men, but sometimes women—can choose not to provide for his flesh and blood mystifies me. There are evil people out there who will do everything they can to avoid payment, whereas the person on the factory floor, in a controlled working environment, is driven for every penny that can be sucked from him.

79WH
The Child Support Agency knows of the three cases that I shall cite. I shall not mention the cases by name as that would be inappropriate. One is the case of a prominent member of the community who overlooked disclosing the £40,000 that he had received from a public source. Clearly, there is a breakdown in communications when a sum of that magnitude paid to a member of the community from one public purse is not declared on his statement to the CSA. However, even when evidence of that is produced for the CSA, action does not follow. I congratulate the former wife on her immense detective work. She did all the work that the CSA did not, and the evidence was given to the CSA on a plate, but still nothing happened.
The other two cases also involved ex-wives going to extraordinary lengths to do detective work to obtain evidence of where the errant father/husband had gone and of their lifestyles. That evidence was given to the CSA on a plate, but again there were failures in the system all the way along the line. In both cases, I begged the CSA to look at the houses and lifestyles of the rich fathers who, according to the system, were penniless. One of the hard-up fathers employed an accountant to prove how poor he was. One does not have to be Sherlock Holmes to work out that something somewhere is not right. A four-year-old could see that the lifestyle was such that those fathers could afford to pay for their children.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: My hon. Friend has touched on something that, in the cases I have seen, concerns me greatly. Because of the Child Support Agency's deficiencies, the aggrieved parent of whichever sex has to concentrate on, and becomes possessed and obsessed with, chasing their ex-partner. That is to the detriment of the children in the family. It worries me terribly that children who are trying to cope with their parents' broken marriage and not having both their parents are neglected because the CSA does not do its job.
Bob Russell: I endorse those comments. It is fair to say that the CSA is not part of the healing process. Indeed, it adds considerably to the trauma of many thousands of families. If the CSA cannot get its act together, perhaps it should go.
10.7 am
Mr. Wayne David: Like other hon. Members, I have come across numerous examples in my constituency office and surgery of cases that clearly demonstrate the failure of the CSA. At the risk of boring hon. Members, I, too, shall give an example of a case that caused a great deal of grief for the parties involved and on which my office expended a great deal of time and effort.
I shall call the individual Ms A, of Nelson, near Caerphilly. She waited nine months for the CSA to calculate her ex-partner's liability, and the calculation was achieved after many letters and telephone calls from her. However, she contacted my office because there seemed to be a logjam in the system at that point. My office staff made numerous telephone calls to Birkenhead, but were passed from pillar to post, and little progress was made. In frustration, they referred the case to me and I intervened through the hotline for MPs.
80WH
Initially, some progress seemed to be made. The evaluation took place and the father truthfully informed me and his ex-partner that a standing order had been set up. Although the CSA accepted that a standing order had been set up and payments were being made, it could not find the money that had been transferred to it. Eventually, after some weeks, the CSA accepted that the money was somewhere in the system and it promised to ensure that the money was passed on to the gentleman's ex-partner. I was then informed that there were difficulties with—guess what?—the computer system.
As Baroness Hollis wrote to me:
"Regrettably problems with the Agency's new computer system made it impossible to set up the accounts necessary in Ms A's case, and initially prevented the payments from being sent to her."
That is a frank admission of the situation. I intervened and tried to persuade the CSA to circumvent the computer system and issue manual cheques. That was problematic because certain procedures had to be followed, but eventually money was transferred to my constituent and she received everything that was due to her. To the credit of the CSA, a not inconsiderable compensation payment, £1,219.50, was made to Ms A for
"redress for loss of child maintenance, a contribution towards her costs in contacting the Agency and a consolatory payment for inconvenience caused to her."
I welcome that. I urge those who have encountered similar situations to press hard for compensation for their constituents. That situation ended satisfactorily, but I cite it because it is by no means unique; such cases occur frequently. That is why I tabled early-day motion 1786. It is straightforward and I urge all hon. Members to sign it to reflect the difficulties that constituents have brought to them.
What concerns me above all else is the position of children. As has been said, such situations cause a great deal of stress in an already-collapsed relationship. When money is not available, children suffer materially. Ms A from Nelson had no other significant support for her child, and 10 months passed before she received a penny. That is unacceptable. I know that the Government are aware of the situation. They have taken it seriously and reforms are being introduced. However, I urge the Minister not to back off, but to ensure that the reforms are pushed through so that we can have a system of which we are proud. The good intention is there but, sadly, delivery is not.
Mr Deputy Speaker: I call Sir Robert Smith.
10.12 am
Mr. Michael Moore: I am flattered, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at being confused with my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith).
I echo the final comments of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David)—the children are the ones who lose out. Although I do not blame the CSA for the fact that the system has a unique talent for further dividing families that are already in serious difficulties, I should like to focus on the impact that that has on second families, particularly the pressures and divisions that it

81WH
forces on them. For that and other reasons, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) for having secured this timely debate.
Almost all my casework to do with the CSA relates to non-resident parents. Most of the cases that we deal with concern exceptions to the rule, or serious inconsistencies. My caseworker, Margaret Gray, who has become something of an expert—I suspect that the caseworkers of all hon. Members do—continues to be baffled by the range of new inconsistencies that pile upon the old inconsistencies that we have not yet sorted out. If we can pray for anything in the new system, it should be clarity, transparency and a better understanding of what is going on.
Mr. David Drew: I apologise for not having been present at the start of the debate—I was stuck on an underground train. It has been an interesting morning. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must address the issue of confidentiality? That is a great bone of contention. Often, when the parent without care remarries or goes into a new relationship, they are subject to an open search by the Child Support Agency, unlike the parent with care. There is a lack of clarity in that respect and it is an issue that causes more aggravation than most.
Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. It encapsulates all the frustration that my constituents express with this one-sided system, and hon. Members who have spoken in the debate set out the problems involved. I hope that the Minister will give us some comfort and address that one-sidedness.
I shall put some of the inconsistencies on the record. The first relates to second family's child benefit. On 21 June, I received a letter from the chief executive of the CSA, which stated that in calculating my constituent's liability,
"We have only used his net pay and his partner's child benefit."
When I tried to clarify why on earth child benefit came into the calculation, the Secretary of State wrote to me:
"Many forms of income are taken into account in working out assessable income, but basic child benefit is ignored."
The CSA "Guide to Child Maintenance" states:
"If the non-resident parent lives with a new partner and they have a child of their own living with them, an allowance for this child is included in exempt income."
Does that mean that for those purposes child benefit is exempt, or is it included? I can get no nearer the truth despite having consulted three different sources of wisdom on the subject.
Many families do not know where they stand because of the guide book issued by the CSA, which states that the agency "may" do this, it "can" do that, or a rule "may" apply. In examples from some of my correspondence, the CSA said:
"We will probably take action against you."
How are constituents expected to get on with their lives if they do not know where they stand?
82WH
It is especially worrying when people receive a letter that states,
"We will probably give your employer a Deduction-from-Earnings order."
I think the deduction-from-earnings order system is a scandal. I had a constituent who was given such an order for the total sum of 1p. How that got through the system will never know, and we still await an apology for it.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) spoke about confidentiality, which is an important issue. I should be intrigued to know how the Data Protection Act 1998 might apply, especially to non-resident parents. One of my constituents informed me that staff at the Falkirk CSA office approached his mortgage lender for information, without reference to him. Is the CSA allowed to do that? Is the Minister comfortable with it? It appears very wrong to me.
The same constituent informed me that his new wife, who is now in receipt of working tax credit, was aware that the CSA must have access to personal details about her on the tax credit system, because it had details of her salary, which she had never supplied to the CSA. The Inland Revenue says that that could not possibly have happened, but it did. How did the CSA obtain details of her salary? What confidence can we have in the system as a result?
Debts that are incurred during the first marriage and are subsequently paid off by the non-resident parent are, as far as I am aware, not added to the assessment for maintenance. That can be crippling for many nonresident parents. I hope the Minister will be able to tell me that that has been addressed under the new system.
I appeal for clarity and efficiency in the CSA system. There have been too many examples of constituents who have received as many as four letters in one week from the CSA quoting different amounts of assessment. Telephone numbers of the CSA staff are hard to come by, and the same person never deals with a case on two consecutive occasions. The Minister has a great deal to tackle, and he will say that the new system is wonderful. However, it has a lot of catching up to do.
Mr. John MacDougall: rose—
Mr. John Lyons: rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can fit both hon. Members in if they take only five minutes each; otherwise, only one of them will be able to speak.
10.20 am
Mr. John MacDougall: As always, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall follow your good advice. I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on securing this debate. It is a welcome opportunity to debate the CSA. Many hon. Members have offered the hon. Gentleman our congratulations, but have also offered sympathy to the Minister, who inherited a major problem, albeit not one of the Government's making.
After the parents split up, they move on in their lives, and the child is left behind. Every child has the right to a decent start in life, whether or not the parents live together. Children are entitled to care and support and to their parents taking sensible responsibility for them.

83WH
The initial legislation, although well intended, has resulted in the major problems that have been highlighted today.
The situation is not all doom and gloom—the Government have made many improvements to the initial legislation. The number of non-resident parents paying all that they owe has almost doubled, while the overall case load has also nearly doubled, to 1 million. The number of no-payers has been almost halved, ensuring that more children are getting the money that they deserve. It used to be the case that poor families—nearly 40 per cent. of the CSA case load—had 100 per cent. of any maintenance collected knocked off their benefit. Once the reforms take hold, such families will be able to keep up to £10 per week.
Another great benefit is that the time taken to get the money to the child has been reduced. The research that I carried out has shown that processing times have been cut by around two thirds, from an average of 20 weeks to six to eight weeks. However, it has been made clear today that the CSA still has its problems and that those must be tackled. In the summer, I had worthwhile and serious discussions with Baroness Hollis, and I appreciate the moves that the Government have made to try to correct many of those problems.
In my constituency, Central Fife, the CSA has had major failures in dealing with certain problems, of which I shall highlight one or two, while keeping within my five-minute limit. One case concerned a grandmother who was the carer of three children and was receiving no financial support from her daughter or son-in-law. Another concerned a lady with learning difficulties whose father deals with her correspondence. The situation was further complicated by the fact that the child's father was not earning. Several of my constituents have ex-partners who have moved from job to job faster than the CSA could catch up with them, both north and south of the border. The CSA has particular difficulty in dealing with that issue. Although I would not defend any form of incompetence, I appreciate the difficulties that CSA staff face in trying to achieve the standards that many of them would wish to accomplish.
Another case was that of a lady whose ex-partner kept giving false information to the CSA. I suggest that not everyone tells the truth when they are pursued by the CSA. A few hon. Members have highlighted individual cases concerning regular payments. My main concern is the time taken to complete some cases. Hon. Members have also made the point that the agency concentrates on cases that are easy to resolve and leaves more difficult cases behind. That creates serious problems for those cases, and affects children. The main union for CSA staff admits that the CSA has fallen behind in making payments. The National Audit Office says that there remains a
"continuing high level of errors in maintenance assessments".
There have been cases recently where the court ruled that women and their children had not been offered the level of financial support that they deserved because of self-assessment for the self-employed. Problems have arisen from a system that was well intended when it was introduced, but unless we continue to make improvements to it, children will suffer from that lack of attention. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to
84WH
what has been said in the debate. I appreciate the Government's efforts, but hope that we can make improvements.
10.26 am
Mr. John Lyons: I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on securing this important and timely debate. We need better management of case loads. Hardware and software systems are crucial to concluding cases, and we need proper systems to assist staff and to ensure that the problems that have been raised today do not continue. I shall not raise individual cases; I shall refer them to the Minister and hope for a proper response.
When I visited Falkirk, I was struck by the staff's commitment to their work. The problem is that there has been a huge turnover of staff, so there is little continuity or experience in dealing with case loads. We need to do something to retain staff, and to ensure that they can conclude our constituents' cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) mentioned the helpline. I welcome it and use it often, but it should not be an excuse for the CSA failing to keep people updated or informed once an MP has intervened. Our intervention should be complementary and supplementary to a constituent's case, and should not be an excuse not to inform people.
The issues of deliberate unemployment and self-employment have been raised. Those issues need special consideration, and I appeal to the Minister to speak to the agency about a new approach to them. The situation is not good enough, and we need to keep up the pressure.
It has been suggested that our constituents could train staff at the CSA in how to track people down. That might provide additional work for our constituents, who are far better at it and get results quicker. We should listen to their criticisms, as they have first-hand experience of how to do that successfully.
We cannot allow the transfer of old cases to the new system to drag on much longer. People have suffered quietly, but it is never-ending. I appeal to the Minister to make that a priority. People should feel confident that they will be treated as a priority in the new system.
I am happy with interim assessments, but they should not excuse a lack of vigilance thereafter. They should not mean that people are no longer treated as a priority, nor should they ever be an excuse for not maintaining pressure to settle cases properly. We need a vigilant approach to conclude matters.
In the cases that I have dealt with, I have found that people criticised, rightly, a lack of reporting back about progress or lack of progress. People need to be updated regularly. There should be a recall system in which cases are systematically brought up, for example after four, five or six weeks, when it is clearly time to respond.
If we can tackle the issues that have been mentioned and the failings that have rightly been criticised today, we can collectively make a major improvement in the CSA and thereafter in the lives of our constituents who deal with the agency.
10.30 am
Mr. Steve Webb: I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on securing the debate and on his well researched contribution. More than 10 Members have spoken or intervened in the debate, and I am sure that they would want to thank him for being so unselfish and concise at the start. That has enabled so many of us to reflect our concerns about the system, and the Chamber is grateful to him.
At the outset, the hon. Member for Poole raised the issue that particularly concerned him—the delay in implementation of the new computer. As was mentioned briefly by the hon. Member for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall), that has an important practical consequence, which is that lone parents on income support on the old system are still having pounds of maintenance taken off them and cannot keep the £10. Lone parents on the new system are allowed to keep that £10, so why can that not be changed immediately? Why should a lone parent on the new system get 10 quid, while the woman living next door, whom the CSA has not managed to deal with yet, does not?
That is a gross injustice, and every week that the computer system is delayed is another week that another woman misses out on £10 for her children. That cannot be right. The Government will say that the change is part of a package, but it is not. It is entirely separate and could be implemented tomorrow if they wanted to, but they simply want to save the money. The Government should stop holding on to that money, which should be for the welfare of children.
A wide range of issues has been raised. The MPs' hotline was mentioned, and I want to put on record my appreciation of its staff, especially in Plymouth. I deal with them most frequently and am now on first-name terms. Many of them are old friends who do a good job, but, in the nicest possible way, I want to see them made redundant. I want the public to receive a service that means that they do not need to approach any of us to resolve problems. Perhaps one day that will happen.
The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) raised the important issue of people whose cases are closed and who then come back on to the new system, with no phasing and a big hike in maintenance. I have raised that point more than once with the Secretary of State during oral questions, and only last week I raised it with the Minister during a Statutory Instrument Committee on the Child Support Agency. I was given a patronising brush-off, as the hon. Member for South Derbyshire no doubt had, as he said that he had raised the point with the Department but been fobbed off. I hope that we are not fobbed off today.
The fact that several hon. Members are raising the matter should make the Department reconsider whether that is happening, how much it is happening and whether people are fixing the system. We have heard that many people know how to get round the system, so I hope that the Minister will open his eyes to what is really happening, not just what is written in his brief.
We have heard about some terrible cases. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) mentioned £60,000 arrears, and it is breathtaking that the situation could get to that stage and that the agency took nine months to visit someone when the parent with care had already provided information. There were several
86WH
themes in today's contributions, and one was that the CSA is turning many mothers into private detectives, which cannot be right. It is not in the interests or welfare of children or mothers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) said, the CSA is certainly not part of the healing process.
When it is given information, the CSA should be proactive, rather than telling people to do the work for it and, after six or nine months, perhaps acting on it. It is simply not good enough. The idea of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) of a routine prodding of cases that have gone quiet is an interesting one. I hope the Minister will consider how it could be applied in practice.
The hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan), who had to leave, mentioned forms that are lost and letters that are simply ignored. I am struck by the fact that the CSA sends a letter and, if nothing happens, it sends another one. How long does that go on for? The CSA must be more proactive, rather than sitting and waiting for someone to push. When we intervene, cases go to the top of the pile, but it should not have to be like that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, to his credit, has been a persistent critic of the CSA and its failure to recognise that many people are working the system and not providing accurate information. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) said that money went into the CSA, but the CSA could not find it. That is not rocket science, and it should be straightforward to put proper procedures in place.
Is the company that provided the computer system paying substantial penalty sums to the Government for its abject failure? The theory behind the private finance initiative and the reason for contracting out all these computer systems was that the lean, mean private sector would deliver, on time and to budget, a quality service that the stale old public sector could not. Well, it ain't happening. We want to know whether these companies are taking the taxpayer for a ride. I understand that the Treasury has decided not to outsource any more Government IT projects because they have all been such abject failures. Will the Minister think again when the contract comes up for renewal, and tell us whether EDS has done a good enough job to deserve a new contract involving a great deal of taxpayers' money?
My hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) rightly pointed out how the CSA can divide families, and how people can receive confusing and inconsistent information. All of us know of cases in which people received four letters a day, let alone a week, with different maintenance assessments, yet we are told, "It's the computer." All I can say is that that computer has a lot to answer for.
We often ring the MPs' hotline, and are told that the computer is down. Does the Minister know why the computer is always down? If so, will he tell us? What is going on? On one occasion when we rang the MPs' hotline, we said that one of our constituents wanted a face-to-face encounter with someone who would talk through the situation with them, and we received a letter from the CSA saying that staff were so busy trying to sort out the computer that they were cutting back on seeing real people face to face. This is not a triumphant new system that has been introduced effectively, but a shambles.

87WH
I am not sure what the parliamentary equivalent is of the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for Ceredigion at the end of his speech, but are the Government putting real pressure on the CSA and on the computer company to get them to perform? They have let down parents as well as the taxpayer.
It is important that the Minister has plenty of time to respond to the wide range of criticisms that we have heard today, so I shall conclude my remarks. We have heard some important statements about how the CSA needs to be proactive and needs not to divide families, but to do the work that enables new families to get started and to have a secure source of income so that the children in particular benefit, not just the parents. I hope the Minister is throwing his weight around, especially with the computer company, so that the situation is sorted out. It is about time that it was.
10.37 am
Mr. Paul Goodman: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on his introductory remarks, which were brief but covered a wide range of issues. The debate has been extremely useful. With the exception of the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), who made a broader speech reflecting his long-held interest in the workings of the Child Support Agency, hon. Members understandably tended to concentrate on human stories of difficulty, grief and heartache, to which the Minister will doubtless want to respond.
I echo the remarks made by the hon. Members for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) by paying tribute to the CSA staff, who are working very hard in difficult circumstances. I believe they have the highest rates of sickness of any staff group working under the general umbrella of the Department for Work and Pensions.
Like other hon. Members, I could cite specific constituency cases—naturally, I brought a file with me. However, I want to stand back from all the grief, heartache and difficulties that hon. Members have rightly described, and probe the Minister about the current state of affairs at the CSA. I hope to leave him with a little time to reply. I also want to ask him some questions, and would be grateful if he could confirm that he will respond in writing to any questions that he does not have time to answer in debate. I see the Minister nodding.
We all acknowledge that the CSA has a long history of difficulties, not all of which can be blamed on the present Government and the Minister. However, a general theme has arisen from the debate. Many of our constituents, and certainly many hon. Members, are asking whether the CSA runs the computers that deliver the service, or whether we have reached the point where the computers are running the CSA, which is not delivering the service that all of us, including the Minister, would like. As the Chairman of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood), put it to Doug Smith, the chief executive of the CSA, when he gave evidence last July:
"What frustrates us a lot … is how we try to understand what is really going on. Huge sums of public money are involved. Ministers blame computer engineers; engineers blame Ministers
88WH
and civil servants; project directors come and go and the problems continue… The departmental evidence that we received in advance of this session tells a completely different story from that which comes from the trade union."
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole took us through the history of the implementation of the new system, so I shall not go over that again. We know that 1.1 million cases are awaiting transfer from the old rules to the new scheme, so I shall first ask the Minister about uncollected maintenance owed to resident parents—some £2.7 billion in total. Of that, £398 million is described as collectable, so by what date does the Minister believe that the money will be collected and parents will be paid? The sum of £384 million is described as possibly uncollectable. I have never been sure what possible means in this context, but how much of that debt does the Minister believe will be collected, and by when? The bulk of the £2.7 billion—£1.9 billion—is described as probably uncollectable. Again, I am unsure of the difference between probable and possible in this context, but how much of that debt will be collected, by when, and when will parents be paid?
On 2 July, Mr. Smith told the Select Committee:
"The software required for bulk migration of cases from the old system to the new system was intended to be delivered … by EDS during the summer of this year. It is now clear that that will not be delivered … until the end of this year. The software … needed to do bulk conversions of existing assessments … was intended to be available …and the autumn of this year. It is now clear that that will not be available until the spring of next year."
Is the software for bulk migration on target for the revised delivery timetable, and if not, when will it be delivered? Is delivery of the software for bulk conversions on target for next spring, and if not, when will it be delivered?
In short, when will old cases be transferred to the new scheme? That has been a common theme of the debate. Can the Minister explain—there is some confusion—on what basis the 1.1 million old cases will be prioritised? In what order will they be dealt with?
The Minister is aware that the Public and Commercial Services Union paints a grim picture of the computer problems to which hon. Members referred. It says that the electronic management system is not reliable. Members of staff processing cases sometimes see them disappear from the screen and do not know when they will be back. There are difficulties with the telephone system and so on.
When Doug Smith gave evidence to the Select Committee, the Chairman asked him whether it was the case that in the previous month—June—the CSA had carried out maintenance calculations on only 20 per cent. of its case load. Mr. Smith confirmed that that was correct. What is the figure for the months since July? The Minister knows that many hon. Members have claimed that it now costs the CSA 20 per cent. more to process each claim. Is that correct? If not, what is the figure and how long does it take to process each case?
Let us assume that the CSA carries out maintenance calculations on only 20 per cent. of its case load each month, and that it costs the CSA roughly 20 per cent. more to process each claim. As I understand it, the

89WH
CSA plans a 20 per cent. reduction in costs as a consequence of moving to the new system, partly by reducing its head count by 1,600. I further note that Doug Smith told the Select Committee:
"I do not pretend that we do not have an increasing workload in hand."
He used a double negative, but what he meant is pretty clear. How does the CSA reconcile reducing a 20 per cent. or so loss of productivity—indeed, it is trying to make productivity gains—at a time when the work load is increasing, with simultaneously reducing the number of staff? What will the productivity gains be, and by when will they be made?
Can the Minister guarantee that there will be no reduction in the number of staff working on enforcement? If there is an increase in the number of such staff, how large will it be, and by when will it be delivered? On enforcement, can the Minister confirm that only two driving licences have been removed from non-paying parents as a result of action by the CSA? If not two, what is the new figure? If, as I believe, this form of enforcement is so effective that in nine out of 11 cases that went to court, non-paying parents actually paid, why have not more people been prosecuted? To allow the Minister time to answer all these points, I conclude by quoting Doug Smith, who said on 2 July that
"there is a big difference between a failed computer system and a computer system that has more teething problems than we expected. I accept that this may be seen as a piece of sophistry."
Those who feel that they are victims of the continuing problems at the CSA will, doubtless, want the Minister to reply to all these points in the time that he has, or in writing.
10.45 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): I thank the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) and others for their contributions to the debate, and congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on securing it as the subject is important to the lives of so many parents and children. The interest of the hon. Member for Poole in this subject is newly found as, only two weeks ago, he had an opportunity to discuss the matter but rushed in and told the relevant Committee:
"Conservative Members have other things on our minds today, which is why the Front-Bench spokesman is absent."—[Official Report, Fourth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 29 October 2003; c. 6.]
He then left the Committee—we were discussing improvements to the child support system—and dashed out of the room. What was so important that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had to discuss? On that Wednesday two weeks ago, their concerns were not with PWCs, NRPs or the CSA, but with another three letters: IDS.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new appointment and on raising the issue. We will take every opportunity to discuss how to ensure that children get the support that they deserve and need. That is why we are trying to ensure that the child support system works properly. We have had a good and worthwhile debate, with contributions from many hon. Members, some of
90WH
whom introduced constituency cases. I understand the concerns that have been expressed, and have also had to argue cases on behalf of my constituents.
However, I should like to remind the Committee how far we have come in changing the child support system. When we took office in 1997, we inherited a system that most people agreed was failing and inadequate. At that time, the taxpayer was supporting 1.8 million children, 70 per cent. of lone parents on income support were seeking to avoid a child maintenance application, and a third of all child support assessments took more than six months to make. The following year, we issued the Green Paper "Children First: a new approach to child support" and, after extensive consultation, we concluded that the only way to deliver child support effectively was a totally radical change in the system. We decided that we needed not just legislative change but change to IT support in the CSA and to the agency's culture.
I am not going to pretend that I am satisfied with the progress made so far—neither are ministerial colleagues. We shall continue to press for improvements in the delivery of child support, especially in the way that the computer system operates. That is such an integral part of the system. Its failures frustrate not only our constituents and hon. Members but the people who work hard within the CSA. There have been improvements in the delivery of child support, even under the old system. From 3 March 2003, we have started to migrate new and linked cases on to the new and much simpler system of assessment. Since then, owing to problems with the computer system, the service that we have given to some agency clients has still fallen well short of what they are entitled to receive, and for that I should like to offer my unreserved apologies.
It is perhaps difficult, however, for hon. Members to recognise the speed with which the improvements are being made. It is a fact of life that constituents rarely come to us to tell us when things are going well, but there is good news. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) and others claimed that the system is irreparable and suggested that we should perhaps return to the old court system, but many hon. Members will remember how much of a lottery that system of providing maintenance was. I ask the hon. Gentleman and others to recognise that the system is now clearing thousands of cases each week. Just over 45,500 new scheme maintenance calculations have already been made, around 10,500 non-resident parents have started to pay maintenance and around 6,000 parents with care have started to get the child maintenance premium income disregard in their benefit.
I should like to answer the allegation that the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) made and say that the decision not to move all parents with care on to the child maintenance premium immediately is nothing to do with an intention to save money. It is impossible for us administratively to make that change in isolation from the overall changes in the system. For the first time, parents with care are seeing improvements in both the level of maintenance and how it is paid. The CSA is already beginning to make a significant contribution to our important target, which is central to everything that the Government are doing, first to reduce and then to eliminate child poverty in this country.

91WH
If I do not have an opportunity in the few minutes available to me to answer each of the points that hon. Members have raised, I shall be happy to write to them. Similarly, it is difficult in a debate such as this to respond to constituency cases that have been raised, but if hon. Members write to me, I shall ensure that they get a reply to their concerns.
The hon. Member for Colchester suggested that dissatisfaction with the system is such that we should perhaps return to another system altogether—not use the new child support system and not go back to the old child support, but sweep it all away and go back to the courts. As I said, that would create such hardship, anxiety and heartache for parents with care and nonresident parents that what we have heard in this morning's debate would seem as nothing in comparison.
The hon. Member for Poole raised his concerns about the computer system, as did other hon. Members. However, we must recognise that the system is new and has a considerable job to do, which is to translate the old cases into the new system. It also has to deal with 2 million cases overall—non-resident parents and parents with care. Inevitably, making the system work effectively is a massive task, but it is not doing so to our satisfaction now. To ensure that the system improves, we are working closely with EDS, which has introduced new management structures and made new investment. The hon. Member for Northavon asked whether penalties were built into the system. The answer is yes, penalties are built in: we have the power in the contracts to withhold payments and we are doing so to ensure that the system operates in a way we would all like.
The hon. Member for Poole and others asked about the timing for transferring people to the new system. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State previously made it clear that we cannot and will not transfer the old cases on to the new system until we are certain that the computer system and the IT are working effectively, and I reiterate that now. If we were to do that, we would be letting down both the parents with care of their children and the non-resident parents. We must be certain that the system is working properly before we make that change.
As hon. Members will know, there is a set of transitional arrangements to ensure that as we migrate people from the old system to the new one both parents have the opportunity to plan their arrangements, and to take account of the changes in their responsibilities.
The hon. Member for Poole also referred to an assumption that the CSA treats non-resident parents as "second-class citizens". The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) also suggested that the agency operated in a one-sided way. I reassure hon. Members that the agency works in an even-handed way. In everything that it does, it recognises that it has a responsibility both to the nonresident parent and to the parent with care. If there are circumstances in which hon. Members feel that that is
92WH
not the case, I hope that they will write to me about them, so that I can investigate any allegations of anything less than even-handedness.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) expressed disappointment about how the system has operated so far. Ministers share that disappointment. He raised issues about particular cases in his constituency, and I hope that we can meet, in the not-too-distant future, to discuss some of them. He also made the point, as did other hon. Members, that there have been teething problems with the telephony and computer systems. We recognise that those problems exist, and in trying to iron them out have ensured that they are dealt with at the highest levels in BT Syntegra and EDS.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) raised a case to which he kindly drew my attention in advance of the debate. In such cases as that, in which non-resident parents attempt to evade their financial responsibility by moving employment or address frequently, it is difficult for the agency to trace them. However, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I will stress to the agency the necessity of continuing the tracing process, not only in that case but in other cases raised by hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) raised the issue of a person who was residing outside the UK. If a person is genuinely resident outside the UK, the CSA has no jurisdiction. However, there will be cases—I think he was suggesting that that was one—in which there is uncertainty about whether the person resides in the UK. We will follow up that particular case.
Several hon. Members raised the general issue of self-employed non-resident parents. We recognise, as do hon. Members, that it is difficult for the agency to enforce responsibilities on individuals who are self-employed. My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) highlighted that issue. To put it in context, the latest estimates show that around 6 per cent. of all child support non-resident parents are self-employed, and that compliance by self-employed nonresident parents is 67 per cent. However, we keep that issue under review.
In the time available, it is not possible for me to respond to every point raised by hon. Members in this good and worthwhile debate. I know that we all raise the issues because of concern for our constituents, but also to make sure that children receive the support they deserve and need. We are doing everything we can to improve the way in which the CSA operates. I pay tribute to the staff of the CSA, as other hon. Members have, for the way in which they show commitment and professionalism to make the system work. Our main focus, and that of hon. Members who have spoken today, is the children, who deserve the highest priority.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next debate, I congratulate all hon. Members on being so succinct and to the point during the debate, which enabled everybody to contribute.

Cancer Centre (Kent and Canterbury Hospital)
11 am
Mr. Julian Brazier: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the issue of the future of the cancer centre at the Kent and Canterbury hospital, and I am delighted to see the Minister in her place. I furnished her with an advance copy of my speech, because I do not want to be adversarial and hope that the debate will be constructive.
The recent review by the independent review panel, on which the Secretary of State ruled in July, was based on proposals in which cancer was confined to an appendix. Those proposals were put forward by the East Kent hospitals trust, which is responsible for all other acute services in east Kent. However, the responsibility for cancer lies with the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS trust, which was not even a signatory to the proposals.
The rest of the conclusions arrived at by the independent review panel and the Government seem to form the basis of a sensible consultation exercise. Although I oppose all cuts, they have the makings of a working compromise. Unfortunately, no such consultation process has been launched by the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells trust over the future of the cancer centre. Certain issues connected with cancer were dealt with in the East Kent hospitals trust consultation—breast surgery and haemophilia, for example. At the same time, the Kent and Medway health authority has launched a separate review into interventional radiology.
However, nobody is consulting on the overall issue of cancer treatment in east Kent. In its report, the independent review panel was deeply critical of the poor relationship between management in the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells trust and the consultants at Canterbury who deliver the service. Those consultants do so in an exemplary fashion, well ahead of the national average.
The cancer consultants have made it clear to me, to Professor James and now to the public that the trust's proposals for cancer services are inconsistent and unsafe. They are also largely unpublished. They follow a model that is untested in the UK, which will worsen access for many of the sickest patients and will throw up a whole mass of anomalies. For example, haematology is to be centralised at the Kent and Canterbury hospital for in-patients, yet all in-patient work for solid cancers is to move to Maidstone. Haematology is at least as complicated when it comes to the treatment and supporting services that it requires as solid cancer treatments.
The partial and incomplete proposals on cancer, provided in the annexe to the original proposals for the future of acute hospitals in east Kent, were sketched on the basis of a large-scale run-down of the Kent and Canterbury hospital. Fortunately, that has now been abandoned for a much better model. The proposals had to take account of the fact that the necessary supporting facilities were likely to disappear. We now know that they will still be in place.
As most of the crucial ancillary facilities are to remain at Canterbury, under the Secretary of State's ruling, there is no reason why the East Kent hospitals trust
94WH
should not retain its cancer centre. Following the recent review, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells trust is planning to close in-patient beds for cancer patients at the Kent and Canterbury hospital. It is alleged that those beds will be transferred to Maidstone hospital, so that patients receiving complex cancer treatment will be treated there. That means the loss of the cancer centre at Canterbury. For the first time in more than two generations, east Kent patients will no longer have a cancer centre.
The definition of a cancer centre is very clear. It is a general hospital with medical, surgical, diagnostic and intensive care support, radiotherapy and in and outpatient chemotherapy across the range of complex chemotherapies. Canterbury has been a cancer centre on that definition for more than 50 years.
The loss of the in-patient beds will mean that east Kent will have an out-patient radiotherapy facility operated on an ambulatory model. That model has not been tested anywhere in the United Kingdom, and exists only in America in private medical facilities. Time prevents me from going into detail, but I am happy to discuss that with the Minister afterwards. As it happens, Dr. Coltart has studied the American model and is very familiar with it. It is completely different from the way in which cancer is handled in this country, and trying to impose it on one small area of Britain in this way is outrageous.
No mention is made of who will look after the cancer in-patients in east Kent, but it will not be a cancer specialist. More than 1,000 patients were treated in the Mountbatten five-day in-patient unit and almost 600 inpatients were admitted for a longer duration, amounting to 5,500 bed nights last year. In future, patients are likely to be under general physicians and surgeons with no specialist cancer knowledge, if they have not been sent to Maidstone. It is not always possible to do so. They may come under the care of a physician with an interest in stroke medicine.
Thanet, Dover, and Deal are between 45 and 50 miles from Maidstone hospital. Patients from those areas will therefore be further away from a cancer centre than patients in any other part of England and in most parts of Wales. That loss of access represents a serious deterioration of the service that all east Kent patients have hitherto enjoyed at Canterbury. It seems perverse and distinctly unfair that new centres have been opened or expanded in other parts of the country, such as Truro in Cornwall, Preston in north Lancashire and Bangor in north Wales, yet we are to lose ours.
Professor James has repeatedly said off the record that the east Kent cancer department is too small. A comparison of new patient referrals with other centres is revealing: Canterbury had 2,200, whereas Colchester had 2,100, Ipswich had 1,500 and Dundee 1,200. No one suggests closing any of those and centring them elsewhere. I should like to give two genuine case histories to illustrate how patient care will be damaged by these changes.
Mrs A comes from Folkestone. She has had breast cancer, which has spread to the bones. For two years, this has been controlled by tablet treatment. In the past two weeks she has had increasing pain and has been feeling very unwell. She was seen urgently by the cancer specialist in the Kent and Canterbury hospital. Her

95WH
cancer had progressed causing high calcium levels in the blood, which was making her feel very ill. She was admitted immediately from the clinic, started on appropriate specialist treatment and within 48 hours began chemotherapy to control her cancer. Throughout her admission, she was under the care of a consultant oncologist and his specialist team.
If there had been no cancer centre at Canterbury—if the proposals outlined in the letters that I have received from the Minister's colleagues in the Department had been implemented—she could have been seen in the clinic by the consultant cancer specialist, but would have been admitted to Maidstone hospital for specialist treatment. The cancer specialist would visit the Kent and Canterbury for one or two days a week, so there would have been a delay in her seeing him and receiving chemotherapy. One alternative would have been for her to be admitted to the Kent and Canterbury hospital's on-call medical team, but they are not skilled in dealing with oncological emergencies.
The second case involves Mr. B, who is 58 and lives in Ramsgate. His wife is unwell with diabetes and he has been her main carer. Recently he was found to have cancer of the throat, which requires six or seven weeks of daily radiotherapy and chemotherapy. That treatment makes his throat extremely sore, making him feel unwell. Are we really asking him to make the 110-mile round trip every day? Of course not. He will have to stay in Maidstone hospital for seven weeks as an inpatient in order to complete the treatment. It is short of beds. His wife has to rely on friends to take her to visit her husband in hospital, which she can manage only once a week.
It would normally be possible to have that treatment as an out-patient of the Kent and Canterbury hospital on a daily basis—it is close enough for the round trip, being one third of the distance. With the closure of inpatient facilities for cancer patients at the Kent and Canterbury hospital, the Government are closing a cancer centre. Let us be clear about that. That is unprecedented, unjust and will worsen access for the poorest residents of east Kent, which, unlike the rest of south-east England, is home to large poor communities. The decision is perverse, particularly as cancer centres have been expanded in other parts of the country.
With the reconfiguration of Kent and Canterbury hospital, there is no reason for beds to transfer to Maidstone other than to fulfil the empire-building desires of Professor James, whose relationship with the consultants at Canterbury is so bad that even the independent review panel knows of it. Having dealt with him during the consultation, I understand that. It would be perfectly possible to have a centralised haematology and oncology in-patient cancer unit at Canterbury with the supporting services that are to be kept under the otherwise sensible settlement for the rest of the hospital.
Professor James recently said that he wished cancer treatment to be localised as close to patients' homes as possible. The plans to move in-patients and complex treatment would seem to have the opposite effect. One of the great successes of the national health service—of which the Government claim to be so much in favour and into which they pour more and more money to precious little effect—is bringing good quality care as close to the patient as possible. This plan reverses that principle.
96WH
I suspect that NHS planners wish to uncouple cancer services from the Kent and Canterbury hospital. We have a new linear accelerator, but when that and the other one come to the end of their lives, I imagine that the cancer service will slowly fade over the next five years as staff retire. I doubt that the radiotherapy machines will be replaced again. It will then be easier to close the remaining cancer services at the Kent and Canterbury hospital.
I have just heard that there is a plan to move the little centre of excellence for treating gynaecological cancer at Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital from Margate to Maidstone—my source is a leak from the minutes of the trust, which I believe to be true. Gradually, all specialist cancer work is moving to Maidstone, which is deeply inaccessible to people in much of east Kent. The political objectives for tomorrow's health care will be achieved, but at the cost of the patients of east Kent. I urge the minister to do what has already been done by the Secretary of State for the rest of the east Kent hospital trust's services—apart from cancer.
The Department should do a proper review of cancer services and talk to the consultants. They have played no role in the angry campaigning about the rest of the hospital. They are deeply professional, as are the rest of the consultants at the hospital, but they have kept their heads down and worked hard at their subject, assuming that all would come right. They have had enough. They have made it absolutely clear that this is a line in the sand; they will not go along with a manifestly half-baked attempt to impose on east Kent what is not the American model but a copy of something that Professor James claims is the American model. It is completely untested in England. I am most grateful to Dr Stewart Coltart for providing most of the briefing for this speech. I know one of his two colleagues extremely well and his views are the same, and I have a letter from the other colleague, from which it is clear that they all take the same view.
The Government gripped the rest of the situation in east Kent and, although I am not happy with all aspects of the conclusions—I am against any cuts in east Kent—at least a workable compromise has been established and the rest of the hospital service is working towards it. I urge the Minister to have the cancer proposals properly considered by an outside body, and to try to work towards a similar compromise in that area.
11.14 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on what is the third debate that he has secured on the subject, the previous one being in April. Cancer services are obviously and understandably of great concern to east Kent residents, and the Kent cancer network provides cancer services for 1.8 million people. The two main sites are at the Kent and Canterbury hospital and Maidstone hospital, which see about 6,000 new patients a year. In the Kent cancer network, waiting times and performance have improved, and we want that to continue. Therefore, I want to make it clear that there is no doubt about the important role that the Kent and

97WH
Canterbury hospital plays as a base for providing cancer services, and there are no plans to close it. That commitment has been made time and again, but I would like to reiterate it in light of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
The vision and the long-term strategy for cancer services were developed in 1998 during the original consultation on the future of health services in east Kent. Following that consultation, the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), confirmed:
"Specialist cancer services at Canterbury have a firm future".
That remains the case.
In 2001, a consultation contained a clear statement on the role of the hospital in the Kent cancer network, and the provision of cancer services was given careful consideration by the independent reconfiguration panel in its investigation. Its recommendation was that the Kent cancer plan is in the interests of local people and patients, and should continue to be implemented through the Kent cancer network.
I shall now address the hon. Gentleman's points on the independent review panel's report and the consultation. Having been thoroughly examined in court, both points he raised were rejected during a judicial review process last year, and it would be difficult for me to disagree with the court.
Mr. Brazier: The court did not produce a medical ruling; all it said was that the hospital trust had not broken the law. I am sure that the Minister has read the original document and the incredibly sketchy, conditional and vaguely written appendix on cancer. She must realise that it is not a proper representation. The independent review panel says that the relationship between Professor James and the consultants at Canterbury is so bad that it is damaging to patients' interests. Unless we get a grip of the situation at Canterbury—it cannot be gripped only from one end—the rosy picture that she described will not continue.
Miss Johnson: The hon. Gentleman made a point about the nature of the consultation, and I will discuss the model in more detail in a moment. However, the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS trust was fully involved in contributing to the consultation document, and the process behind the document has been tested by judicial review.
The original public consultation set out the long-term strategy, and in 2001 there was consultation on modernising hospital services, which I have already mentioned. Since then, there has been no change in the proposals for the provision of cancer services in Kent. The independent reconfiguration panel considered the cancer centre, and recommended that the Kent cancer plan is in the interests of local people and patients, and should continue to be implemented through the Kent cancer network. Primary care trusts in Kent are consulting on interventional radiology, along with renal and vascular services, but that is because all other aspects of cancer services have already been the subject of consultation and have been agreed.
98WH
The model supports and fits in with the national cancer plan. The plans for the location of specific services are necessitated by the need to improve the five-year survival rates for people with cancer. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman said that the health service in Kent was doing well on those fronts, but I am sure he would like improved survival rates, as we all would. The national cancer plan makes it clear that specialist work must be delivered from fewer places. Patients with more common cancers will still receive care at a local hospital. The proposed ambulatory model has already been tested, and is the model by which the majority of patients starting primary treatment for common cancers receive care. The 10 oncologists at Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells supported that model, and the national cancer director also gave his support to the model at a meeting in May 2002, which I think the hon. Member for Canterbury attended.
A review of other cancer centres across the country points to less than 5 per cent. of patients requiring admission as an in-patient. New cancer treatments mean that, increasingly, radiotherapy and chemotherapy are given on an out-patient basis. The model of care reflects that trend, while recognising that from time to time unwell patients need in-patient treatment. Consistent support needs to be available throughout east Kent from non-cancer services, as well as from specialist cancer nurses.
Mr. Brazier: The Minister made two statements. First, she said that the ambulatory model has been tested elsewhere. Leaving aside the general points, where has that model been tested in the United Kingdom? At every meeting, including that with the national cancer director, the only example given, apart from the experiment that was abandoned in Cornwall, was of the private sector in the United States of America. Can the Minister tell us the location of the health authority involved?
Secondly, the Minister said that the consultants at the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS trust supported the model, which Roger James claimed in a letter. However, three of the consultants—a third of the total—work in Canterbury and they are vehemently opposed to it, as they made clear after Roger James wrote the letter. Will the Minister put the record straight?
Miss Johnson: My advice is that 10 oncologists supported the model. If the hon. Gentleman has a different view, it is obviously difficult for us to square the matter during this debate.
Many cancer services are provided on a similar, if not exactly the same, model. The hon. Gentleman asked what other places were involved, and I shall be happy to write to him after the debate. As he knows, if patients require in-patient care, it will be provided in Maidstone.
On the closure of the cancer centre and the hon. Gentleman's allegation that east Kent patients will no longer have a cancer centre, as I said, there is no doubt about the important role of the Kent and Canterbury hospital as a base for providing cancer services and there are no plans to close it. The Kent and Canterbury hospital has a firm future. Under the newly developed hospitals reconfiguration plan, the hospital gains a

99WH
number of acute services and will remain viable as an acute site, able to support a successful local emergency centre. There will also be other developments, including a new child health ambulatory centre, a paediatric assessment unit and a centralised aseptic unit. All those service improvements have been backed by £7 million of extra investment at the hospital.
It has been stated that the east Kent cancer department is small. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for sharing that information with me, but I do not recognise the figures that he used. However, if he tells me his source, I will ask my officials to look into the matter.
The hon. Gentleman said that the centre of excellence for treating gynaecological cancer was being moved from the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital in Margate to Maidstone. Such statements worry families and communities. There are no plans to move the service from Margate. Indeed, external reviewers have praised the service at Margate for its high standards. Although the hon. Gentleman located the source for his comments, I am advised that there is no reason for such a statement.
The Department is not in a position to commission a proper co-ordinated review because the IRP looked into the issue fully and its recommendation is clear: the Kent cancer plan is in the interests of local people and patients and should continue to be implemented through the Kent cancer network. Although the Department will continue to work with the strategic health authority rigorously to manage the performance of the local delivery plan, the responsibility for taking the work forward now rests with the local national health service.
There is a clear model for cancer services in east Kent. There is a substantial work programme, which will deliver real benefits to patients and mean that the majority of cancer patients receive their cancer care as close to their homes as possible. There has been thorough consultation, much debate and an independent review of the proposals, and it is now time to deliver the changes so that local people can benefit from a high-quality and modernised service.
I also want to comment on the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the controversy among staff. When people disagree locally it is unconstructive for the future of local services. It is important that people come together to support the service developments that are taking place. I do not want to get involved in the local controversy or comment on the rightness either way, but it is important that people come together to support local communities. I am sure that he would want that, too.
100WH
Under the plans for east Kent, there will be much greater use of all local hospitals for routine cancer treatment. Radiotherapy and chemotherapy will continue to be provided at the Kent and Canterbury hospital. The hon. Gentleman mentioned in-patient issues. Increasingly, few patients receiving radiotherapy or chemotherapy will be in-patients, and only a few will require in-patient stays. The model that is being used recognises that.
The hon. Gentleman referred to rarer forms of cancer and patients having to be referred to specialist centres in London and Maidstone, and I want to touch on what the IRP said about that in its report. Everyone to whom the panel talked agreed it was right for the rarer forms of cancer to be treated in specialist centres in London and Maidstone, in accordance with national guidance. We obviously want people to get better treatment and live longer, and it is often important that patients with some of the rarer cancers receive treatment in specialist centres, which see more of those cases and are better geared to give the best possible treatment.
Cancer services have been kick-started after decades of neglect and under-investment, and are now moving forward. There are still problems, but progress is well under way.
Mr. Brazier: The fact remains that in a country that has a massive shortage of oncologists—my sister-in-law is an oncologist—plans cannot work if those who are supposed to implement them have no confidence in them. All three of the consultants based in Canterbury have made it clear that that is how they feel.
Miss Johnson: The hon. Gentleman and I are left trading oncologists—his three for my 10, as it were—and I can only reiterate my previous point.
Three years after the start of the national cancer plan, it is delivering faster treatment, higher standards and a better patient experience. In east Kent, there is a clear model for cancer services and a substantial work programme that will deliver real benefits to patients and mean that the majority of cancer patients receive their cancer care as close to their homes as possible and, in many cases, in their local hospital. There has already been thorough consultation, and it is now time to deliver the changes so that local people can benefit from a high-quality, modernised service.
11.28 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Regional Government (North-east)
2.5 pm
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): We have had to start late because of the Division in the House and I understand that there may be another shortly. If so, I will suspend the sitting for 15 minutes. That, however, is injury time—it will not eat into the debate, but will be added on at the end.
Joyce Quin: It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you are my constituency neighbour. I welcome the opportunity to introduce the debate, which is timely given last week's launch by the Deputy Prime Minister of the Government's information campaign on regional government. Given that referendums on the question of establishing elected regional government are to be held next year in the three northern regions of England—the great north vote, as it is aptly described—it is important that the issue is widely debated in Parliament and outside. By the time people vote, they should feel that they have been provided with the information and detailed arguments to help them make their judgment.
Referendums such as these are about giving people a choice on the proposed changes to our government and constitution. Those changes could have political and economic effects. When such policies are proposed, it is right that people have their say, and one of the disappointments of Conservatives' reaction in opposing the referendums is that they seek to deny people that choice.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the right hon. Lady comment on the issue of choice? If all the people who live in the unitary authorities voted, they would be able to outvote those who live in the two county council areas. Those county councils might then be abolished against the wishes of those who live in those areas. Is that choice?
Joyce Quin: I welcome the fact that the Government gave people in the existing two-tier areas a choice about which form of unitary local government they would prefer. That means they will not be overridden by those living in the already unitary areas, as they would have been before the amendment of the Regional Assemblies (Preparation) Act 2003. However, I believe that regional government is different from local government and, although I strongly support a move to unitary local government, I wish that the two issues had not been confused with each other.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The problem is that there will be a huge debate over the restructuring of local government and little debate about the plans for the regional assembly. Questions about what resources and structure the regional assembly will have will be overshadowed by the reorganisation of local government—the real debate will not take place.
Joyce Quin: I do not accept that. In areas such as the north-east, where 70 per cent. of people already live in unitary government areas, the issue of whether people
102WH
want regional government is already clear. Many in the north-east are strongly attached to their regional identity and are well aware of regional issues. I do not believe that they will be unable to see those regional issues clearly when the referendum is held.
Matthew Green: The hon. Lady is making a strong and cogent case. Perhaps she will confirm that a Liberal Democrat amendment led to the second question being on the ballot paper.
Joyce Quin: I am happy to confirm that, but the hon. Gentleman will find that I proposed tabling such an amendment on Second Reading—before it was mentioned by any Liberal Democrat Member. I am grateful to him for allowing me to place that on the record.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that my constituency neighbour is a right hon. Lady.
Joyce Quin: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I stress that the debate is about elected regional government, because there is already a form of regional government in the English regions, but it does not involve the people—the electorate, who are our constituents—and few people are very much aware of it. I am referring to the Government offices for the regions and the many regional bodies and quangos, which, although they do important work, operate largely behind closed doors and away from the public gaze and public scrutiny.
Far from being about creating more bureaucracy, as opponents of regional government frequently claim, the proposal is to democratise an existing bureaucracy and give the north-east as well as other regions a public and democratically accountable voice and therefore a public focus on the economic, political, environmental and cultural challenges that confront us.
I was interested to see the media reaction to the Government's information campaign, which was launched last week. In many cases, it was disappointing if not surprising. Many national newspapers seemed to fail to understand that there is a sense of regional identity in an area such as the north-east, and simply decried the proposed regions as artificial. That charge is impossible to substantiate for the north-east. Indeed, many people who might oppose the proposal for a regional assembly in the north-east would none the less concede that there is a strong sense of identity in the region. There is a strong shared cultural heritage, which goes back many centuries to the days of the kingdom of Northumbria. That region was a centre of learning and civilisation, and it was epitomised in the dazzling Lindisfarne gospels, which, unhappily, are not housed permanently in our region, although many of us would like to see them housed there.
There is also a strong shared industrial heritage, which goes from Tweedside in the north to Teesside in the south and which was built around the industrial revolution and the important industries of coal, steel, shipbuilding and heavy engineering. Today, that heritage brings together economic actors throughout the north-east, which are all concerned about the future of the region's economy.

103WH
It is good that the past inspires important cultural and economic initiatives today. I was interested to see a report in the press today on the drive to make St. Bede's, and the sites associated with the Venerable Bede, the third of the north-east's world heritage sites. It is significant that Tyneside and Wearside, which are not always allies, have joined together in a determined bid to promote that site, which is based around Jarrow and the Bede church in Monkwearmouth in Sunderland.
There are strong feelings of regional identity in England, particularly in the north-east, so it is depressing that the national media sometimes fail to recognise that. However, I also argue, perhaps more controversially, that regional identity is not always necessary for effective regional government. Let us consider the history of Germany after the second world war. Whereas some regions had strong historical identities, others did not, yet some that did not have been economically successful at devising regional strategies and making the various parts of their regions work together on, for example, technology transfer in Baden-Wurttemberg or on adapting and moving away from older industries, as in North Rhine-Westphalia.
Another press claim was that we would not be talking about regional government, even in the north-east, were it not for the existence of the Scottish Parliament. Again, I beg to differ. Forms of regional government were being suggested as long as 100 years ago, and perhaps the Liberal Democrat spokesman will confirm that Gladstone was also committed to the idea. I know from reading historical records of the Labour party in the north-east that there has been interest in the idea of regional government for many years—long before the Scottish Parliament came into effect. In the past, it was not easy to obtain central Government support for regional government, which is the key difference between then and now. Happily, we now have a Government who are committed to devolution and decentralisation, which can make all the difference.
Another red herring in the regional government debate, which surfaced many times in the press during the Deputy Prime Minister's information campaign launch last week, is that what we really want is effective local government. Of course we do, but we are not talking about a choice between effective local government and effective regional government. There are many cases in which one should have both. I certainly want that for our country.
It has also been said that what we really want is for central Government to have an effective regional policy at national level. This is a false choice because, in reality, we need both. Happily, we have a Government who are strongly committed to the regions and to regional policy, but it is also true that regional government works successfully in countries where it is backed up by an effective policy at national level. In no way does the establishment of a regional assembly absolve national Government from also pursuing policies to help the regions.
I welcome the report published in July by the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which contained many useful recommendations on how the Government might reduce regional inequalities. It is important for Government policies to mainstream
104WH
regional issues so that the Government can examine the need to reduce regional inequalities and consider what the effect of their policies will be on those inequalities.
The ODPM Committee's report also referred to the funding formula—the Barnett formula—and called for a review of total funding allocations as well as a review of the formula itself. The debate is not primarily about the Barnett formula, but I strongly believe that it is indefensible to voters in the north-east of England in its current form. I also believe that we need a formula that can be reviewed regularly and that takes into account the changing nature of the economic performances of the nation and the regions of the UK. It should also include elements such as the sparsity criterion, which is particularly important in Scotland. I urge the Government to consider this formula, because it is much easier to produce such a formula when economic times are good but much harder to do so when they are difficult.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The right hon. Lady has been very generous in giving way and is making a cogent case, although I do not agree with it. If she agrees that the Barnett formula needs revising, does she therefore agree that the people of Scotland, the north-east, the north-west and Yorkshire should all receive the same amount per head?
Joyce Quin: Certainly not. The Government need to consider the different economic situations of different regions, as Germany does in its regular funding reviews. Germany has an equalisation mechanism to help regions that are in the greatest difficulty. The matter is quite complicated and needs a great deal of thought. The approach suggested by the hon. Gentleman would not work at all, as the question is much more profound that his proposal seems to indicate.
The ODPM Committee report also referred to other regional disparities. An area that worries me, which also worries the CBI in the north-east of England, is the public sector spending on research and development. As the ODPM Committee report stated:
"If public sector investment in research and development in the UK as a whole is low, then the North East's share is pitiful".
The statistics bear that out.
The devolution process introduced by the Government has so far benefited Scotland and Wales and led to policies being adopted in those countries that their people feel suit their needs. I welcome that. However, when I asked Scottish and Welsh colleagues about the benefits of devolution, I was struck by the fact that, rather than talk about policies or powers, often the first thing that they mentioned was the way that it had allowed a public and democratic focus on the needs and opportunities of those territories and the challenges facing them. That argument applies just as much to the Government's proposed regional assemblies in England as it does to Scotland and Wales.
I know that the Government propose to introduce a draft powers Bill on regional government in England. I urge them to consider strengthening the powers in certain areas, particularly learning and skills, and transport, both of which are crucial to a region's economic development. We know that devolution is a process, and the Government recognise that in their

105WH
White Paper. Indeed, in Wales, the Assembly's powers are already being reviewed. This is a process, but the Government's proposals are an important step along an important road for the regions of England.
I am glad that economic development is at the heart of the proposals and I believe that the single pot of money will help the region to prioritise and spend on what it believes is most important. The north-east of England has a distinct economy. We are more heavily reliant on the manufacturing sector and exports to the European Union market than anywhere else in the UK. In schools, we have a lower staying-on rate, which needs to be addressed, and a lower start-up rate for small businesses. We also have particular skills needs. All those areas of distinction cry out for a regional focus, regional strategies and regional solutions.
I am glad that the press in different parts of the north-east have recognised that. This Monday's Northern Echo editorial states that
"only by working for a future together can the region start to redress the balance between bad news and good news on the jobs front."
The press have recognised that regional strategies are about jobs, industry and the health and future of the economy. The influence that the regional assemblies will have on regional appointments and the ability to focus on matters publicly will be important in getting public support and creating an awareness, which the present system is unable to do.
Will the Minister respond positively to concerns that have been raised by business in the north-east? He was present at the launch in Durham a week ago, so he knows that there was a positive response to the proposals from the business men who were present. However, they had concerns, many of which have been produced in 10-point programme, that are worthy of serious consideration and can provide the basis for a constructive dialogue with industry.
Aspects of devolution in Scotland and Wales have not received the warmest publicity, and although we can learn from the positive aspects of what has happened elsewhere, we do not need to do everything in the same way. For example, I do not see any justification for new, expensive buildings in the north-east, particularly given the modest size of the proposed assembly. We must also be sensitive over the location of any assembly—I am glad that the Yes campaign for the north-east has established its headquarters in Durham and that the Deputy Prime Minister held the launch there last week.
There are worries that need to be addressed, and although other hon. Members here can better comment on those in the south of the region than I can, I believe that there is a great sense of unity in the north-east. The fact that the Teesside and Tyneside chambers of commerce joined to form the North East chamber of commerce is a good example of how people feel the need to operate regionally in the north-east. Those areas in the region that look south as well as north know that if a regional government is established in Yorkshire and the Humber, the two regions will be able to co-operate on many issues. The idea is to co-operate, rather than imprison people in geographical confines in which they feel uncomfortable, and to introduce an enabling, empowering structure that will stand the regions in good stead.
106WH
There are also worries in the rural areas, so I welcome many of Lord Haskins' proposals, which are very much along the lines of devolution and will effectively integrate the rural and urban areas in a common cause for the well-being of the region. I am particularly exercised on this point, as I was a Minister in the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I also have a lot of contacts with the rural world and I know of the concerns there about marginalisation if the structures are not right.
I shall bring my comments to a close, because a number of hon. Members wish to contribute. Regional government can mean huge gains for the north-east, but it would be foolish to say that it will solve all problems. In the modern world, the economy of a region can be greatly affected by economic events thousands of miles away and we must recognise the national, European and international contexts in which we work. However, regional government is the missing link in our democracy and in our system of economic management—in that sense, it can add real value. I am convinced that if anywhere in England can make a success of devolution, it is the north-east. We are being given a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to give regions a powerful voice in our nation's affairs, to address regional needs and priorities, and to allow regions such as the north-east, with its pioneering industrial past, to pioneer a new form of democracy for England.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call Mr. Atkinson, I tell the Chamber that because of the disorganisation caused by the timing of the vote in the House, on this occasion I shall not take lateness into account as a factor in deciding whether to call an hon. Member.
2.27 pm
Mr. Peter Atkinson: I am grateful for that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, I missed the start of the speech by the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), because I was voting in support of a ten-minute Bill that would give the British people the power to have a referendum on such an important issue as the European constitution. I suspect that quite a lot of Labour Members who intend to call for a referendum on regional government were trooped through the No Lobby to vote against the Bill. However, I shall not intrude on the Labour party's private grief.
The right hon. Lady and I agree on many things. For instance, I entirely share her view on the importance of a regional focus and regional identity, and I fully support what she said about getting the Lindisfarne gospels back to the north-east. However, I disagree fundamentally that we need an expensive and costly elected bureaucracy to do that, and that is where the difference lies. We are sceptical about whether a regional assembly will do what is claimed of it, and whether it will be a minimalist organisation. As it turns out, we think that a regional assembly will be extremely costly.
I refer those who argue that an assembly will solve all the problems of the north-east to what Lord Rooker said in the House of Lords: "No more power, no more

107WH
resources." People who actually believe that setting up a regional assembly will produce more money and power for the north-east of England are living in cloud cuckoo land.
The North East chamber of commerce reflected such a view in its recent session on the subject. It said that among its members, who are from the business community in the north-east, views on regional government range from scepticism to hostility. If the right hon. Lady and her supporters of regional government are to convince those people, they will have to answer some tough questions. So far, those questions have not been answered.
By promoting the idea of a Geordie parliament, its supporters are appealing to people through their sense of regional identity. It is an emotional appeal. However, we do not have the answers to the hard questions that need to be asked and answered so that the people of the north-east can make a proper decision when they come to vote.
Ms Dari Taylor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take back the unfortunate statement that he just made to the House, claiming that it will be some kind of Geordie parliament. There are Teessiders here, and we do not want to be deprecated or left out.
Mr. Atkinson: The hon. Lady makes my point about one of the problems with the regional assembly. We talk about the Geordie parliament, because where we come from, on Tyneside, people refer to it as that. That is where the problem lies. We will have one part of the region against the other, and the hon. Lady makes my case perfectly.
Vera Baird: I am terrified about the hon. Gentleman's geography, as he clearly thinks that Hexham is on Tyneside.
The appalling history of the Conservative Government was to starve our region, particularly the sub-region of Teesside, of any resources. If the hon. Gentleman is so opposed to the idea, what alternatives does he advocate to the large resources that are available and their democratic control?
Mr. Atkinson: I get cross when Members from the north-east say, "What has the Conservative party done for the north-east of England?" I will tell the hon. and learned Lady what it has done. She should visit the quayside at Newcastle and the developments at Teesside that Mrs. Thatcher and Michael Heseltine started. Over the years, the Conservative Government committed millions of pounds to the region when they hardly had a single north-east MP—only four MPs. Now we have a fistful of Cabinet Ministers from the north-east, and the region has less investment than during those days.
I shall not take any lectures from north-east Members about the Conservative record. I am proud of the Conservative party's record, and when I walk along the quayside at Newcastle, I say, "This is what a Conservative Government have done for the region."
Mr. Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman should remember what the Conservative Government did to my constituency, North Durham. They decimated the coal industry and closed down the shipbuilding industry on Teesside, Sunderland, Wearside and Tyneside. I must also correct the hon. Gentleman—the Tyne and Wear development corporation squandered millions of pounds on schemes that did not come through. Today's regeneration of the quayside is actually down to the tenacity of Gateshead and Newcastle city councils.
Mr. Atkinson: I do not think that we would agree with that. As for the history of the Durham coalfields, I suspect that a gentleman named Wedgwood Benn closed most of the pits. The hon. Gentleman is probably too young to remember that.
However, I do not want to go on about the past—this is becoming a bit like Prime Minister's Question Time. We should look towards the future, and deal with the concerns that we and the people of the north-east have about the regional assembly. We do not have the detailed answers that we need to our questions.
People in the north-east should look to the example of the London Assembly. That is the nearest equivalent that we have to a regional assembly. We were told that the regional assembly for London would do wonders, and would be an economic organisation that would stamp a true London identity on the city. The right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West will know that the cost of the Greater London Authority on the London boroughs has risen by 29 per cent. this year, and that Ken Livingstone—who I believe may be the Labour mayoral candidate, or not—moved into brand new headquarters on the Thames, in a building of fine architectural quality. Within a few months, it seems that there is not enough room for the staff, which has expanded to a greater extent than anticipated. That is a warning to the people of the north-east.
The right hon. Lady mentioned the Scottish Parliament, the cost of which is up from £40 million to £400 million. If the people of Scotland were asked to vote again on whether they wanted devolution I doubt that there would be overwhelming support. That certainly would not apply in Wales.
The people of the north-east deserve some honest answers. The Deputy Prime Minister came to Durham last week to launch the referendum road show. It seemed merely a propaganda vehicle for the Yes campaign. I asked the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister about the cost of the campaign. The people of the north-east should know that that launch last week cost £25,000. It could have been done for £200. The budget for this information campaign until the end of this financial year is £500 million. I warn the people of the north-east that this is where the regional assembly is going. If you want an assembly, you should watch your pockets and count your silver spoons.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) says "you" he is referring to me. As I am in the Chair I have no view on the matter.
2.36 pm
Dr. Ashok Kumar: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) on securing the debate. This is a good moment to hold it because, as she said, last week the Deputy Prime Minister launched the campaign to raise awareness and generate debate about Labour's plans for elected regional assemblies in the north-east, the north-west, and Yorkshire and Humberside.
I want to say a few words about what regional devolution will mean for Teesside and how the new assembly can make a difference to the people of the north-east. I intend to show that we have a different perspective from the picture of doom and gloom painted by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). The north-east is the furthest English region from the centres of power in Westminster, the ministerial offices in Whitehall and the large institutions that shape our lives such as the City of London, the finance industry, the national media and the permanent secretaries of the civil service. The north-east is all too often ruled by quangos and career civil servants. That is not a wilful criticism of those who run public affairs in the north-east.
Mr. Kevan Jones: The hon. Member for Hexham mentioned the Tyne and Wear development corporation. Does my hon. Friend agree that two institutions that needed public accountability and exposure were the Teesside and the Tyneside development corporations set up by the last Tory Government?
Dr. Kumar: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As hon. Members are aware, the Teesside development corporation finished up before the Public Accounts Committee because some £8 million was missing. The hon. Member for Hexham and his Government failed to provide the necessary accountability.
Those who run public affairs in the north-east have the interest of the region at heart, and believe strongly that we need to modernise our regional institutions and to iron out regional inequalities. However, they are all directly appointed by Whitehall, and their final accountability has to be to the people who appointed them. That is wrong. I am proud to say that our Government recognised this from day one.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West mentioned devolution in Scotland and Wales and the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. I agree with her that they are now part and parcel of our everyday institutions. I recall that the Conservative party opposed both those institutions until they were set up. They were wrong then, and they are wrong to oppose them now.
Institutions need dreams. Labour Members have a dream for an assembly in the north-east. A regional assembly would give the people of the north-east the power to set their own priorities, and the ability to take decisions to solve the problems that they want solving. I have been amazed at how strongly the people of the north-east identify with their region. My right hon. Friend mentioned the solidarity and support that have existed for a long time.
110WH
I want to turn to the role of Teesside in a new regional assembly. Teesside is still the industrial powerhouse of the region. It is one of the UK's—indeed Europe's—biggest producers of chemicals, including products that are a staple part of our everyday life in our homes, our clothes, our cars, our food and our medicines. Many of the greatest chemical companies in the world, such as BASF, Amoco, Huntsman, Du Pont and BP, are found in Teesside. Their managers are experienced in working in a global environment that has Teesside at its heart.
Teesside also has a great steel-making tradition going back 160 years. It has Britain's second biggest port by volume of cargo handled, with all the transport and infrastructure needed to support it in place along the river. Those key industries are supported by many small, local firms with strong sectoral strengths. Teesside is home to one of the UK's biggest concentrations of process industry technology, and marine and offshore engineering. Such strengths mean that Teesside must be central to the economic development policies of a regional assembly.
A good regional economic strategy will bring great benefits to Teesside. It will help Teesside airport to become the international airport that we need to cater for business people from all over the world who have made Teesside their manufacturing home. It will help us to work with the port authority to develop Teesport into one of the UK's great maritime centres for the new markets and trade patterns that will follow the accession of countries such as Poland and the Baltic states to the European Community. It will allow the new centres of excellence within the chemical sector to flourish, permitting a move from relatively low-value bulk chemicals to higher-value intermediate and finished goods. I strongly believe that it will act to help an iron and steel-making company such as Corus realise its ambition to make the Redcar and Lackenby steel complex Europe's largest and best supplier of bulk steel products.
However, in common with the whole of the northeast, Teesside has needs as well as achievements of which to be proud. It must ensure that people are fully trained to take part in the new skills revolution that is transforming work. It needs to improve further the performance of our schools. It has to build on the existing strengths of our regional universities and colleges, including the university of Teesside and the new Stockton campus of the university of Durham. It must improve its infrastructure; I have mentioned the airport, but road and rail improvements are still needed. We should build a new mass transit system for the Tees valley that is now a lot closer, following the recent announcement of a possible start in Middlesbrough.
In short, Teesside needs a renaissance, and a regional assembly could be the focus for it to achieve that. However, a regional assembly can do more—not just for Teesside, but for the north-east.
Despite the efforts of the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister, we still live in a country that is economically unbalanced. Of all the regions and nations that make up the UK, only the south-east is wealthier than the current European Union regional average. The problems of the south-east are of overdevelopment and overheating, whereas those of the north-east are of

111WH
relative underdevelopment and spare capacity, both physical and human. The economic deficit is but one result of a long history of an over-centralised state.
There is also a democratic deficit. An over-centralised state is prone to fall into the trap of making decisions inappropriate to regions such as the north-east, because it tries to square the circle by making the same rules apply to both the south-east and the north-east. Such a one-size-fits-all approach can make the regional disparities wider. Great disparities still exist, despite the Government's good work over the past six years, of which I am proud.
The Minister may have seen the Institute for Public Policy Research report, which stated that, since 1992, the economic prosperity gap between the south-east and the north-east has widened from around 30 per cent. to nearly 60 per cent. That is alarming, and I hope that the Minister will comment on it.
We in the north-east still have too many wards in the top 10 per cent. of the index of multiple deprivation. Although only 8.8 per cent. of people of working age in the south-east are claiming state benefit, the equivalent figure for the north-east is 20.3 per cent. In 2002, 31 per cent.—almost a third—of workers in the south-east had a degree, whereas only 19 per cent. of the north-east's work force possessed a similar level of qualification.
We also need to examine the levels of employment in the north-east. We still have a long way to go. The figures from some of our travel-to-work areas show that the numbers in work are low compared with the national average. In my local Middlesbrough and Stockton travel-to-work area, only 66.4 per cent. of people are in work; in Sunderland and Durham it is 67.2 per cent.; and in Newcastle, the figure for Tyneside is 69.3 per cent. Those figures should be seen against the national average of 74.6 per cent., and the European Union Lisbon treaty floor target of 70 per cent.
I said that much has been done since 1 May 1997 to reverse that trend. The work of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in tackling regional issues by setting up the regional development agencies is a credit to him. I hope that the next comprehensive spending review will carry on building on that programme of work. I also hope that the Government will examine the possibility of setting targets to reduce economic and social disparities and inequalities, and will seek to put flesh on the bones of the idea of dispersing Whitehall departments and agencies to the regions of England.
As well as looking to the structured programmes to replace European regional development funding which, as a result of the accession of the new nations to the Community, will taper off from 2006, we want to go one step further. Good deeds in Whitehall are one thing, but we want the ability to make our own future. We want autonomy and the ability to manage our own affairs. We need management by the people of the north-east for the people of the north-east. A regional assembly will give us that power.
That is why I, with all my regional colleagues, will be campaigning next year for a resounding yes vote in the north-east. I want the people of the region—from Berwick to Boulby—to show that we are proud, talented and ambitious. A regional chamber will give voice to our people and expression to that pride, talent and ambition.
112WH
In conclusion, I shall quote the Deputy Prime Minister because the project is his baby, he has championed it for a long time, and I think that he has got it right. He said:
"People in the north have a great opportunity to establish a new form of government that brings choice, democracy and opportunity to their region."
I concur with him wholeheartedly.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is little time remaining for speeches from Back-Bench Members, but if hon. Members are brief, I shall do my best to call them all.
2.50 pm
Mr. Derek Foster: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) on securing the debate, and I pay tribute to her campaigning skills, both for a regional development agency and for regional government. I also pay tribute to the Deputy Prime Minister. I first worked with him on these issues in 1980, and over the intervening years he has maintained his vision and determination, and has persistently pursued the objective. We would not be having this debate without his work.
I was first persuaded that we needed a regional development agency and regional government in 1974, when I was the chairman of the North of England Development Council, which was the job-hunting agency, and we were competing against the Scots and the Welsh. That was 1974 and they already had a powerful RDA, a Secretary of State in the Cabinet and their own Question Time. They already had a Grand Committee and were later to have a Select Committee. Those were all superb vehicles for focusing the minds of busy Ministers and officials on the problems of Scotland and Wales. As a young MP, the first thing that I noticed was that we had no research or body of authoritative opinion at our disposal to pursue Ministers and officials as the Scots and the Welsh could.
My political life, regionally and nationally, stretches over 30 years. Most of my experience has confirmed my view that the man or woman in Whitehall does not know best. Despite some of their superb qualities, they need to create a learning organisation, which should be a partnership with regions such as our own, to draw from our experience, abilities, commitment and knowledge of regional problems. That is where an RDA and regional government can help.
It was kind of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to call me. I wanted to say much more, but I will give my other colleagues the opportunity to speak.
2.52 pm
Mr. Hilton Dawson: I will be similarly brief. It is a great pleasure to take part in the debate, albeit from the perspective of someone who has moved 150 miles from where he was born. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) on securing the debate, and on the way that she has led it.

113WH
When I leave Parliament at the next general election, "gaan hyem" to Northumberland, I trust, hope and believe that the people of the north-east will have overwhelmingly voted yes to an elected regional assembly. The north-east has an identity and the commitment of its people. The region has a passion, which is often expressed in the rivalries of the football teams. I always want Newcastle to do well, as long as Sunderland beat them in the cup final and they come second to us when we get back into the premier league.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to draw me into that controversy.
Mr. Dawson: I will quickly steer away from that subject, but we need to ensure that that passion is diverted to the interests of the whole region. I believe that the people of the north-east will choose an elected regional assembly, because they know exactly what the north-east needs—democracy. It needs the people of the region to be empowered and involved in the huge decisions that a regional assembly will make on the issues that are fundamental to their lives—such as jobs, major land use issues and transport—and on how the whole region is run and, in particular, regenerated. An elected assembly will provide a tremendous opportunity for the people of the north-east to play a much bigger part in the regeneration of the United Kingdom, and for the north-east to develop its own solutions to its problems, rather than being merely a supplicant to the national Government and a power base located a long way away.
An elected assembly will engage all the people and communities of a diverse and interesting region in the new future of the north-east. It provides an opportunity to throw off the old clichés and persuade young people born in the north-east that they have a future there. I am part of a generation of people who left the north-east because there was not enough for them there. For many people, there was nothing in that region. An assembly will provide an opportunity to convince young people coming to the region—to some of the excellent higher education institutions, for instance—that they have a future and a life there if they will only stay.
An elected assembly will provide an opportunity for the region to build links with the other regions of Europe—across, for instance, a North sea community—and to create a wider community than that of the European Union. I hope that it provides an opportunity for the north-east region to work properly with a devolved assembly in the north-west and in Yorkshire and Humberside on a renaissance of the north. This is the tremendous opportunity that we have.
I am delighted to hear about the prospect of an elected regional assembly being based in Durham. The great historic cities of the north have a remarkable part to play in the future. Durham, York and Lancaster are the right centres for devolved regional assemblies—a modern idea in an ancient and historic setting. This is the future. It is one of enterprise, imagination and a new
114WH
energy that can be brought into the north-east and all the regions of northern England. I hope that many people, seeing the opportunity of a devolved regional assembly and a new future for the north-east, will, like me, decide that it is time to go home.
2.58 pm
Vera Baird: I have about two and a half minutes to speak, so I will cut out all the fancy bits and cut to the chase—not that there was ever anything very fancy in my speech.
People will be well aware that the five boroughs of the Tees valley have a combined population of about 650,000, and our larger and, as we have perceived it, more prosperous neighbour, Tyne and Wear, has a population of about 1 million. Historically, the Tyne has seen stronger economic growth because of its larger population and bigger cities, such as Newcastle, which is an established cultural and arts centre. The Tyne's voice has sometimes been—or been believed to be, from a Teesside vantage point—stronger than our own.
A concern voiced in the Tees valley is whether a regional assembly for the north-east will represent the whole region. Clearly, there will be proper democratic representation, but people remain a little apprehensive. I shall briefly say why I think that that argument is completely wrong and why I will be out canvassing for the great north vote, as our great north Deputy Prime Minister calls it, and especially campaigning for a regional assembly for the north-east.
What is key is that there is more in common between the twin riverside conurbations of the Tyne and the Tees than there are differences between them. Those twins, if not identical, have had pretty near identical problems historically, and certainly the same general profile. The current generations on both the Tees and the Tyne have, after all, been brought up in the same environment: economic decline, a reduction in labour-intensive industry, dependence on the manufacturing sector which vacillates, unemployment, inner urban deprivation, and living in the midst of tracts of derelict land. That hard rearing has also brought to those twin riverside conurbations similar cultural outlooks. They are a little shocked at the economic blows of the past; inherited skills and ways of life are less valued, and they are not always confident and enterprising.
However, nurturing from this Government's regional policies in the last six years has made a cataclysmic difference to those attitudes. The regional development agencies have increased budgets and the single-pot concept is removing the earmarking of funds and freeing them to be applied locally and wisely. Under that nurturing, both twins are starting to realise their potential, and as a person who has lived in Tyneside and in Teesside I can sense powerfully what a success our regional policy has been so far. It has been a huge focus for this Government, and I will say again, even though the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) is not present, that this Government's focus is in rank contrast to the total neglect, especially of Teesside, by the last Government. This Government have started to bring new investment, to persuade people to take up new skills and to revive this pair of very similar economies.

115WH
I am truncating my speech, as I am aware of the time, but it is very important at this stage to be aware of the sensible decision that has already been taken to have the regional capital in Durham. Otherwise, the worry in Teesside, which is a real one, is that we would lag just that little bit behind, as Newcastle benefits now from being, de facto, the regional capital. It has the RDA, One NorthEast, the Government office for the northeast, the Pension Service headquarters, the Highways Agency and all the other regional trappings of government. The same argument was used to advocate regional devolution, with which I agree, in the first place. London-based power means that significant aspects of national policy function as unacknowledged regional policies for the south-east. The same applies to the impact of a regional capital.
As long as Teessiders can be shown that that is a major reason why Tyneside has appeared to be more dominant than it truly is, and as long as Teessiders can easily understand the prospect of a capital for the new region being elsewhere, they will vote in droves for regional devolution, because they have already seen the huge benefits of locating the RDA, with its large budget, in the region. One NorthEast was the first RDA to devolve much of its funding to sub-regional purses—even closer to the ground—so that people have been able to make judgments and to invest and attract industry that is entirely fitting to the needs of the region. Teessiders are able to understand that, and the more they see, first of the RDA then of the sub-regional partnership, and the closer to the people the investment and decisions become, the more they will understand that making the process democratic will increase the region's power even further. I think that the days when Teesside hesitated about this are long past.
I am grateful to the hon. Members who have yet to speak for allowing me to encroach into their time by a few minutes.
3.4 pm
Matthew Green: Although I suspect that I will shortly be interrupted by the Division Bell, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) on securing this timely debate, which has been good, although perhaps marred a little by the disparaging remarks from the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) on the strong case for the north-east having a regional assembly. However, we heard excellent speeches from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar), the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). Indeed, I was intrigued that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre was able to put in a bid for Lancaster to host the northwest regional assembly.
I want to make it clear from the outset that the Liberal Democrats have long believed in regional government and that we are fully behind the yes vote for the northeast. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who unfortunately cannot be here today, summed it up when he said that the northeast already has a large proportion of such a tier of government in the shape of various unelected officials
116WH
and government agencies that make decisions that people cannot influence. Those unelected bodies should be replaced by elected representatives. He added that
"key decisions that affect us can be made in the North, by the North for the North."
My right hon. Friend put the case better than I could.
3.5 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
3.21 pm
On resuming—
Matthew Green: I was saying that the Liberal Democrats are fully behind the Yes campaign in the north-east and that one of the reasons why the regional assembly will prove so popular in the north-east is that the area has a strong sense of regional identity. That was clear from the consultation exercise. The reason why the three northern regions are going ahead is that they have the greatest sense of regional identity. When the Government consider the possibility of referendums in other areas, they may have to change the boundaries of some other regions to achieve the sense of regional identity that exists in the north-east.
I am delighted to say that we were able to get the second question on to the ballot paper, thanks to the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords. This matter was raised on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and, I agree, by the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West. Unfortunately, the Government were not persuaded in Committee, but our persuasive powers were slightly more successful in the House of Lords. The second question removes the problem, which would have existed, of constituents of the single-tier areas being able to decide local government change in two-tier areas. They now have the choice of at least two forms of unitary authority, which we are very glad about.
I want to talk about the powers of the regional assembly because in many ways, although we are firm believers in regional government and will be fully behind a yes vote, this is not the full loaf. I shall be kind—it is three quarters of a loaf.
Mr. Edward Davey: Half a loaf.
Matthew Green: I was being generous and keeping to the spirit of cross-party co-operation on the yes vote. A major reason for our support is that the proposal becomes a vehicle for adding greater powers. However, the Government have the opportunity to add greater powers at an earlier stage, because they have not yet published the draft powers Bill. When they do so, they will have the opportunity to consider several ways of increasing powers. I want to talk about a few, one of which relates to transport.
The regional assembly will have the power to decide regional priorities, but the Secretary of State will still decide which priorities are funded. In effect, therefore, this is not a real power, as it is one of persuasion rather than of decision. The Government still have the

117WH
opportunity to hand that power down to regional government to allow it to make real choices in the northeast about the transport arrangements affecting, say, the A1 or other major transport infrastructure developments in the region.
Secondly, the Government seriously need to consider the role of the learning and skills councils. If the regional assemblies are to deliver on anything, they should deliver on jobs and the economy. Learning and skills councils are a vehicle for delivering funds for skills, which are key to jobs and the local economy. Decisions about funding should be democratically accountable and should be taken in the north-east. The Government still have the time and the opportunity to make that change and to make the learning and skills councils regional and accountable to the north-east regional assembly.
Thirdly, regional development agencies are still not accountable enough to the regional assembly, which the Government could do more to address. They could give more power to locally elected people who are responsible to their local electorates, rather than still appointing the boards of RDAs. There has been a step forward and we support it, but there is still more to do.
I am baffled by the Conservatives' opposition to the referendums. This is about giving the public a choice. The Conservatives want a referendum on the European constitution, as we do, but they do not want a referendum on whether there should be an elected regional government in the north-east. That is very strange. There will be a referendum and the Conservatives' arguments will be seen to be as weak as they have made them.
Mr. Atkinson: I believe that I made it clear in my opening remarks that I am fully behind the idea of a referendum to give people the choice. I voted against the Bill as I believe that the whole thing is a waste of money, but I have no objection to people in the north-east having a choice.
Matthew Green: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he does not agree with his party's Front-Bench spokesman on the matter. Once again, the show of unity among the Tories has lasted less than a week.
Another concern is taxation. Regional assemblies will have the power to impose a precept on council tax, which we support. We support their ability to raise money, but not, however, through council tax. The Government may decide in their balance of funding review to consider other forms of taxation such as local income tax, which are based on ability to pay. I realise that the Minister will not promise anything that the Prime Minister has already ruled out, which is unfortunate for his colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as they are clearly considering such a form of taxation in the balance of funding review. Will he confirm, however, that any changes made to the method of local government will be extended to regional government, and that if a local income tax is imposed it will be extended to the regional level and will replace council tax throughout? We would certainly welcome that as a way forward.
118WH
We will be fully behind the yes campaign. As the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West said, there has been long-standing demand for a regional assembly in the north-east from the Labour party and from the Liberal Democrats. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will be closely involved in the entire campaign.
3.28 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: This has been a good-tempered and moderately constructive debate. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of my questions, because it has become a custom in this Chamber for Ministers to answer the soft questions from their own side and none from the Opposition. That is an especially unfortunate trend. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) on securing the debate and welcome the Minister to his new post. His two predecessors, however, fell into the category that I have just described.
I start on a discordant note, because although I hope that this will remain a good-tempered debate, I must disagree with most of the speeches that we have heard today, with the exception of the excellent contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson).
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) always tries deliberately to mislead the Chamber about what Conservative Members say, and I want to clarify one point. It is untrue that the Conservatives are opposed to a referendum on the matter. We are democrats and believe in referendums; it is just that we will campaign strongly for a no vote.
Matthew Green: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman would only cause mischief, so I will not.
Joyce Quin rose—
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I happily give way to the right hon. Lady.
Joyce Quin: Is it true that the Conservatives voted and argued against the legislation to allow regional referendums?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham ably explained, we do not believe in regional assemblies. We believe that they are undemocratic and, as I will demonstrate in a minute, will take power away from local people, rather than empowering them.
The Deputy Prime Minister made a little visit up north on 3 November. He made some extraordinary statements, and I will quote one of the most extraordinary:
"At the moment, people come in a delegation to London and make a case to a minister but what difference does it make?"
He is admitting that his own friends, MPs and councillors can go to see him, but it will not make any difference. If he does not listen to them now, how do Labour Members expect a regional assembly to help them any further?

119WH
I quote The Journal report on 5 November by the excellent Paul Linford and David Higgerson, his colleague who is sadly not here:
"Mr. Prescott is known to privately favour the scrapping of the Barnett Formula"—
I intervened on the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West, and she said the same—
"which awards Scotland £537 per head more than the north-east, £938 per head more than the north-west, and £1,166 more than Yorkshire."
If the right hon. Lady is in favour of scrapping the Barnett formula, that automatically means that she is in favour of giving less money to the Scottish people and more to those in the north-east. However, the soon-to-become-Labour Mayor of London is in favour of more money being kept in London and less going to the north. If northern Members think that they are going to get more resources, they are in for a great surprise.
Matthew Green: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: In a minute. The hon. Gentleman is trying hard, and I will give him a little opportunity to decide whether to be mischievous.
A key caveat in the new Labour manifesto was that regional government would happen only if the total cost to the public purse of local and regional government would not increase as a result. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham quoted Lord Rooker, who said exactly the same thing. If people in the north-east think that they are going to get a huge pot of money from this venture, they are in for a sad surprise.
The hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) said that huge resources had gone into the northeast regional development agency. Of course they have, but who set up the north-east RDA? The last Conservative Government, and a great deal of money is going into the north already.
Vera Baird rose—
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Sorry. I have been corrected by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham. The northeast development corporation was set up by the last Conservative Government. I apologise to Members, as that was a slip of the tongue.
The last Conservative Government secured a great deal of inward investment for the north-east, and that is another key point. Toyota went to Washington, Tyne and Wear, and created a huge number of jobs.
Vera Baird rose—
Mr. Clifton-Brown: It was Nissan. I am glad that I have my tutor beside me. There are problems when one speaks in a debate outside one's area.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is just as well the hon. Gentleman has a tutor, because otherwise I might have to do that job.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At least we are keeping up the humour. Nevertheless, the principle is correct. I suggest that the only way to
120WH
increase prosperity in the north-east is to encourage inward investment. If we break up this country into strong regions, do the people of the north-east honestly think that the south-east, the south-west, the west midlands and the east midlands will not fight as hard, or possibly harder, for the scarce inward investment that is likely to come to the country? Instead of a national Government looking at the whole of the United Kingdom, one region will compete with another and waste a huge amount of resources.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I shall give way first to the Liberal Democrat spokesman and then to the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster).
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can give way to only one person at a time, and must say something in between speakers.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am busy trying to say something, but Labour Members are trying hard to silence me. They will not succeed.
A great deal of money will be squandered not only in setting up regional assemblies, but afterwards. Let us consider the Scottish example. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham has said that the Scottish Parliament building was originally to cost £40 million; today, it will cost £400 million. I suspect that each region will want an expensive building and staff in Brussels so that they can try to get European funds directly.
Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: No. I am in danger of straying out of order.
Matthew Green rose—
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I give way to the Liberal Democrat spokesman.
Matthew Green: I thank the hon. Gentleman. At the risk of encouraging him to dig his hole a little deeper, can he say whether the Conservatives want to review the Barnett formula? Would they keep it the same or change it? If they changed it, who would gain and who would lose?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I knew that the Liberal spokesman was going to cause difficulties. He knows perfectly well that we have just had a successful reshuffle. We now have a perfectly good spokesman for Scotland who can stand up and ask that question in a Scottish debate. I shall not answer a question on behalf of one of my colleagues, as that lies outside my responsibilities. If the Liberal spokesman thinks that I am that green, he should look again.
Mr. Derek Foster: Are we now clear about the fact that the only regional policy of a possible Tory Government would be to increase inward investment within the regions? How does the hon. Gentleman answer the problem of international inward investment

121WH
reducing for all regions and of the northern region being a good deal less competitive now that Yorkshire and Humberside includes a region with objective 1 status?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Between the mirth, the right hon. Gentleman might have missed what I said. I chose my words carefully, and referred to the minimal amount of inward investment. He is right to say that that inward investment is shrinking in this country, largely because of this Government's policies. Increasing the prosperity of the north-east is not our only policy—one need only look at our major cities to see what the former Member for Henley did for many of our inner cities. The centres of Glasgow and Leeds as well as docklands have seen innovative urban regeneration schemes, which the last Conservative Government came up with.
I have 10 questions for the Minister from the North East chamber of commerce. I would be grateful if he responded to some if not all, but if he cannot perhaps he will write to us. What will the remit of the north-east regional assembly be? Fears exist among voters that they are buying a pig in a poke because they will not have the detailed Bill until after the referendum. Perhaps the Minister could exemplify the point raised by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland: how will the regional assembly strengthen economic performance? The regional assembly must demonstrate how it can improve economic performance; we need details.
How will the Minister ensure that a business-led regional development agency prospers in the future? What say will the north-east regional assembly have over the RDA's spending of its money? Will an RDA be required if the referendum goes in favour of an assembly?
Will the Minister say something about the cost of the whole venture? What will it cost to set up an assembly? My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham has already said that the campaign has cost £25,000, and we know that £500,000 has been allocated up to April. By the time we get to next autumn, perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us the total cost of the campaign. Is the "Your Say" campaign really an information campaign or is it propaganda? Are the Government or the Labour party paying for it?
Perhaps the Minister could also say something about the effectiveness of expenditure. The running of the new regional assembly will be costly. How will it be paid for? How much will it cost? It is no good the Deputy Prime Minister saying that it will be paid for by the abolition of the county councils, because he is prejudging the vote of the people on whether they want to abolish their county councils.
I wish something to be said about the speed of decision making because Ministers have trumpeted throughout the land the fact that this system will be more locally democratic. It is going to take powers away from local people, however, and before some Member on the Labour Benches intervenes, I will demonstrate how. What if there is no new money coming into this assembly? We already know that considerable powers are being taken away from the unitary councils by the planning and housing Bills. Those are now to be regional functions. What used to be local functions have
122WH
already been taken away. The Government have demonstrated that they are happy to take powers away from the unitary authorities, but are they going to give any real powers back, or is this regional assembly going to be another tier of bureaucracy taking decision making away from local people?
How will business be engaged? What will the partnership approach be? Business is the main agent of wealth creation in the region. Ultimately, the only way that the region will prosper is by generating its own money and wealth. It cannot prosper indefinitely on huge handouts from the national Government.
What will be the support for, and legitimacy of, the regional assembly? The Government have said that they will look carefully at the result if there is a derisory turnout. What do they regard as a derisory turnout? If there is a 25 per cent. turnout and the winning margin is one vote, will that be satisfactory? If there is only a 20 per cent. turnout and the margin of victory is 200 votes, will that also be satisfactory?
The Government might tell us that there is no potential disadvantage. However, there is a danger that the Government could devolve more powers and duties to the regions without providing the necessary budget. We have seen that with a vengeance with this Government and the powers that they have given to local authorities—powers over recycling are not properly paid for, and there are numerous other such powers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman give his questions to the Minister in writing. The Minister now has only nine minutes.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am happy with that as I have asked my last question. I wanted to get it on the record and I have done so. I hope that the Minister does his best to answer my points.
3.41 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): This has been an inspiring debate. It has been a privilege to be present with so many north-east Members of Parliament standing up proudly to proclaim the attributes of the north-east and to support the "Your Say" campaign. Many of them support a yes vote in the referendums.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) on the powerful case that she put. We have had a parade of talent from the north-east this afternoon. As well as my right hon. Friend, we have had, either present in the Chamber or contributing, my right hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), and my hon. Friends the Members for North Durham (Mr. Jones), for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar), for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) and for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam)—which is you, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although I know that you cannot take part in the debate, I did not want you to feel left out. It has also been good to see Members from other regions joining the debate: my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster

123WH
and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) even got in a crafty bid for the regional assembly for his area—the north-west—to be in his constituency. I congratulate him on that. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) was a brave and lonely voice from the north-east opposing the proposal, and I will say more about that later.
The Government are rightly committed to a far-reaching and radical programme of constitutional change and devolution. We are transforming this country, which was one of the most centralised in the western world in 1997. We have devolved power to Scotland and Wales, we have restored city-wide government to London and now we are offering the chance to devolve power to the English regions—we are meeting our manifesto commitment to allow referendums on establishing regional elected assemblies in the regions that want them.
This is about choice. We are not imposing our views; we are allowing the people in each region to decide. We have listened to their views in selecting the regions that should move to a referendum first—the north-east, the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber—and the people will decide the result of those referendums.
When we asked the north-east if it wanted a referendum on an elected assembly, the responses reflected the views of thousands of people and the answer was yes. We are now beginning the process of allowing them that referendum. As was remarked earlier, the Conservatives opposed devolution in Scotland, Wales and London, and they even opposed regional development agencies, as hon. Members recalled. They got it wrong, and now they support the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. During an Adjournment debate a few weeks ago, I discovered that they now support RDAs. We know what is going to happen. When we have run the campaign, when the votes come in and the regional assemblies are created, we will see another somersault by the Conservatives—this time in support of regional assemblies. We will ensure that the people in the north-east know what an assembly will mean for them.
Last week, I was with the Deputy Prime Minister in Durham. It was good to be with some of my hon. and right hon. Friends at the launch of the "Your Say" publications. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) asked what would be the powers and responsibilities of the new regional assemblies. Without wishing to ask him to do too much work, perhaps he could just read the leaflet, in which we spell out in detail what regional assemblies will mean for the north-east, north-west and Yorkshire and Humberside. This is an information campaign to raise awareness about the referendum, all the powers the assembly will have and the future structure of local government in Durham and Northumberland.
The contributions of hon. Members from the northeast and north-west, and from the Liberal Democrats—the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green)—were positive, upbeat and inspirational. However, the contributions of the two Conservatives, including the Front-Bench spokesman, were negative, mealy-mouthed, scaremongering, confused, misunderstood—it was more of the old Tory democratic centralism that we have come to know. The best we got was a contrast based on whether we should have a referendum on the European constitution—they are in favour of one
124WH
taking place. They are not, however, in favour of a referendum for the local people of the north-east to decide on local decision making.
Having voted against our Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry)—the new boss of the hon. Member for Cotswold—described it as little more than
"mewling, puking, piddling… milk-and-water". —[Official Report, 26 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 219.]
That sums up the Tories' attitude to the people of the north and tells us everything we want to know about their attitudes to giving local people a local choice. Instead of asking questions of detail. which I am prepared to answer—although I must do so later, because I do not have the time now —perhaps Opposition Members could start to realise that regional assemblies are about jobs and prosperity, pride and a voice, and democracy and local decision making for local people in the north-east. Instead, the Conservative party tells us about disinvestment.
I saw wry smiles and heard groans from hon. Members from the north-east when a Conservative Member of Parliament described the benefits for the north-east of a Tory Government in the 1980s. That took my breath away. It is beyond me how anybody could make such points. We know the pain, suffering, misery, despair and hopelessness that the people in the north-east experienced under the Tories. We are bringing back hope and opportunity for the north-east through the new elected regional assemblies.
The Tories do not stand for jobs—they stand for disinvestment; they do not stand for a voice for and pride in the north-east—they stand for running it down at every opportunity. They do not want to give people the chance to have their say. They opposed the referendum and they will vote no to an assembly that will give people a local voice and local democratic decision making over local powers.
Many hon. Members focused on the importance of economic development, jobs and investment.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No point of order is available. The Minister is not giving way—that is his choice.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no point of order available.
Phil Hope: This is about jobs and the economy. We can see from the quality of the debate that rather than focus on the future and what is important to those in the north-east, people end up making procedural points and points of order, which undermine the ability of those in the north-east to capture, hold and take forward their ambitions.
We see a positive future for the north-east. The referendums and the "Your Say" awareness campaign will let people know that our proposal is about jobs and prosperity as well as pride and a voice

125WH
in the north-east—it is about ensuring that investment comes its way. It is also about democracy, with local people having not just control and a say over £350 million of direct Government spend through quangos, but influence over some £1 billion of investment and opportunity. That is a prize worth fighting for and we are giving people that opportunity, so I say to them, "Go out there and campaign for what you believe in—support for the north-east."
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I make a few remarks to the Chamber? The Standing Order is quite plain on the matter: if Members, whether Ministers or not, are not prepared to give way they do not have to, regardless of whether the other hon. Member does not like it.
May I ask hon. Members who do not wish to stay for the next debate to leave quickly and quietly please?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you please explain the rules on whether it is permissible to make a point of order in Westminster Hall?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The rules are that it is perfectly permissible to make a point of order, except that the Chair has a view as to what the point of order could be about. As the Minister was not giving way, the only possible point of order was that the Minister was not giving way.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You did not hear my point of order. so you did not know what it was going to be.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair does not have to explain its rulings, but on this occasion, as I was listening to the debate, the only thing that could have driven the hon. Gentleman to his feet was the Minister not giving way. Therefore, there was no point of order. However, the matter is now finished.

HIV/AIDS
3.50 pm
Dr. Gavin Strang: It is now more than 20 years since AIDS first appeared in this country. In those early days we had a particular problem in Edinburgh, mainly associated with intravenous drug users. It was because of that problem that I first acquired an interest in the subject, and went on to introduce successfully a private Member's Bill in 1986, which became the AIDS (Control) Act 1987.
Much has happened since then, and in the last few years there have been some key developments in policy. In July 2001, after some considerable delay, the Department of Health published the first ever national strategy for sexual health and HIV, which was followed up by tool kits and new recommended standards for HIV services. Those developments have been scrutinised by my colleagues in the Select Committee on Health. In June, the Committee published its report on sexual health, and in September the Government published their response.
My hon. Friend the Minister does not have responsibility for this area of policy in Scotland, but it is worth pointing out that in December 1999 her counterpart in the Scottish Parliament, Susan Deacon, who was then Scottish Health Minister, announced that the Scottish Executive would introduce a sexual health strategy. Earlier today, the draft sexual health strategy for Scotland was published and the Scottish Health Minister, Malcolm Chisholm, has launched a wide-ranging consultation on its recommendations. The Welsh Assembly has published a strategic framework for promoting sexual health in Wales and a post-consultation action plan, while in Northern Ireland work on a comprehensive sexual health strategy was due to start this year.
So much for the history of policy. What has been happening in the real world? Perhaps the most important development of the past 10 years has been the introduction of a cocktail of antiretroviral drugs that has revolutionised the expectations of people with HIV. When HIV first appeared in my constituency, the norm was for people, usually young people, to die within a few years. Although resistance to drugs is an increasing problem, we learned last month that the vast majority of people on highly active antiretroviral therapy were alive more than 10 years after diagnosis.
The causes of the disease have changed greatly. Last year saw a record number of new HIV diagnoses in the UK—some 5,542 people were diagnosed with the virus, which, adjusted for reporting delays, is slightly more than 6,500 new diagnoses. The most common way of acquiring HIV in the UK is via sex between men. The number of such cases is not declining. Indeed, a small but noticeable contribution to the increase in the total number of new HIV cases in Scotland last year was made by an increase in the number of diagnoses among gay men.
The number of people newly diagnosed with HIV in the UK via heterosexual sex has increased dramatically in recent years, from 835 in 1996 to 3,152 last year. As has been the case over the years, the vast majority of those infections were acquired abroad, although the

127WH
Public Health Laboratory Service, which is now the Health Protection Agency, expects that the number of people infected heterosexually in the UK will gradually increase in the years ahead. A huge increase in heterosexually transmitted cases last year resulted in Greater Glasgow overtaking Lothian as the Scottish region with the highest number of new diagnoses for the first time since testing began.
The number of cases transmitted through intravenous drug use has declined, and in Scotland the domestic epidemic has altered unrecognisably. In the years up to and including 1997, 73 per cent. of HIV diagnoses in Scotland were among intravenous drug misusers. Last year, the figure was 4 per cent. That is a real success story. Only 10 infections through drug use were diagnosed in Scotland last year—the lowest since records began. However, we must not let our guard down. The Scottish drug misuse database shows that in 2002–03, 36 per cent. of users asked had shared a needle or syringe in the previous month.
Although effective intervention can prevent babies from contracting HIV from their mothers, there were 99 cases of mother-to-baby transmissions in the UK last year. Routine antenatal testing has been in place in England for a few years now, and has been introduced in the whole of Scotland this year. We must hope that effective implementation of antenatal testing policies will help to prevent more transmission of HIV to infants.
It is not just the unborn and new born who benefit from HIV testing. As a result of huge advances in treatment, the sooner someone knows that they are HIV positive, the better. However, about a quarter of people in the UK who have acquired HIV through sex between men, and nearly half the people who have acquired the virus through heterosexual sex, are thought to remain undiagnosed.
I have spent a little time setting out the challenge. What now must be the response? I shall touch on three key areas. First, I believe that we must reprioritise HIV and sexual health. In the past, they were given key priority status, but in recent years they have lost that designation in England. Of course there has to be a limit to how many priorities the health service has, or the term becomes meaningless. However, HIV is increasing at a rate that outstrips the rate of all other priorities in the health service. HIV is designated by the Health Protection Agency as one of the most important communicable diseases in the UK. The number of cases of other sexually transmitted diseases is soaring. There was a 900 per cent. increase in syphilis diagnoses in England between 1996 and 2002, and about one in 10 sexually active young women have chlamydia. Despite that, the evidence is that, in many areas, genito-urinary medicine services are creaking at the seams. The Terrence Higgins Trust's latest study into the effects of the NHS changes on the sector found that the Government's wish that HIV and sexual health be considered a priority was not filtering through to strategic health authority and primary care trust level.
My hon. Friend the Minister will have studied the report of the Health Committee, and will have seen the consensus among those who gave evidence that HIV and sexual health must be urgently prioritised. Several means of doing that were proposed, including prioritisation through the strategic health authorities'
128WH
planning and priorities framework and through local delivery plans, or through a dedicated national service framework, which the Committee recommends is the best way.
The Government ruled out a national service framework, and felt that it would be too disruptive to reopen local delivery plans or the planning and priorities framework this time around. However, they promised to consider what could be done to raise the priority of sexual health and HIV services.
Last month, the Medical Foundation for AIDS and Sexual Health published the new standards for HIV services in England, which have been widely welcomed. However, the standards do not have the force of a Department of Health guidance note and MEDFASH executive director Ruth Lowbury stated that service standards will require active monitoring to ensure that they are up to the mark. She also observed that no money has yet been allocated to audit the compliance of NHS trusts with the new standards. If the Government are to raise the priority of sexual health and HIV, those standards should be properly supervised. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would outline how the Government intend to enable active monitoring of service standards. The Department of Health has been reviewing the operation of the AIDS (Control) Act 1987. Can the Minister give us any results from that review?
Secondly, we must ensure continued and increased funding to tackle HIV and sexual health matters. The written evidence of the National AIDS Trust to the Health Committee put matters starkly:
"NAT welcomed the publication of the National Strategy but we are disappointed with delays in its implementation and the failure to accord adequate resources to support implementation."
In its written evidence, MEDFASH said that
"the allocated sum of £47.5 million over the first two years to implement the whole strategy is inadequate given the scale of the task in the short-term, and a commitment to continuing resources over the ten years of the strategy is also needed."
There is also a worry that the mainstreaming of HIV services will reduce investment.
The Health Committee estimated that an additional revenue commitment of £22 million to £30 million per annum was required and the Government, to their credit, responded with an extra £ 1 I million. However, Baroness Gould, the chair of the Government's independent advisory group on sexual health, must be right in saying that, while the funds were welcome,
"investment in these services needs to be increased and consistent in future years if it is to improve facilities and services."
My third point of focus is HIV prevention. It is mainly agreed that we in the UK started off well in the 1980s, but in the past few years it seems that our attention has been distracted from the necessity of prevention work, perhaps by the laudable work that is being done to make HIV treatment available to those who need it. We should be driving down to rock bottom the number of infections caught in the UK. We know how HIV is transmitted and we know how to prevent it. It is a tragedy that so many hundreds of people still become infected with HIV in the UK each year. Two years ago, in the debate on sexual health that I initiated in Westminster Hall, I and other hon. Members urged the Government not to abolish the earmarked HIV

129WH
prevention money for England. To the disappointment of many, on that occasion, Ministers did not take advantage of that advice.
However, hon. Members may be aware that the Scottish Executive still have ring-fenced money for the prevention of HIV and other blood-borne viruses. I am pleased that the draft sexual health strategy for Scotland that was launched today recommends that the Scottish Executive keep the ring-fencing of HIV money to health boards and assess the sufficiency of the funding against the need to respond to the increasing HIV trends in Scotland.
In England, the ring fence has been abolished and, given the changes in the NHS, much HIV prevention work is now localised. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of the great concern that that will threaten the existence of specialist health promotion that often operates across primary care trust boundaries, and will exacerbate the historic under-investment in HIV prevention. I welcome the Government's reassuring words in their response to the Health Committee on the need to reprioritise sexual health and HIV. Will my hon. Friend say how the Government plan to follow up their words with concrete action?
In the context of prevention, as well as caring for people with HIV, we want to encourage the maximum number of people to come forward for testing. However, like the Health Committee and the all-party groups on AIDS and refugees, I am not persuaded that mandatory testing for HIV of asylum seekers and other visitors to the UK is the way to do that. It is vital to destigmatise HIV, to encourage people in the UK to come forward for testing and to encourage other countries throughout the globe to adopt humane policies towards people with HIV.
It is clear that much more work has to be facilitated in the African communities in the UK. People from those communities are often diagnosed very late in the course of the disease. Sigma Research found that about a third of people were diagnosed when they were an in-patient in hospital after emergency admission. Nick Partridge from the Terrence Higgins Trust outlined in his evidence to the Health Committee the contrast between the consistent and resourced targeted prevention work for gay men and the insufficient work being done for our African communities. Dr. Barry Evans, of the then Public Health Laboratory Service, said to the Health Committee that
"we have grossly under-estimated the investment required in African community-based organisations to bring them up to speed and to give them the capacity to deal effectively with HIV. They face all of the same challenges that existing HIV community organisations face but they are doubly disadvantaged by the fact that they are often completely underfunded."
I have concentrated my remarks on the prevalence of HIV in the UK, but of course a tragic global epidemic concerns us all. In sub-Saharan Africa, more than 30 million people are living with HIV/AIDS. In little more than 10 years, life expectancy has plummeted in some countries in the region from 62 to only 47 years. Fifty years of progress in raising life expectancy has been wiped out.
130WH
We need to build on the momentum generated by the Prime Minister and President Chirac's joint call for the EU to pledge up to $1 billion from EU countries annually for the global fund for AIDS, TB and malaraia. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that non-governmental organisations estimate that a fair contribution from the UK to the fund according to our wealth would be £107 million in 2004.
HIV/AIDS can be tackled here and overseas. I urge my hon. Friend to do all in his power to encourage the Government to rise to the challenge.
4.4 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): It is a convention to congratulate the hon. Member who has won the Adjournment debate on his great interest in the subject, even if that interest only started when his name came up in the ballot the previous week. In this case, it really is a pleasure to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) on securing this debate and on his continued interest in a subject for which he has been a leading campaigner for more than 20 years. He and his constituents can be justly proud of that record.
As my right hon. Friend stressed, HIV and AIDS present a massive tragedy on a global scale. An estimated 42 million people were living with HIV at the end of 2002. During 2002, an estimated 5 million people were newly infected with HIV, of whom 800,000 were children. In the same year, 3.1 million deaths were attributed to HIV. Sub-Saharan Africa continues to bear the brunt of the global pandemic, but eastern Europe and central Asian republics are experiencing the world's fastest growing epidemics.
The UK is not immune from the global epidemic. Recent rises in new diagnoses among heterosexuals are linked to the tragedy that has been unfolding in sub-Saharan Africa. In 2002, almost 2,500 new diagnoses of HIV were attributed to heterosexual exposure in Africa in people probably infected before coming to live in the UK, and there were over 5,700 new HIV diagnoses, which was more than in any year since the start of the epidemic. That is a cause for concern. However, it also reflects our increased efforts to reduce undiagnosed HIV, as early diagnosis and access to treatment can prolong the lifespan of many.
Two national initiatives in support of prevention efforts will have added to the number of new diagnoses in recent years. First, we are now reaping the benefits of changes made in 1999 to our HIV testing policy for pregnant women. Routinely offering and recommending HIV testing to all pregnant women prevented around 100 babies from becoming infected in 2001. Secondly, offering an HIV test to all genitourinary medicine attendees on first screening for sexually transmitted infections should accrue benefits for the future by reducing onward transmission.
The impact of immigration on the UK HIV epidemic is evident from the statistics. I am aware that there is great concern about this issue. There is concern that the NHS is struggling to deal with the increasing cost of treating and caring for those living with HIV, but there is also concern, expressed by my right hon. Friend, that the Government should not respond to the problem with draconian measures that contravene our international human rights commitments.

131WH
That is one of the reasons why the Cabinet Office is currently co-ordinating work between the relevant Government Departments, including the Department of Health, to review immigration and infectious diseases. The review aims to establish the facts about the impact of immigration on public health and NHS expenditure, and to propose solutions should action be required. The review is ongoing and no decisions have yet been reached.
The driving factor behind the Government's work to tackle HIV is the first ever national strategy for sexual health and HIV. Backed by an initial investment of £47.5 million, with a further commitment of £51.4 million over the next two years, four of the strategy's five aims relate to HIV. They include reducing the transmission of HIV and the prevalence of undiagnosed HIV; improving health and social care for people living with HIV and reducing the stigma associated with HIV. Those are all issues identified by my right hon. Friend.
Earlier this year, we announced the membership of the sexual health independent advisory group. Under the able chairmanship of Baroness Gould, the group will advise the Government on the implementation of the strategy and monitor progress. Members include representatives of the key HIV organisations and HIV service users, who will contribute their wealth of experience and detailed knowledge of the real concerns and problems that face those living with HIV and AIDS. Their valuable contribution will help to steer the strategy implementation that will best achieve our objectives.
The implementation of the strategy is taking place against the background of major change in the NHS. Shifting the balance of power has resulted in the creation of new structures, and primary care trusts are now in the forefront of the fight against HIV and AIDS. PCTs now have the flexibility to allocate money to sexual health in order to meet local needs, just as they now do for other health areas such as cancer. HIV funding is now rightly part of the main NHS allocations. However, those are weighted to take account of variations in the distribution of HIV locally. I shall return later to some of my right hon. Friend's concerns about the potential impact of those changes.
The Department of Health no longer dictates how local services should be provided, but supports the local work by providing guidance and by disseminating best practice. As part of that, the Department supports and endorses the new recommended standards for NHS services for HIV and AIDS launched last month. They were produced by the Medical Foundation for AIDS and Sexual Health, in partnership with HIV clinicians, service users and key stakeholders. We believe that those standards will help to drive up the quality of treatment and care throughout the country. The Department of Health has also issued tool kits of practical guidance and good practice for those commissioning local HIV services, and also for those undertaking HIV prevention and health promotion.
That decentralisation of decision making will not mean that action on HIV will go unmonitored. The AIDS (Control) Act 1987 provides a valuable reporting tool for gathering data. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who steered the legislation through in the form of a private Member's Bill. It is just as relevant today as it was then. As part of our implementation of the sexual
132WH
health strategy, the Department of Health, with other stakeholders, has reviewed the information collected under schedule 1 of the 1987 Act. That will be implemented shortly and will take account of the strategy, the new NHS and the Department's commitment to streamlining central returns. Combined with our world-class HIV surveillance system operated by the Health Protection Agency, that will give us a complete picture of the epidemic.
Strategic health authorities are now well placed to monitor HIV prevention and treatment within their areas, and will be able to address problems and facilitate networking and consortium arrangements between primary care trusts. The chief medical officer is now actively engaging with strategic health authorities to ensure that sexual health and HIV are sufficiently prioritised at local level within the current planning and priorities framework.
A sample survey of high and low HIV prevalence areas undertaken in May 2002 showed that PCTs were maintaining their funding levels for HIV prevention, treatment and care, and we will consider repeating that survey if necessary. Despite an increasing rate of HIV diagnosis, a survey in April 2003 under the British HIV Association treatment guidelines showed little evidence that costs were affecting the prescription of optimum antiviral treatments for those with clinical need. I hope that my right hon. Friend is reassured by that.
Inevitably, increasing rates of HIV and sexually transmitted infections are putting pressure on services, particularly genito-urinary medicine clinics. That fact was highlighted in the Health Committee's recent report on sexual health, mentioned by my right hon. Friend. The Government agree that additional resources are needed to tackle the long waiting times and backlogs in some areas of the country. Of the original £47.5 million invested in the strategy, £15 million has been used to improve GUM services. That includes £2 million to fund pilots in certain areas to evaluate new improved models of working. We have prioritised spending on GUM services from the sexual health strategy budget and, in response to the Health Committee's recommendations, have invested an additional £5 million to pump-prime service improvements. An additional £0.4 million will be used to expand national HIV prevention initiatives.
We recognise and share the deep concerns expressed by the Health Committee and others about the poor state of sexual health, and we are committed to improving sexual health through the sexual health and HIV strategy. We have provided an additional £11.4 million this year to access services and tackle sexually transmitted infections. Again, I hope that my right hon. Friend is at least partly reassured by those steps.
There is no cure for HIV, and we are still some years away from an effective vaccine. New drug treatments have improved the quality of life and life expectancy of many, but antiretroviral treatments do not suit everyone. The drugs can have unpleasant side effects, and their effectiveness depends on rigid adherence to often complex treatment regimens. Poor adherence can lead to the development of resistance to the drugs. We are developing surveillance to track the emergence of that important problem. For all those reasons, prevention is still the cornerstone in our fight against HIV.

133WH
The challenge for HIV health promotion is to develop and deliver sophisticated interventions that engage target audiences, whatever their experience of HIV. Interventions must be relevant and based on research into people's behaviour that accurately reflects how they live their lives in relation to HIV.
Rates of HIV diagnoses among gay men have remained relatively stable for a number of years, but we are concerned by the recent increase in HIV diagnoses in gay men. However, that is in the context of a growing pool of infection, due in part to new transmissions but also to the success of treatments in keeping people alive longer.
We are continuing to fund the Terrence Higgins Trust to lead a partnership of organisations throughout England to deliver a community HIV/AIDS prevention strategy. It is an evidence-based programme that provides information in a style that is credible with the gay community. It is gaining an international reputation for its health promotion literature, and its strategic framework has been adopted in parts of the United States and Australia. We are currently considering the most effective way to use the additional £400,000 announced this year for national HIV prevention.
For African communities, the focus is on culturally appropriate information as well as capacity building for the voluntary and community-based sector, which is best placed to undertake HIV health promotion. For 2003—04, the Department is funding the African HIV policy network to manage and develop a programme of national work aimed at increasing awareness of preventing HIV.
For the wider population, our sex lottery campaign—launched last year—is aimed at increasing awareness of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The campaign was extensively pre-tested with its target 18 to 30-year-old audience, and reflects research findings of what works best with that group. It uses radio, adverts in magazines, washroom posters, beer mats, scratch cards and a website to get the message across. It is an ongoing campaign, which will be thoroughly evaluated. We are also developing a specific HIV information resource under the sex lottery brand, to raise awareness among the general population.
134WH
HIV is all too often accompanied by a unique type of stigmatisation, which is rooted in ignorance and often compounded by other forms of discrimination such as homophobia or racism. That can increase the risk of HIV transmission, cause or aggravate health problems and create a barrier to treatment, care and services. There are, therefore, very real reasons for tackling stigma. That is why the sexual health and HIV strategy includes a reduction in stigma as one of its main aims. We are working with stakeholders and people living with HIV to develop a detailed action plan to address stigma and discrimination.
Since the start of the epidemic, the voluntary sector has played a key role in providing patient-focused services. The Government believe that the role of the voluntary sector and community organisations is an important element of service delivery. Such organisations are often the first point of contact for many affected by HIV. The voluntary sector is under pressure from the growing epidemic, and its contribution is changing, but still remains invaluable. We shall continue to support it and work in partnership to achieve our strategy's aims.
With regard to the global fight against HIV, the UK recognises that the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria needs predictable, long-term funding to be effective. Since the fund was set up in 2001, the UK has committed $280 million through to 2008. Additional funding will be subject to the fund reflecting a clear poverty focus, and achieving a better financing system. In addition, its activities must be more effectively integrated into national programmes and it must meet agreed benchmarks for monitoring its effectiveness.
Improving HIV services and changing sexual behaviour are long-term challenges, but I am confident that the strategy will make a difference to all those affected by HIV. However, the Government will not achieve that alone, but will rely on the essential contribution of the voluntary sector, health professionals and service users themselves.
I hope that I have dealt, broadly at least, with my right hon. Friend's points. I repeat my congratulations on his long-term interest in the subject, and promise to ensure that we will study the official record after the debate, and if we have not covered any of the points that he raised, I will make sure that we write to him.

Eurofighter Typhoon
4.20 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: I am delighted to have secured this debate on the programme for the jet fighter, known as the Typhoon. It is my first in this Chamber, so it is a great honour to present the case in favour of the programme this afternoon.
May I declare a modest interest, in that I have a personal equity plan in British Aerospace? I also have a local constituency interest, as there are two RAF bases in the area, RAF Leeming and RAF Linton-on-Ouse, as well as Allenbrook barracks at Topcliffe and Dishforth airfield. I would like to record once again not only the phenomenal service that the military provide to the country, but the mark that they have made in the Vale of York and their contribution to the conflict with Iraq.
RAF Leeming is one of three bases that expect to receive the Typhoon over the longer term. We have two squadrons of Tornado F3s, 11 squadron and 25 squadron, numbering 16 aircraft in total, with 40 aircrew in each squadron. The Tornado F3 is a variant of the Tornado GR 1 ground attack aircraft, and first flew in 1979. One hundred aircraft have recently been upgraded to incorporate new weapons systems. I am sure that the Minister will confirm—I do not think that it is subject to argument—that it is widely recognised that the Tornado F3s are reaching the end of their service lives. The aircraft is expected to remain in service until 2007. They still have no full use of the AMRAAM long-range missiles, and use of the new ASRAAM short-range missile is hindered by the fact that the aircraft is not fitted with the recommended helmet mounted sights.
The Jaguar aircraft is a ground attack aircraft, 38 of which are based at RAF Coltishall and eight at RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland. It first entered service in 1973. My understanding is that it was originally planned that the Typhoon frontline would comprise seven squadrons, of which four would be primarily air defence, two swing role and one offensive support covering a wide range of combat operations. The Minister will be aware of my interest, as I have raised the subject on a number of occasions in the House.
I wish to put on record my enthusiasm for the Eurofighter, which will come as no surprise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that it is an excellent project and its capabilities still have a lot to offer. I am seeking a commitment from the Minister on when the total tranche is expected. I would like to repeat some of the contradictory messages to him. Perhaps, not being very bright, I have misunderstood—through no fault of his—the mixed messages given out by the Government.
On 8 September, I had the opportunity to question the Minister's superior, the Secretary of State for Defence, on the date of entry into service of the Eurofighter. I was mildly surprised when he told us:
"Test flying is now under way to establish the safety parameters for RAF pilot training, and we hope to start operational evaluation activities next month."—[Official Report, 8 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 1.]
We learned in October that a number of technical failures regrettably grounded the aircraft. Perhaps the Minister could update the Chamber on where we stand.
136WH
I went on to recognise the contribution that this country had made, and asked the Secretary of State for an assurance that the commitment to purchase a total of 232 Typhoon aircraft would be carried out in full and delivered on time. I then asked him when he expected those aircraft to enter into service at RAF Leeming. He replied:
"I give her the assurance that there will be no changes in the Government's plans for procuring Eurofighter Typhoon. We anticipate changes to the way in which those aircraft are configured, but those matters will be set out more clearly in the forthcoming White Paper."—[Official Report, 8 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 2.]
Will the Minister give further clarification on that, and will he give advice on which other partners to the project may seek changes to the configuration of that scheme?
Last Monday, I asked whether the Minister would
"respond to newspaper reports that he is being asked to make a 20 per cent. cut in the budget".
The Minister replied:
"The United Kingdom is party to international arrangements under which we are set to order a total of 232 Typhoons. Of those, 55 aircraft are already on order, and we are working towards an order for the second tranche of 89. The third and final order is not due to be placed before 2007, and we shall keep our requirements under continual review. We are working towards meeting those deadlines."—[Official Report, 3 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 530.]
I seek clarification on the expression
"we shall keep our requirements under continual review."
Every time the Government use such an expression, it normally heralds a change.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend mentioned the delphic words of the Secretary of State for Defence in answer to her oral question when he said:
"We anticipate changes to the way in which those aircraft are configured".—[Official Report, 8 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 2.]
In the debate on procurement on 23 October, I specifically asked if the second tranche would be converted to the ground attack role. In the article in The Sunday Telegraph to which my hon. Friend referred, I read that
"the second tranche of 89 will be capable of undertaking a ground attack role."
Does my hon. Friend hope, as I do, that the Minister will address that when he winds up?
Miss McIntosh: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention, and I seek further clarification from the Minister on the point he raised. There are now three points that require clarification: whether the second tranche will have a ground attack capability; whether the Secretary of State was right that there would be no plans for procuring Eurofighter Typhoon; or whether the Minister of State is right that they will keep the matter under review.
It is my understanding that Eurofighter Typhoon is a new generation aircraft that will be the most advanced swing role operational fighter in the world, and that it was always envisaged that there would be three distinct tranches. The first tranche is air defence, the second is the air defence and ground attack swing role, and the third is the full multi-sensor air and ground attack role. especially suppression of enemy air defence.

137WH
Eurofighter is destined to be the RAF's principal fighting system over the next 25 years. Its huge significance to UK jobs and technology, especially the ability to design future military air combat systems, cannot be overstated. There is an obvious correlation between Government support for the programme, and the chances of exporting it. I hope that the Minister will put our minds at rest that the technical difficulties have been overcome and that one particularly important export order in the pipeline will proceed.
Will the Secretary of State for Defence confirm when he anticipates that the Typhoon will come into existence? I understand that two reports are in the public domain. One was a Financial Times report, with which I am sure the Minister is more than familiar. It refers to a 20 per cent. cut in the budget for the Typhoon. Where did that story come from and is there any truth in it? Did it emanate from his Department? How can he hope to complete the programme in full by making a 20 per cent. cut? Will the Minister take this opportunity to put my mind at rest and those of the people in the front line—the jet fighter pilots and navigators who are currently at RAF Leeming working on the Tornado? This is a very important point for me, as I represent a base that is very important to the UK defence strategy. Currently, we have two-seater Tornado planes. Presumably the navigators will have to be retrained and requalify to perform other functions, I hope, in the air force, but they will need a lead time. What lead time does the Minister envisage, and how does he expect those people to be deployed?
Could the Minister also put my mind at rest by saying that there is no prospect that the forthcoming White Paper will confirm the 20 per cent. cut? The RAF is expected to receive not the original 232 Typhoons that we were promised, but only 143, given a 20 per cent. cut. I understand that the Ministry of Defence is being asked to make a cut in its budget, as a result of which a third of the aircraft are not in the pipeline.
Will the Minister be good enough to answer the following questions? Deliveries to the customers of Eurofighter tranche I should have been 50 per cent. completed by now. Can he confirm that deliveries will be completed as planned, and that continuation of production to Eurofighter tranche 2 is assured? Can he confirm that the RAF will receive the Eurofighter tranche 1 weapon system at the end of 2005, as contractually agreed? The Minister will be aware of concerns among other Eurofighter nations about delays to tranche 2, stemming from the UK. When will the Government approve the order for Eurofighter tranche 2, to ensure delivery of the first tranche 2 aircraft in 2006?
The MOD has ordered a study on Eurofighter, which is currently commissioned by a consulting firm. Will the Minister assure me that that does not jeopardise production continuity, and that the retention of the skills base is secure? There was talk on yesterday's excellent BBC 2 documentary on the Eurofighter that the only reason that the Government secured such a large order—232 aircraft originally—was to secure the skills base. That was a rather cynical allegation, which I hope the Minister will say is unfounded.
138WH
Despite the UK's solidarity with the US as an ally, America has not been prepared to grant the UK a specific technology transfer waiver, known as an international traffic in arms regulations waiver, and there is mounting protectionism of defence technology in the US. At such a time, are the Government being careful when making hard choices about programme cuts, so that they do not cut programmes involving UK jobs and technology, while leaving unscathed the programmes that favour US jobs and technology? The Prime Minister may wish to take that up with President Bush.
Following my introductory remarks, can the Minister tell us how long the Tornado F3 will continue to be in service? What cover and capability will there be from the Tornado F3 and Jaguars until the Typhoon comes into operation? Can he assure us that the final Typhoon that comes into service will be as up to date and capable and in the same numbers as originally envisaged? What is the lead time required to retrain navigators from Tornadoes before Typhoons come into service?
Finally, what message would the Minister like to give, through me, to RAF Leeming about the future of the servicemen and women there, particular the jet fighter pilots and the navigators? There is a lack of clarity about when the Tornado will be phased out and when the Typhoon is expected to come into service. I am sure that he shares the immense pride that we feel in our servicemen and women, particularly those front-line fighter pilots. They deserve the best aircraft, and I hope that the Minister will give a commitment to provide them.
4.34 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on securing the debate. I share the views that she expressed about the role played by the RAF—including, obviously, those servicemen and women from the bases in her constituency—in the recent conflict in Iraq. I take great pride in what they have achieved.
The hon. Lady raised some non-Typhoon issues. I think that I had better write to her on those because, although there is an interrelationship, this debate deals specifically with the Typhoon programme.
The hon. Lady raised fundamental questions about the future of that programme. I am genuinely sorry that she did not find the answer that I gave her last week during Defence questions satisfactory. I hope that this short debate will set her mind at rest. I recognise that it is the Opposition's role—I was in Opposition for 10 years myself—to try to find failure, even where none exists, rather than to identify and applaud success. In some of her remarks she recognised success, but she believes too much in what she reads in the newspapers, and bases her case on that. She asked me whether I would comment on the Financial Times article. I will not read the whole article; that would take up all the time available. However, at the end it states:
"The MoD denied both claims. "There is no question of smokescreening. Neither has the UK over-ordered—we remain committed to the programme.'"

139WH
My contribution will deal with the aspects of that programme.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously, we share concerns about future orders. Lancashire is the home of the Typhoon, and has a manufacturing base and manufacturing skills. The convincing argument that w ill he put about the 232 aircraft is welcome, but has the Minister considered whether we could order further aircraft by introducing the sea variant, which can operate from carriers? Thus an opportunity to give that unique plane—which will be a world leader—a dual role will not be missed.
Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend has raised that issue time and again. I give him credit for continuing to take every opportunity. However, he has already had his answer and I do not want to go down that route. The best answer will be the one already given to him. It may not be one that he likes, but it is the most accurate.
The Typhoon achieved a major landmark in June this year, when all four nations—the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and Spain—agreed to type acceptance of the aircraft, clearing the way for individual aircraft to be accepted into service. The determination and resolve shown by those European nations in working together to bring that about should not be underestimated. The memorandum of understanding between the four nations covers the purchase of 232 aircraft in three planned production tranches. As part of the first tranche, the United Kingdom has a contractual commitment to purchase 55 aircraft. That contract was let by the four nations in 1998. The second tranche, about which we are currently negotiating, covers 89 aircraft. The third tranche covers 88 aircraft, but a contractual commitment for those is not needed or expected before 2007.
However, teething problems arise and there have bee n a number of them during the Typhoon programme. That is not surprising, given the technically complex nature of the Typhoon platform. The most recent, to which the hon. Lady referred, relates to the undercarriage, but I am sure that she would accept the need to ensure that our aircrews are provided with airworthy aircraft because safety is paramount and more important than the production needs of industry.
The temporary suspension of flying due to the landing gear problem is delaying deliveries of individual aircraft to the Royal Air Force. The first aircraft was due to he delivered in October. We now expect that flying will recommence later this month and that the first aircraft will be accepted off contract very shortly afterwards. I say that in the context of the complex nature of the platform.
It is important that we keep these issues in perspective. Typhoon is in full-scale production. It is here to stay. The fact that we are identifying and resolving problems as they arise underlines the measured and prudent approach we adopt for introducing new advanced systems into service. Others clearly recognise the aircraft's merits. Austria has ordered 18, and will join the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and Spain as a member of the Typhoon club. Singapore announced in October that it has included Typhoon on a shortlist of three aircraft to meet
140WH
its demanding requirement for a future fighter. That is all welcome news, and must be good news for BAE Systems.
I am fully conscious that we are approaching a key milestone in the procurement process. As I mentioned earlier, the four nations have ordered 148 aircraft, including 55 for the Royal Air Force. Their construction is well advanced. Under the four-nation agreement, we are due by the end of the year to place the order for the second tranche, which comprises 236 aircraft, 89 of which are destined for the RAF.
This will be a huge contract by any standards, and I make no apology for the fact that we are determined to get it right. To do otherwise would be wrong for the partner nations, the air forces that will operate Typhoon and the industry. To get it right, we need to reflect on the problems and delays that we have experienced, and consider what smart procurement principles can be brought to bear to minimise the risk of similar difficulties with tranche 2.
Tranche 2 is arguably more important to the RAF than the first tranche of aircraft, because we have deliberately adopted an approach of incremental procurement of capability, with enhancements built in as they are developed and demonstrated. The main development of tranche 2 will be to enhance the aircraft's ground attack capability. In an intervention, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) asked about that, as did the hon. Member for Vale of York. It will provide the true multi-role flexibility that is the key to both operational effectiveness and cost effectiveness. Most of the tranche 1 aircraft will be mainly used for training and evaluation purposes, so it is an evolving capability project based on the overriding aspect of cost effectiveness.
The important thing is to be able to plan reliably—I
stress that word—by knowing when industry will be able to deliver those aircraft and capabilities.
Miss McIntosh: Will the Minister answer the key question? Was the original order of 232—or 89 for the RAF—made because that was what was required for our military and defence capabilities, or was it to secure the key skills set?
Mr. Ingram: We plan for the future based on the assessment of need. The hon. Lady referred to the answer that I gave her last week, which somehow raised a doubt in her mind.
The point that I was making is that we have to be able to plan as best we can with certainty when industry will be able to deliver those aircraft and capabilities. That embraces a wide range of military planning, including the standing down of existing systems and the significant personnel implications of introducing a new aircraft into service. It also entails the preparation of infrastructure at the RAF stations where Typhoon will be based. The hon. Lady will be aware that, on current planning, RAF Leeming will be the second base to receive Typhoon after RAF Consingsby and before RAF Leuchars. On current plans, the aircraft will arrive there around 2007.
These preparations are complex and they need to be properly orchestrated. From the RAF's perspective, any delay in the delivery schedules or any failure to deliver

141WH
mature capability can cause significant problems. We can accommodate change, and we develop contingency plans to avoid any gap in our operational capability. If we are to avoid placing unreasonable demands on our people, we need a firm baseline from which to work.
For those reasons, before we place the order for the next tranche of aircraft, we must be satisfied, as must our partner nations, that industry's designs and technologies are likely to be ready, that the aircraft is fit for its purpose and that delivery timetables will be met.
As I have said, the purpose of Typhoon is to provide necessary operational capability; it is not to support industry, although we are naturally proud of what British industry has achieved. Typhoon's purpose is not to provide activity for any one or other RAF station; it is to provide defence capability. Achieving that in a cost-effective and operationally effective manner remains the priority of Defence Ministers. It is a priority that matches the needs of the RAF.
Having said that, delays and unforeseen technical difficulties during production are not in the best interests of industry. The Ministry of Defence recognises that they are expensive for the companies involved, and that is why establishing a firm foundation for tranche 2 must be a priority for all of us. I will not try to predict exactly when we will be ready to order tranche 2. However, all necessary resources are being dedicated to the task and to working with our international and industrial partners.
142WH
There will be a gap in production if there are delays before we order tranche 2, and that is clearly not desirable. To mitigate those effects, we have already committed £200 million to early work on the next tranche of aircraft. Our determination to get it right should not be interpreted as any lessening of our commitment to the programme; it is quite the reverse, as we have allocated around 10 per cent. of our procurement expenditure over the next 10 years to Typhoon. That is around £8 billion, which makes it the biggest single procurement in the MOD.
We have learned that it is worth investing time and money now to get the technology, the planning and the contract right. That will be more than repaid in time and money saved later. Careful planning and procurement pay dividends, especially against an order as complex and expensive as the Typhoon.
Contrary to the central charge made by the hon. Lady, it is not the case that delays have been caused by budget constraints. My earlier comments illustrate the complex nature of international relationships and the interrelationship with industry. We are driven by a desire to ensure that we get the project right because, at the end of the day, we are trying to enhance defence capability.
That underscores our commitment to Typhoon and to preserving the battle-winning capability of the RAF. I would have thought that the hon. Lady would have welcomed that.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Five o'clock.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Constituency Offices
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Leader of the House how many honourable Members have constituency offices that are registered under the Office, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963; and what advice hon. Members are given about such registration of constituency offices. [137186]

  Mr. Hain
  This information is not collected centrally. I understand that the House authorities do not provide any such advice, but the Speaker's Advisory Panel on Members' Allowances has been asked to consider how best to ensure that Members are aware of the need to register their offices.

  Parliamentary Bills
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Leader of the House if he will list, for each bill considered by the House in this session of Parliament, how much time was spent on debate on each clause during(a) committee stage and (b) report stage. [137693]

  Mr. Hain
  The information requested is a matter of public record, obtainable from Hansard, but could be collated only at disproportionate cost.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Partnership Law
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Advocate-General pursuant to her Answer of 9 September, Official Report, column 158, on partnership law in relation to Scottish land law, whether any representations have been made. [136728]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I am informed that no representations by landowners have been received by the Office of the Advocate-General about the matter of partnership law in relation to Scottish land law.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Agricultural Sector
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with(a) the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and (b) the Scottish Executive on the Scottish agricultural sector. [135828]
  282W
  Mrs. McGuire
  My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with his ministerial colleagues and with the Scottish Executive on a wide range of issues.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations his Department has made to the European Union regarding the Scottish agricultural sector.[135829]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs represents the United Kingdom's views on agricultural issues in regular discussions in the European Union. In doing so, it takes account of the views of the Scottish Executive and the other Agriculture Departments.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Solicitor-General pursuant to her answer of 23 October,Official Report, column 693W, on Iraq, what considerations underpinned the decision to override the convention of non-publication of the Law Officers' advice to Government when the Attorney-General published a summary of his advice on 17 March. [135627]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General's advice was not disclosed. In view of the high level of public interest in this issue, the Attorney-General, exceptionally, made a written statement in Parliament on 17 March 2003, setting out his view of the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq.

TRANSPORT

  Accident Report (Salisbury)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will request a report on the accident on 6 November at Broken Cross Bridge near Salisbury; and if he will make a statement. [137767]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand that investigations into the circumstances surrounding the accident at Broken Cross Bridge, including the condition of the parapet, are on-going.

  Given the general concern over highway accidents that result in vehicles ending up on railway tracks, the Government are keen to learn of such incidents as one part of our work to meet road safety targets.

  I will therefore request that copies of the accident report are made available to my officials in order to assess whether there are any lessons to be learned. Until then I believe it would be inappropriate to make any further statement.

  EU Committees
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the dates of meetings of(a) the EU Committee for the implementation of the directive relating to the availability of consumer information on fuel economy and carbon dioxide emissions in respect of the marketing of new passenger cars and (b) the EU

  283W
  Committee on the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances (SEVESO II) during the Danish and Greek presidencies; what items were on each agenda; what representative of the Scottish Executive was present on each occasion; what preparatory meetings were held for each meeting; which officials were present at each preparatory meeting; and if he will make a statement. [132683]

  Mr. Jamieson
  During the Danish and Greek presidencies the Committee of Directive 99/94/EC met on one occasion, on 13 December 2002. On the agenda were a review of the state of play of legal implementation of the Directive in member states, a draft Directive adapting the base Directive with relation to displaying of CO2 information in car showrooms, a recommendation to extend the Directive to other media, and a discussion of segmentation of the vehicle fleet for CO2 labelling purposes.

  Fuel consumption and CO2 labelling are a reserved issue and the Committee meeting was attended by officials of the Department for Transport only. However, UK officials consult widely and the views of the devolved administrations, including the Scottish Executive, are fully reflected at Committee meetings.

  Mersey Bridge
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the Government's policy is on integrating the new Mersey Bridge with the transport network of(a) St. Helens, (b) Merseyside and (c) the north west region. [137987]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Halton borough council submitted a detailed proposal to my Department in July 2003 for the funding of a New Mersey Crossing. The implications of such a crossing for the transport networks of St. Helens, Merseyside and the north west region will be considered as part of our assessment of this proposal.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the cost of linking the transport links of St. Helens with the new Mersey Bridge; and what additional resources he will make available for this purpose. [137988]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Halton borough council submitted a detailed proposal to the Department for Transport in July 2003 for the funding of a New Mersey Crossing. No separate assessment has been carried out by the Department of the cost of linking the transport links of St. Helens with a new crossing. The provision of additional resources for such transport links would be considered in the light of any proposals submitted by the relevant authorities in the context of the Local Transport Plan for Merseyside.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many jobs the Government estimates will be created by the building of the new Mersey Bridge. [138006]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Halton borough council submitted a detailed proposal to my Department in July 2003 for the funding of a New Mersey Crossing. My Department has not made any separate estimates of the number of jobs that might be created by such a proposal.
  284W

  Norwalk Viruses
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many passengers on board UK-registered cruise ships have been affected by Norwalk viruses in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [137850]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This information is not available.

  Planning Inquiries
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many recommendations from planning inquiry inspectors he has(a) accepted and (b) rejected in each year since 1997. [137943]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport was formed on 29 May 2002. Since its formation, the Secretary of State has accepted 44 recommendations made by public inquiry inspectors and rejected none.

  Railways
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of trains left(a) London's Kings Cross, (b) Euston, (c) Victoria, (d) Liverpool Street, (e) Marylebone, (f) Paddington, (g) Waterloo and (h) Charing Cross behind schedule in the first week of each month in 2003. [137318]

  Mr. McNulty
  This information is not collected by the Government or the Strategic Rail Authority. Punctuality is based on time of arrival at final destination stations.

  Road Safety
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to make using a handheld mobile phone while driving an endorsable offence. [137180]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As announced in the Department's decision letter of 24 June 2003, the Government plans to make the new offence endorsable when a suitable legislative opportunity arises.

  Work-related Stress
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cases of work-related stress have been reported in his Department in each of the last three years; how much compensation has been paid to employees; how many work days have been lost due to work-related stress, and at what cost; what procedures have been put in place to reduce work-related stress, and at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [136850]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport was established following machinery of Government changes in May 2002. For the period 2002–03 there have been 16 cases of alleged work-related stress in the Department for Transport (excluding its Agencies). There have been no compensation claims for work-related stress. The Department does not have details of the days lost and associated cost for work-related absence.
  285W
  The Department has a Stress at Work Policy in place, which is supported by practical guidance issued to staff on dealing with the issue. In addition, the Department has access to a counselling and support facility. The Department is committed to meeting the targets for reducing the number of days lost due to work related injuries and ill health arising from the Government's Revitalising Health and Safety initiative.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Agriculture Sector (Losses)
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate the annual economic loss sustained by the agricultural sector from infestation by(a) rabbits, (b) voles, (c) rats and (d) mice. [137253]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In the 1980s the Department estimated the total cost of rabbit damage to agricultural crops in Britain to be approximately £100 million per annum. The Central Science Laboratory has derived a current estimate, based on extrapolation from the 1980s, of approximately £115 million per annum with the total cost of rabbit control activity being approximately £5 million per annum.

  There are no figures available for economic losses to the agricultural sector caused by voles, rats or mice, as Defra does not collate these data.

  Antibiotics
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the use of antibiotics in imported meats. [137288]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Residues of antibiotics, other veterinary medicines and banned substances in meats imported from third countries are controlled at two levels. First, the European Commission requires all third countries wishing to export food products to the EU to submit annual residue monitoring plans. These must demonstrate that the third country understands that exports to Member States should not contain substances banned in the EU, or authorised veterinary medicines in excess of the EC Maximum Residue Limit. These arrangements replicate the obligations placed on Member States to ensure that any residues of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs produced in the EU are at a level safe for consumers. The European Commission's Food and Veterinary Office also carries out missions to third countries to inspect and audit the arrangements they have in place to meet this requirement. Secondly, imports into the UK are randomly sampled at Border Inspection Posts and, to a lesser extent, at retail outlets. These samples are tested for a range of residues, including antibiotics. Any positives are considered for their consumer safety implications by toxicologists and the importing country's authorities are asked to investigate. Results of all the tests are reported on the Veterinary Medicines Directorate's website and in their quarterly newsletter.
  286W

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action the British Government are taking to ensure that the French Government pay their fine for breaching the rules allowing British beef to be exported to France. [136898]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The European Commission withdrew its case in the European Court of Justice seeking a daily fine on France after France lifted its ban. Therefore, no fines were payable, but the Commission asked the Court to order that costs of the case be borne by France. The UK Government regretted the decision by the European Commission not to pursue the case for penalties against France. The UK supported the Commission throughout and believed that pressing this case would have sent a firm message to member states that no one country can avoid its obligations and responsibilities.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what factors determine compensation payment levels for bovine TB factors in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland. [136408]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Brucellosis and Tuberculosis (England and Wales) Compensation Order 1978 (as amended) specifies that the level of compensation payable for animals slaughtered for tuberculosis in England and Wales shall be their market value. Analogous legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland similarly provide for compensation to be made at the market value.

  The legislation covering compensation in respect of bovine tuberculosis is the Tuberculosis Control Order (Northern Ireland) 1999. Article 11(1) of the legislation states that where the Department slaughters or causes an animal to be slaughtered under Article 10(1), the compensation payable by the Department for the animal shall be the market value of the animal.

  Correspondence
  Clare Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter of 29 September from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, on behalf of Ms Archer, a constituent, regarding the welfare of racing greyhounds. [136591]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I responded to my right hon. Friend on 5 November 2003.

  Cruelty to Animals
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs under what legislation people who are cruel to animals may be prosecuted; and if she will make a statement. [134594]

  Mr. Bradshaw [holding answer 27 October 2003]
  A person can be prosecuted for cruelty to animals under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 (in England and Wales, 1912 Act in Scotland) in relation to acts of cruelty against captive and domestic animals; the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 in relation to acts of
  287W
  cruelty against wild mammals; the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) in relation to acts of cruelty against other wild animals; and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 in relation to acts of cruelty against badgers.

  My Department is currently reviewing the legislation relating to the welfare of captive animals with the intention of updating and consolidating it into one statute—the Animal Welfare Act. Offences of cruelty and the associated penalties are included as part of the review.

  Dairy Farming
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many dairy cows there were in each of the past five years; and what the average size of dairy herds was in each year. [135746]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Data for dairy cows are collected annually from the June agricultural and horticultural census as a total.

  For the last five years the figures are:

  Dairycows and dairy herd size 1998 to 2002

  Dairy cows

  Average dairy herd size

  1998

  1,642,636

  83.9

  1999

  1,659,210

  88.5

  2000

  1,575,320

  89.8

  2001

  1,490,224

  91.6

  2002

  1,462,155

  87.9

  Notes

  1. Dairy herd—holdings with dairy cows producing milk

  2. Dairy cows—all cows and heifers that have calved

  3. 1998 and 1999 figures refer to main holding only. 2000

  onwards—main and minor holdings.

  Source:

  June agricultural census—England

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on dairy farmers of the(a) contractual and (b) price setting behaviour of the largest five UK supermarket chains. [135774]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have made no specific assessment of the impact on dairy farmers of the contractual and price setting behaviour of the largest five UK supermarket chains. However, a detailed investigation into the supply of groceries from supermarkets was carried out by the Competition Commission in 1999–2000. The Commission concluded that, taking all matters into consideration, the industry was broadly competitive. It did, however, identify three situations where competition was distorted and operates against the public interest. These concerned the relationship between supermarkets and their suppliers and certain pricing practices. The Commission's report, which was published in October 2000, can be found at http:// www.competition-commission.org. uk/inquiries/ completed/2000/index.htm

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the likely effect of reform of the Common Agricultural Policy on future prices per litre of milk. [134379]
  288W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  When fully implemented, the reforms agreed in June in Luxembourg will reduce the support price for butter by 10 per cent. more than the 15 per cent. reduction originally agreed for both butter and skimmed milk powder under Agenda 2000 (ie a 25 per cent. cut in the support price for butter). If farmgate prices were to fall to the same extent, the price per litre might be reduced by a further 0.95p beyond the impact of Agenda 2000. However, we share the European Commission's assessment that farmgate prices are unlikely to settle at this level: indeed, the overall package of compensation agreed reflects this. (Producers will be compensated through an increase in the level of direct payments of a further 0.74pp1 over and above the compensation originally agreed in Agenda 2000.) The figures quoted above are based on an exchange rate of 70p/euro.

  Our economic assessment indicates that decoupling of direct payments from production will have a beneficial effect on farm incomes; we would expect the main dairy-specific price impact to be in relation to the value of milk quota.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how she will double the rate of energy efficiency improvement in order to meet targets for 2020 set out in the Energy White Paper. [133255]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Energy White Paper makes clear that energy efficiency is expected to deliver about half the carbon savings needed to meet our carbon emission reduction goals for 2020. This will mean roughly doubling the rate of energy efficiency improvement of recent decades.

  A wide range of policies and measures to encourage energy efficiency across the economy is already in place. including Climate Change Agreements, the work of the Energy Saving and Carbon Trusts to promote energy efficiency in the household and business sectors, the Energy Efficiency Commitment, UK Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), and updated Building Regulations.

  Key measures proposed in the White Paper include extension of the Energy Efficiency Commitment beyond 2005 at possibly twice its current level of activity; further improvements in the Building Regulations, faster improvements in the standards of new household appliances; and consultation on economic instruments to improve household energy efficiency, as well as other measures for the business and public sectors.

  The Government intend to publish an Energy Efficiency Implementation Plan within a year of the White Paper's publication, which will provide further detail on all of these policies.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on plans to improve energy efficiency in the UK. [133283]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Energy White Paper details the steps being taken to encourage greater energy efficiency in the UK, and sets out an ambitious strategy for energy efficiency up to 2010 and beyond. Energy efficiency is
  289W
  expected to deliver about half the carbon savings needed to meet our goals for 2020. This will mean roughly doubling the rate of energy efficiency improvement of recent decades.

  Key measures proposed in the White Paper include extension of the Energy Efficiency Commitment beyond 2005 at possibly twice its current level of activity; improvements in building standards through further revisions to the Building Regulations; and faster improvements in the standards of new household appliances.

  The Government intend to publish an Energy Efficiency Implementation Plan within a year of the White Paper's publication, which will provide further detail on all of these policies.

  Farm Borrowing
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) total level of borrowing of British farmers and (b) average level of borrowing per farm in the United Kingdom was in the last year for which figures are available. [137255]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The information is as follows:

  (a) In 2001, the liabilities of United Kingdom agriculture amounted to £9.5 billion. This figure includes: mortgages; bank loans; family loans; leasing; hire purchase; trade credit; bank overdrafts; and other liabilities.

  (b) In 2001–02, the average closing value of borrowings on farm businesses in England was nearly £91,000. This estimate is based on Farm Business Survey data, which are a sample of full-time farm businesses. Farms in the sample subject to compulsory cull due to foot and mouth disease in 2001–02 have been excluded. Average borrowings for the United Kingdom are not available, but estimates for the other UK countries are available separately in the publication "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom" (http:// statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/fluk/default.asp)

  Farm Diversification
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assistance is being provided for farmers to(a) diversify and (b) generate income from new sources. [137265]

  Alun Michael
  The Government's Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food clearly sets out the scope of the assistance available to help farmers diversify their sources of income and to generate income from other sources.

  Defra offers grants for good diversification projects under the Rural Enterprise Scheme, which forms part of the England Rural Development Programme. The Department also provides free consultancy advice on land use planning issues to farmers who intend to pursue a diversification project through the Rural Enterprise Scheme. Defra's Rural Development Service has been running business planning seminars in a number of regions to help potential applicants work up project proposals which meet the scheme requirements.
  290W
  There are many types of farm business and no single approach to income generation will be appropriate to all. The England Rural Development Programme provides support for a range of other opportunities, including organic farming, processing and marketing primary agricultural products, establishing energy crops and woodland, environmental stewardship under the agri-environment schemes, and training in the skills farmers may need to pursue new opportunities.

  The Department is also considering how to improve the provision of help and information to farmers considering the diversification of their business base. The Farm Business Advice Service provides up to three days of free advice based around a business health-check and results in a business action plan. The service can help farmers decide whether or not to diversify and will direct them to other sources of support.

  Farm Incomes
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimates she has made of overall farm income in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002. [137254]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Total income from farming in the UK is estimated to have increased by 15 per cent. (14 per cent. in real terms) from £2.0 billion in 2001 to £2.4 billion in 2002.

  Total income from farming per whole-time person equivalent rose by 19 per cent. (18 per cent. in real terms) from £9.3 thousand to £11.1 thousand between 2001 and 2002.

  Total income from farming is income generated by production within the agriculture industry, including subsidies. It represents business profits plus remuneration for work done by owners and other unpaid workers.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the level of income in(a) farming, (b) pig production and (c) other livestock production in the last year for which figures are available. [137271]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The following table gives estimated average net farm incomes' for different types of farm businesses in England for 2001–02. Farms in the sample subject to compulsory cull due to Foot and Mouth disease in 2001 have been excluded. Estimated incomes for 2002–03 will be published on 27 November 2003.

  Average net farm income per full time farm business, England 2001–02

  £

  All farm types

  13,600

  Specialist pigs

  20,400

  Dairy

  30,700

  Hill cattle and sheep

  7,900

  Lowland cattle and sheep

  0

  Source:

  Farm Business Survey

  1Net farm income is defined as the return to the principal farmer and spouse for their manual and managerial labour and on the tenant-type capital of the business.

  291W

  Farm Medicines
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received about the cost of farm medicines; and if she will make a statement. [137287]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Following earlier complaints about the cost of veterinary medicines from both farmers and other animal owners, MAFF Ministers referred the issue to the Office of Fair Trading. The Competition Commission then carried out an inquiry into the distribution of prescription only veterinary medicines in the UK. The Competition Commission published their Report on 11 April 2003 which included 9 remedies addressed to the Office of Fair Trading and 11 recommendations addressed to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. The Government response to the Report was issued on 9 July 2003.

  I met with representatives of the BVA on 9 September 2003 to hear their views on the Competition Commission's recommendations and I have received 8 letters following the Commission's Report from veterinary surgeons and veterinary organisations about the cost of farm medicines. The Competition Commission's recommendations that the Government has accepted are being implemented in consultation with interested parties.

  Farm Produce Prices
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what resources will be available to assist farming communities affected by the fall in produce prices. [137256]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Overall income from farming in the UK rose 15 per cent. in 2002, with the average full-time farmer earning £11,107. This was the second year running that there was an increase in farm incomes. This upward trend looks set to continue due to a recovery in the euro so far in 2003, which has led to a rise in prices across a range of commodities and will result in higher direct sterling subsidy payments.

  It is important to note that for most farm households, incomes will be enhanced by other sources of income. Furthermore, for a significant number of these households diversified income is at present higher than the income earned from farming.

  Government policy is not to attempt to intervene in the market to try and artificially increase incomes, but to facilitate the right economic framework to enable farmers to succeed, compete successfully internationally and have a profitable future.

  The Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food, launched on 12 December 2002, sets out how Government, industry and consumers will work with the whole of the food chain to secure a sustainable future for English farming and food industries, as viable industries contributing to a better environment and healthy and prosperous communities.

  Farm Subsidies
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much has been paid to small farmers, broken down by region and nation of the UK, in respect of set aside in 2002. [138236]

  Alun Michael
  £1,462,507.39 was paid to small producers in England in respect of set-aside land under the 2002 Arable Area Payments Scheme broken down by the regions covered by the former MAFF Regional Service Centres as follows. The details for the other nations of the UK are a matter for their own devolved Assemblies.

  Value of payments (£)

  Wessex

  77,251.61

  Anglia

  357,857.83

  Northern

  54,357.30

  North Mercia

  75,573.83

  South West

  146.351.33

  North East

  140,390.60

  East Midlands

  184,345.21

  South East

  296,056.08

  South Mercia

  130,323.60

  Farmers (Age Profiles)
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average age is of British farmers; and how this has changed over the last 30 years. [137283]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The average age of holders in the United Kingdom has increased from 53 in 1975 (the earliest year for which figures are available) to 54 in 2000. The available data are shown in the table:

  Estimated Average age of UK holders

  1975

  53

  1990

  53

  1993

  53

  1995

  54

  1997

  53

  2000

  54

  Notes

  The EC Farm Structure Survey is held across all Member States of the European Union four times each decade, to assess the agricultural situation across the Community and to monitor trends in the structure of holdings.

  The holder is defined as the (natural or legal) person in whose name the holding, be a hereditary long-term leaseholder, or a usufructuary or a trustee.

  The data are collected in age bands. The average age has been calculated by utilising the mid-point of each age band. A mid point of 67 is assumed for the age band "Aged 65 and over".

  Source

  EC Farm Structure Survey

  Farmers (Bankruptcy)
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of farmers have become bankrupt in each of the past five years. [137277]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Data on farming bankruptcies for England and Wales are given in the table. The last whole year for which bankruptcy figures are available is 2002, figures for 2003 are for the first two quarters.
  293W
  Between 1998 and 2002 total farming bankruptcies have been between 200 and 300; this represents less than 0.1 per cent. of farmers, partners and directors and their spouses1 in England and Wales.

  Number of bankruptcies2 in the agriculture and horticultural sector

  England and Wales 1998–2003

  Total Bankruptcies

  1998

  222

  1999

  258

  2000

  240

  2001

  273

  2002

  208

  20033

  117

  1June Agricultural and Horticularal Census. Data on farmers are not separately available.

  2Department of Trade and Industry. Includes bankrutpcies of self-emplpoyed individuals and company insolvncies.

  3Q1 andQ2

  Farmers Markers
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of state for Environment, food and Rural Affairs if she will list the regional farm produce markets in England. [137274]

  Mr.Bradshaw
  This information is not held centrally but a list of farmers' markers selling regional farm produce can be found on the National Association of Farmers' markets website http://WWW.farmersmarkets.net.

  Farming
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of state for Environment, food and Rural Affairs how many farmers are working in(a) the north west, (b)Lancashire and (c)the Chorley constituency. [136919]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Data for the total number farmers, partners, directors and spouses combined are collected annually from the June agricultural and horticultural census as a total.

  Figures for 2002 are as follows:

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses (full and part time)

  North west

  27,392

  LancashireCC

  7,783

  Chorley

  569

  Note

  The north west region includes Merseyside.

  Source

  June 2002 Agricultrual Census.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farmers are in (a) dairy, (b) arable, (c) sheep, (d) beef, (e) poultry, (f) other and (g) pig farming in (i) the north west, (ii) Lancashire and (iii) Chorley. [136920]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Agricultural and horticultural holdings are classified annually from the June agricultural and horticultural census into nine different types.
  294W
  For 2002 the figures are:

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses (full and part time) by farm type

  FF farn type

  North

  LancashireCC

  Chorley

  Cereals

  905

  136

  12

  Generals

  1,047

  525

  16

  Horticulture

  1,543

  677

  50

  Pigs and poultry

  1,060

  408

  47

  Dairy

  7,381

  2,062

  123

  Cattle and sheep(LFA)

  5,683

  1,565

  44

  Cattle and sheep (lowland)

  5,300

  1,209

  143

  Mixed

  1,231

  272

  40

  Other types

  3,242

  930

  95

  All types

  27,392

  7,783

  569

  Notes

  1.LFA—less favoured area

  2.The north west region includes Merseyside

  source

  June 2002 Agricultural Census.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many dairy cows there were in each of the last five years; and what the average size of dairy herds was in each year in(a) the north west, (b) Lancashire and (c) Chorley. [136921]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Data for dairy cows are collected annually from the June agricultural and horticultural census as a total.

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Data for dairy cows are collected annually from the June agricultural and horticultural census as a total.

  For the last five years the figures are:

  Dairy cows and average dairy herd size

  North west

  Lancashire CC

  Chorley

  1998

  Dairy cows

  354,937

  86,178

  4,984

  Average dairy herd size

  83.9

  78.7

  73.1

  1999

  Dairy cows

  361,748

  86,728

  4,713

  Average dairy herd size

  88.5

  81.9

  71.7

  2000

  Dairy cows

  348,150

  83,150

  4,658

  Average dairy herd size

  92.9

  85.1

  76.2

  2001

  Dairy cows

  289,194

  83,402

  4,748

  Average dairy herd size

  94.9

  88.8

  80.3

  2002

  Dairy cows

  315,908

  78,498

  4,628

  Average dairy herd size

  90.7

  86.1

  79.7

  Notes

  1. The north west region includes Merseyside

  2. Dairy cows—holdings with dairy cows producing milk

  3. Dairy herd—holdings with dairy cows producing milk and heifers in firsr calf.

  4. 1993 to 1999 figures refer to main holding only.2000 onwards include main and minor holdings.

  source

  June Agricultural census

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farmers left the industry in the last five years in(a) the North West, (b) Lancashire and (c) Chorley. [136922]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Data for the total number farmers, partners, directors and spouses combined are collected annually from the June agricultural and horticultural census as a total. Figures are not available for each item.
  295W
  Figures for the last five years show net changes only and include gains as well as losses.

  The available figures cover all holdings for 2000–02 and only main holdings for 1998 and 1999.

  Farmers, partners, directors and spouses (full and part-time)

  North west

  Lancashire CC

  Chorley

  Main holdings only

  1998

  26,536

  7,444

  500

  1999

  26,024

  7,364

  508

  Main and minor holdings

  2000

  27,538

  7,949

  595

  2001

  28,684

  8,202

  607

  2002

  27,392

  7,783

  569

  Note

  The North West includes Merseyside

  source

  June 2002 Agricultural Census

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the viability of the farming industry in East Sussex. [137275]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government wants the whole country's farming industry to succeed. That is why we launched the Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food on 12 December 2002. The Strategy builds on the work of Sir Don Curry's Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food and provides a clear and strategic long-term direction towards a more sustainable future. The Government will work in partnership with industry and other stakeholders to implement the strategy, providing the leadership to allow farmers to flourish by their own efforts and to become better connected to markets and consumer requirements.

  We are making good progress towards delivering these objectives. Most recently through June's CAP reform agreement which represents a real shift in agricultural policy. It sets out a new course for agriculture in Europe: a sustainable future where farmers do not farm for subsidy but produce what consumers want to buy, delivering a key aim of the Strategy—reconnecting farmers to the market.

  The Government has also established an Implementation Group of nine senior independent members, chaired by Sir Don Curry, to oversee delivery. Regional delivery plans have been drawn up to coordinate the approach within and between different areas of the country and the delivery plan for the southeast is now in the final stages of development.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farmers farm in East Sussex; and how many farmed there in 1993. [137251]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Data for the total number farmers, partners, directors and spouses combined are collected annually from the June agricultural and horticultural census as a total.

  Figures including main holdings are available only up to 1999.
  296W

  Total farmers, partners, directors and spouses (full and part-time) in East Sussex

  Number

  Main holding only

  1993

  3,051

  1999

  3,066

  Main and minor holdings

  2000

  3,112

  2002

  3,326

  Notes:

  1.Spouses are included only if they are working on the holding.

  2.Due to a register improvement exercise in 2001, figures prior to this are not directly comparable with later results.

  Source

  june Agriculture Census

  Farming Industry
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of farmers she expects to leave agricultural production in the next five years. [137289]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There is no estimate made of the number of farmers expected to leave the industry in the future.

  Great Bustard
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans there are to reintroduce the great bustard in England; and if she will make a statement. [137122]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  On the 31 October, I approved a 10-year trial reintroduction of the Great Bustard onto Salisbury Plain. This species has been extinct from England since 1832.

  The Licence permits the Great Bustard Consortium, a conservation group, to release up to 40 chicks per year onto Salisbury Plain. The first releases are not likely to be before September 2004. A further licence under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) will be required to permit the import of the chicks from Russia.

  The Department will review the trial on an annual basis in consultation with, among others, English Nature, the Joint Nature Conservancy Committee and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It will be terminated in the event of evidence of harm to the donor population in Russia, or to native biodiversity.

  Growth Promoters
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to restrict the use of growth promoters in(a) animals and (b) fish destined for human consumption. [137558]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The authorisation and use of antimicrobials used in farming to promote growth is subject to strict controls set down by the European Union (Council Directive 70/524/EC amended). Under these rules such products cannot be authorised unless they satisfy statutory criteria designed to ensure that, at the level permitted in feedstuffs they will not adversely affect human or animal health or the environment.
  297W
  Additionally they may only be used in accordance with the terms set out in an annex to the Directive, which specifies the species in which they may be used, authorised dosage rates and the withdrawal periods that must be applied before animals can be slaughtered for human consumption.

  The UK Government supported the recent adoption of a new Regulation that will replace Directive 70/524,1 EEC from September next year. One of the major consequences of this change will be the phasing out, across the EU, of all remaining antimicrobial growth promoters by 1 January 2006, as a precautionary measure.

  In the meantime the Government are continuing to work closely with the industry's Responsible Use of Medicines Alliance (RUMA) both to promote the responsible use of these products and in drawing up plans to assist industry to adjust to their use being banned from January 2006.

  Japanese Knotweed
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to amend the Wildlife and Countryside

  Operating currently

  England(99)

  Acklinton

  Andoversford

  Ashford

  Axminster

  Bakewell

  Barnard Castle

  Beeston

  Bellingham

  Bentham

  Bideford

  Bishop's Castle

  Blackmoor Gate

  Bridgnorth

  Bristol

  Broughton-in-Furness

  Carlisle

  Chagford

  Chelford

  Chippenham

  Cirencester

  Claughton-on-Brock

  Clitheroe

  Cockermouth

  Colchester

  Cutcombe

  Darlington

  Derby

  Exeter

  Frome

  Gisburn

  Hailsham

  Hallworthy

  Hatherleigh

  Hawes

  Hereford

  Hexham

  Highbridge

  Holsborthy

  Honiton

  Hull

  Kendal

  Kington

  Kirkby Stephen

  Kirkby Thore

  Lancaster

  Lazonby

  Leek

  Leominster

  Leyburn

  Liskeard

  Longtown

  Louth

  Ludlow

  Maidstone

  Malton

  Market Drayton

  Market Harborough

  Masham

  Melton Mowbray

  Middleton-in-Teesdale

  Newark

  Newton Abbot

  Northallerton

  Norwich

  Oswestry

  Otley(Wharfedale)

  Ponteland

  Reading

  Ross-on-Wye

  Rothbury

  Rugby

  Ruswarp, Nr Whitby

  St. Austell

  St. Johns Chapel

  Salisbury

  Scots Gap, Morpeth

  Sedbergh

  Selby

  Shaftesbury

  Shrewsbury

  Skipton

  South Molton

  Stratford-upon-Avon

  Taunton

  Tavistock

  Tenbury Wells

  Thame

  Thirsk

  Thrapston

  Tow Law

  Truro

  Ulverston

  Uttoxeter

  Wigton

  Winslow

  Wales (40)

  Abergavenny

  Aberystwyth

  Bala

  Brecon

  Bryncir

  Buiith Wells

  Cardigan

  Carmarthen

  Corwen

  Cowbridge

  Crymmych

  Dolgellau

  Gaerwen

  Haverfordwest

  Hay-on-Wye

  Knighton

  Lampeter

  Llandeilo

  Llandovery

  Llandysul

  Llanrwst

  Llanybydder

  Machynlleth

  Mold

  Neath

  Newcastle

  Newport

  Newtown

  Penybont

  Rhayader

  Emlyn Ruthin

  Sarn

  St. Asaph

  Sennybridge

  Synod Inn

  Talgarth

  Talybont-on- Usk

  Tregaron

  Welshpool

  Whitland

  Closures since 1997

  England (53)

  Ashbourne

  Ashburton

  Avon

  Banbury

  Barnstaple

  Beccles

  Beverley

  Beverley

  Bishop Auckland

  Brickfields

  Bridgewater

  Bury St. Edmunds

  Cambourne

  Canterbury

  Chelmsford

  Chelmsford

  Chester

  Congleton

  Corby Glen

  Craven Arms

  Crewe

  Driffield

  Gloucester

  Goole

  Grantham

  298W
  Act 1981 to make it a legal obligation on landowners to clear Japanese knotweed when it spreads within a site. [134227]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes it an offence for any person to plant or otherwise cause to grow in the wild any plant listed in Schedule 9 of the Act, including Japanese knotweed. I have no current plans to amend the Act as the hon. Gentleman proposes.

  The Rural White Paper for England "Our Countryside; Our Future" made a commitment to review the provisions of Part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 with a view to rationalising the identification and protection of rare and endangered species. This Department aims to consult on this in the near future.

  Livestock Industry
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list those livestock auction markets which(a) operated in 1997 and (b) operate currently. [136193]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The list of livestock auction markets operating in 1997 is not readily available.

  Based principally on information provided by the Livestock Auctioneers Association the lists of livestock auction markets for England and Wales which operate currently and the closures since 1997 are as follows:
  299W

  Guildford

  Haslingden

  Hellifield

  Helston

  Hope

  Kidderminster

  Kingsbridge

  Ledbury

  Lichfield

  Newport (Salop)

  Northampton

  Oakham

  Otley

  Penistone

  Penkridge

  Penzance

  Plympton

  Preston

  Ripon

  Rye

  Sevenoaks

  Stamford

  Stokesley

  Sturminster

  Tetbury

  Wadebridge

  Wetherby

  Wickham

  Wales (12)

  Blackmill

  Gowerton

  Kinnerton

  Llanfair Caereinion

  Llangadog

  Llangefni

  Llanidloes

  Llanwrtyd Wells

  Monmouth

  Pembroke

  Talycafn

  Ystrad Aeron

  Meat Imports
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what studies she has received of(a) policy on and (b) the cost of meat import controls from areas of high disease risk in (i) other EU member states and (ii) other countries. [136219]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We received the Cabinet Office report which included information on other EU member states. A summary of which can be found in section four of the Cabinet Office Review The Organisation of the Government's Controls of Imports of Animals, Fish, Plants and their Products' on the Cabinet Office website. We have received no further studies since then.

  The issue of controls on personal imports continues to be discussed regularly in meetings of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health in Brussels.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of the proposed reform of the Common Agricultural Policy on the importation of meat to the UK from South America. [133227]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The reform of the Common Agricultural Policy agreed in Luxembourg in June does not affect tariffs and duties on imports of meat from third countries.

  Milk
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with the Department for Education and Skills regarding(a) the provision of free school milk and (b) the extension of the provision of free school milk to all those aged 11 and under. [136034]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have not recently held any discussions with the Department for Education and Skills relating to school milk.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the farmgate prices for milk in the UK; and what the farmgate prices are for milk in other EU nations. [135775]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The table gives the most recent data available from Eurostat on the average farmgate price of milk of 3.7 per cent. fat content in euros per 100 kg for the EU 15.

  This data show the UK farmgate prices are consistently below the EU average. The reasons for this were examined by KPMG in their report on "Prices and
  300W
  Profitability in the British Dairy Chain", which was commissioned by the Milk Development Council. The report concluded that the lower prices were the result of the structure of the UK dairy sector, the comparatively low value of the mix of dairy products in the UK and a low level of innovation. It also suggested a number of areas where the efficiency of the dairy supply chain could be improved.

  Selling price of raw cows milk, 3.7 per cent. fat content: EU 15(euros per Kg)

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  20021

  Belgium

  27.47

  26.33

  27.44

  29.93

  26.37

  Denmark

  30.8

  30.26

  30.86

  32.34

  Germany

  29.52

  28.47

  30

  32.82

  29.98

  Greece

  32.72

  33.69

  33.47

  35.62

  34.55

  Spain

  27.99

  27.33

  27.05

  30.33

  28.12

  France

  28.52

  28.11

  28.81

  29.99

  29.26

  Ireland

  27.92

  26.66

  27.2

  28.56

  Italy

  34.84

  34.23

  Luxembourg

  31.45

  30.65

  30.53

  32.73

  31.89

  Netherlands

  30.59

  28.62

  29.15

  31.27

  29.65

  Austria

  27.64

  27.76

  27.83

  31.76

  30.14

  Portugal

  28.39

  28.49

  28.97

  32.17

  34.36

  Finland

  32.05

  32.15

  32.72

  33.97

  34.36

  Sweden

  32.71

  33.11

  34.74

  31.22

  United

  Kingdom

  26.76

  26.13

  26.09

  25.57

  1Eurostat data 2002 are not yet complete

  Source

  Eurostat Cronos Database

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of the UK milk quota was leased in each of the last 10 years. [135747]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The table gives details of the amounts of quota leased in each of the last 10 years, both in terms of volume and as a percentage of total UK quota.

  Quota year

  Amount leased (million litres)

  Percentage leased

  1994–95

  1,230

  8.69

  1995–96

  1,327

  9.37

  1996–97

  1,381

  9.75

  1997–98

  1,490

  10.53

  1998–99

  1,552

  10.96

  1999–2000

  1,490

  10.52

  2000–01

  1,445

  10.20

  2001–02

  2,116

  14.93

  2002–03

  2,039

  14.39

  2003–04

  1194

  1.37

  1The figure for 2003–04 represents the current total as at 29 October. It is significantly lower than previous years, in part because the figure is not for a complete year, but also because of the effects of the Thomsen ECJ judgment (which has meant that non-producing quota holders will no longer be able to lease out their quota indefinitely). Quota holders who are no longer in active milk production will, by 31 March 2004, have to sell their milk quota, resume production, or otherwise have their quota confiscated.

  301W
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) amount and (b) proportion of the UK national milk quota was unused in each of the last 10 years. [135748]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The table gives the total amounts of unused quota in the UK for the period 1993–94 to 2002–03. The entire national quota allocation (some 14.2 billion litres) was used in the years 1993–94 to 1999–2000 because the UK ended each of them slightly over the quota threshold.

  Quota year

  Amount unused (million litres)

  Percentage unused

  1993–94

  0

  0.00

  1994–95

  0

  0.00

  1995–96

  0

  0.00

  1996–97

  0

  0.00

  1997–98

  0

  0.00

  1998–99

  0

  0.00

  1999–2000

  0

  0.00

  2000–01

  307.4

  2.17

  2001–02

  81.9

  0.58

  2002–03

  119.4

  0.84

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much of the UK milk quota has been held by the Government in the national reserve in each of the past five years. [135749]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The table gives the total amount of quota in the national reserve for each quota year from 1998–99 to 2003–04. The national reserve quota is divided between two 'pots'—the confiscated reserve holding quota to which the right to restoration applies, and the remainder holding quota which is currently used in the Temporary Reallocation of Quota scheme (designed to help producers who exceed their quota due to herd movement restrictions). Where quota is confiscated, the quota holder from whom the quota is taken reserves the right to apply for the restoration of the confiscated quota within a certain period if production recommences on the holding. At present, the period in which quota can be restored is six years; however, this has been reduced to two years under the new EU Council Regulation which comes into force on 1 April 2004.

  Quota year

  Confiscated reserve (litres)

  National reserve (litres)

  Total

  Total as percentage of UK quota

  1998–99

  2,193,571

  3,232,752

  5,426,323

  0.04

  1999–2000

  2,181,337

  3,232,752

  5,414,089

  0.04

  2000–01

  2,180,719

  4,608,324

  6,789,043

  0.05

  2001–02

  6,558,258

  4,820,256

  11,378,514

  0.08

  2002–03

  10,511,463

  7,255,287

  17,766,750

  0.13

  2003–04

  20,431,426

  7,342,507

  27,773,933

  0.20

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of state for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for the future of the milk quota system; and if she will make a statement. [135776]
  302W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have made it clear that we would like to see the milk quota system abolished. It is a bureaucratic constraint on production, it distorts the market, and it adds to the industry's costs. It was, therefore, disappointing that the Luxembourg agreement on CAP reform extended the quota system to 2014/15.

  We carried out a consultation exercise on proposed amendments to our national Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 2002 earlier this year. The proposals related to the possible introduction of two discretionary elements of the Council Regulation on milk quotas, breaking the link between quota and land and a 70 per cent. usage rule, and also some administrative changes. A summary of the responses we received is available on our website at www.defra.gov.uk/ corporate/consult/responses.htm. We intend to make an announcement shortly on how we will proceed.

  Organic Farming
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the level of financial support in the EU for organic farming. [137272]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is not possible to comment on the direct level of financial support available in other member states since the mix of land types and crops on which aid is based varies so greatly. The latest information we have on aid available elsewhere in the European Union however suggests that the recent increase in support payments being made available under the Organic Farming Scheme (OFS), which is part of the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP) and which encourages the expansion of organic production, is generally comparable to what is available elsewhere in the Community.

  Under the OFS, farmers moving from conventional to organic farming methods receive financial help during the conversion process. From 30 May, assistance is now also being made available under the scheme for existing organic farmers who comply with certain environmental measures. The following table shows Defra's spending in the financial year 2002–03 on financial and other support for organic farming:

  £

  Category of support

  Total spend2002–03

  Financial support: Under the Organic Farming Scheme (OFS)

  12,567.000

  Other support: Defra funding for the Organic Conversion Information Service (OCIS)

  301,000

  Defra funding for research for development purposes which includes a large component dealing with research on organic farming

  1.809,000

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) financial and (b) other support was provided to organic farming in the last year for which figures are available. [137273]
  303W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The following table shows Defra's spending in the financial year 2002–03 on financial and other support for organic farming:

  £

  Category of support

  Total Spend 2002–03

  (a) Financial support: Under the Organic Farming Scheme (OFS), which is part of the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP).

  12,567,000

  (b) Other support: Organic Conversion Information Service (OCIS).

  301,000

  Defra funding for research for development purposes which includes a large component dealing with research on organic farming.

  1,809,000

  Pet Ownership
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how she communicates messages on responsible pet ownership to pet owners; and if she will encourage pet owners to insure their pets. [137062]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Local and national media, including specialist magazines, leaflets, advertisements and the internet are used to communicate messages from welfare organisations and pet owners' groups on the care of pets. A decision on whether to take out pet insurance is for individual owners.

  Pig Farming
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of state for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the size of the national pig herd is; what estimates she has made of the likely size of the pig herd over the next five years; and if she will make a statement. [137259]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The provisional results of the June 2003 survey of agriculture show that the UK pig herd had fallen to 5,039 thousand head. This is a 38 per cent. decline in the size of the UK pig herd since June 1998 (five years ago) when the UK pig herd was 8,146 thousand head. The future size of the pig herd will depend on the profitability of the sector. Profitability will be influenced by several factors, including exchange rates, the expansion of the EU and the ability of the industry to deal with diseases that are currently affecting sow productivity.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the viability of the British pig industry. [137284]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Profitability in the pig sector typically fluctuates over time as market prices follow a cyclical path. Productivity and performance also vary considerably within the sector. Average profitability has generally been positive in 2003 largely due to weaker sterling and stronger prices. Raising the average level of performance across the industry will be key to sustaining industry profitability over the longer term. Estimates of 2003 net margins in the pig sector are found in the report 'Economic Position of the farming industry', published on the Defra Website at http:// statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/repfi.pdf.
  304W
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment her Department has made of the effectiveness of the enforcement of welfare standards for pigs. [134188]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The primary responsibility for enforcing the new pig welfare regulations—The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003 No. 299)—and checking that the pig welfare codes are being observed£lies with the State Veterinary Service (SVS) and local authorities.

  The SVS check welfare on pig farms on both random and targeted bases and also make checks following complaints from the public. The SVS measure welfare on pig farms by assessing levels of compliance with standards set by the legislation and Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Pigs. In cases of non-compliance, the action to gain a resolution is taken, ranging from advice to prosecution.

  The detailed computerised system which reports the results of welfare inspections by the SVS was upgraded on 1 January 2000. The data on checks on farms are analysed to enable the SVS better to target inspections. A summary of the results of checks conducted on pig farms by the SVS in 2002 was published in the report of the Chief Veterinary Officer "Animal Health 2002" (Defra Publication PB 8258, or at www.defra.gov.uk/ corporate/publication s/pubcat/cvo/2002/index htm).

  Sheep Exports
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which port the MV Caroline is using to carry live sheep exports from the UK. [135930]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The MV Caroline has used the ports at Dover and Berwick upon Tweed for exports of live sheep from the UK.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many live sheep were exported from Berwick to continental Europe on 26 August; when and where health certification was carried out in respect of the sheep; how many of the sheep were rejected as unfit for the intended journey(a) during inspection for health certification purposes and (b) at the docks, and to where those sheep were taken; and what the address was of the final destination given on the route plan for each of the consignments. [135931]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The information requested is as follows:

  Sheep Exports

  26 August 2003

  Total animals

  1,711

  Where consignments were certified

  England and Scotland

  Animals rejected at certification

  75

  Animals rejected at Berwick docks

  0

  Destination

  Netherlands

  The sheep for the consignment above were certified within 24 hours prior to export. There were 75 animals

  305W
  rejected during health certification which remained in Great Britain. The consignment was for sheep for further fattening which were transported to holdings in Netherlands.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many live sheep were exported from Dover to continental Europe on 11 September; when and where health certification was carried out in respect of the sheep; how many of the sheep were rejected as unfit for the intended journey,(a) during inspection for health certification purposes and (b) at Dover docks and to where those sheep were taken; and what the address was of the final destination given on the route plan for each of the consignments. [135932]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The information requested is as follows:

  Sheep Exports

  11 September 2003

  Total animals

  2,726

  Where consignments were certified

  England and Scotland

  Animals rejected at certification

  18

  Animals rejected at Dover docks

  0

  Destination

  Netherlands and France

  The sheep for the consignment above were certified within 24 hours prior to export. There were 18 animals rejected during health certification which remained in Great Britain. The consignment was for sheep for further fattening which were transported to holdings in France and Netherlands.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with colleagues in other Departments on(a) delivery of sustainable development and (b) promoting sustainable energy sources. [136108]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs chairs the Sustainable Development Task Force, which is focused on the delivery of sustainable development and brings together Ministers and key stakeholders. At the last meeting, on 15 October, papers on progress on renewable energy and energy efficiency; water and sanitation; and sustainable consumption and production were discussed. Task Force papers and minutes can be found on the Government's sustainable development website (www.sustainable-development.gov.uk).

  My right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and Industry co-chair a new Ministerial Implementation Group that oversees delivery of the objectives set out in the Energy White Paper, including development of sustainable energy sources. The first two meetings of the Committee were held on 10 July and 9 October.

  Wildlife Protection
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent measures she has put in place to improve protection for wildlife. [137290]
  306W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) is the principal source of legislation which offers protection for native wildife. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which came into force in January 2001, also introduced stronger enforcement powers for police officers investigating native species wildlife offences, and tougher penalties—including prison sentences—for people found guilty of committing offences under the 1981 Act.

  Protection of wildlife often involves the protection of their habitat. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 introduced substantial improvements to the legislative regime protecting our nationally important designated areas for wildlife and geology, more commonly known as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs).

  The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, implements the EC Habitats Directive in Great Britain, and provides further protection to various species and their habitats. The Government has consulted on a number of further improvements to the Habitat Regulations and on regulations to transpose the Habitats Directive to cover an area offshore. To date the Government has classified 242 Special Protection Areas under the EC Birds Directive and submitted 601 candidate Special Areas of Conservation to the European Commission under the EC Habitats Directive in the UK. Additionally 27 new Ramsar sites in the UK have been notified since 1999.

  In addition to species protection through the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Habitats Regulations 1994 this Government also puts great effort into supporting the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora (CITES). This regulates trade in endangered or vulnerable animals and plants, and products derived from them, to ensure that the trade is sustainable. For example, at last year's Conference of Parties in Chile, the UK successfully proposed the listing of basking sharks on Appendix II of the Convention, protecting them from unsustainable and unregulated international trade.

  The Department, together with HM Customs and Excise and the police, rigorously enforces the UK's commitments under CITES, campaigns vigorously to increase public awareness of the CITES controls, and takes firm action against anyone caught illegally importing endangered species in breach of the European CITES Regulations.

  The Government also launched the National Wildlife Crime Intelligence Unit in 2002. It is a national focal point for gathering and analysing intelligence on serious wildlife crime, and is making an important contribution to the fight against these crimes at the national and international levels.

  In addition to the range of protective measures, the Government has also put in place a number of measures to encourage efforts to deliver benefits for wildlife, such as Species and Habitat Action Plans and agri-environment schemes.

  Action plans for the conservation and enhancement of 45 habitats and 391 species have been published under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Under section 74 (2) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act

  307W
  2000 a list of habitats and species of principal importance for the conservation of biological diversity in England was published in December 2002. The list can be viewed at http://defraweb/wildlife-countryside/cl/habitats/habitats-list.pdf.

  Section 74 (3) of the Act requires the Secretary of State to take or promote the taking by others of steps to further the conservation of the habitats and species of principal importance in England. In October 2002 the Government published Working with the grain of nature —a biodiversity strategy for England. The strategy aims to ensure that consideration of biodiversity is embedded into all relevant areas of public and private policy. It is the principal means by which we will comply with the duty under section 74 (3), including through continued implementation of the habitat and species action plans. The strategy can be viewed at http://defraweb/wildlife-countryside/ewd/biostrat/index.htm

  Considerable efforts are currently being made to increase the efforts we put into farmland biodiversity including encouragement to enhance wildlife populations. Significant funding is provided for agri-environment schemes promoting environmentally sustainable farming practices; more than £1 billion has been made available for the seven-year period 2000 to 2007.

  As part of our aim of streamlining and simplifying existing schemes whilst also improving their effectiveness we introduced in February this year a pilot entry level scheme to reward simple management practices designed to benefit a range of biodiversity and landscape objectives. If successful the Government will roll out the scheme throughout England in 2005.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Ethiopia
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State, Department for International Development what plans he has to provide aid to address health problems in Ethiopia. [137789]

  Hilary Benn
  We support health in Ethiopia in a number of ways. Our plans for development partnership include direct budget support to assist the implementation of Ethiopia's poverty reduction strategy, This should benefit health, in accordance with Ethiopia's own priorities. Details of this are set out in our Country Assistance Plan for Ethiopia; an initial contribution of £10 million budget support was made earlier this year.

  In addition we contribute to the health sector through our support to help improve the effectiveness of the national response to HIV/AIDS, and we support emergency humanitarian health interventions where urgent needs are identified.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment his Department has made of the famine relief programme in Ethiopia in 2002–03. [137797]

  Hilary Benn
  The famine relief programme was reasonably timely, well resourced, and well implemented The possibility of famine was identified early and help was quickly sought from external donors 308W
  who responded generously. The primary response was the provision of food aid to selected communities and targeted households with communities. Our monitoring indicates that the food was sent and distributed according to the plan.

  In some areas high level of humanitarian need persisted in spite of the provision of food aid, reflecting the need for medical and public health interventions. DFID also provided this additional support in these areas.

  Looking ahead we recognise that food aid is not always the best, or only vehicle. We are looking into alternative approaches with other donors and with the Government of Ethiopia.

  Afghanistan
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State, Department for International Development what steps he is taking to assist farmers in Afghanistan with the introduction of crops other than opium. [137790]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  We have doubled our alternative livelihoods budget for Afghanistan to £20 million over 3 years. This includes a £5.4 million contribution to the £70 million UK Drug Strategy for Afghanistan. We are designing a fund to research into alternative crops. It is equally important, however, to develop non-farm alternative livelihoods to ensure longer term sustainability. DFID projects in Badakshan and Eastern Hazarajat are developing sustainable economic alternatives and social incentives to enable farmers to stop growing poppy.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State, Department for International Development what assessment he has made of the value of UK development aid to Afghanistan in the last two years.[137791]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The UK has provided £150 million in development assistance over the last two years, Afghanistan has make tremendous progress although great challenges remain and it will take time to reduce poverty. We have supported the establishment of the new government in Afghanistan with financial assistance and technical advice. We have also supported UN efforts to re-open schools and provide health care.

  UN Special Session
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the outcome of the UN General Assembly Special Session on financing for development. [37792]

  Hilary Benn
  The United Nations High Level Dialogue on Financing for Development confirmed the continuing engagement of the international community in the process begun at Monterrey in 2002. There was consensus on the need to get the Doha Development Agenda back on track; provide more and better aid; improve the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative; and overcome obstacles to achievement of the Millennium Development Goals such as HIV/AIDS and conflict, I confirmed UK commitment to multilateralism, especially on trade; promoted our
  309W
  proposals for an International Finance Facility; and called for a better managed international and UN response to conflict and humanitarian crises.

  Kenya
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State, Department for International Development if he will make a statement on development assistance for Kenya. [137793]

  Hilary Benn
  The aim of British development assistance to Kenya is to reduce poverty. Direct assistance in 2002–03 totalled over £42 million, including an allocation of £10 million to respond to the new Government's drive towards universal free primary education. We also support HIV/AIDS prevention and care, reproductive health care, malaria prevention, private sector development, public sector reform and initiatives to promote civic education and improved access to justice for poor people. In addition Britain contributes substantially through multilateral agencies, including over £4 million towards EC budget support for Kenya provided in June 2003.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the steps being taken by the Government towards meeting target 10 of the UN Millennium Development Goals on the supply of potable water. [37794]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The Government are committed to achieving the Millennium Development Goal targets on water and sanitation. These include halving, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and the adoption of national policies and strategies for integrated water resources management in all developing countries by 2005. In 1999–2001 the UK was the fourth largest donor in the water sector, behind Japan, the United States and Germany.

  Our strategy is described in 'Addressing the Water Crisis—Healthier and More Productive Lives for Poor People',which was launched in March 2001. It stresses the importance of the improved management of water resources to benefit the lives of the world's poor. A copy has been deposited in the Library. Our development assistance is provided in response to our partner countries' needs as driven by their Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs). We are working actively with their governments to support production of PRSPs and to ensure that water and sanitation issues are adequately represented.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on his Department's aid programme in Iraq, with particular reference to the protection and safety of aid workers. [137795]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has committed £209 million towards humanitarian and reconstruction assistance in Iraq. About £151 million of this funding is being channelled through the United Nations, the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and non-governmental 310W
  organisations. At the Madrid Donors' Conference on Iraq, on 23 to 24 October, the Government announced that the UK would commit a further £296 million towards reconstruction in Iraq up to March 2006, including £29 million as our share of planned European Community spending.

  In the current security circumstances in Iraq, the safety of aid workers is of particular concern. In view of recent attacks on their offices, it is fully understandable that the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations should review their security procedures and ways of working, even if that means temporarily reducing their presence in the country. DFID has offered £3 million towards UN security measures in response to an appeal following the bombing of the UN Headquarters in Baghdad in August. DFID has also offered additional finance, if needed, for increased security provisions for those NGOs that we are supporting in Iraq. DFID, and other Government Departments, have put in place special security provisions for their own staff working in Iraq.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether he estimates there is adequate clean water for the rations of infant formula being delivered in Iraq; and what measures are being taken to encourage breast feeding. [136986]

  Hilary Benn
  50 per cent. of Iraqis now have access to piped water and the Ministry of Public Works plan to increase this to 70 per cent. by December 2004. In addition, water tankering by UNICEF provides 14.6 million litres of water to deprived areas of Baghdad, Basra, Mosul, and Kirkuk, benefiting over 825,000 people.

  UNICEF promotes breast feeding among its activities for child development, and assists malnourished children in therapeutic feeding centres. Despite the security situation, they are still implementing a number of programmes including health education and breastfeeding promotion.

  Palestine
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of UK aid to the occupied Palestinian territories. [137796]

  Hilary Benn
  Working closely with other donors, and maintaining flexibility, are key ways in which we seek to maintain effectiveness in the current volatile political, social and economic environment. Lately the international development effort has moved towards shorter-term support for the immediate needs of the Palestinian people. According to World Bank analysis, direct budget support has proved to be the most effective aid instrument in the current circumstances, allowing the Palestinian Authority to maintain basic service delivery, while providing significant macro-economic benefits. The welfare impact of this support has been significant: as poverty and unemployment levels have risen, the extended coverage of public sector salaries has provided an essential safety net for many families and communities. Our support for service delivery through
  311W
  UNRWA and NGOs has also been important in mitigating the effects of the worsening humanitarian situation.

  There are, however, limits to what development assistance can achieve. Poverty reduction can only be addressed significantly in the context of a just peace settlement and the creation of a viable Palestinian state, What is most needed to reduce poverty is relaxation of Israeli curfews, closures and checkpoints, and eventual withdrawal, so the economy can grow again.

  Aceh
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment his Department has made of the impact the imposition of martial law in Aceh on 15 May has had on the work of aid workers; what representations he has made to the head of the Aceh Martial Law Administration, and when; and if he will make a statement. [137518]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The imposition of martial law in Aceh on 15 May, and the subsequent increased restrictions on access for non-Indonesians, have severely impacted on the ability of aid workers to operate in Aceh. No international NGOs are currently working in Aceh, and the UN has only a very limited presence in the province. However most aid organisations have found ways of working through local partners.

  The UK, through the Tokyo Group of donors in Jakarta (the United States, Japan, European Union and the World Bank), are encouraging a return to negotiations and a peaceful solution to the conflict in Aceh. The recent Tokyo Group statement calls for improved access for international agencies, NGOs and for the impact on the people of Aceh to be minimized. In addition to this, the British Ambassador to Indonesia wrote to the Indonesian Government in August 2003 requesting that NGOs be granted permission to return to Aceh, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, stressed to President Megawati in June 2003 that Indonesian military action in Aceh should be proportionate and in accordance with international standards on human rights. We have not approached the head of the Aceh Martial Law Administration as our concerns about the situation in Aceh are raised through the Indonesian Central Government.

  Baku-Ceyhan Pipeline
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on the proposed oil pipeline from Baku to Ceyhan. [137520]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written statement made on 5 November, which sets out DFID's position on funding by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) of the World Bank Group, for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline.

  On 11 November the Executive Board of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) also approved non-concessional funding for the pipeline. DFID took the same position on funding for the BTC project by EBRD as we did by IFC.
  312W

  Bechtel
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the contracts for consultancy and other work carried out by Bechtel for agencies responsible to his Department 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. [138062]

  Hilary Benn
  There have been no contracts issued by DFID.

  Control Risk Group
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the purpose of the contract awarded to Control Risk Group for an armed protection team. [137741]

  Hilary Benn
  The contract to Control Risks Group is to provide security support services for DFID staff working in Iraq.

  Croatia
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the results were of the £315,756 contract awarded to P-E International PCL to offer support to Ministry of European integration in Croatia; and if he will make a statement on its priority within his Department's budget. [137743]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  It is too early to assess the results of the £315,756 contract awarded to PE International PCL. However, the Croatian Government has indicated the importance it attaches to this support. The project commenced in February 2003 and is due to be completed in February 2004. DFID's support is assisting the Croatian Ministry of European Integration to plan and manage the process of European Integration. The assistance is a key component of DFID's bilateral programme to Croatia, supporting national and European Union objectives. Public administration reform will continue to be a priority for the DFID's work in Croatia.

  Debt Management
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether the UK is supporting debt management capacity-building programmes; and whether this support is available to all heavily indebted poor countries. [137637]

  Hilary Benn
  Since 1998, the UK has been co-financing the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Capacity Building Programme (CBP) with four other donors; two further donors have since joined the consortium. The Programme aims to build the capacity of HIPC countries to analyse and manage their debt position, and to negotiate debt relief with creditors and the International Financial Institutions. The CBP works with four regional organisations—three based in Africa and one in Latin America. The Programme is now in its third phase. One of the main objectives of this phase is to turn these organisations into centres of excellence, so that they are able to provide lasting high quality training, advisory and advocacy support to their HIPC member states in key issues of debt management. DFID
  313W
  has committed over £4 million to the Project and, through its bilateral programmes, has also funded individual activities under the CBP, such as Debt Advisers for Guyana and Rwanda and strategy workshops in Ghana, Tanzania and Uganda. To date, 36 out of a total of 42 HIPC countries have benefited from the Programme.

  Ghana
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when he expects Ghana to receive benefit from being a qualifier for highly indebted poor country debt relief; and if he will make a statement. [137688]

  Hilary Benn
  Ghana qualified for relief under the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative in February 2002, when it started to receive debt relief. Under the Initiative, countries qualify for relief in two stages. The first stage is Decision Point, when they start to receive interim relief on their "flow" of payments. During this interim period, countries such as Ghana are not required to service their debt and cease to make debt service payments. The second stage, Completion Point, is reached when HIPC governments have demonstrated progress in tackling poverty. At this final stage they receive an irrevocable reduction in their stock of debt. HIPC countries spend the savings from debt relief on their poverty reduction programmes, thereby increasing resources for social expenditure. Ghana is expected to reach its Completion Point in mid 2004, provided its poverty reduction strategy is implemented satisfactorily.

  Global Fund
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the total funding contributed in 2003 by the United Kingdom to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria was; and what plans there are to increase the contribution for 2004. [137658]

  Figures for Global Demining 1997–2003

  £million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–031

  2003–042

  UNICEF

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  0.15

  0.65

  United Nations Mine Action Service(UNMAS)

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  United Nations Development Programme(UNDP)

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2.1

  2.6

  1

  Bilateral Programmes

  4.3

  3.5

  16

  14.4

  6

  8.2

  7.5

  Research and Knowledge(including the Geneva Centre for Humanitarian Demining(GICHD))

  0.38

  0.43

  0.7

  2

  1.5

  1.5

  1.5

  Total

  4.68

  3.93

  17.7

  19.4

  10.6

  13.45

  11.65

  1Includes Afghanistan

  2Includes Afghanistan and Iraq

  HIV/AIDS Drug Programme
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much the Department is contributing to the World Health Organisation's AIDS/HIV drug procurement programme; and if he will make a statement. [135992]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The WHO's HIV/AIDS drug procurement programme is an initiative that we welcome and look forward to its launch on 1 December.
  314W
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Since 1997, the Department for International Development has stepped up its spending on HIV/AIDS from £38 million in 1997–98 to more than £270 million in 2002–03. According to UNAIDS, UK is currently the second largest bilateral donor active in the field of HIV/AIDS.

  Since May 1997 DFID has committed over £1.5 billion to support the development of health systems in partner countries. This will help to build capacity to deliver medicines to the poor and assist them in making effective choices about the selection of drugs.

  The UK has a long-term commitment to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria and recognises that in order to be effective it needs predictable and sustainable financing. The UK recently extended its pledge by a further two years to 2008 bringing our total contribution to US$280 million.

  The pattern of our disbursements has been agreed with the Global Fund Secretariat—for the financial year 2003–04 the UK has provided £25 million, and for the financial year 2004–05 we will provide £30 million.

  UK funding will be subject to the GFATM reflecting a clear poverty focus, achieving a better financing system, integrating the Fund's activities more effectively with national programmes and meeting agreed benchmarks to monitor its effectiveness. I am pleased to report that good progress was made at the recent sixth board meeting in Thailand on many of these issues.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on aid to fund land mine clearance. [137116]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is a strong supporter of global humanitarian demining. Since 1997 the Department has provided in excess of £70 million for Global Demining. The following table provides a breakdown.

  I will write to my hon. Friend for Leeds, West with more details once the programme has been launched.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, how many(a) UN Force and (b) UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo representatives there are in the Democratic Republic of Congo; what plans there are to increase this

  315W
  number; what plans there are to send British troops; and if he will make a statement. [136859]

  Mr. Rammell
  I have been asked to reply.

  Currently there are 8,045 military personnel and 61 civilian police personnel in the UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUC). There are also 606 international civilian staff and 704 local civilian personnel. UN Security Council Resolution 1493 of 28 July 2003 increased the authorised maximum troop level to 10,800 and there are plans to increase the actual number of military personnel to 10,300 by mid-November 2003. At present, there are six UK personnel in MONUC in key HQ positions.

  Market Research
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list each item of market and opinion research commissioned since May 1997 by(a) his Department and (b) agencies and non-departmental public bodies for which his Department is responsible; what the purpose of each item was; and whether the results were published. [137017]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  In 1998, the Department for International Development (DFID) undertook baseline qualitative and quantitative research among the UK public and opinion leaders. The purpose was (1) to explore existing attitudes to and perceptions of Britain's overseas development programme; (2) to understand how language and communications relating to international development work might be improved; (3) to pre-test new concepts and identify approaches that achieve real domestic resonance. The results of the research are published on the Department's website.

  DFID commissions two annual public opinion polls. Both polls monitor public attitudes to and support for international development. One (undertaken annually since 1999) monitors the opinion of the UK adult population and the results are used to inform, and monitor the impact of, the development awareness work of the Department. The second (undertaken annually since 2000) monitors the opinion of schoolchildren and the results are used to inform, and monitor the impact of, the development education work of the Department. The results of both polls are published on the Department's website.

  This year, DFID commissioned focus group research. The purpose is to research how we can increase levels of understanding of, and support for, international development within the UK. When the results are available, they will be published on the Department's website.

  Since May 1997, no DFID agencies or non-departmental public bodies have commissioned market or opinion research.

  Meteoric Tactical Solutions
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the purpose was of the contract awarded to Meteoric Tactical Solutions (PTY) Ltd. for close protection. [137742]
  316W
  Hilary Benn
  The contract awarded to Meteoric Tactical Solutions (PTY) Ltd. is to provide security support services for DFID staff working in Iraq.

  Millennium Development Goal
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment his Department has made of progress towards the Millennium Development Goal to halve the proportion of people in the world without safe access to water and sanitation by 2015; and what additional funds will be made available to water and sanitation projects to reach the Millennium Development Goal. [137175]

  Hilary Benn
  The Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment 2000, produced by the World Health Organisation (WHO)/United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)) Joint Monitoring Programme, provides baseline figures on progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Among the main findings are:

  (a) The percentage of people served with some form of improved water supply rose from 79 per cent. in 1990 to 82 per cent. in 2000. Over the same period the proportion of the world's population with access to sanitation facilities increased from 55 per cent. to 60 per cent.;

  (b) At the beginning of 2000 one-sixth (1.1 billion people) of the world's population was without access to improved water supply and two fifths (2.4 billion people) lacked access to improved sanitation The majority of these people lived in Asia and Africa;

  (c) Although an enormous number of people gained access to services between 1990 and 2000, with approximately 816 million additional people gaining access to water supplies and 747 million people gaining access to sanitation facilities, the percentage increases appear modest because of global population growth during that time;

  (d) The water supply and sanitation sector will face enormous challenges over the coming decades. The assessment estimates that, to achieve the 2015 target in Africa, Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean alone, an additional 2.2 billion people will need access to sanitation and 1.5 billion will need access to water supply by that date.

  The Joint Monitoring Programme is continuing. DFID has provided substantial financial support and technical assistance to this initiative from the outset. The Government remains firmly committed to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The MDG targets for water and sanitation are central to DFI D's approach to poverty reduction and sustainable development and they remain important priorities for DFID.

  We are working actively with partner country governments to support production of their own agendas for development, known as Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, and toensure that water and sanitation are adequately represented in them.

  The Global Assessment 2000 can be accessed on: http://www.who.int/docstore/water sanitation health/ Globassessment/GlobalTOC.htm

  Southern African States
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the policies of southern African states towards minority groups. [137691]
  317W
  Hilary Benn
  The only recent assessment my Department has made on this subject is a study commissioned in 2002 on options for the international community to respond to the situation of the San in Botswana. This has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Uganda
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on aid to Uganda for HIV projects. [137117]

  Hilary Benn
  We are addressing HIV/AIDS in Uganda through an HIV Umbrella Programme, which has an allocation of £6.2 million for 2002–2005. Our Programme's purpose is to improve the coordination and monitoring of the Uganda's Strategic HIV/AIDS Framework. This Framework is an important component of Uganda's overall Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP), and aims to: monitor HIV prevalence; provide guidance for activities aimed at preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS and mitigating its effects; and help mobilise resources to implement national AIDS programmes. UK assistance also supports the Government of Uganda's improving its own capacity to take effective action against HIV/AIDS, plus service delivery and research on HIV/AIDS by civil society organisations.

  Women's Poverty
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures his Department is taking to address women's poverty. [137636]

  Hilary Benn
  The majority of the world's poor are women. Women's empowerment and equality are central preconditions for sustainable poverty elimination.

  The elimination of women's poverty, and the pursuit of gender equality in all areas of development, lie at the heart of DFID's work. The focus is on supporting changes in policy, laws and attitudes, while maintaining links with work at the grassroots. This combines specific activities aimed at empowering women with a commitment to put concerns about gender equality into the mainstream of development programmes. DFID supports action through three channels; support to government, civil society and the private sector; collaboration and coordination with international development organisations such as the United Nations; and through building capacity and information through research and knowledge development.

  More details about DFID's strategy and programmes are set out in the DFID publication Poverty Elimination and the Empowerment of Women'. I shall send a copy to my hon. Friend.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent reports he has received from departmental officials on feeding schemes in Zimbabwe; and if he will publish them. [137102]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID officials provide frequent reports on the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe. As we move into the period of more serious food shortages this 318W
  material will be used to update Parliament and the public, including through the DFID website. Public reporting of DFID-funded food aid programmes in Zimbabwe is already extensive. The UN World Food Programme (WFP) reports quarterly on the Emergency Operation. The reports are distributed to all interested parties and are published on the WFP website. The latest WFP quarterly report (July to September) has just been released. DFID's recent pledge of £5 million to WFP will enable them to increase the coverage of their monitoring and also the frequency of their reports to a monthly basis.

  The UN website for Humanitarian Information (Reliefweb) provides published reports on NGO and non-food operations in addition to WFP reports. Other relevant information can be found on the website of the Southern African Humanitarian Information Management System (SAHIMS).

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance his Department is giving to those countries bordering Zimbabwe to help them deal with people who are fleeing across the border from Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement. [137689]

  Hilary Benn
  To date the Governments of Botswana, Mozambique, South Africa and Zambia have not sought specific assistance from the UK to cope with this issue, additional to our ongoing programmes directed to poverty reduction. We are keeping in touch with relevant authorities and non-government organisations in the region about migration issues. We stand ready to respond to requests for help if necessary.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Equality
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Minister for Women what duty the new Equality and Human Rights Commission will have to promote equality in all areas. [137064]

  Ms Hewitt
  Promoting equality and diversity will be fundamental to the role of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights. As I said in my written statement to the House of 30 October, I shall be establishing a task force with members representing the interests concerned to provide advice on key issues for the CEHR in preparation for a White Paper setting out proposals for the CEHR in the spring. These will include proposals for the CEHR's statutory powers and duties.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Minister for Women what plans she has to introduce a public sector duty to promote gender equality. [137063]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are taking forward a significant legislative agenda on equality matters, and has committed itself to introduce a duty on public bodies to promote equality of opportunity for women and men generally when parliamentary time allows.

  Women's Appointments
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister for Women what steps she is taking to increase the number of women in senior positions which require professional qualifications. [134735]
  319W
  Ms Hewitt
  We are working in partnership with organisations to increase the number of women in senior positions across the labour market, including women with professional qualifications.

  Earlier this year, I asked Derek Higgs to look into the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors and have welcomed his proposals on how to widen the pool from which non-executive directors are drawn, which could bring more women into the boardroom.

  Following his findings I then asked Laura Tyson from the London Business School to look specifically at how we might encourage greater diversity of directors on boards. Her recommendations include more rigorous and transparent selection processes; training for board members and measurement of board diversity.

  We recognise that we must work in partnership with business to achieve change. That is why I am meeting with some of the Chairs and Chief Executives of the FTSE 100 to encourage greater diversity on their boards and to ask them to consider what other steps they might take.

  In April this year the Government published A Strategy for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology to improve the position of women in SET in employment, education and policy-making in the United Kingdom. The Strategy is our response to the "SET FAIR report" from Baroness Greenfield which was published in November 2002.

  Our approach builds on mainstream policies with a series of action points in employment, education, and science and it draws support from recent measures to secure gender equality. It is aimed at academia, industry and public service equally. It sets out new initiatives which we believe will contribute significantly to improving the participation of women in SET. (http://www2.set4women.gov.uk/set4women/research/the_greenfield_response.htm)

  We want women to achieve their full potential whatever career they choose and we are committed to encouraging more women into politics, local government and public appointments. Within the Civil Service women comprise just over 26 per cent. at the senior civil servant level.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Communication Technologies (Disabled Access)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact of the Communications Act 2003 on access by disabled people to modern communication technologies. [137911]

  Mr. Timms
  The Communications Act only received Royal Assent on 17 July 2003. It is too early to assess the impact. The Communications Act contains specific measures to improve access to modern communications technologies for disabled users. The Universal Service Order made under the Communications Act sets out specific obligations on access to communications services for disabled users. Ofcom has responsibility to ensure compliance with these obligations. Section 10 of 320W
  the Communications Act creates a new duty on Ofcom to encourage the availability of easily usable apparatus for all consumers, including disabled users, and sections 303 to 308 deal with the provision of television services for the deaf or visually impaired. Ofcom will report on the progress it has made in these areas as part of its annual report.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to limit the(a) number and (b) impact of unofficial strikes in the United Kingdom. [137421]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Government encourage parties to resolve their industrial disputes through negotiation, and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service stands ready to assist where the parties request their involvement. While the number of stoppages in the last year—official and unofficial combined—is a record low, the Government, where necessary, make contingency plans to ensure key services are delivered.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the unofficial strike action among Royal Mail staff in the south of England. [137425]

  Mr. Timms
  No one will benefit from industrial action by postal workers in London. It will disrupt services to consumers and businesses that rely on Royal Mail's services.

  Resolution of disputes is a matter for the management of Royal Mail and the Communication Workers' Union.

  The Government have continued to encourage them to sit down together and reach a settlement. The Government welcome the talks that are taking place at AC AS to resolve the outstanding issues.

  Market Research
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list each item of market and opinion research commissioned since May 1997 by(a) her Department and (b) agencies and non-departmental public bodies for which her Department is responsible: what the purpose of each item was; and whether the results were published. [137013]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department does not centrally collect the information sought at the required level of detail and to provide it would entail disproportionate cost.

  Statistical surveys to businesses and local authorities conducted by the Department and its agencies are monitored centrally to facilitate control of compliance costs to business and departmental expenditure on survey activity. It is not possible, however, to determine with any degree of accuracy which surveys fall into the categories of market and opinion research, or which contain an element of these. The answer would incur disproportionate cost because of the need to ask all

  321W
  Directorates in DTI, plus agencies and associated non-departmental public bodies, to attempt to provide details of each survey and piece of research commissioned since 1997.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the Government's estimate is of the number of Chinese bomb fireworks imported into the United Kingdom in each of the last four years. [137975]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The information requested is not available because the system of classification used to record trade does not separately identify Chinese bomb fireworks.

  VAT registrations, all sizes of business, 1997–2002

  Number

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  770

  810

  790

  800

  725

  870

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  445

  400

  390

  430

  415

  455

  Former county of The Humber

  1,865

  1,855

  1,820

  1,870

  1,780

  1,980

  United Kingdom

  187,690

  187,515

  181,370

  184,035

  174,620

  175,800

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses in Pendle(a) registered and (b) de-registered for VAT in each year since 1997. [138101]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The latest year for which VAT registration and de-registration data are available is 2002.

  VAT registration, all sizes of business, 1997 to 2002

  Number

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Pendle

  175

  185

  195

  220

  215

  205

  Lancashire

  2,940

  2,995

  2,925

  2,945

  2,895

  2,875

  North West GOR

  18,460

  18,720

  17,830

  18,285

  17,445

  17,595

  United Kingdom

  187,690

  187,515

  181,370

  184,035

  174,620

  175,800

  VAT de-registrations, all sizes of business, 1997 to 2002

  Number

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Pendle

  200

  190

  180

  185

  205

  175

  Lancashire

  2,720

  2,615

  2,690

  2,630

  3,035

  2,895

  North West GOR

  16,230

  16,270

  16,290

  16,735

  16,550

  17,750

  United Kingdom

  151,900

  153,450

  160,410

  165,475

  167,185

  176,040

  VAT registrations 1997–2002, rate per 10,000 resident adults1

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Pendle

  26

  27

  29

  32

  31

  29

  Lancashire

  33

  33

  33

  33

  32

  32

  North West GOR

  35

  35

  34

  34

  33

  33

  United Kingdom

  41

  41

  39

  39

  37

  37

  VAT de-registrations 1997 to 2002, rate per 10,000 resident adults1

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Pendle

  30

  28

  27

  27

  30

  25

  Lancashire

  30

  29

  30

  29

  34

  32

  North West GOR

  30

  31

  31

  31

  31

  33

  United Kingdom

  33

  33

  35

  35

  35

  37

  1 Mid-year resident adults (aged 16 and over)

  Source:

  Business Start-ups and Closures: VAT Registrations and De-registrations 1994–2002

  Small Businesses (Start-ups)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the start-up rate for small businesses in(a) Haltemprice and Howden constituency, (b) the East Riding of Yorkshire, (c) Hull, (d) Humberside and (e) the UK was in each year since 1997. [136714]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The numbers of businesses that registered and de-registered for VAT in each calendar year since 1997, and the number of businesses that were registered at the start of each of these years (stocks), in the United Kingdom, are available at: www.sbs.gov.uk/ statistics/vatstats.php

  The latest year for which VAT registration data are available is 2002. Data are not available for parliamentary constituencies.

  The numbers of businesses that registered and de-registered for VAT in Pendle, Lancashire county, the North West Government Office Region (GOR) and the United Kingdom in the calendar years 1997–2002 are as follows:

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Powerboats (Lake Windermere)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make available alternative facilities for powerboat users following the Lake District National Parks Authority decision to introduce a 10 mph speed limit on Lake Windermere. [137848]

  Mr. Caborn
  During the inquiry into the implementation of the Byelaws at Lake Windermere, Sport England along with the British Water Ski Federation considered the issue of the displacement of motorised watersports from the Lake. Sport England and the British Water Ski Federation continue to work together with those affected by the Byelaws to negotiate access to suitable areas of water for the continuation of these sports.

  The Government would not seek to impose specific alternative venues on those affected by the Navigation Byelaws on Lake Windermere. We believe it is for individuals to find convenient sites that will enable them to pursue water skiing and the other motorised water sports that will be affected by the Byelaws.

  Correspondence
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will reply to the letter of 11 April from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Minister's reference 0301088). [134639]

  Tessa Jowell
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 10 November 2003. I apologise for the delay in replying.

  Investigatory Powers
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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 she has for removing these legacy powers. [136129]

  Mr. Caborn
  Under section 10(8) of the Football Spectators Act 1989 it is a condition of every 'Licence to Admit Spectators' that the Football Licensing Authority (FLA) be entitled(a) to enter at any reasonable time any premises at which a designated match is being played or is to be played (b) make such inspection of the ground and such inquiries relating to them as necessary and (c) to examine any records relating to the operation of the national football membership scheme on the premises, and take copies of such records. Under section 13 (6) of the Act, any inspector appointed by the Licensing Authority may (a) enter at any reasonable time any premises at which a designated football matches are played (b) make an inspection of the premises and such inquiries relating to the ground as necessary and (c) to examine the safety certificate and any records kept under the Sports Ground Safety Act 1975, or part of that Act, and take copies of such records.

  Section 43 of the Gaming Act 1968 gives the Inspectors of the Gaming Board of Great Britain the rights to entry to licensed premises and other related
  324W
  rights. In relation to Society Lotteries, Section 12 of Schedule 1 A (b)(c) and (d) allows the Gaming Board to inspect and take copies of documents and computer records, information kept "otherwise than in writing" and any aspect of the management of these lotteries. This also applies to powers to deal with the registration of lottery managers under Schedule 2a of the Act.

  None of these existing powers will be superseded by use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and consequently there are no plans to amend or repeal any of these powers.

  Museums (London)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the museums in London to which her Department contributes, that charge for entry; and in each case what level of the entry charge is for adults. [137835]

  Estelle Morris
  The independent Design Museum, which receives a contribution from my Department towards educational programmes, charges £6.00 for adult admission. The Wellington Museum at Apsley House, to which grant-in-aid is contributed currently through the Victoria & Albert Museum, charges £4.50 for adult admission. In addition, the Cabinet War Rooms and HMS Belfast, which are entirely self-supporting branches of the Imperial War Museum, charge adults admission at £6.00 and £7.00 respectively. In all cases, concessionary rates and reduced rates for adult groups are available.

  Voluntary Youth Football Teams
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether all those assisting with voluntary youth football teams require Criminal Record Bureau checks; and what representations she has received on this issue. [138239]

  Mr. Caborn
  All those who assist with voluntary youth football teams and have unsupervised access to children are checked and screened against the Criminal Records Bureau in the interest of child protection.

  As part of one of the most comprehensive child protection processes in sport, 53,000 people, so far, have completed the Football Association's course in Child Protection and Best Practice. I am not aware of any representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on this issue.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces (Wales)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Royal Navy, (b) Royal Marine, (c) Army and (d) RAF personnel are stationed in Wales, broken down by location; and if he will make a statement. [137311]

  Mr. Caplin
  The number of UK Regular Forces Personnel located in Wales, by local authority area as at 1 July 2002 were as follows.
  325W

  Total

  Naval service

  Army

  RAF

  Wales

  2,110

  20

  920

  1,160

  Isle of Anglesey

  370

  10

  20

  340

  Bridgend

  2—

  0

  2—

  0

  Cardiff

  80

  0

  70

  2—

  Carmarthenshire

  2—

  0

  2—

  2—

  Conwy

  2—

  2—

  0

  0

  Denbighshire

  2—

  0

  2—

  0

  Flintshire

  180

  0

  0

  180

  Monmouthshire

  10

  0

  10

  0

  Newport

  20

  0

  20

  0

  Pembrokeshire

  540

  0

  520

  20

  Powys

  230

  0

  230

  0

  Swansea

  30

  0

  20

  2—

  Torfaen

  2—

  0

  2—

  0

  Vale of Glamorgan

  610

  10

  0

  600

  Wrexham

  30

  0

  20

  2—

  1Figure is under 5

  Note:

  Naval Service includes both Royal Navy and Royal Marine personnel.

  Armed Forces Strength
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the percentage shortfall of personnel is in each service of the armed forces. [137487]

  Full Time Trained Strenghts and Requirements

  As at 1 April

  1 september

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  All services

  Total Trained Requirement

  202,230

  199,240

  198,160

  198,460

  196,150

  195,130

  195,020

  Total Trained Strength

  194,040

  191,130

  190,420

  189,020

  187,620

  188,620

  189,170

  Surplus/Deficit

  -8,190

  -8,100

  -7,740

  -9,440

  -9,030

  -6,510

  -5,840

  Naval Service

  Total Trained Requirement

  41,190

  40,940

  39,860

  39,900

  39,180

  38,510

  38,580

  Total Trained Strength

  40,480

  39,320

  38,880

  38,540

  37,600

  37,490

  Surplus/Deficit

  -1,460

  -1,620

  -990

  -1,360

  -1,690

  -910

  -1,090

  Army

  Total Trained Requirement

  105,770

  105,270

  106,400

  106,970

  106,980

  106,730

  Total Trained Strength

  100,880

  99,900

  100,330

  100,380

  100,420

  102,120

  102,940

  Surplus/Deficit

  -4,890

  -5,370

  -6,060

  -6,600

  -6,560

  -4,850

  -3,790

  Royal Air Force

  Total Trained Requirement

  54,530

  53,020

  51,900

  51,590

  49,990

  49,640

  49,710

  Total Trained Strength

  52,680

  51,910

  51,210

  50,110

  49,200

  48,900

  48,750

  Surplus/Deficit

  -1,850

  -1,120

  -690

  1,490

  -790

  -750

  -960

  Note:

  Due to founding the totals may not always equal the sum of the parts.

  Source:

  DASA(Tri-Service)

  These figures include trained United Kingdom Regular Forces, Full Time Reserve Service personnel and trained Gurkhas. They exclude trained personnel in the Royal Irish Regiment (Home Service, full and part time), Gibraltar Permanent Cadre and mobilised reservists.

  Civil Contingency Reaction Forces
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many reservists have signed up for the Civil Contingency Reaction Forces; what percentage of the(a) operational requirement and (b) Government target this represents; and if he will make a statement.[137673]
  326W
  Mr. Ingram
  The percentage deficit of Full Time Trained personnel against the Trained Requirement for each Service at 1 September 2003 are as follows:

  Service

  Deficit (percentage)

  All services

  3.0

  Naval services

  2.8

  Army

  3.6

  Royal Air Force

  1.9

  These figures include trained United Kingdom Regular Forces, Full Time Reserve Service personnel and trained Gurkhas. They exclude trained personnel in the Royal Irish Regiment (Home Service, full and part time), Gibraltar Permanent Cadre and mobilised reservists.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many vacancies there are for each of the armed forces; and how many there were on the corresponding date for each of the last six years for which figures are available. [137488]

  Mr. Ingram:
  The information is in the table:

  Mr. Ingram
  To date, some 5,000 volunteers have signed up to serve in a Civil Contingency Reaction Force (CCRF). This figure represents around 70 per cent. of the Government's target. CCRFs remain on target to achieve operational capability by the end of this year.

  Cluster Munitions
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of cluster munitions delivered by British forces during the conflict in Iraq were manufactured by Israeli Military Industries. [135858]

  Mr. Ingram
  Two types of cluster munitions were used by British Forces during the Iraq conflict; RBL 755 cluster bomb and Shell 155mm Extended Range
  327W
  Bomblet Shell (ERBS). Only ERBS is manufactured by Israel Manufacturing Industries. Final details of ERBS usage during the Iraq conflict are not yet available.

  Fylingdales
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make it his policy to order a full environmental impact study prior to the Fylingdales base accepting United States missile defence technology; and if he will make a statement; [137899]

  (2) what research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the effects of the base at Fylingdales on the environment of the local area; and if he will make a statement. [137916]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is already the Ministry of Defence policy to carry out environmental impact assessments of all new projects and training activities. To this end, the MOD commissioned some time ago from independent consultants an Environmental and Land Use Report on the planned upgrade of the RAF Fylingdales radar for missile defence purposes. This report was passed to the local planning authorities in June 2003 and can be accessed on the MOD website. It confirms our view that nothing in the package of work involves an environmental impact or change of use, and that radar emissions are well within health guidelines. Nevertheless, in order to reassure the public, monitoring of the radar emissions will continue and the data made available publicly. Separately, an epidemiological study is being undertaken by the local NHS Primary Care Trust to determine if there is any evidence of increased rates of disease in the area which might warrant further investigation.

  Procurement Budget (Wales)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total expenditure was on procurement by each of the services in the last year for which figures are available; and how much of the procurement budget for each was spent in Wales. [137308]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the then Under-Secretary of State on 17 December 2002,Official Report, column 715W, to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson). The latest
  328W
  figures for spend on procurement in terms of Service or environment remain those for 1998–99, and were published by the Defence Analytical Services Agency in the United Kingdom "Defence Statistics" for 2000 available in the Library of the House.

  The Ministry of Defence systems changed following the introduction of Smart Acquisition and the move from cash accounting to resource accounting and budgeting. Consideration moved from recording and analysing inputs to the armed forces to providing capability.

  The latest figures regarding expenditure by the Defence Procurement Agency, broken down by capability, are expected to be published later this month and copies will be placed in the Library of the House. The figures are not broken down into spend in regional areas.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total strength is of the Territorial Army; how many members of the Territorial Army(a) collected their bounty and (b) voluntarily left the service in each month since April; and if he will make a statement. [136597]

  Mr. Caplin
  The total strength of the Territorial Army as at September 2003 is 36,900. This includes 4,160 mobilised reservists. Information on those who have voluntarily left since April 2003 is shown in the table:

  Voluntarily left the TA

  April

  100

  May

  90

  June

  120

  July

  80

  August

  80

  September

  80

  Note:

  Data have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  Information on the number of TA personnel who have collected their bounty is not yet available. I will write to the hon. Member once the data has been collated and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.
  329W

HEALTH

  Accident and Emergency Services
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what proportion of patients have been treated within the four-hour accident and emergency waiting time target in each of the past 12 months(a) in England and (b) broken down by strategic health authority. [135418]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on the total time patients spend in accident and emergency departments from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge is collected each quarter from national health service trusts and is routinely published on the Department's website at: http://www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity/ Copies of the information for England and for each NHS trust and strategic health authority are available in the Library.

  Age-related Macular Degeneration
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to implement National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance on photodynamic therapy for age-related macular degeneration. [136158]

  Ms Rosie Winterton [holding answer 3 November 2003]
  Implementation of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance has already begun. Patients are already receiving photodynamic therapy (PDT) treatment on the national health service and we expect the implementation of the NICE guidance to have been fully implemented by the middle of 2004. We will be working with the NHS to facilitate the implementation to give patients increased access to PDT during this time.

  It was the Department's assessment, informed by advice from NICE, that the NHS would be unable to implement the guidance in full within the usual three-month period. We have previously varied the direction on five occasions when it was required to implement effectively the guidance to provide the service to patients.

  The extension was given because of concerns about the lack of capacity, for example, in reading centres, to implement the recommendations. Within the nine months allowed for full implementation, commissioners are expected to expand the service in a planned way to ensure there is sufficient capacity which is appropriately located to meet patient need, a fully trained workforce
  330W
  and access to expert diagnostic services. This will include the creation of new, and the expansion of existing, PDT centres and expert reading centres.

  The guidance issued to primary care trusts (PCTs) on PDT asks that PCTs should make funds available within nine months. We expect implementation to have been fully achieved within this timeframe, with all eligible patients having access to available treatment. PCTs may complete implementation earlier should their service planning enable them to do so.

  Ambulance Services
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on consultancy fees by Mersey Regional Ambulance NHS Trust in each of the past five years; if he will list each consultant employed by the Trust; and on what matters they were requested to advise. [137779]

  Miss Melanie Johnson [holding answer 11 November 2003]
  The financial returns submitted by Mersey Regional Ambulance National Health Service Trust for the years 1998–99 to 2002–03 indicated that there was no expenditure on external contract staffing and consultancy.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been claimed in expenses by the Chief Executive of Mersey Regional Ambulance Trust since his appointment; and what his salary was in the past two years, including bonuses, where payable. [137781]

  Miss Melanie Johnson [holding answer II November 2003]
  The current salary for Chief Executive of Mersey Regional Ambulance Service, Ms Janet Davies, is £88,060. The expenses claimed for the period November 2001 to October 2003 was £69.50.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on travel by directors of the Mersey Regional Ambulance Trust in each of the past five years. [137782]

  Miss Melanie Johnson [holding answer 11 November 2003]:
  Information on expenditure on travel by directors of the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust in each of the past five years, is shown in the table.

  Year

  Amount

  2003–04

  2,479.00

  2002–03

  3,793.00

  2001–02

  6,433.00

  2000–01

  4,050.00

  1999–2000

  4,309.00

  Ambulances
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the recent sector report from the Commission for Health Improvement; and what the CHI found in ambulance trusts. [138070]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department welcomed the report by the Commission for Health Improvement, which brought together information from the previously published clinical governance reviews of ambulance trusts.
  331W
  The report recognised the value both patients and the general public place in the ambulance service, together with how services are meeting the challenge of dealing with increased emergency calls.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has received from(a) patient and consumer organisations and (b) professional and trade asscociations in relation to the Ambulance Service. [138072]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department receives regular representations from patient and consumer organisations together with professional and trade associations in relation to the Ambulance Service.

  Asbestos
  Chris McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people contracted(a) mesothelioma and (b) other asbestos-related diseases in the last five years for which figures are available; where this information is publicly available; and from what year his Department's records began. [136762]

  Mr. Browne
  I have been asked to reply.

  No source of information provides a complete count of the number of people contracting mesothelioma but one indication is the number of people who have died as a result of contracting mesothelioma.

  Mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain 1997–01

  Mesothelioma deaths

  1997

  1,367

  1998

  1,541

  1999

  1,615

  2000

  11,631

  2001

  11,848

  1 Provisional

  Source:

  Mesothelioma register.

  The annual number of mesothelioma deaths continues to increase. Because there is typically a long period between asbestos exposure and the onset of disease, many of the deaths occurring now are a result of exposures during the 1970s and earlier decades when work with asbestos was less tightly controlled.

  The HSE mesothelioma register began keeping records of mesothelioma deaths in 1967.

  No source of information provides a complete count of the number of people contracting asbestosis or diffuse pleural thickening. However, one indicator used is the annual number of awards of Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit Scheme.

  New Cases of asbestosis and diffuse pleural thickening in Great Britain 1998–02

  Asbestois (pneumoconiosis caused by asbestos)

  Diffuse pleural thickening

  1998

  316

  227

  1999

  407

  242

  2000

  447

  273

  2001

  461

  291

  2002

  563

  379

  332W
  Source:

  Department of Work and Pensions Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit Scheme.

  Data are available from 1948 from the Industrial Disablement Scheme (pneumoconiosis caused by asbestos) and from 1985 for diffuse pleural thickening.

  Statistics on the annual number of asbestos related lung cancer cases are not available. Deaths from asbestos related lung cancer cannot be individually distinguished from lung cancers due to other causes such as smoking. However, it is estimated that there were between approximately 1,750 and 3,500 deaths in 2001.

  Asbestos related disease statistics are published on the statistics pages of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Website.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with representatives of the Leonard Cheshire Organisation regarding capital costs associated with improving their properties to meet national care standards. [137923]

  Dr. Ladyman
  I am meeting with representatives from Leonard Cheshire on the 20 November and they will be able to raise this issue on that occasion.

  Cervical Cancer
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of deaths from cervical cancer occurred in women(a) over the age of 60 and (b) under the age of 30 in (i) 2001 and (ii) 2002; and if he will make a statement. [136879]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Dr. Vincent Cable, dated 12 November 2003:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking what proportion of deaths from cervical cancer occurred in women (a) over the age of 60 and (b) under the age of 30 in (i) 2001 and (ii) 2002; and if he will make a statement. (136879)

  The figures requested are given in the table.

  Deaths from cervical cancer1, women, England and Wales, 2001 and 20022

  2001

  2002

  Age group

  Number of deaths

  Percentage of total deaths

  Number of deaths

  Percentage of total deaths

  Under 30

  22

  2

  15

  1

  30–59

  407

  39

  391

  39

  60 and over

  610

  59

  595

  59

  All ages

  1,039

  100

  1,001

  100

  1 Selected using code C53 from the International Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision.

  2 Figures are for deaths occurring in each calendar year.

  Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the budget of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health in(a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05 is allocated to the running costs of its nine regional offices. [136773]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health (CPPIH) has an annual allocation of £34.5 million. This financial year, 2003–04, the Department has made additional funding available for staff training, taking the total up to £35.4 million. It is for the CPPIH to determine how best to meet its business needs within this budget.

  The Department's role in the CPPIH's finances is to monitor for propriety, regularity and value for money through the annual report and end of year accounts.

  Dentistry
  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish an order under section 60 of the Health Act 1999 to amend the Dentists Act 1984 to introduce Clinical Dental Technicians and other Professions Complementary to Dentistry; what consultation period will be specified for the order; and if he will make a statement. [138045]

  Ms Rosie Winterton [holding answer 11 November 2003]
  I expect to publish the Order in the spring. Consultation on the draft Order will run for three months, as required by the Health Act, 1999.

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of(a) the availability of and (b) access to national health dental services in Copeland and West Cumbria. [137092]

  Miss Melanie Johnson [holding answer 10 November 2003]
  At the end of June, in the West Cumbria primary care trust area, there were 43 dentists who provided national health service dentistry in the general dental service (GDS). In addition, 70,000 patients were registered with a GDS dentist. This represents 54 per cent. of its resident population and 51 per cent. of adults and 67 per cent. of children.

  Registrations cover patients seen within the last 15 months.

  A dental access centre in Egremont, West Cumbria also provides routine and emergency NHS treatment to patients.

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [135054]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the response given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and 334W
  Rural Affairs on 3 November 2003, Official Report, column 404W, setting out detail of energy used from 1997.

  The Department does not forecast usage of energy for its administrative estate. However, it has adopted the target published in the "Sustainable Development in Government First Annual Report" to reduce greenhouse emissions to air by one per cent. per annum.

  Diabetes
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in each of the last 10 years have been diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. [134834]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  This information is not available in the form requested. However, based on information from the Health Survey for England, the following figures may be estimated.

  Number of people with diabetes in the UK

  1994

  1,378,707

  1998

  1,684,111

  Data are not routinely collected on the number of people being diagnosed with diabetes. Local health care providers will, however, increasingly gather information as they build registers of people with diabetes as they begin to implement the national service framework.

  Diagnostic and Treatment Centres
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the diagnostic services provided by the diagnostic and treatment centres announced so far. [129597]

  Mr. Hutton
  Treatment centres will provide safe, fast, pre-booked surgery and diagnostic tests for patients, by separating scheduled treatment from emergency pressures, in some of the specialties with the highest waiting times. These will cover mixed surgical procedures, and in particular, patients waiting for treatment in orthopaedics and ophthalmology.

  The diagnostic services provided in both the national health service and independent sector treatment centres will include endoscopy, radiology and pathology.

  Diet and Nutrition
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the most recent National Diet and Nutrition Survey was published; what percentage of women aged 35 to 49 it found had a total daily folic acid intake of less than 400 microgrammes; and what his Department's recommended total daily folic acid intake is from(a) the normal diet and (b) supplemental sources for women in that age group. [137053]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The latest National Diet and Nutrition Survey, published in July 2003, showed that 84 per cent. of women aged 35 to 49 had folate intakes below 400 micrograms per day. The recommended intake for folate from diet for these women is 200 micrograms per day. The Department recommends that all women planning a pregnancy should take
  335W
  400 micrograms per day of folic acid (a synthetic form of folate) as a daily supplement to reduce the risk of neural tube defects.

  EU Clinical Trial Directive
  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evaluation his Department has made of the long term effects of the EU Clinical Trial Directive on clinical research in the UK. [132585]

  Miss Melanie Johnson [holding answer 20 October 2003]
  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 whilst ensuring the protection of trial subjects and providing a safe environment for the development of new medicines. Member states are required to implement the Directive fully by 1 May 2004.

  The scope of the Directive is wide and the UK 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.

  The former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, my noble Friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, 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 Health products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) consultation on the draft regulations to implement the Directive into UK law earlier this year.

  In responding to concerns, and to provide an environment in which patients are protected but high quality research is not inhibited, the Government have taken steps to attempt to influence the Commission in its consideration of a Commission Directive on Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and also in reviewing guidance that the Commission published earlier this year.

  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.

  Further information on the scope of the Directive and the proposed UK implementing regulations is available on the MHRA's website www.mhra.gov.uk on the Clinical Trials Directive pages.

  Food Supplements
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will compensate manufacturers and 336W
  retailers for the cost of destroying products which will become illegal in July 2005 under the provisions of the Food Supplements (England) Regulations on the basis that they contain ingredients missing from the list of permitted nutrients and nutrient sources. [136627]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government have no such plans.

  Genito-urinary Medicine
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have waited(a) up to three months, (b) up to six months and (c) up to nine months for an appointment at a genito-urinary management clinic in (i) Chesham and Amersham and (ii) Buckinghamshire in each year since 1996. [136573]

  Miss Melanie Johnson [holding answer 5 November 2003]
  No patients have been reported by provider trusts for the Chesham, Amersham and Buckinghamshire area as waiting up to three months, six months or nine months for an outpatient appointment for genito-urinary medicine.

  Health Care (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions he has had with(a) Gloucestershire primary care trusts and (b) Gloucestershire hospital trusts about their budgetary shortfalls for 2003–04; and if he will make a statement; [134045]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the proposed cuts in services (a) at Tewkesbury Hospital and (b) in Gloucestershire. [134046]

  Ms Rosie Winterton [holding answer 23 October 2003]:
  In line with the Government's policy of shifting the balance of power, responsibility for performance and financial management of local national health servie organisations now rests with strategic health authorities (SHAs).

  The Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire SHA is working closely with all organisations within the local health community to ensure that robust plans are in place to achieve year end financial balance and achievement of NHS plan targets. The SHA is having regular meetings with all three local primary care trusts (PCTs) and the hospital trust to monitor progress.

  The PCTs and the hospital trust are reviewing service provision and are currently considering a range of measures, including the utilisation of community hospital beds.

  Health Care (York)
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what NHS revenue funding(a) in cash terms and (b) at current prices was provided for (i) York NHS Trust services and (ii) York Primary Care Trust for community and mental health services transferred to it from the NHS Trust, in each year since 1992. [135959]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  337W

  £

  York Hospitals National Health Service Trust

  Selby and York Primary Care Trust

  Net expenditure

  Net expenditure

  Year

  Cash terms

  Current prices

  Cash terms

  Current prices

  1992–93

  30,756,432

  39,493,094

  —

  —

  1993–94

  28,891,523

  35,980,377

  —

  —

  1994–95

  26,341,022

  32,195,441

  —

  —

  1995–96

  26,461,149

  31,560,732

  —

  —

  1996–97

  14,143,552

  16,374,779

  —

  —

  1997–98

  32,203,315

  36,152,222

  —

  —

  1998–99

  35,164,130

  38,427,803

  —

  —

  1999–2000

  34,538,617

  37,060,192

  —

  —

  2000–01

  36,566,218

  38,571,146

  —

  —

  2001–02

  24,336,434

  25,030,016

  12,392,798

  12,745,989

  Notes:

  1. It is not possible to provide information on funding to NHS
  Trusts and PCTs for Community and Mental Health Services (including Learning Disabilities). Expenditure information by providers is included in financial returns, which are submitted on an annual basis. This expenditure information provides the closest to that required in the question.

  2. The figures contain expenditure on Learning Disability services which cannot be disaggregated from certain mental health services.

  3. In 1996–97, York Health Services NHS Trust submitted no information on Community Health Services and services commissioned through Royal Colleges. Therefore, information for 1996–97 is incomplete.

  4. Current prices have been calculated using the gross domestic product deflator at market prices.

  Sources:

  1. York Health Services NHS Trust Financial returns 1992–2003.

  2. Selby and York Primary Care Trust Financial Returns 2001 to 2003 (Selby and York is the closest geographic match to "York PCT" in the question).

  Health Visitors
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the number of health visitors at Grade G due to retire in the next(a) five and (b) 10 years; and what efforts his Department has made to maintain or improve numbers of health visitors. [136294]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of health visitors at Grade G due to retire in the next five and 10 years is not available.

  The total number of qualified health visitors broken down by gender in age bands 50–54 and 55 or over are shown in the table.

  NHS health visitors, by gender in the specified age bands in England as at 30 September each year

  headcount

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Total health visitors

  12,800

  12,827

  13,053

  12,774

  Of which:

  All staff aged 50–54

  2,355

  2,361

  2,271

  2,163

  Male

  21

  32

  29

  20

  Female

  2,334

  2,329

  2,242

  2,143

  All staff aged 55 or over

  1,717

  1,725

  1,910

  2,054

  Male

  14

  13

  11

  10

  Female

  1,703

  1,712

  1,899

  2,044

  Note:

  Figures consist of NHS health visitors employed by health authorities, primary care trusts and NHS trusts in England.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census
  338W
  The Government is implementing a range of measures to recruit and retain more healthcare professionals, including health visitors. These include improving pay and conditions, encouraging the National Health Service to become a better, more flexible and diverse employer, increasing training, investing in childcare and continuing professional development, attracting back returners and running national recruitment campaigns.

  Heath Care (Bath/North East Somerset)
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on primary health services in Bath and North East Somerset in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 2003–04; and what that investment represents per head of population. [136326]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information is not available in the format requested. Bath and North East Somerset Primary Care Trust (PCT) did not come into existence until 2001–02. Therefore, figures are provided for the Somerset Health Authority (HA) area for 1996–97, and for the Bath and North East Somerset PCT area for 2002–03. These figures are not, therefore, comparable.

  Expenditure on primary health services is the total primary healthcare commissioned by the HA and by the PCT. Expenditure per head is normally expressed by weighted head of population, but this is not possible for 2002–03, because weighted population data are not available for PCT areas. Therefore, in this case, resident population figures have been used.

  Commission of primary health care: expenditure and expenditure per head

  £

  1996–97

  Somerset HA area

  Expenditure

  55,641,000

  Expenditure per head

  121.65

  2002–03

  Bath and North East Somerset PCT area

  Expenditure

  37,525,000

  Expenditure per head

  222.22

  Notes:

  1. The PCT expenditure figures are not comparable as the areas are different between the two years provided.

  2. Allocations per weighted head of population provide a much more reliable measure to identify differences between funding of HAs and PCTs.

  3. Expenditure is taken from audited HA accounts and PCT summarisation schedules, which are prepared on a resource basis and therefore differ from cash allocations in the year. The expenditure is the total commissioning of primary health care by Somerset HA and by Bath and North East Somerset PCT. The majority of general dental services expenditure is not included in the HA or PCT summarisation forms and is separately accounted for by the Dental Practice Board. An element of pharmaceutical services expenditure is accounted for by the Prescription Pricing Authority and not by HAs or PCTs.

  Sources:

  1. Somerset HA audited annual accounts 1996–97.

  2. Bath and North East Somerset PCT audited summarization schedules 2002–03.

  3. HA weighted population figures for 1996–97.

  4. PCT resident population figures for 2002–03?2002–03 data remain provisional.
  339W
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much is being spent per person in Bath and North East Somerset on all local health services in 2003; and what was spent in 1997. [136328]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Bath and North East Somerset Primary Care Trust (PCT) did not come into existence until 2001–02, so figures are provided for the Somerset Health Authority (HA) area for 1996–97 and for the Bath and North East Somerset PCT area for 2002–03.

  Expenditure is the total expenditure by the HA and the commissioner net operating costs of the PCT. Expenditure per head is normally expressed by weighted head of population, but this is not possible for 2002–03, because weighted population data are not available for PCT areas. In this case, resident population figures have been used.

  Total expenditure per head

  £

  1996–97

  Somerset HA area

  608.58

  2002–03

  Bath and North East Somerset PCT area

  821.14

  Notes:

  1. In many HAs there are factors which distort the expenditure per head. These include: the HA acting in a lead capacity to commission healthcare or fund training on behalf of other health bodies; and asset revaluations in NHS trusts being funded through health authorities in NHS trusts being funded through health authorities or primary care trusts. For these reasons, expenditure per head cannot be compared reliably between HAs.

  2. Allocations per weighted head of population provide a munch more reliable measure to identify differences between funding of HAs.

  3. Expenditure is taken from audited health HA accounts and PCT summarisation schedules, which are prepared on a resource basis and therefore differ from cash allocations in the year. The expenditure is the total expenditure by the Somerset HA for 1997 and the net operating commissioner costs of the Bath and North East Somerset PCT for 2002–03. The majority of general dental services expenditure is not included in HA accounts or PCT summarisation schedules and is separately accounted for by the Dental Practice Board. An element of pharmaceutical services expenditure is accounted for by the Prescription Pricing Authority and not by HAs or PCTs.

  Sources:

  1. Somerset HA audited annual accounts 1996–97.

  2. Bath and North East Somerset PCT audited summarisation schedules 2002–03.

  3. HA weighted population figures for 1996–97.

  4. PCT resident population figures for 2002–03—2002–03 data remain provisional.

  Hospital in London using MRI scanners

  Trust name

  Hospital

  Strategic health authority

  Installed (Year)

  Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHST

  Barnet General Hospital

  North Central London

  1999

  Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHST (Enfield Alliance MRI)

  Chase Farm Hospital

  North Central London

  1998

  Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHST

  Great Ormond Street Hospital

  North Central London

  2000

  Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHST

  Great Ormond Street Hospital

  North Central London

  1996

  North Middlesex University Hospital NHST

  North Middlesex Hospital

  North Central London 1997

  Royal Free Hampstead NHST

  Royal free Hospital

  North Central London

  2000

  Royal Free Hampstead NHST

  Royal free Hospital

  North Central London

  1996

  University College London Hospitals NHST

  Middlesex Hospital

  North Central London

  1997

  University College London Hospitals NHST

  The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery North Central London

  2000

  University College London Hospitals NHST

  Queen Square Imaging Centre

  North Central London

  1993

  340W

  Hull and East Yorkshire NHS Hospitals Trust
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital managers there are in the Hull and East Yorkshire NHS Hospitals Trust. [136059]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are 198 managers employed by Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals National Health Service Trust as at 30 September 2002. This figure is a headcount.

  This figure includes 37 managers in posts that require them to be a qualified nurse, midwife or health visitor, a qualified therapist or a qualified scientist.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  IVF Treatment
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on IVF treatment in the UK. [136673]

  Miss Melanie Johnson [holding answer 6 November 2003]
  In vitro fertilisation (1VF) treatment in the United Kingdom is regulated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. It is provided by the national health service and by the private sector. In England, access to NHS infertility treatment varies according to location. Therefore, the Government has asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to prepare a guideline on the assessment and treatment of people with fertility problems. The guideline is due for publication in February 2004.

  Mental Health
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the service improvements set out in the document, "Sign of the Times", will be implemented in the NHS. [134767]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  "Sign of the Times" was a consultation document on improving mental health services for deaf people. The consultation continued until April of this year and officials are currently considering how best to represent the many high quality and detailed responses received.

  MRI Scanners
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the hospitals in London using MRI scanners; and when each scanner was installed. [137365]

  Mr. Hutton [holding answer 10 November 2003]
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  341W

  Hospitals in London using MRI scanners

  Trust name

  Hospital

  Strategic health authority

  Installed (Year)

  University College London Hospitals NHST

  Middlesex Hospital

  North Central London

  1997

  Whittington Hospital NHST

  Whittington Hospital

  North Central London

  1995

  Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHST (Havering Alliance MRI)

  Oldchurch Hospital

  North East London

  1998

  Barts and The London NHST

  Royal London Hospital

  North East London

  2003

  Barts and The London NHST

  St Bartholomew's Hospital

  North East London

  1993

  Whipps Cross University Hospital NHST

  Whipps Cross Hospital

  North East London

  1994

  Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHST

  Chelsea and Westminster Hospital

  North West London

  2002

  Hammersmith Hospitals NHST

  Charing Cross Hospital

  North West London

  1996

  Hammersmith Hospitals NHST

  Hammersmith Hospital

  North West London

  2002

  North West London Hospitals NHST

  Central Middlesex Hospital

  North West London

  1999

  North West London Hospitals NHST

  Northwick Park Hospital

  North West London

  1996

  Royal Brompton and Harefield NHST

  Royal Brompton Hospital

  North West London

  1997

  Royal Brompton and Harefield NHST

  Royal Brompton Hospital

  North West London

  2000

  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHST

  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital

  North West London

  1998

  St Mary's Hospital NHST

  St Mary's Hospital

  North West London

  1998

  St Mary's Hospital NHST

  St Mary's Hospital

  North West London

  1996

  Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital NHST

  Guys Hospital

  South East London

  2001

  Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital NHST

  St Thomas' Hospital

  South East London

  1993

  Kings College Hospital NHST

  King's College Hospital

  South East London

  2001

  Kings College Hospital NHST

  King's College Hospital(Neuro)

  South East London

  1996

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHST

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital

  South East London

  2001

  Queen Mary's Sidcup NHST (Sidcup MRI)

  Queen Mary's Hospital South East London

  1998

  South London and Maudsley NHST

  The Maudsley Hospital

  South East London

  1999

  Epsom and St Helier NHST

  St Helier Hospital

  South West London

  1994

  Epsom and St Helier NHST (Epsom Alliance MRI)

  Epsom General Hospital

  South West London

  1999

  Mayday Healthcare NHST

  Mayday Hospital

  South West London

  1999

  St Georges Healthcare NHST

  St Georges Hospital

  South West London

  1993

  St Georges Healthcare NHST (Atkinson Morley MRI)

  Atkinson Morley Hospital

  South West London

  1996

  The Royal Marsden NHST

  Royal Marsden Hospital—Sutton

  South West London

  2003

  The Royal Marsden NHST

  Royal Marsden Hospital—Fulham

  South West London

  2001

  The Royal Marsden NHST

  Royal Marsden Hospital—Sutton

  South West London

  1995

  West Middlesex University Hospital NHST(West Middlesex MRI) Middlesex Hospital

  South West London

  2000

  National Tariff
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 16 October 2003 to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson),Official Report, columns 338–89W, if he will list the regional variations in (a) wages and (b) other costs of service delivery in the standard national tariff, broken down by region. [136543]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national tariff is adjusted to give a local tariff for each provider. This is done using a market forces factor (MFF). The MFF takes account of unavoidable differences across the country in the costs of staff, land and buildings. Other running costs are assumed not to vary. The MFF is not a regional adjustment, but is specific to each provider. A table listing the MFF adjustment for each provider has been placed in the Library.

  NHS Finance
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the funding per head of population in each English primary care trust area for financial year 2003–04. [136725]

  Mr. Hutton
  Primary care trusts revenue allocations per weighted and unweighted head of population in 2003–04 have been placed in the Library.

  NHS Staff (Attacks)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to reduce the number of violent attacks on NHS staff. [136419]
  342W
  Mr. Hutton
  The Counter Fraud and Security Management Service (CFSMS) was launched in April 2003 with a remit encompassing policy and operational responsibility for the management of security in the national health service.

  Specific measures on tackling violence were announced in April by my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), as follows:
  a national and consistent incident reporting system for recording physical assaults, and a consistent local reporting system for non-physical incidents, using clear and legally based definitions with the ability to track cases from start to conclusion, allowing for monitoring and intervention where necessary, to ensure the best possible outcome for the person assaulted;
  from 2004–05, the CFSMS will begin training nominated staff from health bodies for the new role of local security management specialist (LSMS). The LSMS staff will work with and assist the police in investigating cases of assault in order to increase the number of successful prosecutions. However, as an interim measure to cover the period until the LSMS staff are in place, the CFSMS will use its existing highly trained and professional operational service in this role; and
  a new legal protection unit to work with health bodies and provide them with advice on cost-effective methods of pursuing a wide range of sanctions against offenders, and also to work with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to increase the prosecution rate of individuals who assault staff and professionals working in the NHS.

  Older People
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how his Department has audited the production
  343W
  of audits by local health care providers of their risk management procedures to reduce the risk of older people falling. [137930]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Data has not been collected centrally. This is a matter for local health and social care communities and part of their planning to ensure integrated falls services are in place by April 2005.

  Ophthalmology Services
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what consultation he has had with(a) ophthalmologists in Buckinghamshire, (b) the Buckinghamshire Association for the Blind, (c) primary care trusts in Buckinghamshire and (d) the Buckinghamshire hospitals NHS Trust about his plans for a diagnostic and treatment centre for ophthalmology in Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire; [130808]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact on ophthalmology services at Stoke Mandeville hospital of his plans for a diagnostic and treatment centre for ophthalmology in Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire; [130809]

  (3) what arrangements he is proposing for managing (a) operative and (b) post-operative complications at the planned diagnostic and treatment centre for ophthalmology for Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire; [130810]

  (4) what representations he has received from local doctors about the accuracy of the information on the demands for cataract surgery on which he has based his plans for a diagnostic and treatment centre for ophthalmology in Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire. [130870]

  Mr. Hutton [holding answers 18 September 2003]
  Local primary care trusts (PCTs) have met with ophthalmologists and they have been actively involved in refining the proposal for a treatment centre for cataract surgery in Buckinghamshire and will continue to be involved in further developing the plans. Buckinghamshire hospitals trust has also been involved and will continue to be. Links are also being developed with local groups including patient support groups and the PCTs will be looking to work with them as the treatment centre plans progress.

  Treatment centres in Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire will provide more choice for patients and provide services closer to home. Existing local services are held in high regard and an important outcome for local hospitals will be the opportunity of developing further their specialist service and chronic disease management. Clinicians and managers at Buckinghamshire hospitals trusts are involved in these discussions.

  Discussions have taken place with Stoke Mandeville hospital to ensure that the viability and quality of the current service will not be adversely affected.

  The treatment centre will offer additional opportunities for care of patients by increasing capacity and bringing down wait times and are a service enhancement to the PCT population.
  344W
  Treatment centres will be expected to be able to deal with typical surgical problems to at least the same standard as national health service providers. Local trusts, PCTs and new providers will agree protocols for referring and transferring patients who require emergency or urgent care that cannot be provided by the treatment centres.

  In autumn 2002, the NHS undertook a national capacity planning process led by local NHS commissioners. This identified a range of capacity gaps that needed to be met for the NHS to meet the waiting time target set for 2005. Where the NHS was not able to demonstrate robust plans to meet this demand the residual activity was included in the independent sector treatment centre programme.

  Advice and guidance has been made available to local NHS sponsors who are responsible for running an appropriate consultation with the patients and staff. I have been assured by the Thames Valley Strategic health authority that the treatment centre offers the opportunity to reduce waiting lists for cataract surgery further, with all the benefits that cataract surgery brings to the quality of life for older people. It also creates capacity in the ophthalmology departments of local trusts to enable more complex eye surgery to be carried out.

  The details of the scheme, together with a wider review of ophthalmology services generally, will be worked out locally with clinicians and other stakeholders. The specific issues raised in these questions will be managed locally as the NHS makes these new units a success.

  Letters have been received at the SHA from ophthalmologists in Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire outlining local concerns. These have been addressed in meetings with clinicians and managers.

  Prescriptions
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the changes in workload for clerical staff, which may arise from the decision to reduce the maximum length of a prescription from three months to one month; [136711]

  (2) what estimate he made of the costs that will arise from the decision to reduce the maximum length of a prescription from three months to one month. [136712]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We have made no such estimates. It is for prescribers to determine the duration of prescriptions, based on their clinical assessment of patients and other relevant factors, including the minimisation of waste. We have not issued guidance on the duration of prescriptions. However, it is common practice for general practitioner prescriptions to be issued for one month or 28 days at a time.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost to the NHS of road traffic accidents was in 2002–03. [136047]
  345W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Under the provisions of the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999, £105 million was recovered and paid to national health services hospitals in England and Wales and Scotland for treating those injured in road traffic accidents in 2002–03. This amount is not the full cost of treating road traffic casualties. However, as costs are recovered only where the injured person receives personal injury compensation, it includes only hospital treatment costs, and the tariff system under which the scheme operates reflects average costs rather than actual costs.

  Information on the total cost to the NHS of treating all road traffic accident victims is not held centrally.

  Smoking
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the effect of raising the minimum age for smoking to(a) 18 and (b) 21 years old, with particular reference to the development and health of young people. [136811]

  Miss Melanie Johnson [holding answer 10 November 2003]
  The Government is aware of the difficulties in enforcing the existing age limit for smoking. We are not convinced that raising the minimum age to 18 or 21 will resolve the problem of teenage smoking. The key is to improve enforcement of existing legislation. The Department continues to work closely with representatives of Trading Standards and the Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services to achieve this.

  STDs
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many finished consultant episodes for sexually transmitted diseases there were in each English region in each of the last six years. [137368]

  Miss Melanie Johnson [holding answer 10 November 2003]
  The number of finished consultant episodes for sexually transmitted diseases diagnosed in genitourinary medicine clinics in each of the English national health service regions (up to 2002) are shown in the table.

  Data for episodes diagnosed and treated in other settings, such as contraception services, are not held centrally. Nor does the data identify the grades of staff undertaking the diagnoses, therefore it will include diagnoses and treatment undertaken by other clinic staff, such as nurses, as well as consultants.

  Male

  Female

  Total

  East Midlands

  1997

  14,679

  20,174

  34,853

  1998

  14,833

  19,811

  34,644

  1999

  14,269

  17,916

  32,185

  2000

  15,745

  19,142

  34,887

  2001

  16,667

  20,437

  37,104

  2002

  17,147

  22,084

  39,231

  Eastern

  1997

  16,795

  22,490

  39,285

  1998

  18,295

  24,299

  42,594

  1999

  19,956

  26,273

  46229

  2000

  21,079

  27,312

  48,391

  2001

  22,726

  29,865

  52,591

  2002

  24,702

  32,694

  57,396

  346W

  Male

  Female

  Total

  London

  1997

  74,846

  86,839

  161,685

  1998

  78,538

  94,155

  172,693

  1999

  82,072

  98,626

  180,698

  2000

  86,360

  101,676

  188,036

  2001

  93,059

  108,868

  201,927

  2002

  97,891

  112,582

  210,473

  North East

  1997

  7,869

  8,966

  16,835

  1998

  7,924

  8,892

  16,816

  1999

  8,592

  9,839

  18,431

  2000

  9,138

  10,715

  19,853

  2001

  8,652

  10,295

  18,947

  2002

  9,005

  10,560

  19,565

  North West

  1997

  20,958

  23,987

  44,945

  1998

  23,142

  25,159

  48,301

  1999

  25,717

  28,111

  53,828

  2000

  28,123

  30,144

  58,267

  2001

  30,273

  33,075

  63,348

  2002

  32,022

  34,636

  66,658

  South East

  1997

  30,385

  38,332

  68,717

  1998

  32,955

  39,586

  72,541

  1999

  35,020

  42,090

  77,110

  2000

  39,097

  45,628

  84,725

  2001

  40,748

  46,976

  87,724

  2002

  44,366

  50,040

  94,406

  South West

  1997

  16,429

  19,030

  35,459

  1998

  17,568

  20,585

  38,153

  1999

  18,741

  21,562

  40,303

  2000

  20,888

  23,971

  44,859

  2001

  22,214

  26,066

  48,280

  2002

  24,240

  27,220

  51,460

  West Midlands

  1997

  16,554

  20,990

  37,544

  1998

  15,377

  19,318

  34,695

  1999

  16,835

  20,835

  37,670

  2000

  18,560

  23,111

  41,671

  2001

  20,952

  26,834

  47,786

  2002

  21,815

  28,716

  50,531

  Yorkshire and Humber

  1997

  18,401

  24,168

  42,569

  1998

  19,452

  25,061

  44,513

  1999

  19,440

  25,101

  44,541

  2000

  20,252

  25,802

  46,054

  2001

  22,004

  28,259

  50,263

  2002

  23,688

  30,010

  53,698

  Source:

  Health Protection Agency, KC60 returns

  Termination Payments
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many termination payments have been made by NHS trusts to(a) chief executives and (b) senior managers since January 2000; and what the total amount paid was for each trust. [138100]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not collected centrally as determination of such payments are a local matter.
  347W

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Ticket Office (College Green)
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission when the ticket office on College Green will be dismantled. [136945]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The work will be carried out later this month.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Class Sizes
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average class size of(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the Vale of York was for each of the previous three academic years. [137002]

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

  Maintained primary and secondary schools:1 average class size2,3: Vale of York parliamentary constituency

  Taught by one teacher

  Position at January each year

  Maintained primary

  Maintained secondary

  2001

  24.4

  21.2

  2002

  23.6

  20.8

  2003

  24.1

  20.8

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 Classes as taught during one selected period in each school on the day of the census in January.

  3 Classes taught by one teacher.

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census

  Euro K4
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the local authorities allocated money under the Euro K4 project. [135649]

  Alan Johnson
  Euro K4 is a project run by Worcestershire county council. No other local authorities receive funding from the project.

  Graduate Tax
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the expected deficits or surpluses are over the first 20 years for the Government in relation to higher education spending under the present proposals for income-contingent loans, assuming a zero real rate of interest; [137685]

  (2) whether his Department has commissioned outside institutions and individuals to model variants of a graduate tax; [137686]

  (3) what discussions his Department has had with outside bodies regarding the hypothecation of revenues from a graduate tax for use solely in funding higher education; [137687]
  348W
  (4) how many (a) variants of a time-limited graduate tax, (b) principal variants of a quantum-limited graduate tax and (c) variants of a graduate tax were modelled by his Department in connection with its plans to fund higher education; [137744]

  (5) which securitisation and bond issuance schemes his Department has assessed to fund or bridge the cash flow gap in the first years of the main variants of a graduate tax; [137753]

  (6) if he will publish the estimated cash flow profile over 20 years for Government receipts under his present proposals for income-contingent loans; [137754]

  (7) what assessment he has made of alternative models of a graduate tax based on an increase in national insurance contributions payable by graduates and businesses during (a) all and (b) part of a graduate's working life; [137755]

  (8) what mechanisms his Department has assessed to fund or bridge the cash flow gap in the first years of the main variants of graduate tax modelled by his Department; [137756]

  (9) what the cash flow profiles over 20 years are of the principal variants of a graduate tax which his Department has assessed; and what the main assumptions underlying them are; [137757]

  (10) what (a) the average monthly repayments, (b) total payment made by the student and (c) the shortfall/surplus at a zero real rate of interest under a graduate tax levied would be at (i) 1p, (ii) 2p and (iii) 3p in the pound of income above £15,000 for (A) 10 years, (B) 15 years, (C) 20 years, (D) 25 years and (E) 30 years after leaving university. [137758]

  Alan Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 30 October 2003,Official Report, column 429, and also to the two letters to my hon. Friend from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, dated 11 April 2003 and 3 June 2003. Copies of both letters are in the House Library.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research he has commissioned on Government expenditure on higher education in EU member states.[137678]

  Alan Johnson
  My Department has not directly commissioned any specific research in this area. My Department uses OECD's annual "Education at a Glance" publication as the best source of comparative information of this nature, and we contribute both financially and in time spent by our statisticians, to its production. It gives statistical information on Government expenditure on higher education in all the current EU member states and in four of the states due to accede in 2004: Poland, Hungary and the Czech and Slovak republics.

  In "Education at a Glance", each country's expenditure on higher education is reported as a percentage of total public expenditure and as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product. The publication

  349W
  also gives the relative proportions of public and private expenditure on higher education institutions, for both 2000 and 1995.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what additional resources the Government have allocated to higher education establishments in each of the last five years in(a) the north west region and (b) St. Helens. [138012]

  Alan Johnson
  The table shows the resources for higher education provided via the Higher Education Funding Council for England in St. Helens and for the north west region in each of the last five years.

  £ million

  North West

  St. Helens

  1999–2000

  471.7

  2.2

  2000–01

  488.1

  2.4

  2001–02

  505.8

  2.5

  2002–03

  539.0

  2.6

  2003–04

  576.3

  2.5

  Total

  2,580.9

  12.1

  As a result of the 2002 Spending Review publicly planned spending per FTE in higher education will rise by 7 per cent. in real terms between 2002–03 and 2005–06. Higher education in the north west will receive its share of this increase.

  Higher Education White Paper
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in which category postcards from students at(a) Loughborough and (b) other universities to the Prime Minister were placed in the Government's response to the consultation on the Higher Education White Paper. [137552]

  Alan Johnson
  We have received postcards from students at various universities in a number of campaigns over the last year. However, we received no such postcard campaigns in response to the higher education White Paper, during the period for comment which ran until 30 April.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in which category of response the submission by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was placed in the responses to the consultation on the Higher Education White Paper. [137553]

  Alan Johnson
  The hon. Member's letters to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills were responded to separately and in full by my right hon. Friend. They were accordingly not included in the commentary of responses which was published on 28 July.

  Independent Adjudicator (Higher Education)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the estimated annual case workload of the Independent Adjudicator for higher education is; and what annual resources have been allocated for this function. [137875]

  Alan Johnson
  We are informed by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA) that its annual case workload is estimated initially to be 350W
  around 300 cases a year. The Department is providing up to £1 million in total over the two financial years 2003–04 and 2004–05 to establish the OIA. Thereafter, the OIA is expected to be funded by institutions.

  Knowledge Transfer Centres
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received on the Higher Education White Paper proposals for regional centres for knowledge transfer. [137876]

  Alan Johnson
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has been seeking views on the knowledge transfer proposals in the Higher Education White Paper through its consultation on the future development of the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF). This included the role of knowledge exchanges to spread good practice in interactions between higher education and business at regional level. The consultation exercise closed on 24 October and the HEIF 2 guidance is currently being reviewed in the light of the responses received.

  Qualifications
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research he has conducted into the differential in the qualifications required for future jobs between(a) newly-created jobs and (b) replacement jobs; and what estimate he has made of the number of jobs in each category. [136458]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Research conducted by the Department into the area in question consists of the Projections of Occupations and Qualifications 2000/2001 commissioned from the University of Warwick Institute for Employment Research and Cambridge Econometrics and covering estimates for the period 1999 to 2010. New projections have been commissioned by the Sector Skills Development Agency and will be published in early 2004.

  This research estimates that about two million additional jobs will be created over the period 1999 to 2010. However, there will be a net requirement for about 13.5 million job openings to cover these new jobs and to replace people retiring and dying and moving into and out of their jobs.

  The research did not cover the differential in the qualifications required for these two categories of jobs. However, the same research suggests that, between 1999 and 2010, the number of people employed with qualifications at levels 4 and 5 will increase from 7.10 million to 9.43 million, the number of people employed with level 3 qualifications will increase from 5.10 million to 5.38 million, the number of people employed with qualifications at level 2 will fall from 6.17million to 6.12 million and the number of people employed with qualifications at level 1 will increase from 5.78 million to 6.25 million.

  School Pupil Statistics
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the breakdown by(a) gender and (b) ethnic groups as a percentage of (i) primary and (ii) secondary school pupils was in each local education authority as at 1 January. [137172]
  351W
  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Scientific Careers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what is being done to promote scientific careers to school students; and what involvement professional bodies have in such information and promotion schemes. [137539]

  Alan Johnson
  Our strategy for science, engineering and technology was set out in "Investing in Innovation" published in July 2002 in response to the recommendations made in Sir Gareth Roberts' report "SET for Success". Our response to Baroness Greenfield's report "SET Fair" outlines our strategy to tackle under-representation of women in science. Both of these included looking at the promotion of science careers. We are working closely with colleagues at the DTI and the Promoting SET for Women Unit to take forward the recommendations in those reports.

  We believe that a good way of promoting science, including careers, in schools is by introducing current scientific developments into the classroom. As well as making science both exciting and relevant this will give young people an understanding of the role of science in society. We are working with a range of bodies, including professional bodies, to achieve this. We have consulted on the programme of study for science at Key Stage 4, following a review by the QCA. The new programme of study will set out a core for science, suitable for all learners, to increase flexibility of qualifications at Key Stage 4. From September 2003, a new science GCSE, "Science in the 21st Century" will be piloted in 50 schools. It aims to provide a sound and stimulating science education that will engage all students with contemporary science issues; and to increase the number of young people studying science subjects post-16. Connexions Personal Advisers provide independent advice to students on all careers, including scientific careers.

  The Science and Engineering Ambassadors' scheme (SEAs) launched jointly by this Department and the DTI in January 2002, aims to show young people the links between what they learn at school and the world of work. Ambassadors work with young people across the key stages and give them an understanding of the opportunities that a science, engineering or technology based career can offer.

  Specialist Status Colleges
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 27 October 2003,Official Report, column 80W, whether, with reference to specialist status colleges, a school's previous performance in value added terms is a factor in any bid for specialist status. [137890]

  Mr. Miliband
  A school's previous performance in value added terms is taken into account by the Department's specialist school assessors.
  352W

  Student Finance
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to increase financial support for undergraduate students of medicine. [137098]

  Alan Johnson
  Undergraduate medical students already receive more help overall than other higher education students.

  For the first four years of their courses, English domiciled medical students receive support from my Department. Students from poorer backgrounds receive means-tested grants for fees of up to £1,125 per year (2003/04 rate). For years five and six, support is provided by the Department of Health, and currently students in those years pay no fee contributions. Most of the cost of their courses is met by the Government through HE Funding Council support.

  Medical students will benefit from the new Higher Education Grants of £1,000 to be introduced in academic year 2004/05, which three in 10 of all students will receive in full and an additional number will receive in part. And in addition to the non means-tested loans undergraduate medical students receive from the Student Loans Company, they can receive means-tested bursaries from the Department of Health in years five and six.

  Students Charter
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the Students' Charter was last revised; and if he will make a statement. [137877]

  Alan Johnson
  The Charter for Higher Education was published in 1993 by the last Government and an addendum was produced in 1997. The document is now obsolete and no longer issued by the Department. Information about students' general entitlements and responsibilities while at university is best prepared at a local level, allowing it to be tailored to reflect the circumstances of the particular institution. Many universities do publish charter-type documents of their own and there are no plans to republish a central document. In addition, our proposals for improving student information mean that institutions will be publishing far more information than ever before about the quality and standards of their provision.

  Teaching Assistants
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what national standards his Department(a) sets and (b) recognises for the employment of teaching assistants in schools, with particular reference to (i) pay and (ii) training. [137578]

  Mr. Miliband
  Pay for support staff including teaching assistants is a matter for local determination: the government believes that this is the best way of ensuring a flexible system that can respond to local needs and circumstances. It is also for employers to decide what skills, experience and qualifications are needed for teaching assistant posts and the training of support staff is the responsibility of local authorities and schools.
  353W
  In October the National Joint Council (NJC) for Local Government Services published guidance on the employment and grading of school support staff including examples of job profiles that can be used to support job evaluations and advice on training and development. The development of this guidance has been recognised by all signatories to the National Agreement on Raising Standards and Tackling Workload as an important step to support the implementation of the agreement.

  My Department supported the development of the National Occupational Standards for Teaching Assistants by the Local Government National Training Organisation, published in September 2001, which awarding bodies have used to develop NVQs at levels 2 and 3 available from September 2002.

  We have also supported the development of standards for the new higher level teaching assistant (HLTA) role by the Teacher Training Agency (TTA). These were published in September 2003 and link to the standards for qualified teacher status (QTS). We continue to support the TTA as they develop an HLTA assessment and training programme which will be widely available from April 2004.

  The Department has in addition, for the first time, introduced regulations which define the conditions under which school support staff can undertake specified work under the direction and supervision of a teacher. The new Education (Specified Work and Registration) (England) Regulations 2003 emphasise the importance of headteachers satisfying themselves that the member of support staff has been adequately trained and refer to the HLTA standards.

  Top-up Fees
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills who he intends will be responsible for raising the maximum cap on top-up fees; and by what mechanism. [137554]

  Alan Johnson
  I can assure my hon. Friend that the £3,000 fee cap will not be raised by more than the rate of inflation for the lifetime of the next Parliament.

  The precise mechanism for raising the fee cap will be established under the proposed legislation. Under the current arrangements, the standard fee can be uprated for inflation by negative resolution of the House. However, it can only be increased by more than inflation by affirmative resolution, which would require a debate and vote in both Houses.

  Tuition Fees
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the amount that would be raised for higher education per £100 increase in annual tuition fees by all universities. [137569]

  Alan Johnson
  For every £100 increase in annual tuition fees by all universities, the higher education sector would receive approximately £75 million in additional income.1 This figure was set out in the letter
  354W
  to my hon. Friend from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills dated 11 April 2003, a copy of which is in the House Library.

  1 This is in addition to fee income to universities from the standard fee of £1,125, not including full time post graduates (apart from PGCE students). All figures are for students at English HE Institutions for 2003–04.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what estimate he has made of the additional amount that will be raised by universities if his proposals for variable top-up fees are implemented; [137161]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the amount that would be raised for universities if tuition fees rose to (a) £1,500, (b) £2,000, (c) £2,500 and (d) £3,000 per annum for all universities. [137163]

  Alan Johnson
  From 2006, universities will be able to set their fees above the current standard fee, provided they have an access agreement approved by the Office for Fair Access.

  The following table sets out the approximate extra income from fees if all universities set their fee for all courses at the levels specified:1

  1 All figures are for students at English HE Institutions for 2003/04.

  £ million

  Level of higher fee

  Approx. additional income from fees1

  £1,500

  280

  £2,000

  660

  £2,500

  1,035

  £3,000

  1,410

  1 This is in addition to fee income to universities from the standard fee of £1,125, not including full-time post graduates (apart from PGCE students).

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment his Department has made of the impact on access by poorer students to medical places if they are charged the maximum tuition fee. [137214]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government have made a number of proposals to safeguard access to higher education for those from low income families. Such students will continue, as now, to have the cost of the standard tuition fee (£1,125 in 2003/04) met by the Government. Around three in 10 students will also receive means tested Higher Education Grants of £1,000 and, in addition, many students from lower income families will be eligible for partial fee remission and HE grant as well as bursaries and other support from universities under arrangements agreed by the Office of Fair Access.

  Fees for English domiciled medical students in years five and six are currently paid by the Department of Health. These students also qualify for means tested NHS bursaries in their fifth and subsequent years of study. Department of Health Ministers have indicated that they will, if necessary, take measures to ensure that any increase in the level of tuition fees will not have an adverse impact on the supply, retention, diversity or quality of students on health professional courses, including medicine.
  355W
  Arrangements for repayment of fee loans will, for all graduates, be heavily subsidised: graduates will repay their loans at zero real rate of interest and only when their income exceeds £15,000 per year. Repayments will then be made at a rate of 9 per cent. of income above £15,000. Figures collected in March 2003 show that 73 per cent. of newly qualified medical graduates in hospital posts earn £34,533 per annum. This compares very favourably with the salaries of other newly qualified graduates. According to Graduate Prospects, the average starting salary for graduate-level jobs was £18,000 in 2002/03.

  Finally, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 6 November in which I stated that I had placed in the House Library copies of a number of pieces of international research on the impact on social access to a range of university courses.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will break down by(a) region and (b) local education authority the proportion of students (i) not paying tuition fees and (ii) receiving a contribution towards tuition fees. [137476]

  Alan Johnson
  In England and Wales students on full-time undergraduate courses and their families are expected to make a contribution towards the cost of their tuition only if they can afford to do so.

  The percentage of students in England and Wales in academic year 2001/02 (latest year for which data are available) who have been assessed to make a nil or partial contribution towards the cost of their tuition is shown in the table:

  Students support scheme students1: 2001/02

  Academic year

  Percentage

  Nil contribution towards the cost of tuition from student/parents/spouse/partner2

  43

  Partial contribution towards the cost of tuition from student/parents/spouse/partner

  16

  1 Contributions towards the cost of tuition are assessed by local education authorities in England and Wales for students normally domiciled in their area and studying in the UK.

  2 Includes students on courses where the fee support was not subject to income-assessment (e.g. PGCE courses, and some other ITT courses; and designated courses at private institutions).

  Source:

  F503G survey of local education authorities

  National level data are published annually in the Department's Statistical First Releases (SFRs) (SFR 11/2003 for 2001/02). Data are collected from the Local Education Authorities (LEAs) to produce national estimates and the data collection exercise does not allow for the production of firm figures below this level, and therefore data by region and local education authority are not available.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether he plans to provide assistance for graduate teachers in the repayment of graduate contributions towards tuition fees and loans; and what assessment he has made of the effect of his proposals for graduate contributions on teacher recruitment. [137522]
  356W
  Alan Johnson
  Since September 2002, the Repayment of Teachers' Loans Scheme has been available on a pilot basis for new teachers of priority subjects taking up employment in maintained schools. This scheme supplements the £6,000 training bursaries and £4,000 Golden Hellos that have been offered to eligible graduate trainees since September 2000. Any changes to these arrangements would be announced at the appropriate time.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what research he has undertaken into the impact of tuition fee increases on student demand for university courses; [137654]

  (2) what research he has undertaken to establish the level of tuition fees that would set supply equal to demand for particular university courses; [137652]

  (3) what research he has undertaken to establish the impact of differential tuition fees on the pattern of student demand for different university courses. [137653]

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research has been commissioned by his Department on the effect of(a) upfront tuition fees, (b) deferred repayment of tuition fees and (c) variable tuition fees on university applications. [137473]

  Alan Johnson
  Evidence from research into the impact of variable fees overseas indicates that there is little impact on demand for higher education. I have placed a number of pieces of relevant research in the House Library.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the impact of variable tuition fees on(a) the number of young people deciding to pursue degree courses and (b) the long-term consequences on (i) skills and (ii) employability of the work force. [137679]

  Alan Johnson
  Evidence from research into the impact of variable fees overseas indicates that there is little impact on demand for higher education. I have placed a number of pieces of relevant research in the House Library. The HE White Paper also explained that research' demonstrates that the number of jobs in occupations most likely to be filled by those who have been through Higher Education will grow by over one and a half million over the next decade.

  1 Wilson R. A. and Green A. E. (2001). Projections of qualifications: 2000/2001. Research in support of the National Skills Taskforce, Department for Education and Employment.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Burma
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with United Nations partners on the Burmese Government's atrocities against the(a) Karen, (b) Karenni and (c) Shan people; and what evidence he has collated on crimes against humanity committed in Burma. [135919]
  357W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There is no doubt that appalling human rights violations have taken place in Burma over many years and that the ethnic minorities have suffered disproportionately. We regularly discuss these issues with our UN partners at the UN Commission on Human Rights and at the United Nations General Assembly.

  We do not currently have independent verification of crimes against humanity in Burma. However, we receive regular reports from the UN's Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Burma, the British embassy in Rangoon, and International Non Government Organisations detailing human rights abuses in Burma.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times the Government has raised concerns with Burma's regime regarding the Burmese military's atrocities against the Karen, Karenni and Shan people in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [135920]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We regularly raise human rights abuses, including those against the Karen, Karenni and Shan people, with the Burmese regime.

  Concern over the treatment of ethnic groups in Burma was raised (with the Burmese) at the UN Commission on Human Rights in April 2003 and in last November's UN General Assembly resolution on Burma. Human Rights abuses against the ethnic nationalities were also highlighted by the EU when it strengthened the EU Common Position on Burma earlier this year.

  Central African Republic
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the security situation in the Central African Republic; how it has developed since September 2002; and if he will make a statement. [136635]

  Mr. Mullin
  In a military coup of 15 March 2003, forces loyal to General Bozize took over the capital Bangui, ousting the incumbent President Patasse. After an initial spate of looting and retribution, troops of the Communaute Economique et Monetaire de 1'Afrique Centrale helped restore control. The situation remains volatile outside Bangui, where remnants of Patasse's supporters and local militia have taken advantage of the instability. The transitional government is gradually restoring calm. The government supports international efforts to restore stability to the country.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with members of the governments of(a) EU member states, (b) EU candidate countries, (c) member states of the Economic Community of Central African States, (d) South Africa and (e) the USA on the developments in the (i) political and (ii) humanitarian situation in the Central African Republic since March; and if he will make a statement. [136641]

  Mr. Mullin
  Since March this year, the Government has had regular discussions with international partners in the EU, UN and the region on the political and 358W
  humanitarian situation in the Central African Republic, and has supported efforts to restore peace and stability there.

  Colombia
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government is taking to assist the Colombian authorities in their fight against terrorist organisations. [136769]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) on 5 November 2003,Official Report, column 654W.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Colombia regarding the legalisation of paramilitary organisations. [136784]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are unaware of any moves to legalise paramilitary organisations in Colombia. We have concerns, however, about Decree 128 (2003) which is relevant to the peace process with the AUG. We have stressed to the Colombian Government that in pursuing a peace process with any of the illegal armed groups there should be no general amnesty or pardon for those who have committed human rights violations, and that all negotiations should be open, transparent and treated on the same basis.

  East Timor
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs further to his answer of 22 October 2003,Official Report, columns 615–16, if he will publish official statements on East Timor and discussions with the head of the diplomatic service in Jakarta in October 1975. [136200]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In accordance with the Public Records Acts the papers relating to the then Permanent Under-Secretary's visit to Indonesia in 1975 will be reviewed in 2005 for release on 1 January 2006. I agreed to the early release of the 1975–76 files relating to the Balibo case on a one-off basis. The release of these files should therefore not be taken as a precedent.

  India and Pakistan
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) members of the Government of Pakistan, (b) members of the Government of India, (c) members of the governments of EU member states, (d) members of the governments of EU candidate states and (e) members of the Administration of the USA concerning (i) the confidence-building measures proposed by India last week and (ii) the reaction of Pakistan; and if he will make a statement. [136352]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary released two press statements following the Indian announcement of a further package of proposals of ways to improve relations with Pakistan, and Pakistan's formal response. The first statement made on 22 October is available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website: www.fco.gov.uk/policy/news/press-releases. The second statement made
  359W
  on 31 October was released locally by our British High Commissions in New Delhi and Islamabad, a copy of which is available on our High Commission in Islamabad's website: britainonline.org.pk/highcomm/downloads/31octa.pdf.

  The Foreign Secretary has also had discussions with both Indian Foreign Minister Sinha and Pakistani Foreign Minister Kasuri over the last week. Both the Foreign Secretary and I met Foreign Minister Kasuri on 4 November in London, during which we discussed the measures proposed by India and Pakistan to further improve relations between the two countries. Foreign Minister Kasuri said that he hoped both sides would implement quickly the steps on which they agree and work together to close the gap on those where there is less common ground. I also met Tariq Aziz, the Secretary to the National Security Council in Islamabad on 23 October. We remain in regular contact with the US and EU member states over our shared concern to encourage India and Pakistan to work together towards normalising their relations and resolving their differences, including over Kashmir.

  Iraq
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the compatibility of order 39, issued by the Coalition Administration of Iraq, with(a) paragraph 43 of the 1907 Hague regulations, (b) the 4th Geneva Convention and (c) UNSCR 1483. [135761]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government are satisfied that UNSCR 1483 (2003) provides a sound legal basis for the CPA Foreign Investment Order. Resolution 1483 authorises the Coalition to undertake activities to promote economic reform in Iraq, in coordination with the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General.

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has(a) to contribute funds to the reconstruction of Iraq and (b) to develop and implement investment programmes to aid in that reconstruction. [136586]

  Mr. Rammell
  At the Iraq Donors Conference held in Madrid on 23 and 24 October my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn) announced the UK contribution of £544 million for reconstruction and investment projects in Iraq.

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to help with the repayment of Iraqi debt. [136587]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK is playing a very active role in achieving a sustainable solution to Iraq's debt. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is promoting a multilateral settlement through the Paris Club. G7 Finance Ministers have called for this to be achieved by the end of 2004, and for non-Paris Club members to co-operate with this process. A moratorium on debt repayment has been agreed by the members of the Paris Club for that period.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the governments of(a) India and (b) Pakistan on the situation in Kashmir; and if he will make a statement. [137068]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) today (UIN136828).

  Narcotics Trade
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government is taking to assist South American governments in(a) combating the production of and (b) tackling the international trade in narcotics. [136770]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government are working closely with Latin American and Caribbean countries to address the serious problem of drugs, particularly the production and trafficking of cocaine.

  In FY 2002–03, the FCO's Drugs and Crime Fund (DCF) provided over £5 million in counter-narcotics related assistance to priority countries in Latin America and the Caribbean where illegal drugs are produced or trafficked. This has led to the seizure of over 11 tonnes of cocaine, worth over £662 million, throughout the region so far this year.

  UK counter-drugs assistance focuses on improving local law enforcement capabilities primarily by providing law enforcement training and drug detection equipment. The UK also has 23 Drug Liaison Officers (DLOs) and three Crime Liaison Officers (CLOs) stationed in the region.

  DCF has also supported several UNODC projects in the region, such as training in precursor chemicals in Colombia and illicit coca crop monitoring surveys in Colombia and Peru, which will lead to improved understanding of the nature and scale of the drug problem.

  Occupied Territories
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his colleagues in the EU concerning the expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. [136212]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed continuing settlement expansion with his EU counterparts at the General Affairs and External Relations Council in Luxembourg on 13 October. The European Council Declarations of 17 October called on Israel to reverse its settlement policy and dismantle settlement outposts.

  We fully support the roadmap's requirement that Israel should immediately freeze all settlement activity, including "natural growth" and dismantle the outposts erected since March 2001. The continuing expansion of settlements in the Occupied Territories threatens the basis for a viable Palestinian state and makes a negotiated settlement more difficult to reach.
  361W
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the US Administration concerning Israeli activity to expand settlements in the occupied territories. [136213]

  Mr. Rammell
  My noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean expressed our concerns about Israeli settlement activity to the US Assistant Secretary of State, William Burns, on 24 September. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development also raised the matter with Elliott Abrams, Senior Director of the US National Security Council on 8 October. Our embassy in Washington continues to discuss Israeli settlements in the occupied territories as part of regular discussions with the US Administration on the Middle East Peace Process.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli Government concerning its efforts to expand settlements and encourage new outposts in the occupied territories. [136214]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary expressed our concerns about settlement expansion to the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, when he visited London on 14 July, and the Israeli Foreign Minister, Silvan Shalom, on 18 July. My noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean reiterated these representations when she met Mr. Shalom in Jerusalem on 30 September. She also raised settlements and Israeli authorisation of settlement outposts with Yosef Paritzky, the Israel Minister for National Infrastructure on 29 October.

  Regions of Knowledge
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what applications the Government has made to the European Commission to ensure that the United Kingdom benefits from the Commission's Regions of Knowledge initiative; what the Government's assessment is of whether this is a productive use of EU funds; and if he will make a statement. [135883]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  Regions of Knowledge is a pilot initiative of the European Parliament which is being administered by the Commission. It invited regional consortia to bid for funds, and consequently it was not appropriate for Her Majesty's Government to apply directly. We are aware that several bids including UK participants were prepared, but those submitted are currently confidential.

  Science research and innovation are key drivers of regional development. The potential value added of this initiative is considerable in comparison to the modest €2.5 million funding proposed.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on discrimination against Christians in Sri Lanka. [136004]
  362W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are concerned about reports of discrimination against religious minorities (including Christians) in Sri Lanka and regularly raise this, and other human rights issues, with the Sri Lankan Government. Our High Commission monitors the situation closely, and is in regular contact with religious leaders. The right to freedom of religion is enshrined in the Sri Lankan Constitution, and there are dedicated ministries for Christian as well as Hindu, Buddhist, and Muslim affairs.

  Subcontinent
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current India-Pakistan relations. [136828]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had discussions with both Indian Foreign Minister Sinha and Pakistani Foreign Minister Kasuri in the last week. Both the Foreign Secretary and I met Foreign Minister Kasuri on 4 November in London during which we discussed the measures proposed by India and Pakistan to further improve relations between the two countries. He urged both sides to implement quickly the steps on which they agreed and work together to close the gap on those where there is less common ground. In particular, he urged both governments to find a way forward on the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus route, a proposal that was welcomed by Kashmiris on both sides of the Line of Control. The Foreign Secretary also encouraged both governments to continue to work together towards normalising their relations and resolving their differences, including over Kashmir.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the Pakistani Foreign Minister's comments on 29 October concerning the proposed confidence building measures initiated by India; what impact those comments have had on the dialogue between the two countries; and if he will make a statement. [136904]

  Mr. Mullin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) today (UIN 136828).

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with Mr. Kofi Annan on the Western Sahara, with particular reference to Moroccan engagement with the latest Baker Plan. [136005]

  Mr. Rammell
  Officials have been in contact with their United Nations counterparts over this issue, particularly in the lead up to the unanimous adoption of UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution 1513 on 28 October 2003 which extended the mandate of the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) until 31 January 2004.
  363W

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Correspondence
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letters of 10 March and 5 September of the right hon. Member for Copeland concerning a constituent awaiting release from prison. [137089]

  Paul Goggins [holding answer 10 November 2003]
  I wrote to the right hon. Member on 12 November.

  Criminal Records
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long on average it took to process an application for screening for criminal records of care home workers in(a) July 2002,(b) October 2002,(c) January 2003,(d) April 2003 and (e) July 2003. [127463]

  Paul Goggins
  The information is not available in the form requested, as there are currently no IT procedures to extract this information from the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) database. It is expected that, as systems develop, this information will become available at some point in the future.

  Average turnaround times for Standard and Enhanced Disclosures during the periods specified are shown in the table:

  Days

  Standard

  Enhanced

  July 2002

  16.71

  21.04

  October 2002

  16.75

  32.00

  January 2003

  26.00

  47.72

  April 2003

  12.27

  23.18

  July 2003

  19.25

  25.91

  The turnaround times for January are higher than usual because of lost production days between Christmas and New Year due to staff holidays, and a training and consolidation exercise of new PNC procedures.

  The CRB has been steadily improving its performance since October 2002. The increase in July can be attributed to a surge in applications during the last two weeks in June in advance of the increase in fees which came into effect on 1 July. Approximately 50,000

  Prisons: operational capacity and population at end of June for each year

  2002

  2001

  2000

  Prison

  Population

  Capacity

  Population

  Capacity

  Population

  Capacity

  Acklington

  111

  787

  782

  782

  763

  782

  Albany

  441

  446

  446

  446

  439

  446

  Altcourse1

  1,004

  965

  773

  850

  838

  900

  Ashfield

  319

  400

  387

  400

  316

  400

  Ashwell

  481

  494

  378

  386

  481

  494

  Askham Grange

  135

  141

  128

  132

  113

  132

  Aylesbury

  351

  352

  355

  352

  349

  355

  Bedford

  447

  440

  396

  422

  353

  400

  Belmarsh

  857

  869

  829

  935

  821

  869

  Birmingham

  910

  900

  830

  850

  1,027

  1,080

  Blakenhurst

  855

  850

  817

  850

  844

  850

  Blantyre House

  120

  120

  118

  120

  115

  120

  Blundestone

  421

  424

  414

  424

  408

  424

  Brinsford

  464

  493

  454

  493

  473

  493

  364W
  extra applications were received in addition to the Bureau's normal intake at that time of about 43,000 applications per week. While these extra applications temporarily increased the turnaround times for applications, the CRB nevertheless continued to meet its service standard targets.

  Euro
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been spent in each year by his Department in preparing for UK entry to the euro; how much his Department plans to spend on preparations for UK entry to the euro for each year from the current financial year up to and including 2005–06; and what estimates he has made of the total costs to his Department of changeover to the European Single Currency. [131592]

  Caroline Flint
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on 14 October 2003,Official Report, column 142W.

  Miscarriages of Justice (Compensation)
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people freed from prison due to miscarriages of justice, after serving less than 20 years, have received an interim payment for compensation; and what proportion have waited more than nine months for compensation. [133571]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 21 October 2003]: This information is not readily available. Interim payments are considered only after eligibility for compensation has been determined. There is then a target to refer any written request for an initial interim payment to the Assessor within five working days.

  Prisons
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the(a) built capacity and (b) number of inmates are for each of Her Majesty's Prisons for each of the last three years. [137549]

  Paul Goggins
  Figures for operational capacity and population for each prison service establishment in England and Wales in the last three years are set out in the table. These figures represent the position as regards operational capacity and population at end of June for each year:
  365W

  Prisons: operational capacity and population at end of June for each year

  2002

  2001

  2000

  Prison

  Population

  Capacity

  Population

  Capacity

  Population

  Capacity

  Bristol

  602

  603

  548

  555

  495

  569

  Brixton

  760

  772

  780

  784

  799

  827

  Brockhill

  161

  167

  150

  166

  155

  159

  Buckley Hall

  203

  390

  388

  390

  353

  390

  Bullingdon

  914

  933

  872

  921

  852

  891

  Bullwood Hall

  181

  184

  162

  180

  160

  180

  Camp Hill

  539

  545

  535

  545

  469

  485

  Canterbury

  286

  314

  273

  304

  267

  300

  Cardiff

  645

  669

  616

  638

  520

  707

  Castington

  329

  406

  304

  406

  253

  366

  Channings Wood

  616

  625

  584

  615

  570

  615

  Chelmsford

  564

  576

  463

  501

  360

  501

  Coldingley

  377

  378

  363

  370

  306

  322

  Cookham Wood

  144

  153

  151

  150

  137

  150

  Dartmoor

  622

  642

  594

  652

  660

  712

  Deerbolt

  478

  486

  382

  426

  464

  488

  Doncaster

  1,123

  1,111

  1,086

  1,111

  1,023

  1,111

  Dorchester

  242

  272

  219

  272

  245

  272

  Dovegate2

  724

  800

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dover

  147

  158

  186

  193

  310

  316

  Downview

  245

  292

  322

  343

  338

  343

  Drake Hall

  276

  304

  232

  267

  162

  295

  Durham

  716

  730

  659

  737

  883

  961

  East Sutton Park

  95

  100

  89

  100

  70

  100

  Eastwood Park

  322

  328

  299

  324

  301

  328

  Elmley

  934

  955

  914

  950

  895

  950

  Erlestoke

  327

  326

  320

  326

  292

  326

  Everthorpe

  374

  386

  465

  470

  458

  470

  Exeter

  500

  533

  469

  535

  433

  527

  Featherstone

  602

  611

  581

  597

  587

  599

  Feltham

  666

  715

  657

  729

  717

  818

  Ford

  529

  541

  339

  501

  375

  501

  Forest Bank

  981

  1040

  748

  800

  716

  800

  Foston Hall

  207

  219

  156

  168

  167

  182

  Frankland

  633

  638

  641

  707

  519

  557

  Full Sutton

  597

  607

  581

  607

  590

  596

  Garth

  645

  667

  622

  653

  637

  653

  Gartree

  283

  289

  284

  282

  359

  366

  Glen Parva

  802

  802

  774

  802

  810

  852

  Gloucester

  300

  330

  261

  281

  292

  329

  Grendon/Spring Hill

  453

  487

  439

  457

  441

  487

  Guys Marsh

  514

  524

  508

  524

  70

  524

  Haslar

  109

  160

  157

  160

  301

  160

  Hatfield

  170

  180

  173

  180

  895

  180

  Haverigg

  559

  564

  532

  554

  292

  402

  Hewell Grange

  187

  191

  170

  187

  458

  191

  Highdown

  738

  714

  724

  714

  433

  714

  Highpoint

  874

  910

  821

  852

  768

  812

  Hindley

  516

  559

  486

  558

  380

  558

  Hollesley Bay

  418

  462

  333

  399

  311

  361

  Holloway

  480

  483

  474

  483

  490

  492

  Holme House

  980

  995

  953

  971

  945

  971

  Hull

  663

  653

  532

  633

  538

  633

  Huntercombe

  346

  352

  315

  368

  339

  368

  Kingston

  184

  197

  175

  193

  179

  189

  Kirkham

  528

  561

  452

  577

  499

  606

  Kirklevington

  181

  183

  179

  183

  173

  183

  Lancaster

  242

  244

  218

  240

  137

  150

  Lancaster Farms

  474

  546

  490

  536

  462

  536

  Latchmere House

  188

  192

  163

  193

  184

  193

  Leeds

  1,253

  1,254

  1,239

  1,254

  1,199

  1,254

  Leicester

  371

  371

  336

  361

  342

  361

  Lewes

  525

  546

  443

  496

  455

  496

  Leyhill

  425

  432

  383

  422

  380

  422

  Lincoln

  547

  550

  496

  552

  457

  520

  Lindholme

  684

  761

  579

  613

  473

  642

  Littlehey

  653

  660

  606

  648

  642

  648

  Liverpool

  1,473

  1,504

  1,233

  1,510

  1,260

  1,510

  Long Lartin

  440

  441

  451

  523

  452

  472

  366W 367W

  Prisons: operational capacity and population at end of June for each year

  2002

  2001

  2000

  Prison

  Population

  Capacity

  Population

  Capacity

  Population

  Capacity

  Low Newton

  286

  296

  251

  285

  207

  245

  Lowdham Grange

  521

  524

  494

  500

  510

  524

  Maidstone

  448

  447

  373

  393

  556

  576

  Manchester

  1,251

  1,257

  1,117

  1,163

  1,103

  1,163

  Moorland

  775

  779

  770

  779

  764

  779

  Morton Hall

  188

  196

  188

  192

  198

  208

  New Hall

  348

  396

  347

  386

  366

  385

  North Sea camp

  245

  267

  177

  208

  207

  208

  Northallerton

  222

  254

  163

  264

  220

  298

  Norwich

  743

  772

  699

  794

  650

  744

  Nottingham

  510

  510

  501

  523

  457

  466

  Onley

  504

  580

  591

  640

  488

  640

  Parc

  927

  968

  918

  948

  813

  920

  Parkhurst

  515

  527

  406

  517

  451

  522

  Pentonville

  1,167

  1,175

  1,183

  1,175

  1,076

  1,175

  Portland

  450

  542

  509

  542

  523

  572

  Preston

  633

  630

  552

  602

  551

  620

  Ranby

  757

  778

  729

  779

  736

  779

  Reading

  265

  289

  219

  241

  220

  247

  Risley

  833

  835

  803

  837

  792

  824

  Rochester

  169

  164

  373

  444

  357

  444

  Rye Hill3

  658

  660

  597

  600

  —

  —

  Send

  215

  220

  216

  220

  201

  220

  Shepton Mallet

  180

  189

  149

  174

  208

  224

  Shrewsbury

  343

  342

  311

  342

  331

  342

  Stafford

  636

  640

  615

  627

  624

  627

  Stanford Hill

  373

  384

  328

  384

  281

  384

  Stocken

  571

  582

  571

  582

  572

  582

  Stoke Heath

  652

  688

  531

  564

  573

  622

  Styal

  455

  463

  424

  455

  449

  455

  Sudbury

  507

  519

  498

  519

  502

  519

  Swaleside

  111

  111

  743

  775

  735

  782

  Swansea

  361

  366

  187

  201

  295

  346

  Swinfen Hall

  306

  320

  307

  319

  301

  320

  The Mount

  750

  760

  719

  745

  739

  745

  The Verne

  583

  587

  566

  577

  562

  577

  The Weare

  394

  400

  387

  400

  372

  400

  The Wolds

  409

  410

  397

  405

  401

  405

  Thorn Cross

  200

  316

  221

  316

  235

  316

  Usk/Prescoed

  331

  348

  329

  348

  295

  339

  Wakefield

  571

  581

  558

  586

  562

  578

  Wandsworth

  1,443

  1,461

  1,342

  1,371

  1,277

  1,371

  Wayland

  648

  660

  619

  648

  634

  648

  Wealstun

  622

  632

  612

  632

  611

  628

  Wellingborough

  521

  526

  505

  518

  503

  518

  Werrington

  130

  134

  132

  140

  100

  106

  Wetherby

  333

  360

  345

  360

  271

  360

  Whatton

  276

  280

  273

  275

  269

  275

  Whitemoor

  420

  444

  370

  408

  384

  408

  Winchester

  619

  637

  602

  630

  569

  624

  Woodhill

  726

  773

  641

  775

  631

  781

  Wormwood Scrubs

  1,190

  1,192

  981

  987

  801

  847

  Wymott

  813

  821

  776

  805

  795

  805

  1Altcourse increased its operational capacity to 1,010 in July 2002.

  2Dovegate opened in July 2001.

  3Rye Hill opened in January 2001.

  The figures in the "Capacity" columns of the table refer to operational capacity: the total number of prisoners that an establishment can hold, taking into account control, security and the proper operation of the planned regime. It is determined by area managers on the basis of operational judgement and experience.

  The figures in "Population" columns in the table may include prisoners out on authorised absence, which can cause the official population to appear slightly higher than the operational capacity.

  Entertainment
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent by his Department in the last 12 months on entertainment, broken down by the costs of(a) food and (b) drink. [135899]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Home Office expenditure on official entertainment is made in accordance with departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety based on the principles set out in Government Accounting.
  369W
  In 2002–03, the cost of hospitality (entertaining non-civil servants) and management entertainment of civil servants was £72,000. This was about 0.006 per cent. of the Home Department's Administration Costs in the 2002–03 Resource Accounts. The Department does not separately identify the costs of food and drink.

  Recovered Assets Incentive Fund
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which organisations, and at which level, will be able to bid for sums from the Recovered Assets Incentive Fund; whether bids will be permitted direct from(a) police operational command units and (b) local crime and disorder partnerships; against what criteria bids will be assessed; what amount he expects to be available under the Fund in (i) this and (ii) the next financial year; and if he will make a statement. [133906]

  Caroline Flint
  The Recovered Assets Incentive Fund was set up this financial year to incentivise asset recovery by asset recovery agencies including law enforcement and prosecuting authorities. £15.5 million a year for three years has been allocated to the Fund. The funds have been fully committed over the next three years to projects agreed by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and others, that will increase the confiscation of criminal assets. The fund is not open to bids from other organisations or partnerships.

  Of £46.5 million that will be available under the Fund over the next three years, up to £38 million will be spent on funding an ACPO proposal to set up an additional four multi-agency regional asset recovery teams to disrupt organised crime groups and to confiscate criminal assets. The teams will comprise staff from the police, National Crime Squad, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, National Criminal Intelligence Service, Crown Prosecution Service, Assets Recovery Agency and Inland Revenue. The balance of the Fund will be spent on asset recovery projects managed respectively by the Crown Prosecution Service, the Department for Constitutional Affairs, and the Assets Recovery Agency.

  An additional £7 million a year for three years has been made available separately from the Recovered Assets Incentive Fund for community projects. This year £4 million has been allocated to the Adventure Capital Fund to regenerate communities. The Adventure Capital Fund Round 2 is open to applications from community-based organisations operating anywhere in England, which are engaged in specified areas of activity including crime reduction and drug prevention, and which are seeking to achieve sustainability through enterprise, while investing surpluses for community benefit. The Adventure Capital fund is not open to bids from other organisations or partnerships.

  £1.5 million has been allocated to anti-gun crime initiatives. £1.2 million of this is being disbursed by eight of the regional government offices to projects that will help local communities in the most affected areas in tackling gun crime and gun culture. The money has now been allocated and is not open to bids. £300,000 is being used to support the Disarm Trust, and it is open to projects working to tackle gun crime in local communities to seek support or funding from the Trust.
  370W
  A further £1.5 million has been allocated to regional government offices to fund capacity building in crime and disorder reduction partnerships.

  Of the £7 million available for next year, £3 million has been committed to fund community justice centre pilot schemes. The balance of £4 million is not yet committed but there are no plans to invite specific bids.

  Sentencing
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many criminal convictions(a) carried a prison sentence and (b) carried a community-based sentence, in each year from 1990 to 2002; and if he will make a statement. [124593]

  Paul Goggins
  The available information is contained in the table.

  Statistics for 2002 will be published in the autumn.

  Number of offenders sentenced to a community sentence or immediate custody for all offences at all courts1

  England and Wales 1990–2001

  Community sentence

  Immediate custody

  1990

  100,884

  57,748

  1991

  104,457

  61,363

  1992

  102,413

  58,092

  1993

  114,806

  58,738

  1994

  128,875

  69,588

  1995

  129,922

  79,538

  1996

  132,637

  85,249

  1997

  139,990

  93,841

  1998

  149,388

  100,566

  1999

  151,633

  105,323

  20002

  155,538

  106,187

  2001

  164,997

  106,273

  1 These data are on the principal offence basis.

  2 Staffordshire Police Force were only able to supply a sample of data for magistrates courts proceedings covering one full week in each quarter for 2000. Estimates based on this sample are included in the figures, as they are considered sufficiently robust at this high level of analysis.

  Terrorism Offences
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been(a) convicted and (b) acquitted of offences under the (i) Terrorism Act 2000 and (ii) Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. [137370]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 11 November 2003]: According to Home Office records cross-referenced with records held by the National Joint Unit in New Scotland Yard and the Crown Prosecution Service show that 25 individuals have been convicted under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. There have been no acquittals.

  Figures on how many individuals have been convicted and acquitted under the Terrorism Act 2000 are published annually in the Criminal Statistics for England and Wales supplementary tables. The latest published figures are for the financial year 2001–02 and show that two individuals were convicted and two were acquitted. The Terrorism Act provides a range of important powers for the police to conduct investigation. Many of these arrested under its provisions are subsequently charged under other criminal legislation.
  371W
  Figures for 2002–03 are due to be published later this year. Figures for 2003–04 will be published when the relevant data has been collated and verified.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Belfast-Larne Railway
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the speed restrictions that apply to the Belfast to Larne railway line. [137667]

  Permanent speed restrictions on the Belfast/Larne line

  Reason

  Location

  Mileposts

  Mph

  Track alignment

  Lagan Junction—Donegall Quay

  113.75–114.00

  30

  Track alignment

  Donegall Quay—Yorkgate (Signal 217–219)

  114.00–115.00

  45

  Track alignment

  Donegall Quay—(to and from up loop)

  114.25–114.50

  25

  Track condition

  Carrickfergus—Jordanstown (up line only)

  10.00–05.25

  30

  Track condition

  Jordanstown—Bleach Green Junction (up line only)

  5.25–04.75

  20

  Track condition

  Bleach Green Junction (down line to Larne line)

  04.75–05.00

  50

  Track condition

  Bleach Green Junction—Jordanstown (down line only)

  05.00–05.50

  30

  Track condition

  Jordanstown—Trooperslane (down line only)

  05.50–07.75

  50

  Track condition

  Trooperslane (down line only)

  07.75–08.25

  30

  Track condition

  Trooperslane—Carrickfergus (down line only)

  08.25–09.50

  50

  Track condition

  Carrickfergus station (down line only)

  09.50–09.75

  30

  Track alignment

  Kilroot—Down line to single line

  12.25–12.50

  30

  Track condition

  Whitehead (to and from Up Loop)

  14.25–14.50

  15

  Track condition

  Through Whitehead station

  14.25–14.75

  30

  Track alignment

  Magheramorne Curves

  19.50–20.00

  30

  Track alignment

  Larne Town Curves

  23.00–24.25

  40

  Track alignment

  Larne Town—Larne Harbour single line to Down line (through No. 940 points)

  23.75–24.00

  20

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the new trains and rolling stock for the Northern Ireland network will be allocated to serve on the East Antrim line between Belfast to Larne; and when these trains and rolling stock will be operational in(a) East Antrim and (b) other areas of Northern Ireland. [137668]

  Mr. Spellar
  Translink advise that they have set up a team to determine optimum use of the new train sets on the basis of accessibility and logistics, potential for passenger growth, current infrastructure constraints and other criteria including improvement of network integration. They will announce their intentions for the new train sets when this work is complete. It is intended that the first new train set should be in operation in mid 2004 with the remaining 22 sets coming into service progressively during the rest of 2004 and 2005.

  Community and Voluntary Sector
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the results of the Department of Social Development study into whether a section of the community and voluntary sector in Northern Ireland requires an alternative to lottery-based funding will be published; and if he will make a statement. [137666]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Voluntary and Community Unit (VCU) within the Department for Social Development (DSD) commissioned research jointly with the Community Relations Council to assess the level of access to lottery funds by religious groups and the impact on groups with religious objections to applying for lottery funding. Work is under way to prepare a summary publication of the results of the research for
  372W
  Mr. Spellar
  The details in the table show all the permanent speed restrictions on the Belfast/Larne line. There are currently no temporary speed restrictions on the line at this time.

  Translink anticipate that once the track relay between Bleach Green Junction and Whitehead is complete and tested trains can revert to the line speed which is appropriate for track geometry for that section of line.

  general release. There is no specific date for publication but it is anticipated that this will take place in the new year.

  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has overall policy responsibility for lottery funding and officials from VCU will discuss the research findings with DCMS in due course.

  Curriculum
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the results of the review of the enriched curriculum trial in the Belfast Education and Library Board area will be made available. [137660]

  Jane Kennedy
  This is a four-year study and the results should be available around the autumn of 2004. Some interim results on pupils at the end of year 3 have been made available to individual schools in the Shankill area of Belfast for information.

  Disabled Grants Scheme
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications to the Disabled Grants Scheme are outstanding; and what plans he has to introduce targets to speed up the application process. [137664]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible and a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Eastern Board GPs
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many GP practices within the Eastern Board are(a) accepting and (b) refusing to accept new patients onto their lists. [137807]

  Angela Smith
  There are 184 GP practices in the Eastern Board and according to the information currently held by the Central Services Agency (CSA) they are all accepting patients, and no GP has notified the CSA that they have closed their list.

  Employment
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) jobs have been lost and (b) new jobs have been created in Northern Ireland in the past year. [137804]

  Mr. Pearson
  Over the 12 months to 7 November 2003, there were 4,957 redundancies in Northern Ireland confirmed to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

  Information on the number of jobs created is not available. However, figures from the NI Quarterly Employment Survey (QES) can be used to estimate the net change in employee jobs during the past year. Latest figures from the June 2003 QES showed that there were 667,610 employee jobs in Northern Ireland. This represented an increase of 5,650 (0.9 per cent.) from the figure for June 2002.

  Energy Market
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Government of the Republic of Ireland regarding the promotion of an integrated energy market on the island of Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [137669]

  Mr. Pearson
  I met Dermot Ahern TD. Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources in July 2003 to consider further cross-border cooperation on energy in the context of the planned European single market for electricity and gas by 2007.

  The discussion covered cross-border electricity trading arrangements, electricity systems interconnection and integration, all-island gas network, regulatory collaboration, climate change, emissions and renewable energy, and energy efficiency polices. We agreed that both Governments have a shared interest in more open and competitive energy markets, reduced energy costs and improved reliability of supply; and that any integration of energy markets should be mutually beneficial.

  A joint steering group of senior officials from the two lead departments (Department of Enterprise. Trade and Investment and Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources) and the two regulatory authorities has been established to oversee on-going work on cross-border energy issues.

  Fireworks
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals have been charged with(a) selling fireworks illegally and (b) other fireworks offences in 2003. [137798]
  374W
  Jane Kennedy
  The Police Service of Northern Ireland, whose responsibility it is to enforce the fireworks regulations, do not centrally collate statistics on persons charged with selling fireworks illegally or other offences in respect of fireworks.

  Fisheries Conservancy Board
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what year the last annual report of the Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland was published; when he expects to publish the outstanding annual reports; and what the reasons are for delays in publication. [135862]

  Angela Smith
  The Annual Report for the Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland for the year ended 31 December 2001 was laid in the Northern Ireland Assembly in December 2002. Copies of the Board's Annual Report for the year ended 31 December 2002 will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses, and in the Northern Ireland Assembly Library, at the end of November or early December 2003. There have been no significant delays in publishing the FCB Annual Reports.

  Intensive Care Beds
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many intensive care beds there are in Northern Ireland. [137812]

  Angela Smith
  The information is shown in the following table.

  Number of intensive care beds in Northern Ireland

  Provider Trust

  Acute

  Mental Health

  Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  7

  0

  Mater Infirmorum HSS Trust

  3

  0

  The Royal Group of Hospitals HSS Trust

  15

  0

  Ulster Community and Hospitals HSS Trust

  6

  0

  Causeway HSS Trust

  6

  0

  Homefirst Community HSS Trust

  0

  18

  United Hospitals HSS Trust

  6

  0

  Armagh and Dungannon HSS Trust

  0

  14

  Craigavon Area Hospital Group HSS Trust

  7

  0

  Altnagelvin Area Hospitals HSS Trust

  5

  0

  Foyle Community HSS Trust

  0

  8

  Sperrin Lakeland HSS Trust

  0

  10

  Northern Ireland

  55

  50

  Source:

  Northern Ireland HPSS Trusts

  Medical Staff
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to protect medical staff in Northern Ireland from violent attacks. [137800]

  Angela Smith
  The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is concerned about violent attacks against all staff working in the Health and Personal Social Services (HPSS) and regards such incidents as totally unacceptable.

  Guidance, recommending the successful NHS initiative, "Zero Tolerance", was issued to Employing Authorities in the HPSS in February 2000 and the

  375W
  Department set up a working group in February 2002 to examine the current arrangements for reducing the potential risks of violence against HPSS staff. The group reported in December 2002. After a period of consultation the Department issued further guidance and a final report to HPSS employers in September 2003. The Department has made the report available on the HPSS Extranet and has encouraged employers to share its contents widely with Professional Directors and those Directors responsible for programmes of care and facilities where staff may be exposed to risk with a view to reducing the risk of violence to all HPSS staff.

  Mental Health
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many in-patient beds there are for child and adolescent psychiatry in Northern Ireland. [137805]

  Angela Smith
  In 2002–03 there were, on average, 31 in-patient beds available for child and adolescent psychiatry.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many inpatient beds there are in Northern Ireland for addictions treatment. [137806]

  Angela Smith
  The information is shown in the table.

  Provider Trust

  Number of beds in Northern Ireland, designated for the treatment of addictions

  Down and Lisburn HSS Trust

  14

  Ulster Community and Hospitals HSS Trust

  7

  Homefirst Community HSS Trust

  10

  United Hospitals HSS Trust

  6

  Armagh and Dungannon HSS Trust

  10

  Sperrin Lakeland HSS Trust

  7

  Northern Ireland

  54

  Source:

  Northern Ireland HPSS Trusts

  Pacemakers
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients in Northern Ireland have received pacemakers in each of the last five years. [137808]

  Angela Smith
  The total number of patients who have had a pacemaker implanted in each of the last five years is shown in the table.

  Patients who had a pacemaker implanted

  Number

  1998–99

  527

  1999–2000

  594

  2000–01

  705

  2001–02

  742

  2002–03

  637

  Source:

  Hospital Inpatients System

  Physical Punishment
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will publish the findings from 376W
  the consultation paper, "Physical Punishment in the Home: Thinking About the Issues, Looking at the Evidence", issued in September 2001. [138205]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Office of Law Reform is now in the later stages of preparing an analysis of responses for publication. It is expected that publication will proceed in the new year.

  Population Distribution
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what proportion of the population were identified within(a) the Unionist tradition and (b) the Nationalist tradition in each local authority at the time of each census since 1961; [137718]

  (2) what evidence he has collated of changes in the balance of communities between Unionist and Nationalist traditions (a) in each ward in the City of Belfast and (b) in each ward of the City of Londonderry, since 1997; and if he will make a statement on the causes of those changes. [137719]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Census of Population does not ask respondents about whether they consider themselves to be from a Unionist or Nationalist tradition. Accordingly the Census cannot provide the information requested. Information on Unionist and Nationalist identity is usually obtained from sample surveys. However the sample sizes are too small to allow robust estimation at local authority and ward level.

  Private Anthony Green
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the police were notified of the shooting and subsequent death of Private Anthony Green at Shackleton Barracks, Ballykelly on 24 January 2001; when police officers arrived at the scene; when the scene of the crime was secured; when Corporal William Graham was interviewed; when interviews were conducted with each of the other occupants of the vehicle from which the fatal shot was fired, listing their ranks; when Corporal William Graham was arrested; and when he was charged. [132516]

  Jane Kennedy
  The police were notified of the shooting of Private Green at 14.49 hours on 24 January 2001, they attended and secured the scene at 15.15 hours. Private Graham was arrested and interviewed on 25 January 2001 for unlawful wounding. Interviews took place with three non-commissioned officers on 24 January and statements were obtained on 25 January 2001. Private Graham reported back on bail on 14 February 2001 and was re-arrested for the offence of manslaughter. He was released from police custody to be dealt with by way of report to the Department of Public Prosecutions and was committed for trial on 5 December 2001.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps were taken to secure weapons and ammunition following the fatal shooting of Private Anthony Green on 24 January 2001. [132517]

  Jane Kennedy
  The offending firearm, magazine and spent case were secured in situ and a full forensic examination of the scene was conducted. Following
  377W
  that, the firearm, magazine and spent case were packaged and forwarded to the forensic science laboratory for examination and testing.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many witness statements were taken in the investigation of the shooting of Private Anthony Green on 24 January 2001. [132518]

  Jane Kennedy
  A total of 24 witness statements were taken.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when Detective Sergeant Doherty was informed that questions in the House had been asked concerning the death of Private Anthony Green; and what authorisation was subsequently sought to discuss this with a bereaved relative on 29 June 2001. [132519]

  Jane Kennedy
  Detective Sergeant Doherty became aware that questions in the House had been asked shortly after they had been tabled. As the family liaison officer he spoke to Private Green's wife and his mother, to inform them that these matters were of interest to hon. Members.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in whose custody and at what location the pages of the occurrence log for the Shackleton Barracks, Ballykelly covering 24 January 2001 are. [132520]

  Jane Kennedy
  The original watch keeper's log for 24 January 2001 is held in military archives at HQNI Lisburn.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what rank of officer was responsible for liaison with the family of Private Anthony Green following the fatal shooting on 24 January 2001; what the reasons were for the cancellation of the meeting with the mother of the deceased arranged for 24 September; what measures are planned to compensate Mrs. Green financially for the costs incurred in taking off time from work and arranging travel to Northern Ireland; and if he will ensure that arrangements are made for a new appointment. [132521]

  Jane Kennedy
  Detective Sergeant Doherty was the deputy senior investigation officer in this case and also acted in the role of family liaison officer updating the family on a regular basis. On 12 September 2003 the police were contacted by the Northern Echo newspaper and asked to respond to what appeared to be a complaint that police had failed to fully investigate her son's death. It was decided to postpone the meeting until it was clear what the precise nature of the allegations were. The meeting with Private Anthony Green's mother was postponed on 22 September, through her solicitors who undertook to inform their client.

  I am advised by the Chief Constable of the PSNI that no request for a further meeting has been received, and that the police are available to discuss any outstanding matters of concern with the family. I understand that they have been in touch with Mrs. Green's solicitors in October with a view to arranging a meeting. The matter of compensation has not previously been raised by Mrs. Green or her solicitors but will certainly be
  378W
  considered by the PSNI if she supplies details along with properly receipted documentation for any financial loss incurred.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost was of the investigation into the death of Private Anthony Green. [132522]

  Jane Kennedy
  No costing programme was required to be kept in respect of this particular investigation and this could be obtained now only at disproportionate cost.

  Secondary Schools
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the secondary schools which have(a) increased their intake by more than 10 per cent. and (b) reduced their intake by more than 10 per cent. since 1997. [137715]

  Jane Kennedy
  Information from the Annual School Census is as follows:

  (a) Increased intake by more than 10 per cent.

  Ashfield Boys' High School

  Ashfield Girls' High School

  Aughnacloy High School

  Clounagh Junior High School

  Craigavon Senior High School

  Cross and Passion College

  Down Academy

  Drumglass High School

  Dunmuny High School

  Enniskillen High School

  Fivemiletown High School and Community College

  Integrated College Dungannon

  Lisnagarvey High School

  Lisnaskea High School

  Lurgan Junior High School

  Maghera High School

  Meanscoil Feirste

  Monkstown Community College

  Newtownhamilton High School

  North Coast Integrated College

  Slemish Integrated College

  St. Catherine's College

  St. Columban's High School

  St. Columbanus's College

  St. Fanchea's College

  St. Joseph's High School, Coleraine

  St. Joseph's Boys' High School, Newry

  St. Malachy's High School, Castlewellan

  St. Mary's High School, Belleek

  St. Mary's College, Irvinestown

  St. Mary's Grammar School, Magherafelt

  St. Patrick's and St Brigid's High School

  St. Patrick's College, Bearnageeha

  St. Rose's High School

  379W
  (b) Decreased intake by more than 10 per cent.

  Bailee Community High School

  Ballycastle High School

  Balmoral High School

  Belfast Boys' Model School

  Carrickfergus College

  Castle High School

  Castlederg High School

  City of Armagh High School

  Coleraine Academical Institution

  Coleraine College

  Comber High School

  Cookstown High School

  Corpus Christi College

  Crumlin High School

  Drumcree College

  Drumragh College

  Duke of Westminster High School

  Dundonald High School

  Edmund Rice College

  Erne Integrated College

  Faughan Valley High School

  Holy Trinity College

  Lismore Comprehensive School

  Lisnasharragh High School

  Little Flower Girls' School

  Massereene Community College

  Mount Gilbert Community College

  Movilla High School

  Newtownabbey Community High School

  NewiyHigh School

  Omagh High School

  Orangefield High School

  Our Lady of Lourdes High School

  Our Lady of Mercy Girls' School, Belfast

  Our Lady of Mercy High School, Strabane

  Priory College

  St. Aidan's High School

  St. Brecan's High School

  St. Brigid's Fligh School, Armagh

  St. Ciaran's High School

  St. Colman's High School, Strabane

  St. Comgall's High School, Larne

  St. Comhghall's Fligh School, Lisnaskea

  St. Eugene's College, Roslea

  St. Eugene's High School, Castlederg

  St. Gabriel's School

  St. Gemma's High School

  St. John's Fligh School

  St. Joseph's College, Enniskillen

  St. Joseph's High School, Crossmaglen

  St. Joseph's High School, Coalisland

  St. Malachy's High School, Antrim

  St. Mark's High School

  St. Mary's College, Ballymena

  St. Mary's Fligh School, Downpatrick

  St. Olcan's High School

  St. Patrick's College, Ballymena

  St. Patrick's High School, Dungiven

  380W

  St. Patrick's High School, Lisburn

  St. Patrick's College, Dungannon

  Strabane High School

  Tandragee Junior High School

  Templemore Secondary School

  Smoking
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to ban smoking on trains. [137810]

  Mr. Spellar
  Translink has advised that there has been a smoking ban on trains since April 1997.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his policy is on smoking in public houses in Northern Ireland. [137811]

  Angela Smith
  The policy on smoking in public houses in Northern Ireland is driven by the Public Places Charter, launched by the Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade in October 2000. To date, over 700 licensed premises have signed up to the Charter which aims to encourage venues to improve provision for non-smokers as well as overall air quality. Potential customers are able to make informed choice by identifying the smoking policies in public houses and restaurants through appropriate signage.

  The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety published a five year Tobacco Action Plan in July 2003. The Plan identifies 24 separate action points which are being taken forward by an Implementation Group. These include actions to promote the provision of smoke-free public places.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many social housing properties(a) are vacant and (b) have been constructed in the last five years in each local government area in Northern Ireland. [137714]

  Mr. Spellar
  At 30 September 2003 the Housing Executive had 6,041 vacant properties. At 31 March 2003 registered house associations had 1,208 vacant properties.

  The attached table details the number of social houses completed in the five year period 1998–99 to 2002–03.

  Social housing: Completions for years 1998–99 to 2002–03

  Houses completed

  District council

  1998–00

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Antrim

  13

  4

  0

  31

  9

  Ards

  36

  7

  15

  84

  0

  Armagh

  25

  102

  10

  19

  0

  Ballymena

  80

  11

  60

  27

  33

  Ballymoney

  11

  0

  12

  0

  4

  Banbridge

  37

  0

  10

  32

  1

  Belfast

  542

  542

  483

  681

  392

  Carrick

  33

  31

  52

  27

  15

  Castlereagh

  0

  0

  84

  20

  6

  Coleraine

  16

  62

  27

  10

  0

  Cookstown

  21

  12

  0

  7

  0

  Craigavon

  71

  53

  58

  13

  0

  Derry

  242

  188

  135

  336

  334

  Down

  97

  69

  116

  37

  51

  Dungannon

  20

  44

  3

  12

  14

  381W

  Social housing: Completions for years 1998–99 to 2002–03

  Houses completed

  District council

  1998–00

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Fermanagh

  42

  67

  35

  38

  5

  Larne

  49

  0

  0

  15

  0

  Limavady

  0

  53

  42

  22

  31

  Lisburn

  72

  137

  132

  172

  86

  Magherafelt

  13

  24

  6

  2

  5

  Moyle

  37

  28

  0

  0

  0

  Newry and Mourne

  91

  46

  80

  25

  38

  Newtownabbey

  34

  20

  32

  27

  12

  North Down

  9

  97

  4

  56

  44

  Omagh

  31

  116

  37

  25

  5

  Strabane

  66

  25

  75

  62

  50

  Total

  1,688

  1,738

  1,508

  1,780

  1,135

  Work-related Stress
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of work-related stress have been reported in his Department in each of the last three years; how much compensation has been paid to employees; how many work days have been lost due to work-related stress, and at what cost; what procedures have been put in place to reduce work-related stress, and at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [136848]

  Mr. Pearson
  The information requested is not held and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

CABINET OFFICE

  Spam E-mails
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what action he is taking to tackle spam e-mails as they affect e-government. [137907]

  Mr. Timms
  Junk e-mail or spam is a nuisance to all internet users and may slow down and impair the efficiency of networks. There will be new regulatory controls here on the sending of unsolicited direct marketing e-mail under the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, which come into force on 11 December. The UK is also active in international discussions on how to tackle the problem of cross border spam, both in fora like the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, and bilaterally with the US and other national governments (in October this year, for instance, Andrew Finder, the E-Envoy, took part in a visit to Washington to talk to US legislators and officials about spam issues).

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Bankruptcy
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the current costs for which(a) a company, (b) a creditor and (c) a debtor is responsible when petitioning for bankruptcy; how much revenue has been
  382W
  generated from the costs of administering (i) company winding up petitions, (ii) creditors' bankruptcy petitions and (iii) debtors bankruptcy petitions in each year since 1997, broken down by (A) nation and (B) region of the United Kingdom; and what plans he has to undertake a review of these costs. [137844]

  Mr. Leslie
  The cost of insolvency from the point of view of the parties is made up of(a) fees charged by the Court Service, an executive agency of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, on issue and subsequent steps in the court proceedings; (b) fees charged by the Insolvency Service (part of the DTI); (c) lawyers and accountants fees.

  My Department is not in a position to provide a breakdown of (a-c) from the point of view of the parties to the proceedings, either nationally or locally as it deals only with the part of the process relevant to (a).

  The fees currently payable (relevant to (a) above) on issue of proceedings are:

  Debtor's Petition: £140

  Creditor's Petition: £180

  Winding up Petition: £180

  Further fees may be payable during the course of the proceedings depending on the steps taken by parties. Those unable to pay the fees and in receipt of specified means tested benefits may claim exemption. Those not qualifying for exemption may apply for remission on grounds of hardship.

  Lists of the fees payable on issue of insolvency proceedings (and the exemption and remission provisions) are published annually in the Civil Court Practice. Prior to the Civil Justice Reforms of April 1999 the same information was published annually in the County Court Practice and Supreme Court Practice. All of these publications are available in the Library of both Houses.

  Figures on cost and income in insolvency proceedings (relevant to (a) above) are published in the Court Service Annual Report and Accounts. In the latest edition, 2002–03 (page 51), the cost of insolvency to the Court Service was put at £9,259,000. Income was put at £7,103,000. The Court Service Annual Report and Accounts is available in the Library of both Houses and on the internet www.courtservice.gov.uk/about_us/our_performance/annual report_02_03_contents.htm.

  The Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor has no plan to carry out a review of the total cost of insolvency from the point of view of the parties to the proceedings.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs in how many petitions for debtors' bankruptcy in each year since 1997 the court fee was waived because the petitioner was receiving on benefits, broken down by nation and region. [137843]

  Mr. Leslie
  Figures collected centrally relating to the number of applications for fee exemption and/or remission are not broken down into specific insolvency
  383W
  petition type and do not include the reasons therefore. They have been collected since April 1998 and only relate to the county courts in England and Wales.

  Applications for fee exemption/remission in Insolvency petitions made in the county courts

  Region

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  East Midlands

  47

  118

  169

  300

  338

  327

  Eastern

  76

  302

  491

  579

  747

  569

  London

  4

  22

  52

  82

  250

  157

  Merseyside

  3

  32

  48

  96

  165

  179

  North East

  11

  37

  161

  272

  204

  595

  North West

  132

  170

  265

  479

  481

  538

  South East

  302

  307

  479

  537

  719

  691

  South West

  107

  310

  372

  674

  813

  948

  West Midlands

  121

  133

  175

  234

  414

  490

  Yorkshire & Humber

  139

  570

  901

  895

  919

  586

  England

  942

  2,001

  3,113

  4,148

  5,050

  5,080

  Wales

  38

  93

  357

  536

  468

  288

  England & Wales

  980

  2,094

  3,470

  4,684

  5,518

  5,368

  Court Buildings
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how much was spent on(a) repairs to and (b) staffing costs in court buildings in (i) Lancashire and (ii) Chorley, broken down by court in the last year for which figures are available. [137507]

  Mr. Leslie
  The actual expenditure on staffing costs and repairs to buildings is set out in the following table.

  £

  Total expenditure on staffing costs

  Total expenditure on maintenance/repairs

  Preston County Court

  564,509

  58,144

  Preston Crown Court

  1,217,498

  12,115

  Accrington County Court

  118,036

  9,246

  Nelson County Court

  85,734

  1,312

  Rawtenstall County Court

  170,313

  848

  Blackburn County Court

  416,210

  3,624

  Burnley County Court

  248,290

  11,952

  Burnley Crown Court

  301,788

  —

  Blackpool County Court

  497,451

  5,636

  Chorley County Court

  133,466

  1,544

  Lancaster County Court

  205,910

  4,231

  Total for Lancashire

  3,959,205

  108,652

  Legal Aid
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how much was paid out in(a) immigration and asylum legal aid and (b) total legal aid in (i) England and (ii) the East Midlands in each year since April 2000. [133180]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 29 October 2003]: Legal aid payments are made by the Legal Services Commission, and for criminal legal aid in the higher courts, by the Court Service. Information about such payments will include work done outside the area and will also include payments to practitioners based outside the area. It is therefore not possible readily to identify separately payments relating to work done within a particular region. The figures given for the East Midlands are therefore estimates based on payments processed by the relevant Legal Services Commission Area Office and Court Service Office.
  384W
  The overall number of applications for fee exemption/remission for insolvency petitions since April 1998, by court and region, are provided in the following table.

  Legal aid expenditure for immigration and asylum1 for the whole of England and Wales, compared to the East Midlands was as follows:

  £ million

  England and Wales2

  East Midlands

  2000–01

  81.1

  2.1

  2001–02

  129.4

  3.1

  2002–03

  176.2

  4.4

  Expenditure for all legal aid for the whole of England and Wales compared to the East Midlands was as follows:

  £ million

  England and Wales2

  East Midlands

  2000–01

  1,664.4

  102.6

  2001–02

  1,716.9

  103.5

  2002–03

  1,908.6

  117.8

  1 Expenditure for immigration and asylum are the latest estimates and may differ slightly from previous figures given.

  2 Legal aid is administered nationally by the Legal Services Commission and the Court Service within England and Wales. In order to reduce the inaccuracies of regional estimates, payments made by offices within Wales have been included.

  Magistrates Courts (Merseyside)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the collection of fines imposed by magistrates courts on Merseyside. [137376]

  Mr. Leslie
  The performance of the Merseyside Magistrates Courts (MCCs) in the collection of fines has not been satisfactory. However, there has been a steady improvement in the performance of the MCC over the last 12 months indicated by an 8 per cent. point increase from 31 per cent. in the corresponding quarter one figure in 2002–03. Merseyside MCC is one of the 12 MCCs that has been selected as needing support in driving up fine enforcement performance, and is now part of a Targeted Interventions Project.

  Work-related Stress
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many cases
  385W
  of work related stress have been reported in his Department in each of the last three years; how much compensation has been paid to employees; how many work days have been lost due to work related stress, and at what cost; what procedures have been put in place to reduce work related stress, and at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [136857]

  Mr. Lammy
  Detailed sick absence statistics are derived from medical and self-certificates, which are completed by staff or their GPs. While certain illnesses, such as "depression", "anxiety", "general debility" and even "stress" may be indicated on certificates, it is not possible to determine levels of "work-related stress". Consequently, we have no details on the number of working days lost due to work-related stress or the cost to the Department.

  However, we know from recent staff opinion surveys that undue stress at work is a problem for some staff. To deal with this we have introduced a range of stress management courses for both managers and non-managers. Our in-house Welfare service is fully trained, and ideally placed, to deal with issues involving work-related stress.

  My Department introduced a wide range of work-life balance policies during 2001, enabling staff to adopt more effective working patterns to better balance their work and home life. My Department won the Opportunity Now National Public Sector award earlier this year for these policies.

  We have a legal obligation to provide a safe working environment for all our staff and, under the Government's Revitalising Health and Safety initiative, we are committed to meeting targets for reducing the number of working days lost generally to work related injuries and illnesses.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Automated Credit Transfer
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library the conclusions of research undertaken by departmental analysts prior to the introduction of benefit payment by automatic credit transfer. [137480]

  Mr. Pond
  I refer the hon. Member to the Department of Social Security research report no. 146; Payment of pensions and benefits: A survey of social security recipients paid by order book or girocheque, available in the Library.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what targets have been set for the payment of benefits by automated credit transfer; and if he will make a statement on the progress towards these targets in each benefit category. [137746]

  Mr. Pond
  The Department has a published Public Service Agreement target that by 2005, 85 per cent. of customers will have their benefits paid by Direct Payment.
  386W
  Key figures on the progress of conversion to Direct Payment are available in the Library updated every four weeks.

  Benefit Overpayments
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many requests he received to waive recovery of benefit and grant overpayments in the last year for which figures are available; and how many of these were granted. [137316]

  Mr. Pond
  Between April 2002 and March 2003 we received 689 requests to waive recovery of benefit and grant overpayments, of which 85 were granted.

  Benefits Appeals
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases taken to a benefits appeal tribunal were upheld where the central issue related to partial sight or blindness in each of the last five years. [137315]

  Mr. Pond
  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 Mr. Mike Wood, dated 12 November 2003:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question regarding the number of cases taken to a benefits appeal tribunal which were upheld where the central issue was related to partial sight or blindness in each of the last five years. Unfortunately we do not record cases broken down by partial sight or blindness across benefits; the information is therefore not available.

  I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when existing Child Support Agency cases will be transferred to the new assessment system. [137000]

  Mr. Pond
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) on 16 September 2003,Official Report, columns 696–97W.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many civil servants in the Department achieved personal bonus targets in 2002–03; and what the total value of personal bonus targets was. [132796]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department does not operate a personal bonus target scheme. However, we estimate that approximately 110,000 staff achieved a level of performance during 2002–03 to qualify for a performance bonus as part of the forthcoming 2003 pay settlement. The settlement has not yet been finalised, but expenditure on performance bonuses last year amounted to £24.75 million.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will reply to the letter dated 3 October from the hon. Member for Banff and
  387W
  Buchan to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) regarding his constituent, Ms E. Verney, of Cruden Bay. [137582]

  Mr. Pond
  I replied to the hon. Member on 7 November.

  Disability
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent representations he has received regarding access to different modes of transport by disabled people. [137912]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department receives correspondence both from individuals and organisations on all aspects of transport policy as it relates to disabled people.

  We also invite comments, both in our regular dealings with disability organisations and through public consultation, on new proposals to improve access for disabled people to public transport.

  Employment Demand
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what forecast he has made of the demand in the United Kingdom labour market in(a) five, (b) 10 and (c) 20 years' time; what forecast he has made of the need for (i) graduates, (ii) those with vocational qualifications and (iii) semi-skilled and unskilled workers; and if he will make a statement. [136023]

  Mr. Browne
  By long-standing convention, the Department for Work and Pensions does not make forecasts of the overall level of demand for labour.

  Research published in the Skills in England Report 2002, suggests that demand for formal qualifications and for those with higher level skills—including graduates and those with higher level vocational qualifications—is likely to continue to grow. Demand for those with lower level skills is likely, overall, to decline.

  Through the Government's active labour market policies, such as the New Deal and Ambition initiatives, we have provided thousands of people with the skills, experience and confidence they need to succeed in the modern labour market. Along with more people staying on in post-compulsory education there are increases in the number of people with skills and fewer people with low or no skills or qualifications.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans the Department has to increase the number of Health and Safety inspectors over the next three years. [137821]

  Mr. Browne
  Estimates of the number of Health and Safety inspectors who will be employed in each of the next three financial years have not yet been made.

  The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) is now consulting on a new strategy for the years 2004–10. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is carrying out pilot studies in new ways of working to free up resource which can be used to deliver its mission to protect peoples'
  388W
  health and safety by ensuring risks to health and safety from the changing workplace are properly controlled. Responses to the draft strategy and the results of the pilot studies will be taken into account when deciding on the appropriate mix and number of staff (including inspectors) within HSE.

  While regulation and enforcing compliance with the law remain vital elements of HSE's work, they are not the only means of achieving health and safety improvements. HSE plans to put more effort into educating, influencing and working in partnership with others (at all levels) who can help achieve further improvement in health and safety performance.

  Loans
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 18 September 2003,Official Report, column 910W, on loans for those on low incomes, if he will commission a small scale study to assess this problem. [135106]

  Mr. Pond
  We have no plans to commission such a study at the present time.

  Pensions
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many times pensioners have been written to mistakenly by his Department regarding nominating a bank account for future payments of pensions, pre-supposing they have not yet responded. [134805]

  Mr. Pond
  We do not have the information requested.

  The conversion process will differ according to the client group in question. However, it will normally consist of one or more mailings followed by a telephone call if there is no response to the letter(s).

  Key figures on the progress of conversion to Direct Payment are available in the Library updated every four weeks.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Arson
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the estimated cost of arson to(a) property and (b) the economy in each of the last three years was in (i) the UK and (ii) Merseyside. [137990]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Data on the cost of arson are available for England and Wales and not separately for Merseyside. 1999 and 2000 are the most recent years for which reliable estimates are available.

  The estimated cost of arson involving property (ie arson in domestic, commercial or public sector buildings) was an estimated £1,850 million in 1999 and £1,750 million in 2000. These figures include the cost of fire protection systems.

  In 1999, arson cost the economy in England and Wales an estimated £2.1 billion; in 2000, this was an estimated £2.2 billion.
  389W
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of vehicles that were subject to arson in the last 12 months for which figures are available had more than one month's vehicle duty paid. [137992]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Information on the vehicle duty status of vehicles subject to arson is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of blazes attended by fire crews were the result of arson in each of the last three years in(a) the UK and (b) Merseyside. [137994]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is tabled as follows.

  Malicious primary fires as a proportion of all primary fires, 2000–02

  2000

  2001

  2002

  United Kingdom

  Total malicious primary fires

  111,174

  123,184

  120,953

  Total primary fires

  219,663

  228,229

  218,916

  Proportion malicious (percentage)

  57

  54

  55

  Merseyside

  Total malicious primary fires

  5,347

  5,604

  5,553

  Total primary fires

  8,405

  8,373

  8,043

  Proportion malicious (percentage)

  64

  67

  69

  Notes:

  1. Malicious Fires are those where deliberate ignition is proved or suspected.

  2. Primary fires are those which cause damage to property or involve casualties.

  3. Data for 2001 and 2002 are provisional

  Empty Homes
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many empty homes were owned by(a) local councils and (b) social housing authorities in each year since 1997. [138129]

  Keith Hill
  The information requested is tabled as follows:

  Total number of vacant dwellings at 1 April

  Council

  RSL

  Total

  1997

  80,500

  26,700

  107,200

  1998

  81,700

  29,200

  110,900

  1999

  82,700

  32,700

  115,400

  2000

  86,000

  37,500

  123,500

  2001

  79,200

  39,300

  118,500

  2002

  76,600

  39,700

  116,300

  2003

  62,000

  44,800

  106,800

  Housing (Overcrowding)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary's statement of 29 October 2003,Official Report, column 126WH, (1) on what basis his Department estimates that 25,000 households are statutorily overcrowded; [137905]

  (2) if he will provide a regional breakdown of households which are statutorily overcrowded. [137906]

  Yvette Cooper
  The estimate was derived using data from the Survey of English Housing for the three years 1999–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000, supplemented with some 390W
  data from the English House Condition Survey. It was necessary to use data from three years of the Survey of English Housing because the number of households statutorily overcrowded is so small, just over 0.1 per cent., that it would not have been possible to derive an estimate using data for a single year. Even combining years the estimate remains very tentative, and for this reason it is not possible to provide a regional breakdown.

  Local Government Ombudsman
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many cases were considered by the Local Government Ombudsman in the last year for which figures are available; how many cases were(a) upheld and (b) rejected; what the average time taken was to consider cases; and what the average cost per case was. [137197]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In 2002–03 the number of complaints on which determinations were made by the Commission for Local Administration in England (Local Government Ombudsman) was 18,376. Of these, 145 cases of maladministration led to the issue of reports, and 3,735 cases led to local settlements being made. In 5,560 cases no or insufficient evidence of maladministration or injustice were found. The rest of the complaints were found to be either premature or outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction, or else the Ombudsman used his discretion not to pursue the complaint. The average time taken to consider cases was 14.3 weeks and the average cost per complaint was £538.

  Section 106 Agreements
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what the average value of section 106 agreements was in each of the last five years; [R] [137628]

  (2) how many section 106 agreements have been made during each of the last five years; [R] [137630]

  (3) what the average value of the section 106 agreements involved in planning permissions given on (a) call-in and (b) appeal by him was in each of the last five years. [R] [137626]

  Keith Hill
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, a study by John Henneberry and Heather Campbell of Sheffield University, published in 2001, estimated the average value of planning obligations as £148,730 in north England and £753,830 in south England. It also estimated that about 1.5 per cent. of planning applications in England involve a section 106 agreement. In 2001–02 there were 582,000 planning applications in England.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what discussions on his policy towards section 106 agreements he has had in the last three months with(a) the leaders of London boroughs, (b) the Mayor of London, (c) the Town and Country Planning Association, (d) the Housebuilders' Federation, (e) the Leader of Manchester City Council, (f) the construction industry, (g) the Leader of Liverpool City Council and (h) non-governmental organisations; [R] [137631]
  391W
  (2) what discussions on his policy towards section 106 agreements he has had in the last three months with (a) the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, (b) the Leader of Birmingham City Council, (c) the Chairman of the Environment Agency, (d) local authorities, (e) the British Property Federation, (f) leaders of metropolitan district councils, (g) representatives of the planning profession, (h) the Chairman of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, (i) leaders of district councils and (j) the Better Regulation Task Force. [R] [137632]

  Keith Hill
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister speaks to a large number of individuals and organisations in the normal course of business, and in the process of reviewing policy.

  Small Business
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with(a) representatives of local government, (b) the Federation of Small Businesses and (c) other groups representing business on the effect of Part 8 of the Local Government Act 2003 on competition between local government and small businesses. [137607]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government consulted widely on the provisions in the Local Government Act 2003 and has considered the concerns of small businesses particularly with regard to the charging and trading provisions. In addition, officials in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister held discussions with the Small Business Service of the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI), the Office of Fair Trading and CBI.

  While the powers to charge for discretionary services will be available to all best value authorities, the trading powers set out in the Act will be subject to the council's CPA categorisation and only available to authorities with a fair good or excellent record on delivery of public service. Trading is only exercisable through a company structure which means it will be subject to the same regulation as other commercial bodies (for example on taxation). This will ensure that authorities keep any trading activities separate from their ordinary functions as well as promoting a level playing field with the private sector.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends to ensure that authorities do not distort markets through the provision of inappropriate subsidies to trading companies or the arrangement of preferential terms and other forms of unfair competition. To cover these concerns, we propose to impose certain conditions to regulate how authorities should engage in their trading activities. We will issue Guidance to reinforce this, to which authorities are required to have regard. Guidance on the charging powers will be published shortly. Authorities are subject to best value audit and inspection and must abide by competition legislation.

  Valuation Bands (Pendle)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many appeals have been made against valuation bands of properties in Pendle in each year since 1992. [138103]
  392W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The number of appeals that have been made each year against valuation bands of properties within the Pendle Billing Authority since Council Tax was introduced on 1 April 1993 is tabled as follows:

  Number of appeals

  1993–94

  1,249

  1994–95

  109

  1995–96

  138

  1996–97

  142

  1997–98

  141

  1998–99

  115

  1999–2000

  108

  2000–01

  118

  2001–02

  73

  2002–03

  44

  2003–04

  150

  1 To date

TREASURY

  Bechtel
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the contracts for consultancy and other work carried out by Bechtel for agencies responsible to his Department 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. [137881]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor's agencies have not had any contracts with Bechtel in this period.

  Child Trust Fund
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the results of the Child Trust Fund; and how many people in each area have taken advantage of the scheme. [137646]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Child Trust Fund (CTF) is intended to encourage parents and children to develop the savings habit. It will ensure that every child, whatever their family background, will have access at the age of 18 when they begin their adult life, to a stock of assets which they can invest in their future.

  It will also help children and their parents to understand the benefits of saving and investment and how to engage with financial institutions.

  Detailed proposals covering the CTF were issued on 28 October. Accounts will first become available in April 2005. It will not be necessary to make a specific claim for the CTF—access will be through the child benefit system and parents will be sent a voucher with which to open an account for their child. Where an account has not been opened within 12 months of the issue of the voucher the Inland Revenue will open an account for the child to ensure that they do not miss out.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Financial Services Authority has adopted the financial literacy strategy used by the Treasury. [137672]
  393W
  John Healey
  HM Treasury works closely with the Financial Services Authority, and others, on issues of financial literacy.

  The FSA announced the members of their Financial Capability Steering Group on 20 October 2003. The Group will develop and implement a national strategy for financial capability. The FSA has announced that, advised by the Steering Group, it will publish the strategy by the end of March 2004.

  North Sea Oil Tax Regime
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what impact he estimates the Energy Chapter of the Draft EU Constitution will have on the North Sea oil tax regime. [137721]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Draft EU Constitutional Treaty is currently being discussed in the Intergovernmental Conference. The Draft has no legal force until it is agreed unanimously by member states.

  The Government made it clear in its White Paper "The British Approach to the European Union Intergovernmental Conference 2003" that it would not agree to a new Treaty which was not in the UK's interests, and that it will insist that tax matters continue to be decided by unanimity.

  Private Schools
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect on value added tax revenue of private schools' charitable status in the last year for which figures are available. [137467]

  John Healey
  No such estimate has been made.

  Tax Credits (Overpayment)
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the arrangements that will apply when recipients are required to repay their tax credits following changes in their income; what the maximum period is over which repayments can be made; what penalties exist for those failing to repay; and whether repayment will be required in a lump sum. [134926]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue has published a code of practice on what happens when tax credit has been overpaid, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Financial penalties, and interest, can be imposed only where an overpayment arose because the claimant behaved fraudulently or negligently.

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what internal review procedures exist within the Inland Revenue for tax credit recipients faced with overpayments; and how these procedures differ from those that existed for working families tax credit. [134928]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Working families tax credit was a fixed award based on a snapshot of income and circumstances around the time of claim. Awards of new tax credits, however, are responsive to changes in circumstances and income and can be adjusted to reflect 394W
  changes. The Inland Revenue has published a code of practice on recovery of overpayments of child and working tax credits.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of(a) the number of cases of overpayment and (b) the amount of the overpayment of (i) working families tax credit, (ii) children's tax credit and (iii) disabled person's tax credit in 2002–03. [137642]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Working families and disabled person's tax credit awards were fixed for 26 weeks, based on a snapshot of income and circumstances around the time of claim, and were not amended to reflect changes in the recipients' circumstances or incomes during this period. Provided the award was based on accurate information, overpayments did not arise. Children's tax credit is not a payment; it is a tax allowance which reduces a taxpayer's overall tax liability for the year.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Inland Revenue will publish the code of practice on overpayment of tax credits. [137643]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 10 November 2003]: The Inland Revenue is today publishing a Code of Practice on what happens when too much tax credit has been paid. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) in what circumstances overpayments of tax credits are(a) recovered within the tax year in which they occurred and (b) recovered in the following tax year by means of a reduction in tax credit payments; [132597]

  (2) how many recipients of tax credits have been overpaid and issued with demands for lump sum repayments; [132598]

  John Thurso
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many recipients of tax credits in Scotland have been(a) overpaid and (b) issued with demands for lump sum repayments. [135934]

  Dawn Primarolo
  During the tax year, a tax credit award can be amended to reflect changes in claimants' circumstances or because an overpayment is likely to arise at the end of the year. This may mean that payments are reduced or that no further payments are made because too much has been paid out already. To make sure that payments are not reduced to a level that would cause hardship, however, the Inland Revenue makes additional payments if that would be the case.

  Overpayments of tax credit are identified when tax credit entitlement is finalised after the end of that year. In addition, overpayments can be identified when, as part of their compliance activities, the Inland Revenue terminate a tax credits award because the claimant had never in fact been entitled to tax credit. In these cases, the overpayment may be recovered as soon as the award is terminated. Around 700 requests for payment in such cases had been made by the end of October, including around 100 to families in Scotland.

  The Inland Revenue is today publishing a Code of Practice on what happens when too much tax credit has been paid. The Code will also cover the circumstances in

  395W
  which the Revenue will not seek to recover a debt, for example, in cases of hardship. A copy of the Code has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Tax Returns
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his written answer of 3 November 2003,Official Report, column 458W, on self-assessment, what information he has collated on the reasons for the increase in notices to file. [138021]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The 'notices to file' are served to those that:Have previously filed electronically through their agent and the agents Electronic Lodgment Service (ELS).
  Filed electronically by the internet.
  Have previously submitted a substitute return. These are paper returns provided by a third party, often a software developer, which have been formally approved by the Inland Revenue.

  The number of 'notices to file' have increased due to the increase in the number of people filing over the internet and through their agents who use the internet service and the Electronic Lodgement Service.

  VAT Registrations
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the number of(a) new businesses, (b) business closures and (c) companies registered for value added tax in each year since 1996–97. [137602]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I have been asked to reply.

  The numbers of businesses that registered and de-registered for VAT in each calendar year since 1996, and the number of businesses that were registered at the start of each of these years (stocks), in the United Kingdom, are available at www.sbs.gov.uk/statistics/vatstats.php, and are as follows:

  Registrations

  De-registrations

  Stocks

  1996

  171,005

  154,630

  1,629,165

  1997

  187,690

  151,900

  1,645,540

  1998

  187,515

  153,450

  1,681,335

  1999

  181,370

  160,410

  1,715,395

  2000

  184,035

  165,475

  1,736,360

  2001

  174,620

  167,185

  1,754,915

  2002

  175,800

  176,040

  1,762,355

  2003

  1—

  1—

  1,762,110

  1Not yet available

  These figures for the number of businesses comprise companies, partnerships and sole traders. Figures are not available for the number of companies alone.

DEFENCE

  Project Aquatrine
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  I am pleased to inform the House that the C2C consortium has today been announced as the preferred bidder for the second of three contracts for the provision of water and wastewater services to Ministry of Defence sites in the North and East of England.

  Project Aquatrine is one of the Government's leading and most significant Public Private Partnership (PPP) Projects and will transfer the responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the Department's water and wastewater assets and infrastructure throughout Great Britain to private sector providers. This Project will enable the transfer of environmental risk to those in the private sector who are best placed to manage it.

  This contract is expected to go live in September 2004 following a pre-commencement period.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Best Value Authorities (Discretionary Services)
  The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  The Government has today published guidance for best value authorities in England on the general power to charge for discretionary services provided in the Local Government Act 2003. Copies of the guidance are available in the Libraries of both Houses. Separate guidance is to be issued for Wales.

  The Local Government Act 2003 provides all best value authorities in England and Wales with a new power to charge for discretionary services (section 93). Charges made under the new general power are subject to certain restrictions including a duty to ensure that the income from charges does not exceed the costs of provision.

  The guidance offers advice on:

  The scope of the general power to charge for discretionary services;

  Which authorities benefit from the power;

  Discretionary services;

  The limitation to cost recovery;

  Calculating the costs and setting the charge;

  The Competition Acts and the effect on local businesses;

  The power at section 94 to disapply the new power to charge; and

  22WS

  The power at section 97–98 to modify existing legislation that in some way restricts an authority's ability to charge for the provision of a discretionary service under section 93.

  This guidance applies only to the new power at section 93 of the Act to charge for discretionary services and to the related powers at sections 94 and 97–98 of the Act. It is issued under the power at section 93(6). Best value authorities must have regard to the advice it contains when charging for discretionary services using the new power. Copies are being sent to all best value authorities and other interested parties. The guidance builds on the draft published for consultation in March 2003 and takes account of the responses received to that consultation.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ascension Island
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  The Wideawake Agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States Governments, which allows for the opening of Wideawake Airfield on Ascension Island to civilian charter traffic, was signed on 1 October.

  At present access to Ascension Island for civilians is by ship, or on RAF flights between Brize Norton and the Falkland Islands. The UK Government wishes to improve access to Ascension Island, in order to provide an essential building block for its future economic development. The UK Government has therefore agreed with the US Government that the US Wideawake military airbase on Ascension Island may be used for a limited number of civilian charter flights every week.

  It will be for airlines to decide on commercial grounds whether to take the opportunity to fly to Ascension Island. The UK Government will work closely with the Ascension Island Government to encourage airlines to fly there. A prospectus will be issued in early 2004.

  The opening of the airfield is part of the modernisation process of Ascension Island. In 2002 a fiscal regime was introduced and the first ever Island Council was formed. The Ascension Island Government is working to continue this process and is preparing a strategic plan providing a vision for the Island for the next five years. A copy of the Wideawake Agreement will be laid before Parliament as a Command paper in due course.

HEALTH

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson)
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's 12th annual report and accounts 2003 were laid before Parliament today.

  Copies have been placed in the Library.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

VAT: Listed Places of Worship
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London asked. Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they have made in negotiations with the European Commission to introduce a 5 per cent rate of VAT on repairs and maintenance to listed places of worship; and when they expect the necessary changes to the European Union VAT regime to be made.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, the Government are negotiating hard in the current EU negotiations for a reduced rate of VAT on the repair and maintenance of listed places of worship. We recognise the importance to the community of these buildings and the heavy burden that their upkeep can impose, particularly on small congregations.
In the mean time, we continue to provide support through the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme, which has paid out grants in excess of £15 million since it began in 2001. In addition, English Heritage has offered to listed places of worship a total of £75 million in grant-in-aid since 1997.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his courteous and very constructive reply. Is he aware that a delegation led by one of his colleagues from another place—the Second Church Estates Commissioner—met yesterday with Commissioner Fritz Bolkenstein to discuss the VAT issue? One of the difficulties seems to be a lack of clarity about the different regimes which obtain in member countries of the Union on caring for historic buildings, and not least ecclesiastical buildings. Would the Minister be willing to use his good offices to assist in a survey of the comparative regimes in the Union as part of the campaign to preserve flexibility in VAT rates; a campaign in which the Government and all those who care for historic community assets are united?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can certainly confirm that the Government are in favour of flexibility in VAT regimes; always provided of course that by encouraging flexibility we do not sacrifice the derogations we already have, some of which are not shared and are envied by other member states. Certainly, the suggestion that there should be a survey of actual practices in different member states which exercise local
1352
options is a very valuable one. I should like to think about it and communicate with the right reverend Prelate.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, it was very encouraging to hear what the Minister just said, and I wish them well in Brussels. Does he agree that it is better to have zero VAT if possible and not to resort to grants because that is double bureaucracy? After all, churches are used for entertainment, tourism, education and so many valuable things that they are worth a zero VAT rating.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I certainly agree that we would prefer to have a reduced rate of VAT rather than the grant system. I think the Churches would agree that a grant system is better than nothing.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I declare an interest as a clergy spouse. In the spirit of flexibility, would the Minister consider extending the reduced rate of VAT currently being contemplated for listed places of worship to unlisted places of worship, on the basis that whether or not a church is architecturally distinguished it still plays a major part in binding communities together?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have a number of priorities to balance. There are indeed unlisted places of worship. There are also other listed public buildings which are not places of worship in charitable or non-profit occupation and use. It is not easy to suggest any extension to what we are fighting for—and have not yet obtained—when we are still in negotiation.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware of concerns on another aspect of zero rating on VAT—that of the charitable sector in this country—where the abolition of zero rating on issues such as the purchase of research equipment or the sale of donated goods would have tremendous detrimental effects on many charities. I remind the House of my interest as chairman of Cancer Research UK, which would stand to lose something like £13 million if the proposals were to go ahead. Will my noble friend reiterate the Government's hitherto very robust stand on this and confirm that they will be willing to use their veto on the Council of Ministers if necessary?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is indeed the case that any Commission proposal to remove the zero-rate derogations would require unanimity. This covers not just equipment for charities, but children's clothes and footwear and also equipment for disabled people. So it is very important to us—important to the extent of more than £1 billion—that we do not lose these derogations. We would indeed be prepared to veto any proposal which would bring that about.
The Lord Bishop of Derby: My Lords, I echo the appreciation of the Churches and faith communities for the Government's consistent support for this project for VAT reform. Given that the European Commission's initial proposals about changes to the VAT regime did not appear to favour the case being made by Her Majesty's Government, will the noble Lord assure all UK faith groups that the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme will be allowed to continue in the event of failure in the EU VAT negotiations?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can go part way towards that. I can certainly give an assurance that the grants will remain in place until the outcome of the review is known. To go beyond that is more than can be expected of any Treasury spokesman.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I was greatly heartened by the Minister's initial reply to the right reverend Prelate. Does he agree that charging VAT on the repair of existing buildings discourages their reuse or repair? Of course, that encourages urban sprawl on greenbelt land. I must declare an interest as the treasurer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Architecture and Planning.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand the argument that is made for what is called "flat VAT"—there is certainly a possible distortion if there is an encouragement to new construction and a discouragement to repair. That is particularly important for listed buildings. But I must remind the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that we have a zero rate for construction that includes buildings for charitable purposes and housing. To lose that would be a severe blow indeed; but we do not intend that to happen.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, what is the position generally in the European Community? For example, does the Church of Rome have to pay VAT on the maintenance of its cathedrals?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I would rather duck the first question than the second one, I think, although I really want to duck them both. What is the general state of affairs in the European Community? I could give an hour-long speech on that. I do not know what the Church of Rome does, but of course Catholic churches and cathedrals are included in listed places of worship.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is working on the idea of setting up a database as a guide to good practice on tax incentives and to identify anomalies? Does he support that initiative?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, indeed, my Lords.

Genetically Modified Crops
2.44 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards their legal liability for accidental contamination by genetically modified crops.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Agricultural and Environment Biotechnology Commission is due to submit a report to Government later this month on the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops and the related issues of liability. We will consider our policy further in the light of that report.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord says about consideration in the light of the report, but perhaps he might say a little more. I declare an interest as a farmer, although not one who grows GM crops. In the absence of insurance cover, what arrangements would the Government make to protect farmers who grow GM crops from suffering economic loss as a result of breaches of statutory thresholds through no fault of their own?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is precisely the area on which the Agricultural and Environment Biotechnology Commission is about to advise. If we were to allow the growth of GM crops on a commercial scale in the UK— a question on which we have not yet decided—there would clearly need to be guidelines for the co-existence of such crops with non-GM conventional and organic crops. Conditions would have to be set for such growth going ahead and breach of those conditions could lead to liability on the GM farmer. The European Commission has already introduced broad guidelines for member states, but our UK guidelines will be based on the advice we receive from the AEBC.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, given the "unsafe" verdict of his department following trials of GM sugar beet and oilseed rape, will the Minister spell out that they will ban such GM crops in the UK or, if not, accept legal liability for contamination from such crops?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that we now have the reports on three crops. He uses the word "unsafe"; we were considering the environmental rather than the human health impact. There was a greater detrimental effect on the environment from two of those crops compared with conventional crops. We will clearly need to take that finding into account in considering any application to grow such crops. Were they or any other GM crops to be allowed to go ahead—

1355
which is entirely hypothetical—they would be subject to the guidelines, on the details of which we are expecting advice within the next few weeks.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, over what distance do the Government consider that wind-borne and insect-borne contamination from GM crops can be spread?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is no simple answer to that. As they are already in the public arena, I am happy to furnish the noble Lord with the reports on the crops involved. It depends on the local conditions, the type of crops and the time of year. It is precisely such detail that may need to be covered in guidelines.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the GM crop trials in 2001 and 2002 in Scotland, which were paralleled in England, suffered from an admixture of GM material that was not covered by the consent for the trials? Do the Government have any plans to introduce a more rigorous purity test for genetically modified seed than that which currently operates for conventional seed?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is already substantially greater testing of GM seed than of conventional seed—although at the end of the day, the public health impact may well be the same, so they may therefore have to be tested subject to the same degree of proof and caution. If there were a consent, anyone who breached the terms of that consent would, in certain circumstances, be liable, but we are discussing so many hypothetical questions that any detailed answer to that question must await our verdict on the basis of the advice that we are about to receive.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, does my noble friend accept the advantages of researching GM crops for countries that are not able to grow enough to feed themselves?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it appears that in certain circumstances there may be some advantage in that respect. The economic report which is part of our general consultation on future attitudes towards GM showed that, in certain development circumstances, there could be some advantage, although it was not as great as is sometimes claimed.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, is the committee that is due to report at the end of this month on the GM situation considering the implications, not just for whole crops, but field trial crops also? As the noble Lord knows, last week we talked about the trashing of those crops, and, fortunately, that verdict has been overtaken. However, we have lost the science from Bayer, which has pulled out of field trials, and Monsanto has pulled out of cereals altogether. Is the Minister not concerned that we might lose future science and technology development in this country, which would probably be very regrettable?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is one concern. It is unfortunate that Bayer and Monsanto have taken
1356
those decisions. However, it is important to recognise that Monsanto's decision was not related to GM research but a general rationalisation of its European research efforts, most of which was on conventional crops. We are anxious to get better research. Further to the earlier question on development, we are jointly financing research with the Rockefeller Foundation to ascertain better the benefits of GM crops in a development context. If we opt for any planting, in trials or commercially, it needs to be subject to a regime of co-existence.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, Bayer pulled out of its GM crop trials because the Government insisted on releasing the six-figure grid reference, thus it was concerned that its trials would be trashed. In retrospect, do the Government think that that was unwise? Will they consider not always insisting that companies give out the six-figure grid reference in future?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. Transparency is an issue. There would be greater public concern, particularly among local farmers, were they not aware that a GM crop was being grown in their area. That would create the exact kind of anxiety that I thought the noble Lord was concerned about in his first Question.

West End Theatre
2.52 p.m.
Lord Harrison Lord Harrison asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the report of the Theatres Trust on modernising London's West End theatres.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, nobody can deny the cultural and economic importance of the West End theatre. The report by the Theatres Trust does an excellent job of setting out the problems that beset the sector. I understand that the Arts Council is committed to working closely with the Society of London Theatre and the Theatres Trust to explore funding options and discuss the issues.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply and the commitment to engage with London theatre entrepreneurs, whose recent investment has helped to maintain a rich architectural heritage, a lively tradition of top-class drama and musicals, and a tourist attraction bringing jobs and prosperity to the capital. Nevertheless, will my noble friend undertake government action in the form of lottery funding, tax concessions or improved planning law to ensure that £250 million is found to upgrade London's commercial theatres, especially their seating and sight lines, public areas and backstage facilities and their ability to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act and modern health and safety laws?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, nobody who has read the Theatres Trust report could fail to be impressed by the physical problems of London

1357
theatres in what they offer the public. Nobody who goes to the theatre could fail to be aware of that. I congratulate the Theatres Trust on its report. At the same time, the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, raises the issue that the Government must confront: the only people who could financially assist London theatres are lottery distributors and non-departmental bodies, with which we have an arm's-length relationship. Nevertheless, I intend to meet the Theatres Trust in early January and to visit at least one of its theatres. I am personally committed to seeing that whatever funding can be made available is provided.
Lord Lloyd-Webber: My Lords, obviously, I must declare an interest in West End theatre. A fantastic Question has been asked. Is the Minister aware that the real concern within the West End is not only the fabric of the buildings but that the commercial theatre is not on a level playing field with the public sector? An example is the fact that the entire profit generated by the four playhouses on Shaftesbury Avenue since 1945 is less than was granted for the refurbishment of the Royal Court in the public sector.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, except in exceptional circumstances—for example, where there is access to, and learning about, heritage—the policy of lottery funding bodies is that grants should not be made to commercial buildings as opposed to the subsidised theatre. In that sense there is a distinction between the publicly subsidised theatre and commercial theatre. But that is true of all lottery funding for theatres and for all other purposes.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Theatres Trust and a former member of the board of the Society of London Theatre. As my noble friend pursues his very sympathetic response to the Question, will he bear in mind that the subsidised sector depends quite significantly on the health and well-being of the West End theatres? In support of that, for instance, the National Theatre currently has three shows running in the West End. Historically, the subsidised theatre has provided many products for the West End. I am sure he will agree, therefore, that it is very much in the interest of the subsidised theatre that West End theatres should be well maintained and well managed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree. I recognise the degree to which subsidised theatre and the commercial theatre support each other—it goes both ways. That is why I am pleased to be able to say, as I did at the outset, that the Arts Council is committed to working closely with the Society of London Theatre and the Theatres Trust.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, the report mentions the expectations of theatre-goers. I think that the noble Lord will agree that most regular theatre-goers temper their expectations with moderation, because they are in very old buildings, many of which are listed, and do
1358
not have the facilities that we expect today as they were built for a different public. Does he not agree that, if we are to modernise theatres, there ought to be some priorities? Three aspects that bother regular theatre-goers such as me are: lavatories and washrooms, which are in many cases inadequate; facilities for the disabled, which are obviously a difficult matter and need to be dealt with very sensitively; and bars.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I could add to that list. Most theatres were built at a time when the average height of the population of this country was four inches lower than it is now. That has a great effect on seat pitch. Many circle and balcony seats in London theatres have a pitch of 24 inches. I would have thought that 28 inches was an absolute minimum, and a new modern theatre would be built with a pitch of 35 inches. The list could go on.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a considerable theatre architect, Mr Verity, was also responsible for that great sporting icon, the Lord's cricket pavilion, and that that sort of cross-pollination is an outstanding logic for his department?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am always glad to be instructed by the former Secretary of State for National Heritage.

Pakistan High Commission, London
2.59 p.m.
Lord Ahmed Lord Ahmed asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether recent reports of alleged bugging of the Pakistan High Commission in London are true; and, if so, whether this is a breach of the Vienna convention.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, it is the long-standing policy of successive governments to neither confirm nor deny allegations concerning the activities of the intelligence and security agencies.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Ahmed: Well, my Lords, her helpful reply. Given that a Sunday newspaper has printed full details of this whole saga, should Her Majesty's Government not say whether the report is true and whether Pakistan is a friend or a foe? If the reports are correct, how will this affect our relations with Pakistan's Government, who have been part of the coalition on the international war against terrorism? Finally, how many British citizens are bugged annually, including Members of Parliament?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, my noble friend seeks to tempt me, but I have discovered that I am

1359
impervious to temptation. I repeat that it is the long-standing policy of successive governments neither to confirm nor deny any allegations concerning the activities of the intelligence and security agencies. However, I reassure my noble friend that our bilateral relationship with our Pakistani colleagues is both warm and close. We engage at all levels and our multi-faceted relationship has been further strengthened by the initiatives launched by the Prime Minister in 2002 in the judicial, commercial and defence spheres. Resources from DfID to Pakistan have also been enhanced. My noble friend should have no worries at all about the nature of our warm relationship.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that bugging an embassy is very clearly against Articles 22 and 27 of the Vienna convention? Will she also assure us that, if apparently well substantiated allegations emerged suggesting that the British Embassy in a friendly country had been bugged by that friendly country, the British Government would react with the same degree of calm as the Pakistani Government have reacted so far?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, in the light of my previous reply, I cannot answer either one way or the other. Nothing would be gained by engaging in a hypothetical debate on whether, if a particular action took place, it would be a breach of the Vienna convention. However, I reassure the noble Lord that the British Government always respond with propriety and moderation.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, will the Minister allow me to remind her of the quotation from Lewis Carroll's The Hunting of the Snark:
"What I tell you three times is true"?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, how well put.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I declare an interest, having been born in Pakistan, in Quetta. If the allegations are true, are they not only a breach of international conventions, but an unfriendly act towards a friendly country?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, without any disrespect to the noble Lord, I say for the fourth time, notwithstanding what was said about saying something three times, which clearly does not work, that we have very respectful and good relations with our colleagues in Pakistan. My noble friend Lord Ahmed mentioned our joint efforts in relation to terrorism. We have warmed to the efforts made by the Pakistani administration.
1360
Nothing that I say detracts from that in any way. I would give the same answer notwithstanding from whence it came.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, will my noble friend ensure that our friends in the intelligence services act as efficiently and effectively as possible, and try to avoid leakage of this nature in the future?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I could not possibly comment.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that we have particularly well informed relations with Pakistan?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can confirm that we have very good, robust relations with Pakistan, and long may that be the case.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister's Answer that governments never comment on matters relating to security mean that the security forces can act with impunity in breaching international conventions and, indeed, in so far as Members of Parliament and this House are concerned, in actually breaking the law?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, my Answer does not mean that. I cannot accept such a suggestion. The intelligence and security agencies each operate under a strict statutory framework. The agencies are overseen by Ministers and by independent commissioners who hold or have held high judicial office. There is also the independent Investigatory Powers Tribunal to whom anyone may complain if he or she feels aggrieved by something they believe an agency has done in relation to them or their property. Our arrangements are something about which we can be reasonably proud, and they are robust.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, if Ministers are not allowed to say what the security services are for, to take up the second limb of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, how can ordinary British citizens with no connection with terrorism find out whether their lines of communication are being bugged?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have already said that there is the tribunal and there is accountability. We have the legislation passed by this House and another place. The security service operates under the statutory framework established by the Security Service Acts of 1989 and 1996. Your Lordships will know that the services are further regulated by rigorous ministerial oversight. I assure the noble Countess that all that is proper is being done and will continue to be done.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, does the Minister recall the exchange in one of the Buchan novels between Hannay and Leithen in which one says

1361
to the other, "Have you seen Sandy lately?" and the other says, "He's in Bombay keeping an eye on central Asia".
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot comment.

North Korea: Nuclear Weapons
3.7 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare a non-financial interest as chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the nuclear weapons programme in North Korea, and when they anticipate the resumption of the six-nations talks.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government believe that North Korea has been pursuing two separate programmes for the production of fissile material, through the enrichment of uranium and the processing of plutonium. We assess that North Korea has sufficient fissile material for one or two nuclear weapons and the technical capability to produce them. The Government fully support the six-party talks process, and hope that a second round of talks will be held within the next few weeks.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Following the visit that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and I made to North Korea six weeks ago, has the Minister had a chance to reflect on the statements that were recorded in the report that we submitted to her from some of the most senior figures in North Korea? They would be prepared to renounce their nuclear programme and submit to a process of verification in return for recognition of their sovereignty and a commitment to peaceful co-existence on the peninsular.
Does the Minister agree that the way forward to reform and change in North Korea lies through a Helsinki-style process of engagement, rather than military action? Will this issue be discussed this week by her right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary while he is in Washington, or next week by the Prime Minister with President Bush when he is in London?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for the report that they sent, and for establishing the All-Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea. Of course, I agree that the right way forward is to do what can be done through the negotiations of the six parties. One of the problems has
1362
been, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, that press reports from North Korea have repeatedly tried to make this into a bilateral issue with the United States of America. We do not believe that it is. It is a multilateral issue, because issues about non-proliferation are of very wide concern in the international community.
The precise agenda for President Bush's visit next week is still under discussion, but I am sure that issues relating to weapons of mass destruction and what can be done to strengthen our position over non-proliferation will be discussed. In that context, I should have thought that North Korea would be bound to feature.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are many urgent problems in North Korea which cannot be fully addressed until there is agreement on the priority process of denuclearisation, which increases the urgency of need for progress on that issue? For example, when the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I were there recently, we were told that in some places it is not even possible to provide the minimum food ration of 600 grammes of rice a day. In some places there is no healthcare provision at all.
On a slightly more encouraging note, is the Minister aware that aid organisations told us that there is progress by the authorities in access and accountability? Will Her Majesty's Government consider sympathetically proposals from British aid organisations to provide humanitarian relief to ease some of the appalling suffering of many people in that country today?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree. As we discussed in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on 13th March, the problems around the nuclear issue have deflected a great deal of attention from the humanitarian consequences of what is happening in North Korea. I agree with the noble Baroness that there is a whole range of appalling issues; she pinpointed that of malnutrition.
The main humanitarian donors to North Korea are the United States of America, South Korea and the European Union, which contribute about 9 million dollars a year. We contribute about 20 per cent of that. In addition to that aid through the European Union, DfID has agreed £400,000 to support the Red Cross disaster preparedness programmes. If the noble Baroness wishes to draw my attention to specific projects, I would be very glad to hear from her about them.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, does the Minister recall our debate in March when many references were made to religious freedom in North Korea? Is she aware of the recent positive developments that have taken place, such as the opening of a Protestant seminary and the construction of a new Russian Orthodox church? Does she agree that we should do all in our power to encourage and persuade the authorities in North Korea to continue to recognise the need for religious freedom? Does she

1363
agree that, if possible, the six-party talks should include a reference to people being able to worship freely?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, indeed, I recall the debate; I also recall that my noble friend Lord Clarke gave us some compelling details about religious persecution. The FCO human rights report for this year outlines our concern about the lack of religious freedom in North Korea. The resolution on the DPRK adopted by the Commission on Human Rights this year also expresses deep concern about the all-pervasive and severe restrictions on freedom of religion in the country. I hope that my noble friend has also focused on those issues, but I agree with him. When we have managed to get further with the six-party discussions, a great deal more attention must be focused on the lack of religious freedom in North Korea.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the remarks of the former Secretary of Defense, William Perry, in the Clinton administration, that this is perhaps the single most dangerous issue about weapons proliferation to be found anywhere in the world? Could she also say whether the six-nation talks will consider the possibility of resuming the supply of light water for reactors that cannot be used to create nuclear weapons? The Minister may recall that the programme was cut off by the present American Administration, which led to a strong sense of crisis in North Korea.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is invidious ever to say that one weapons programme in any part of the world is definitively more dangerous than another weapons programme in another part of the world. The fact is that little by little we have discovered more of what is going on in North Korea. I am bound to point out to the noble Baroness that little by little we have also uncovered quite a lot about what is going on in Iran at the moment. I would not wish to be tempted into a definitive position about which situation is worse.
Of course, not only is the development of nuclear capability dangerous—both through plutonium and uranium, to which I referred in my initial Answer—but missile capability and the reach of missiles, which we are rather sure now have a reach of anything up to 10,000 miles, are very difficult questions. As I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I hope that the issues about the United States of America will be touched on in the forthcoming discussions.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, following the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, does; the Minister share my view that the extreme danger of the North Korean nuclear situation is not always fully appreciated? It has now reprocessed its 8,000 spent fuel rods. It has probably got nuclear weapons already, or certainly has enough plutonium to build them. In this agonising situation, can we play the role of honest broker, as our Japanese friends have suggested? Are
1364
the reports from Beijing and Sydney this morning that the six-nation talks will definitely go ahead before Christmas right, although Pyongyang is still insisting on certain conditions to be applied? What are those conditions?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we were all encouraged to hear that those participating in the six-nation talks believe that they will go ahead. Again, I hesitate to use the words, "definitely before Christmas". As we all know, a great deal can go wrong in international relations, particularly when there has been the degree of misunderstanding over some aspects of the talks that we have experienced recently. As I said in my initial Answer, we very much hope that the talks will go ahead; we very much support that; and we believe that that is likely to be true.
As regards the spent fuel rods, there is no hard evidence to suggest that processing has been completed but, obviously, we are concerned about the implications. The processing of spent fuel would serve only to increase the DPRK's isolation from the international community. It simply represents another step in the wrong direction for the DPRK.

Transas Group Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Iraq: Post-conflict Reconstruction
3.17 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on progress on reconstruction in Iraq.
"As honourable Members are all too aware, security is a continuing concern, particularly in and around Baghdad. US forces are bearing the brunt of these attacks, but the UN and international aid agencies are also being targeted. I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning the recent bombings of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
"Of equal concern have been the attacks on the Iraqi people themselves, including the assassination of Aqila al Hashimi—one of only three women members of the governing council—who was shot the day after I met her in Baghdad in September. Regrettably, there have been other victims, including religious and civic leaders, judges and police officers, and ordinary Iraqis caught up in bomb blasts.
"Those who attack the Red Cross and Iraqis working to rebuild their country are desperate to stop reconstruction happening. We cannot let them succeed. In these circumstances, however, it is

1365
understandable and right that the ICRC and the United Nations should review their security procedures and the way they work in Iraq, even if that means temporarily pulling back on some of their operations and pulling out their international staff. We stand ready to help them finance additional security measures, where appropriate, to try and limit the effect on their capacity to help with reconstruction. We will continue to support these agencies, their local staff and NGOs still working in the country.
"But this is only part of the picture. Political violence is largely concentrated in one part of Iraq— Baghdad and its surrounding areas. The situation in the northern provinces is more stable, and in the south-east region where I visited in September. Security is being maintained by the UK-led multinational division and the local police.
"For most Iraqis, life is gradually improving. Last month, electricity supply rose above pre-conflict levels for the first time, which has now allowed much-needed maintenance to take place during the cooler months when demand is lower. Food distribution is working, and supplies will continue after the UN Oil for Food programme ends this month.
"One thousand five hundred schools have been refurbished and 70 million new text books are being distributed. Attendance rates are back to pre-conflict levels. Fuel supply for domestic consumption is meeting demand. Almost all of Iraq's 240 hospitals are now in operation and the routine immunisation of children has resumed. Clean water supplies are improving in much of the country, with sewerage plants being rehabilitated.
"Forty thousand Iraqi police officers are now on duty. They are being trained and equipped. Criminal justice is being restored, but without the terrible repression that characterised Saddam's regime. Further, 170 newspapers are now on sale in the streets, enabling Iraqis to express their views freely.
"As well as recognising the enormous contribution of the Iraqi people to these achievements, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the skills and dedicated work of UK forces and of other UK nationals, both in southern Iraq and elsewhere, for their courage and for their determination to help Iraq to rebuild itself.
"Progress is also being made on the political and constitutional process, with a healthy debate under way on how best to create a genuinely representative system. UN Security Council Resolution 1511 expressed support for this process and asked the UN to strengthen its role as far as circumstances allow. It also asked the governing council to set out by 15th December a timetable for the electoral process.
"This will provide the context for decisions about the transfer of executive and legislative authority, recognising that the coalition's aim has always been to hand Iraq over to its people as quickly as possible so that they can have control over their own political destiny.
1366
"Iraq's Ministers, appointed at the beginning of September, are taking increasing responsibility for developing and implementing policies. The governing council has gained growing recognition internationally, including from the Arab League and the United Nations General Assembly. It played a prominent role at the annual meetings of the World Bank and IMF in Dubai, and governing council members and Ministers made their presence felt at the Madrid Donors' Conference at the end of last month.
"That conference raised pledges of at least 33 billion dollars in grants and soft loans for 2004–07, significantly exceeding expectations. Seventy-three countries participated, underlining the breadth of international support for securing a better future for Iraq.
"In Madrid, I set out our commitment to reconstruction in Iraq with a pledge of £544 million. This includes the £209 million that DfID has already committed for humanitarian and reconstruction assistance, and £296 million over the next two years. We are considering how best to use this funding to support reconstruction, development and poverty reduction.
"The pledges raised at Madrid, alongside oil revenues, foreign direct investment and commercial loans, are expected to meet Iraq's investment needs for the next four years. I can also tell the House that agreement has now been reached between the United Nations, the World Bank and the CPA on the terms of reference of the International Advisory and Monitoring Board, which will oversee the use of Iraq's own resources being channelled through the Development Fund for Iraq.
"The Iraqi people deserve the chance they now have for a better future; they have waited for it long enough. Much remains to be done on security to counter the violence of Saddam's loyalists and others who want to deny the Iraqis this chance, but the best way we can prevent them from succeeding is to continue with reconstruction and political change. As I am sure the House will agree, that is why we must remain committed to the economic and social reconstruction of Iraq and to a better life for its people".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am sure we are all extremely grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement on post-conflict reconstruction in Iraq, although the very phrase "post-conflict" is, I fear, beginning to look a little ambiguous and stretched. Does she accept that we fully share the way in which the Statement deplores the rocket and grenade attacks and assassinations? Those are attacks not only on the brave troops of the coalition, who are trying themselves to bring peace, but also of course on the Red Cross, the United Nations and other institutions which are trying to help the people of Iraq and are being hindered by terrorism.
Does she also accept that I join fully in the tribute paid in the Statement to our own soldiers, who continue to show superb courage and resourcefulness

1367
in the very difficult conditions under which they have to operate? Does she agree that reconstruction and recovery in Iraq rests not only on outside aid, although clearly that is important, or even on oil revenues, but on mastering the security situation? Once that is done, if it can be done, will not large volumes of international and national capital be ready to flow and businesses to start up? In fact, in many areas outside the Sunni triangle, where all the trouble is focused, the remaining 80 per cent of Iraq is relatively peaceful and business is recovering already. The great trading families of the area are bringing money back in and enterprise is beginning to flourish.
Would she agree that, meanwhile, the Iraq resistance has now swollen from Ba'athist intelligence officers and disgruntled middle-ranking officials to include hardcore Jihadis, members of the Al'Qaeda franchise and other committed Iraq nationalists and outsiders? Does she further agree that the right response—indeed, the only response—is an increasingly skilled and effective counter-insurgency strategy? Have her colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and the British Armed Forces had the chance to talk to Pentagon officials about the urgent need for light infantry units, more specialised scout squads that can reach out and strike guerrilla bases, together with an intelligence network akin to something along the lines of the old British Middle East intelligence networks, using both political agents and operatives who can look and speak like the local population? Is it not important to put over the message that that is a better approach for our American allies, who are no doubt doing their best, than cumbersome army formations which can move only by road—thereby asking for trouble—and conduct abortive house raids or, to be frank, go on wild goose chases after elusive weapons of mass destruction?
Does the noble Baroness agree that a reconstitution of Iraqi security forces, including border guards, civil militiamen and police units, is a very important part of the process? I know that it has started already, but could it not go faster and further—although I can see clearly that a great deal of training over many months will be needed for these forces to make them effective in the new and unfamiliar conditions of terrorism and the need for counter-insurgency operations?
Even more important, is not the central need to get away from the idea, which is in many Iraqi minds, of the coalition as an occupying power and to ensure that coalition power gradually reduces while Iraqi power gradually takes over? Can we be sure that the Iraqi Governing Council will be strengthened and not weakened, as was hinted in Washington last week? Further, can we be sure that all progress towards a new constitution will be pressed forward as hard as possible?
Looking back into history, would it not be wise to heed the advice given in 1917 by the British Deputy Commissioner for Basra, who happened to be my great-uncle, after the ejection of the Ottomans? He said that the key to stability and democracy in Mesopotamia lay in adapting existing complex and ancient institutions in the region to new needs;
1368
avoiding all suspicion of sectarian partiality; maintaining a strict reputation for justice; pursuing a progressive policy for ample provision of good education and employment; keeping wide open the door for access by local leaders to the new rulers—this was after the Turks had gone—and to disrupting as little as possible the customs, social activities and relationships between ethnic and tribal groups which sew this ancient society together. Will the Minister assure us that, while I fully recognise that much has been achieved and the media reports of violence inevitably give a false impression of progress, Her Majesty's Government will pursue those principles today and encourage our American allies and other coalition forces to adopt them as well?
We need now not only a carefully worked out humanitarian plan, as was promised, but a carefully worked out security plan as well. At the moment, we are not seeing nearly enough of either.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. On behalf of these Benches, I should like to express our condemnation of the attacks that have occurred in Iraq, including those on the International Red Cross and, today, on the Italian base at Nasiriyah in which 12 Italian soldiers were killed. I also pay tribute to those working on the reconstruction of Iraq from Britain and around the world, including the son of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, who was wounded recently in an attack there.
However, is the Minister concerned that, as many predicted before the war, the presence of the occupying powers in Iraq is now serving as a focus for attacks, as we have heard? Although I am encouraged by what the noble Baroness said about the progress being made in Iraq as far as ordinary citizens are concerned—which is very welcome—does she not agree that the general security position for the occupying forces and the international agencies, whose aid is absolutely vital, is now getting worse?
The Government have acknowledged that there was insufficient planning for filling the vacuum caused by the fall of the Iraqi regime. Does the noble Baroness agree that reconstruction needs a concerted effort on the parts of all those involved and, especially, the help of the international community? Does she feel concerned, as we do, about the attitude of the Bush Administration? Can she comment on why Paul Bremer has been recalled to Washington so soon after his last visit, necessitating the cancellation of his meeting in Iraq with the Polish Prime Minister? Does she share with me enormous concern on hearing the Foreign Secretary say this morning on the Today programme that he is,
"not party to the talks"?
Can she explain why he is not party to the talks?
Can the noble Baroness explain what the Coalition Provisional Authority is a coalition of? There is an overwhelming feeling that this is not, and never has been, a coalition of equal partners, or even, perhaps, a coalition at all.

1369
We now hear rumours that the Americans are considering disbanding the Iraqi Governing Council. What light can the Minister shed on this? Is she aware that yesterday, at a meeting here in Parliament, a member of that governing council, Dr al-Rubaie, stated that they were being rushed because of the deadline of the American elections. He predicted that there was a serious danger of Iraq descending into chaos—of, as he put it, "falling off the cliff" into disaster. If the Iraqi Governing Council is scrapped, how can it come up with a timetable for the transfer of sovereignty and the holding of elections by 15th December, as set out in UNSCR 1511?
Can the noble Baroness tell the House what efforts are being made to ensure that the reconstruction of Iraq is being done in such a way that it is most effective; that the occupying forces recognise their responsibilities to the Iraqi people; and that the US election timetable is not allowed to dictate events there?
The Prime Minister said at Questions today that dialogue with the Americans is constant and at every level. Dialogue involves two parties. That his Foreign Secretary is not party to this dialogue at his level of government is surely worrying. The visit by President Bush next week gives an opportunity for dialogue— that is, if any Brits are allowed close to him. Can the Minister assure the House that the need to act together and with the international community in the interests of Iraq will be uppermost in discussions, and that the threats to Syria we have heard recently—which do not help to stabilise the region—will be similarly addressed?
We note the pledges made in Madrid. Pledges were made in Tokyo for Afghanistan, but a very small amount was delivered. Can the Minister comment on whether the position with Iraq is likely to be better? I note that the EU was not a major contributor at Madrid given the size of its economy. Can she comment on this? Under the circumstances, it is perhaps not surprising that the Government felt they must come up with more.
Does the noble Baroness agree, however, that it is surprising that some of this extra money has been taken from the poorest people in so-called middle income countries? Does she further agree that both Clare Short and herself said that extra money for Iraq would come from DfID's reserves? That was bad enough, given the unknown contingencies likely to come down the track.
The Prime Minister pledged on 25th April, in a letter to Christian Aid, that:
"Funds would not be redirected from programmes supporting poor people elsewhere".
But it has been made very clear that the decision to redirect money "earlier than had been decided" from other countries to supply the deficit for Iraq was something that the Government had not planned to do before the invasion of Iraq. Can the Minister elaborate on which programmes are going to be cut? Can she assure us that DfID will not lose other battles with the Treasury and the Prime Minister over this?
1370
What influence is the UK having in preventing the selling of Iraqi assets to foreign ownership prior to Iraqis controlling their own affairs? What influence can the UK bring to bear on this matter?
Iraq remains extremely volatile. That volatility, and the military presence in the region of the US and the UK, is playing into the hands of terrorist groups. I hope the Minister can assure the House that the focus on the rebuilding of Iraq for the Iraqis will remain uppermost in the minds of those involved there.
3.37 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for their comments about the role being played by our troops and other personnel. I join with them in their condemnation of the recent attacks we have seen, including the one in Nasiriyah.
Let me address each point in turn. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred to the difficulty of reconstruction and its dependence on mastering the security situation. I absolutely agree. In fact, the Statement made that point.
As noble Lords are aware, the resistance in Iraq comes from three different sources. There is a criminal element because Saddam Hussein let so many prisoners out of gaol before the conflict; there are the Ba'athists; and there are those coming into Iraq from outside who represent a range of terrorist organisations.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked about the relationship between the MoD and the Pentagon and the need for ongoing discussions. I can assure the noble Lord that discussions are ongoing.
As regards the reconstruction of the Iraqi army, we have seen already the formation of two battalions. We also have 40,000 Iraqi police on the streets. Our target is 70,000.
As to the issue of the authority of Iraqis and the need to strengthen the governing council, the noble Lord will know that we have made it absolutely clear that our focus is on passing authority back to the Iraqis as quickly as possible. We now have Iraqi Ministers and we have the governing council. The Security Council resolution, which makes it absolutely clear that we want to see a plan setting out a programme for Iraq— including a new constitution—is very important indeed.
On the history, and the quote given by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, I totally agree with the noble Lord's great-uncle, although I am not always able to agree with the noble Lord himself.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, also stressed security, particularly the fact that it is becoming more difficult for coalition forces and the international agencies. That is absolutely right. At the same time, it is important to stress that the security situation is getting better for Iraqis, and we need to remember that.
On the UK not being party to the talks, it is absolutely right that the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority can have talks with the US Administration. I cannot see a problem with that. My

1371
right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is on his way to Washington. He has had endless discussions with his opposite number, Colin Powell, and those discussions will continue. Of course it is a coalition; of course there have to be discussions between the two sides. That is ongoing and it will continue. I cannot quite understand this excitement about the fact that Paul Bremer has gone back to the United States for consultations with the US Government. Why is there a problem with that? I simply do not understand it.
In conclusion, let me reiterate what UN Security Council Resolution 1511 does in terms of a timetable. It provides a framework around which the whole international community can unite to assist the people of Iraq in building a better future. It confirms the goal of transferring power to the Iraqis as soon as possible, and has requested that the Iraqis produce a timetable for the process in the next two months.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the need to reconstitute the Iraqi army, a point not touched on by either the Liberal or Conservative spokesmen this afternoon. Can my noble friend give us some idea of the contribution Her Majesty's forces are making to that very worthy and urgent objective?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, our forces have been engaged in working to reform the Iraqi army. This is one of the areas in which we hope there will be a wider international contribution, but we will, of course, continue to play a role.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, several references have been made to the courage of the British forces in Iraq, which I obviously endorse. However, I also commend our forces for the sensitivity with which they have been conducting their operations.
There has been some talk this afternoon about contact between the Ministry of Defence and the Pentagon and between the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Mr Colin Powell. Can the Minister tell us to whom Mr Bremer reports? The press reported about two weeks ago that authority for operations in Iraq had been removed from Mr Rumsfeld and given to Condoleeza Rice. But surely in the present circumstances, the reconstruction of Iraq is far from being solely a military question—there ought to be far more input of politics. Why is Colin Powell not the authority to whom Mr Bremer reports? I realise that perhaps that is not our business, but can the Minister tell us to whom Mr Bremer reports?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as he is the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, he reports to both governments. With respect to the role of Condoleeza Rice, she of course gives advice to the President.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked about the economic restructuring of Iraq, which is surely a major cause of the violence in that country. What is happening is illegal. As the Attorney-General advised the Prime
1372
Minister last March, it is illegal to have economic reconstruction involving the privatisation of Iraqi assets and the taking over of Iraqi companies against the will of its people by large American companies such as Bechtel and Halliburton. Are the Government putting these points to the American Government? If not, do we not have an illegal occupation following an illegal war, which was shown in The Times poll yesterday to be opposed by two-thirds of the people of this country?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, the war was not illegal. We have made absolutely clear the grounds on which we went to war, and I cannot agree with my noble friend on that.
With respect to privatisation and Iraq's future, this was agreed by the Iraqi Governing Council, although the order was signed by Paul Bremer. The Iraqi Governing Council was present at the meeting of the World Bank and the IMF in Dubai and it made the announcement about the future of Iraq with respect to its economic assets.
Lord Biffen: My Lords—
Lord Avebury: My Lords—
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, perhaps we could hear from the Conservative Benches and then the Liberal Democrat Benches. There is plenty of time.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with me that it is quite remarkable to have restored the basic services in Iraq on the scale that has been achieved in the relatively limited time, compared with the great difficulties of restoring services in post-war Germany? But does she also agree with me that it is disappointing that there is no seeming enthusiasm, support or acceptance of the presence of the Americans and, to a lesser extent, ourselves, in Iraq, which underlines the very serious long-term problems of eventually securing a strategy for disengagement? Such a strategy certainly does not seem enhanced by the tone of the Americans in respect of Syria.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Lord about how remarkable it is that basic services have been restored so quickly. What is sometimes forgotten are the years of underinvestment and neglect, which I saw when I visited Iraq earlier this year. We have been trying not just to restore services to their pre-conflict levels but to improve on that because the pre-conflict levels were, to be perfectly frank, not good enough as the resources were not going to the Iraqi people.
On the acceptance of the coalition forces, I remind noble Lords of the YouGov poll, which shows clearly that support for the coalition forces has gone up from some 75 per cent to some 90 per cent. I do not know whether the noble Lord saw the balanced report on

1373
"Newsnight" last night which showed Iraqis talking about the importance of coalition forces staying in Iraq for some period of time.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Baroness has told the House that Mr Paul Bremer reports to both governments. Can she also tell your Lordships on how many occasions Mr Paul Bremer has been to London and when she next expects a visit from him here?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am not able to answer that question—I do not have the figures in my head, but I will happily write to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. He will be aware that we have our own representative in Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who works very closely with Paul Bremer and who comes back to London on a regular basis. The contact between Paul Bremer, who is reporting to both the US and UK, and Jeremy Greenstock, who is reporting to the UK Government, is very close.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is it not about time that we listened carefully to the case being made by Massoud Barzani, Jalal Talabani, Allawi, Ahmed Chalabi and all the other leading members of the IGC who are all saying that the Americans should, as a matter of urgency, transfer responsibility for security from the CPA to the IGC? I know that is being resisted by Bremer, but is there not now responsibility on the British Government to take more of a brinkmanship position in negotiations with the United States of America and effectively demand that that transfer takes place? If it does not, these people on the IGC are predicting a disaster inside Iraq.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that robust discussions are going on, not only within Iraq and among members of the IGC. It is not surprising that there are differences of opinion, given that those are individuals representing different shades of political opinion in Iraq with respect to Next Steps and the best way forward.
Our commitment as the coalition is to transfer authority across a wide range of themes and issues as quickly as possible. Of course, there are UN security resolutions that give us the context in which we are debating that. In that context, there is also an ongoing discussion between the IGC, the CPA, our Government, the United States Government and the UN about how we can best deliver that.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, while the main battles—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords—
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, perhaps we could hear from the Cross Benches.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, while the main battles were still continuing, Members of both Houses of Parliament insisted on the importance of effective Arabic language policing on the disarmament of
1374
civilians and the reconstruction of the institutions of justice. Can the Minister confirm that those points have been fully borne out by subsequent events?
As regards the 80 per cent of Iraq where relative order and calm prevail, are local elections in cities and municipalities under consideration and planning?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord's final point about local elections, I assure him that the discussions currently taking place in the IGC encompass a whole range of different possibilities.
On his earlier point about Arabic language policing and disarmament, he may be aware that the police training facility is being established in Jordan. On the disarmament point, there is the difficulty of disarming the criminal elements who were let out of prison by Saddam Hussein, as against working to disarm and work to a new kind of Iraqi police force and army as part of the wider security sector reform process.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, it is obvious that a great deal of good work has been done and is going on. However, what has been brought out today is without a doubt the nigger in the woodpile—if such an expression is allowed any more. What has been brought out is that security is the essential point. Can the Minister give us any indication that would back up her statement that security is improving? For example, some of the worst things to have happened are the attacks on the oil pipelines. Is that still going on, or have they got it under control? That would be a sign that security is improving.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I believe that I made it clear in a previous answer that we feel that the security situation for Iraqis is improving, although our forces and international agencies remain very vulnerable indeed. When my noble friend Lady Symons visited Iraq, she reported that the women to whom she spoke said that there were far fewer attacks on women and girls, for example. Other ministerial colleagues who have visited Iraq more recently than I have, have also commented on the fact that Iraqis themselves have talked about an improving security situation, but we are in no way complacent.
Improving the security situation remains our overriding consideration—to improve the security environment for our forces and for those others in the Coalition Provisional Authority and working with international agencies, and for Iraqis themselves. That will enable a faster pace for reconstruction.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, is it not dismaying that we read so much to suggest that British advice is not being given its proper weight by our American partners in the coalition? Are Her Majesty's Government entirely satisfied that those reports are without foundation? Is it not extremely important that nothing should be done to exacerbate such an impression, right or wrong?
I appreciate that the Minister probably cannot go further than she has today about this business of Mr Bremer being consulted by the Americans alone,

1375
without the Foreign Secretary being present. Would she accept that, in those circumstances, the absence of the Foreign Secretary gives a very unfortunate impression?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I cannot accept that, because there have been a number of occasions when Paul Bremer has gone back to the United States for consultation with the US Administration, and there have been occasions when Paul Bremer has had consultations with our Prime Minister. There has never been a problem about that.
As I said, my right honourable friend Jack Straw is on his way to Washington now. That has been planned for some time and, of course, Iraq will be one of the subjects discussed, but there will be others. There is ongoing discussion between ourselves and the US Government at a number of different levels on the issue. I can think of no other way in which to reassure noble Lords on that point.
Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, can I thank the Minister for placing on record the vast amount of reconstruction that is taking place in Iraq? Will she also take the opportunity to dispel the notion that the security that underpins the reconstruction is really only a two-horse exercise? Will she confirm that 11 of our NATO partners and that six of the seven candidate members have troops in Iraq?
Does the Minister also agree that it is quite remarkable that almost all the 240 hospitals and more than 1,200 clinics are now working, and that with the help of UNICEF we have managed to produce 22 million doses of vaccines, allowing us to vaccinate 4.2 million children? Is that not absolutely crucial?
Finally, is the Minister aware that, late last night, at a meeting of NATO parliamentarians in the United States, with only one member out of several hundred voting against, parliamentarians from all the NATO parliaments endorsed the reconstruction plans, and emphasised that it is not a question of if we succeed but when we succeed?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. There are already forces from more than 30 nations on the ground in Iraq. That is certainly a multinational stabilisation force. Again, my noble friend is right with respect to the progress that we have made in relation to reconstruction. Not only are the hospitals and clinics back up and running, but we have had great success with the immunisation programme.
Much remains to be done and we shall continue to work on the reconstruction effort, but it is very important that we acknowledge the progress that has already been made.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, the Minister has had too many questions to answer, but one question that she has not touched on relates to the possible problems in Syria. It worries me when one reads statements saying, "Let's have a crack at Syria next, or Iran". I do not believe that I need to remind the Minister that the
1376
relatively new President of Syria was educated in this country, as was his wife. I hope that Washington, when it considers that country, looks to us first, as I am sure that we would be more able to do more good in that respect than Washington would by going on its own.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that we have worked very hard at establishing relations with Syria. In fact, last year, I think, or earlier this year, we received a visit from the President of Syria, and that remains the position.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is part of the job of the UN special representative to facilitate political dialogue and that there is still a vacuum in that respect? Who is actually carrying out the job which requires very special skills of fostering political dialogue and, presumably, dealing with the coalition?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, is quite right. The UN had a particularly important role in facilitating political dialogue in Iraq. The current situation with the UN and the fact that the majority of the UN's international staff are no longer based in Iraq makes the day-to-day relationship in this respect more difficult. However, there is ongoing work on facilitating political dialogue in Iraq.
Lord Chan: My Lords, with this encouraging report of the reconstruction of Iraq irrespective of the security situation, will the noble Baroness tell us what is being done to encourage local Iraqis and Iraqis abroad to return to Iraq to assist in the reconstruction? As she said, some 80 per cent of the population of the country is in a state of relative peace and the locals are the best people to maintain the reconstruction.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chan. It is important that it is the Iraqis themselves who are doing a great deal of the work in the reconstruction effort. Certainly it is the local staff who are carrying out the work that UNICEF, other UN agencies and the Red Cross are continuing to do in Iraq. There has been an ongoing discussion about a phased programme of returnees to Iraq, and that is being looked at. Obviously there is some nervousness among those outside the country about the security situation inside the country. However, I can assure the noble Lord that that is being looked at.

Courts Bill [H.L.]
4.2 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I beg to move on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line references are to Bill 112 as first printed for the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
1 Clause 3, page 2, line 40, leave out "shall" and insert "may"
2 Clause 4, page 3, line 17, leave out "Subject to subsection (7),"
3 Clause 4, page 3, line 29, leave out from "Chancellor" to second "the" in line 34 and insert "must have regard to the desirability of specifying areas which are the same as—

(a) the police areas listed in Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996 (c. 16) (division of England and Wales, except London, into police areas), and

(b) the area consisting of"

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 en bloc.
Amendment No. 1 is necessary to clarify the position following an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, and adopted by the House on Report. It was concerned with ensuring that the Lord Chancellor should not have a discretion to choose to make no provision for accommodation and therefore changed the wording from "may provide" to "shall provide". Although I am chancing my arm, I am hopeful that the noble Baroness is now satisfied that the Government's explanation is adequate in this respect. I shall therefore not speak at great length.
In essence, the Bill makes it clear that the Lord Chancellor is already under the necessary duty which the noble Baroness sought to ensure. The general duty under Clause 1(1) provides that the Lord Chancellor must provide an efficient and effective court system. I am happy to confirm that that must include matters such as accommodation. Clause 3 deals with the Lord Chancellor's powers which derive from this general duty.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 make minor drafting changes to the amendments that were previously tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, at Third Reading and accepted by this House and by the Government.
Amendment No. 21 makes a drafting change to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and accepted by this House. The Government do not intend, nor have we sought, to overturn that amendment.
I hope that these amendments will set the tone of our debate on our further consideration of the Bill. The Government have genuinely considered and respected the views of the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 3.—(Lord Filkin.)
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I can indeed confirm that that has set the tone for our consideration of the Amendments to the Lords Amendments to the Bill. On Amendment No. 1, I signal that on this occasion I accept the Government's rejection of my amendment. I accept the Minister's reassurances that the principle which I tried to achieve by the amendment is already satisfactorily incorporated in the Bill's drafting. I also thank him for his courtesy in writing to me when the amendment was introduced in another place, to ensure that I was fully informed of the Government's position. I felt that the further explanation in another place was enough to satisfy me that I would not need to object to the overturning on Amendment No. 1.
On Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, I agree with the Minister that these drafting changes make better clarification of a matter that was won on Division with regard to the coterminosity—a ghastly word, but we all knew at the time what it meant—of the courts boards with the 42 criminal justice areas. I agree that the government drafting today gives a better flexibility, so that they may properly meet all the requirements that the boards will need to meet when those boundaries are so fixed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 Clause 17, page 9, line 8, leave out paragraph (c)
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.
The amendment deals with subsection (5)(c) of Clause 17, which would allow rules to disenfranchise lay justices who have only recently been appointed to a local justice area by preventing them voting in contested elections for a local chairman or deputy chairman. The Liberal Democrats raised this point in Committee in the other place.
It is not the Government's intention to prevent any justices in a local justice area partaking in the full range of their duties. The current rules do not make use of the power to limit the justices' electorate, even though they have done in the past. Commons Amendment No. 4 was drafted to meet their concerns by deleting subsection (5)(c).
Amendment No. 7 restores to Clause 41 a subsection that was removed at Lords Third Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who moved this amendment, expressed concern as to the compatibility of this section with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I think it would be fair to say that that issue was well probed in Committee and in subsequent stages. I seek merely to put as fairly and fully as I can why we think that the current wording of the clause is correct.

1379
Clearly, the starting point must be that magistrates who are members of local authorities should not sit on a case involving a local authority. That should be abundantly clear to magistrates and to the justices' clerk. In the overwhelming majority of cases it will be obvious to everyone that a magistrate should not sit, and they would therefore not seek to do so. We are merely catering for perhaps extremely rare situations in which disqualification may not be immediately obvious and a magistrate sits in error. That happens very rarely indeed. When it happens, it will almost always be obvious whether or not the decision should be invalidated.
Although a matter for the courts, if a tribunal which included a disqualified person made a decision in favour of the local authority, that decision would almost certainly be flawed on Article 6 grounds and would probably automatically be struck down. I use my words conditionally only to avoid presuming the court's position. I think that the position in fact is very clear indeed. In other words, the amendment does not preclude the application of other grounds for invalidating the decisions, such as actual bias, apparent bias or an interest in the case. I think that that is quite properly the heart of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The wording is not meant to indicate that in such situations the decision would not be struck down.
We believe that it is important—perhaps not the most important issue of the Bill—to make this amendment because it caters for a small number of cases where a disqualified person sat on a panel by error (most likely in an interim hearing, a procedural matter), but the decision was not questioned by either of the parties. Where no prejudice is caused by the magistrate's disqualification, it would be unreasonable, burdensome and a waste of time both to the court and the parties, to invalidate these decisions merely because the magistrate had sat when it was clearly preferable that he had not done so. That is all that the issue is about. It does not seek in any sense to take away the natural justice of a defendant in a case where it would appear that there was bias to him as a consequence of a decision.
I turn to Amendment No. 8 to Clause 42. This clause validates the appointment of 23 foreign nationals recruited as magistrates prior to 31st January 2002 and authenticates all acts carried out by them during their time in office.
The government amendment tabled in the other place removes the restrictions imposed by the Act in relation to the future appointment of lay magistrates. The Government are fully committed to appointing magistrates who represent the communities they serve. This amendment was made in response to one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to which we were sympathetic. It will allow the Lord Chancellor to appoint lay magistrates who are able and willing to serve, regardless of their original nationality.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(Lord Filkin.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have some difficulty with this matter. We are discussing Amendment No. 4, and with it we are asked to consider Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. Amendment No. 7 states:
"No act is invalidated merely because of the disqualification under this section of the person by whom it is done".
However, that seems to contradict subsection (1) of Clause 41 which states:
"A lay justice who is a member of a local authority may not act as a member of the Crown Court or a magistrates' court in proceedings brought by or against, or by way of an appeal from a decision of—
(a) that local authority"
and so on. Will the noble Lord explain why, given that this disqualification of lay justices is so described at the beginning of Clause 41, it will nevertheless be enacted that no act will be invalidated because of the disqualification? I find that a contradiction.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the three amendments that we are discussing which have been grouped have nothing in common apart from the fact that they originate either from these Benches or from my honourable friends in another place. However, two of them are concessions or amendments accepted by the Government, which I am very pleased to see. That applies to Amendment No. 4, which originated from the Liberal Democrat Benches in the other place, and to Amendment No. 8, which comprises a matter I raised in your Lordships' House.
As regards the date of 31st January 2002, I believe that it was only at that point that the Government appreciated that the Act of Settlement prevented the appointment of lay justices who were not of British birth or born within the United Kingdom or the British dominions.
There is no question that a number of people who do not qualify under the Act of Settlement have in the past made useful contributions as magistrates, and more will be able to do so in the future. Therefore, I am glad to welcome the relevant measure. Originally, I was worried that the measure applied not only to magistrates but also to judges, in which case it would have had some rather startling effects. In particular, a very distinguished judge, a member of the Court of Appeal, would have been disqualified under the Act of Settlement if it had not been amended so as not to apply to the appointment of members of the judiciary. It seems very odd that that judge can sit as a member of the Court of Appeal but would not have been eligible to be appointed as a magistrate. As I say, I very much welcome the measure.
I am disappointed with Amendment No. 7. It will more or less inevitably be the case that a magistrates' Bench which includes a magistrate who is a member of a local authority cannot constitute an impartial and independent tribunal, as required by Article 6 of the European Convention, when hearing a case to which the local authority or one of its officers is a party. The Government's argument that there may be cases in which a decision is taken in favour of the other party to the case—or it may be something no one wants to bother to set aside—is unimportant, because, as the noble and

1381
learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, pointed out when this matter was first raised in Committee, the effect of a disqualified person sitting as a member of the Bench would not be that the decision was automatically invalid but only that it was voidable if it was challenged. As regards a party in whose favour the decision was given, or an interlocutory decision on some procedural matter which no one wants to start all over again, the decision would be left to stand. In those circumstances I am disappointed that the Government have not taken this point on board.
Having said that, I recognise that this is not by any means the most important change that was made to the Bill during its passage through the two Houses. It is therefore not one that I should wish to take any further or on which I seek to take the opinion of the House.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I intervene briefly in order to thank the noble and learned Lord the former Lord Chancellor, to whom I wrote about a friend of mine who had been all the way through the procedures for becoming a magistrate and was on the point of being appointed when it was realised that the Act of Settlement debarred citizens of the European Union from being appointed magistrates. The noble and learned Lord considered sympathetically the case that I put to him on behalf of my friend. Ultimately she became a magistrate. The noble and learned Lord may be pleased to hear that she now adjudicates on cases having lived in this country for 26 years. My only surprise is that, given that the Act of Settlement has been on the statute book for some 200 years, it was discovered only very belatedly that it debarred citizens of the European Union from being appointed magistrates. I am very glad that my friend, and I believe 20 or 30 others in a similar position, have now been through all the hoops and are now helping to ensure that justice is done in our courts.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and compliment him, not for the first time, on his advocacy and vigilance in championing individual rights. I am glad that on this occasion at least we were able to satisfy him. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for accepting with good grace that we do not on this occasion agree with him exactly as regards the relevant measure. The issue was well tilled in Committee and subsequently.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, as ever, is absolutely right to say that Clause 41 makes it clear that local authority members sitting on a magistrates' Bench should not take part in a case which involves a local authority. However, our amendment addresses certain very narrow circumstances. Although in very many cases such a decision would be automatically struck down, there are occasions where no offence to justice arises. I referred to a procedural matter in that regard. We seek not to abandon procedural common sense in pursuit of the greater remedy of not allowing local authority members to take part in substantive hearings where they might be considered to have found in
1382
favour of a local authority. There would then be a real appearance of bias, even if there had not been bias. I am at risk of repeating what I said earlier, but I hope that that clarifies the situation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
5 Clause 36, page 17, line 12, after "2(1)" insert "or provided under a contract made by virtue of section 2(4)"
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5. In doing so, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 6, 12 to 14, 16 to 18, 22 to 26 and 28. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 24A to 24C, which amend Amendment No. 24, and to Amendment No. 24D, which amends Clause 106.
The amendments deal with the collection of fines by fines officers and the discharge of fines by unpaid work. Taken together, they replace the existing Schedule 3 with a new one which allows wider use of attachments of earnings and deductions from benefits within the fines collection regime. They also introduce a new schedule to give effect to the Government's proposals on the discharge of fines by unpaid work. My noble friend Lady Scotland gave early warning of the amendments on 8th May on Report. They were tabled prior to Committee in another place, and comprise the addition of two new clauses, a complete revision of the former Schedule 3, and a new schedule on fines payment work.
The amendments add to the fine enforcement scheme by making wider use of attachments of earnings and deductions from benefits, particularly for offenders who are in default on other financial penalties. They also create a new offence, penalising those who fail to provide means information and/or the financial details necessary to allow an attachment of earnings or deduction from benefits order to be made.
We also introduced a new schedule, amending the Bill to allow the courts to impose a period of unpaid work instead of a fine when the fine cannot be collected by any recognised means. In addition, we introduced Amendment No. 5, which would enable the role of the fines officer to be contracted out. The Government have decided that to radically improve the collections of fines, which is clearly necessary, we should not rule that out as an option in the future, should circumstances appear to justify it. In such a situation, we would contract out only in the interests of better fines collection, and subject to the appropriate restrictions and controls.
Any arrangements for such contracting out will be subject to the existing prohibition on contracting-out functions which involve a judicial decision or discretion. They are also subject to the same safeguards as exist in the Court Service, which we introduced by amendment on Report in the Lords. Those safeguards are that the work to be eligible for contracting out must be specified in an order, and the senior judiciary must be consulted on the terms of that order.

1383
Amendments Nos. 6, 14, 17 and 18 deal with the piloting arrangements for the proposals. Those are important measures, but they are clearly experimental. It is sensible that, before they are introduced at large, there is provision and capacity for piloting them. The amendments will enable both the schedules to be piloted in specified local justice areas, and enable different elements of the package to be piloted in different areas.
The wider use of attachments of earnings orders and deductions from benefits, together with the new offence for non-provision of means information, will be piloted nationally. A combination of other variations of the new measures will be piloted locally in Cambridgeshire, Cumbria, Devon and Cornwall, and South Yorkshire, with the full scheme being piloted in Cheshire and Gloucestershire. That approach will enable the Government to bring forward a package of tried and tested measures, which we can be sure will deliver the improvements in performance that all members of this House want to see.
The first items in Amendment No. 24 make drafting amendments only. Its second part is that the Government have accepted the recommendations in paragraph 4 of the 26th report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers. The amendment therefore changes the status of regulations governing the fine-to-work conversion rate, making them subject to affirmative resolution before both Houses.
Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 28 make minor and consequential amendments to the provisions governing fine collection and the discharge of fines by unpaid work.
I apologise for the length of my comments, but I hope that it helps subsequent brevity. I commend the said Commons amendments to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.—(Lord Filkin.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I greatly welcome Amendment No. 6, because getting rid of Clause 36(2) to (8) is really good riddance.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I would be less than frank if I were to say that the amendments met with full-hearted support on these Benches. We are less than entirely happy with a number of aspects of them. I note that the original schedule has now been replaced by one that has increased in size from 25 paragraphs to 53 paragraphs. It is of very considerable length, which adds to the quantity of statutory material now being churned out.
I am sorry that the Government have not taken on board a point that I raised at an earlier stage about the problems with imposing strict time limits on action that can be taken by someone who is required to pay a fine, who in a number of circumstances has to take action by way of appeal, for example, within 10 days. Rigid time limits with no possibility of extension are a notable cause of injustice. However, that matter was fully ventilated at that earlier stage.
1384
We are unhappy with the system of deduction from benefits, because of fears not only that it may have an impact on the person drawing the benefits but, where that person is in a family relationship and children are involved, it may adversely affect the children. When the Government undertake their piloting schemes, I hope that one issue that they will look at is the impact that deductions from benefits appear to have on other members of the household of the person who would otherwise be entitled to those benefits.
We are also concerned in principle that something as close to a judicial function as the fines officer is capable of being contracted out. Although we would not seek to delay the matter any further, we are concerned about it and hope that our concerns will be looked at carefully within the piloting period.
Paragraph 22 of the proposed new schedule on collection of fines states that no application may be made by the person subject to the fine for a variation of the payment terms unless there has been a material change in that person's circumstances since the last collection was made, or that person is making further information about their circumstances available. No such restriction was included on the making of an application in the original version of the schedule. Can the Minister give any explanation of why that change was introduced? The same point arises in connection with paragraphs 31 and 36 of the new schedule.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am delighted to get the support of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on at least one aspect of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, rightly comments that sometimes our processes lead to Bills getting longer rather than shorter, which is not always a sin.
The impact on the dependants of someone who has been convicted of an offence is a central and difficult problem of a justice system. Sending someone to prison clearly affects their dependants and family. Nevertheless, I shall ask officials to reflect on the point made. If it is possible to consider that as part of the monitoring, we shall seek to do so, but I cannot give a total commitment without knowing exactly what is happening.
We would not be rushing contracting out either. We are not seeking to go back to 17th century France in any respect whatever.
Since inspiration is coming to me rather slowly this afternoon, I shall have to answer the noble Lord's last point subsequently if he will bear with that.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
6 Page 17, line 14, leave out subsections (2) to (8)
7 Clause 41, page 20, line 27, at end insert—
"( ) No act is invalidated merely because of the disqualification under this section of the person by whom it is done."
8 Clause 42, page 21, line 1, leave out "before 31 st January 2002" and insert ", whether made before or after the passing of this Act,"
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 6 to 8.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 6 to 8.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
4.30 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
9 Clause 92, page 44, line 30, leave out subsection (2)
10 Page 44, line 35, at end insert—
"( ) When including any provision in an order under this section, the Lord Chancellor must have regard to the principle that access to the courts must not be denied."
11 Page 45, line 16, leave out subsection (11)
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 9 to 11. The amendments concern access to justice and court fees, which is an issue that received considerable consideration in the early stages of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 accept the principle of an amendment which was passed during the Lords passage of the Bill. An amendment was passed in Committee which would make it a statutory requirement that the Lord Chancellor should have regard to the need to facilitate access to justice when prescribing fees. The Government have listened to those concerns. After careful consideration, we have concluded that even though subsection (2) is not strictly necessary, the effect of the provision should be included.
Amendment No. 9 removes the original Lords amendment. Amendment No. 10, the Government's proposal, will ensure that the Lord Chancellor must have regard to the principle that access to the courts must be not be denied when including any provision in an order under that clause. For the first time, that will place the common law position, established by Witham, on a statutory footing.
In addition, the Court of Appeal in Witham has already confirmed that a citizen has a constitutional right of access, although not a right of free access, to the courts. A system of exemptions, remissions and reductions already exists under the current fee-setting powers to achieve that for less well-off litigants.
If the House agrees with the amendments, the regime for setting courts fees will be much stronger and clearer and have a statutory basis in principles for the first time. Clause 92 includes, also for the first time, an express power to exempt or remit fees. That, along with a new fees order, will be subject to wide consultation with the heads of division and, for the first time, the head and deputy head of civil justice and, for civil proceedings, the Civil Justice Council. It will also, for the first time, be subject to parliamentary scrutiny by way of the negative resolution procedure.
Amendment No. 11 removes an amendment that was added in this House, which would prevent judicial salaries being taken into account when setting fees.
1386
After much consideration, we are firmly of the view that that would be an undesirable obstacle to the Lord Chancellor's powers in exercising his ministerial responsibilities. I am afraid that we cannot accept it.
The Government's policy is to recover the full cost of services provided, including judicial salaries, based on the general principle that parties are expected to pay the cost of that part of the civil justice system that they are using to resolve their dispute. The general policy of recovering most of the costs of the courts through fees ensures the best targeting of scarce public resources. Those are properly public expenditure decisions for government.
The Government's policy on setting fees and charges is set out in the Treasury's fees and charges guide. That explains that fees should be set to recover the full cost, subject to any agreed subsidies. The provision would provide a subsidy for all types of cases. The Government consider that an approach that closely targets those in need by way of the system of exemptions, remissions and subsidies is a more cost-effective way of ensuring access to justice.
I shall not go into much greater detail. I should also point out that the recovery of judicial salaries as part of the objective of policy was introduced by the Conservative Party in 1992. We believe that they were correct in that. I shall not upset the House by indicating the scale of loss of income that would follow from that. I shall merely indicate that that would not be seen by the Government as a trivial issue. For reasons both of principle and of the Government's right to protect their income sources, I hope that the House will understand why we are resistant to that amendment, if not to the others in the group.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 9 to 11.—(Lord Filkin.)
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, since the amendments were tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, it is perhaps appropriate that I should respond first and make clear that although there was of course some disappointment that the Government were going to overturn our position on judicial fees in Amendment No. 11, we have made our view sufficiently clear on previous occasions and it would not be appropriate to press the matter further. At the same time, I would welcome Amendment No. 10, which properly reflects our objective in tabling the amendments on access which this House passed in a Division. We accept the point made by the Minister, Mr Leslie, in another place that our Amendment No. 9, which the Government overturned, was too narrowly drafted and was in the wrong place. I therefore welcome the Government's new amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
12 Clause 95, page 46, line 42, at end insert—
"( ) Amend section 20A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c. 53) (false statements as to financial circumstances) as follows.

1387
( ) After subsection (1) insert—
"(1A) A person who is charged with an offence who fails to furnish a statement of his financial circumstances in response to an official request shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale."
( ) In subsection (2)(b), after "may impose" insert "and how it should be paid"."
13 After Clause 95, Insert the following new Clause—
"Recovery of fines etc. by deductions from income support: failure to provide information

(1)Amend section 24 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c. 53) (power to make regulations about recovery of fines etc. by deductions from income support) as follows.

(2)In subsection (2), after paragraph (a) insert—

(aa) provision that the court may require the offender to provide prescribed information in connection with an application;".

(3) After subsection (2) insert—

"(2A) An offender who fails to provide information required by the court by virtue of subsection (2)(aa) commits an offence.

(2B) An offender commits an offence if, in providing information required by the court by virtue of that subsection, he—

(a)makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular,

(b)recklessly provides a statement which is false in a material particular, or

(c)knowingly fails to disclose any material fact.

(2C) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2A) or (2B) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale."

14 After Clause 95, Insert the following new Clause—
"Collection of fines and discharge of fines by unpaid work

(1)Schedule (Collection of fines) contains provisions about the collection of fines.

(2)Schedule (Discharge of fines by unpaid work) contains provisions about the discharge of fines by means of unpaid work.

(3)Subsections (4) to (9) apply in relation to each of those Schedules.

(4)The Schedule is to have effect only in accordance with—

(a)subsections (5) and (6) (pilot schemes), or

(b)subsections (7) to (9) (power to make pilot schemes, or modified versions of pilot schemes, permanent after completion of pilots).

(5)The Lord Chancellor may by order provide that the Schedule is to have effect in relation to the local justice area or areas specified in the order for the period specified in the order.

(6)An order under subsection (5) may make provision modifying the Schedule, or any enactment in connection with the operation of the Schedule, in relation to the specified local justice area or areas and the specified period.

(7)The Lord Chancellor may, at the end of the relevant period, by order provide that the Schedule is to have effect—

(a)in all local justice areas, and

(b)indefinitely.

(8)"The relevant period" means—

(a)if one order has been made under subsection (5) in relation to the Schedule, the period specified in the order;

(b)if more than one order has been made under subsection (5) in relation to the Schedule, the period which, out of the periods so specified, ends at the latest date.

1388

(9) An order under subsection (7) may make such amendments of—

(a)the Schedule, and

(b)any other enactments,

as appear to the Lord Chancellor appropriate in the light of the operation of the Schedule in accordance with the order made under subsection (5) (pilot schemes)."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12 to 14.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12 to 14—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
15 Clause 101, page 55, line 23, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
"(3) For subsection (1) substitute—
"(1) The Lord Chancellor, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, may appoint as Official Solicitor to the Supreme Court a person who is—

(a) solicitor of the Supreme Court of at least 7 years' standing, or

(b)a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland of at least 7 years' standing.""

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15. The amendment was tabled in Committee in the Commons by the honourable Member for Surrey Heath and was withdrawn for technical reasons. It was subsequently tabled again on Report in the Commons, during which it was welcomed. The amendment would allow barristers as well as solicitors to be appointed as the Official Solicitor of Northern Ireland and would bring the eligibility criteria for that post in line with those for the Official Solicitor in England and Wales. For those reasons, we are happy to support the amendment as proposed, but subsequently developed.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
16 Clause 105, page 57, leave out lines 19 and 20
17 Clause 106, page 58, line 11, leave out paragraph (c)
18 Page 58, line 18, at end insert—
"( ) an order under section (Collection of fines and discharge of fines by unpaid work)(7) to (9) (power to make permanent provision about collection of fines and discharge of fines by unpaid work);"
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16 to 18.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16 to 18.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
19 Clause 107, page 58, line 39, at end insert—
"( ) Schedule (Transitional provisions and savings) contains transitional provisions and savings."
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 20, 27, 29 and 30 to Clause 107 and Schedules 7 and 8, with the introduction of a new schedule for transitional provisions and savings. I shall not go into the detail of the amendments. They are all minor, technical and consequential amendments, though I would be happy to elaborate further should the House wish me to do so.
Amendment No. 29 would introduce a schedule that includes a provision in the statute that local justice areas introduced in the Bill have the same boundaries as petty sessions areas. That meets a commitment made during the passage of the Bill through this House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
20 Clause 110, page 59, line 28, leave out subsection (2)
21 Schedule 1, page 60, line 9, leave out "who are" and insert ", each of whom is"
22 Schedule 3, page 66, line 1, leave out Schedule 3
23 After Schedule 5, Insert the following new Schedule—

INTRODUCTORY
Application of Schedule
1(1) This Schedule applies if a person aged 18 or over ("P") is liable to pay a sum which—

(a)consists of or includes a fine, and

(b)is or is treated for the purposes of Part 3 of the 1980 Act as a sum adjudged to be paid by conviction of a magistrates' court.

(2) In sub-paragraph (l)(a) "fine" does not include any pecuniary forfeiture or pecuniary compensation payable on conviction.
Meaning of "the sum due "
2 In this Schedule "the sum due" means the sum adjudged to be paid as mentioned in paragraph 1(1).
Meaning of "existing defaulter" etc.
3(1) For the purposes of this Schedule, P is an existing defaulter if it is shown that—

(a) he was required to pay the sum due immediately but failed to do so,

(b) the sum due or any other sum is registered for enforcement against him as a fine under—

(i) section 71 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53),

(ii) section 9 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (c. 16), or

(iii) any other enactment specified in fines collection regulations,

(c)he is in default on a collection order in respect of another sum falling within paragraph 1(1), or

(d)he is in default in payment of another sum falling within paragraph 1(1) but in respect of which no collection order has been made.

(2)For the purposes of this Schedule, P's existing default can be disregarded only if he shows that there was an adequate reason for it.
(3)Sub-paragraph (2) is subject to sub-paragraph (4).
(4)Where a sum is registered for enforcement against P as mentioned in sub-paragraph (l)(b), P's existing default is not one which can be disregarded for the purposes of the following provisions of this Schedule.
(5)In sub-paragraph (l)(a) "immediately" means, where P is informed of his liability to pay the sum due in a notice, within the period specified in the notice.
(6)The period so specified must be a period which—

(a)is not longer than 10 working days, and

(b)begins with the date of the notice.

(7)"Collection order" means an order made under Part 4 of this Schedule.

IMMEDIATE PAYMENT OF FINES: DISCOUNTS
Application of Part
4 This Part applies if the court which is imposing the liability to pay the sum due concludes—

(a)that P should be required to pay the sum due immediately, and

(b)that he is not an existing defaulter or, if he is, that his existing default (or defaults) can be disregarded.

Court's duty in relation to discount
5 The court must make an order—

(a)stating its conclusions on the matters referred to in paragraph 4(b),

(b)stating the amount of the sum due, the amount of the fine and the amount of any other part of the sum due, and

(c)informing P of the effect of paragraph 6.

The discount
6(1) P is allowed a discount on the fine if the sum due, less the amount of the discount, is paid in accordance with the terms of the order.
(2)The amount of the discount is to be determined in accordance with fines collection regulations, but must not be greater than 50% of the fine.
(3)The discount is given effect by extinguishing P's liability to pay the part of the sum due that is equal to the amount of the discount.

ATTACHMENT OF EARNINGS ORDERS AND APPLICATIONS FOR BENEFIT DEDUCTIONS
Application of Part
7(1) This Part applies if—

(a)the court which is imposing the liability to pay the sum due concludes that P should not be required to pay the sum due immediately, or

(b)P was required to pay the sum due immediately but failed to do so.

(2)In the following provisions of this Part, "the relevant court" means—

(a)the court which is imposing the liability to pay the sum due, or

(b)if sub-paragraph (l)(b) applies, the magistrates' court responsible for enforcing payment of the sum due.

Attachment of earnings order or application for benefit deductions without P's consent
8(1) This paragraph applies if the relevant court concludes that P is an existing defaulter and that his existing default (or defaults) cannot be disregarded.
(2)The court must make an attachment of earnings order if it appears to the court—

(a)that P is in employment, and

(b)that it is not impracticable or inappropriate to make he order.

(3)The court must make an application for benefit deductions if it appears to the court—

(a)that P is entitled to a relevant benefit, and

(b) that it is not impracticable or inappropriate to make the application.

(4) If it appears to the court that (apart from this sub- paragraph) both sub-paragraph (2) and sub-paragraph (3) would apply, the court must make either an attachment of earnings order or an application for benefit deductions.
Attachment of earnings order or application for benefit deductions with P's consent
9(1) This paragraph applies if the relevant court concludes that P is not an existing defaulter or, if he is, that his existing default (or defaults) can be disregarded.
(2) The court may make—

(a) an attachment of earnings order, or

(b)an application for benefit deductions,

if P consents.

Meaning of "relevant benefit" and "application for benefit deductions"
10 In this Schedule—

(a)"relevant benefit" means a benefit "from which the Secretary of State may make deductions by virtue of section 24 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c. 53) (recovery of fines etc. by deductions from income support etc.), and

(b)"application for benefit deductions", in relation to a relevant benefit, means an application to the Secretary of State asking him to deduct sums from any amounts payable to P by way of the benefit.

MAKING OF COLLECTION ORDERS
Application of Part
11(1) This Part applies if—

(a)the court imposing the liability to pay the sum due concludes that P should not be required to pay the sum due immediately, or

(b)P was required to pay the sum due immediately but failed to do so;

(and it applies whether or not the relevant court has made an attachment of earnings order or application for benefit deductions under Part 3 of this Schedule).

(2) In this Part "the relevant court" has the same meaning as in Part 3 of this Schedule.
Court's power to make a collection order
12(1) The relevant court must make an order ("a collection order") relating to the payment of the sum due, unless it appears to the court that it is impracticable or inappropriate to make the order.
(2) If P is subject to a collection order, the powers of any court to deal with P's liability to pay the sum due are subject to the provisions of this Schedule and to fines collection regulations.
Contents of collection orders: general
13(1) The collection order must—

(a)state the amount of the sum due, the amount of the fine and the amount of any other part of the sum due,

(b)state the court's conclusions as to whether P is an existing defaulter and if so whether the existing default (or defaults) can be disregarded,

(c)if the court has made an attachment of earnings order or an application for benefit deductions, state that fact,

(d)specify the fines office to which the order is allocated, and

(e)contain information about the effect of the order.

(2) In this Schedule "the fines officer", in relation to P, means any fines officer working at the fines office specified in the collection order.
Contents of collection orders: no attachment of earnings order etc. made
14(1) If the relevant court has not under Part 3 made an attachment of earnings order or an application for benefit deductions, the collection order must state the payment terms.
(2) "The payment terms" means—

(a) a term requiring P to pay the sum due within a specified period, or

(b)terms requiring P to pay the sum due by instalments of specified amounts on or before specified dates.

Contents of collection orders: attachment of earnings order etc. made
15(1) If the court has under Part 3 of this Schedule made an attachment of earnings order or an application for benefit deductions, the collection order must state the reserve terms.
(2) "The reserve terms" means terms of a description mentioned in paragraph 14(2) but which (subject to paragraphs 31, 32, 35, 36 and 39) are to have effect if the attachment of earnings order or application for benefit deductions fails.
When an attachment of earnings order fails
16 For the purposes of this Schedule, an attachment of earnings order fails if—

(a)P's employer fails to comply with the order, or

(b)the order is discharged at a time when P remains liable to pay any part of the sum due.

When an application for benefit deductions fails
17 For the purposes of this Schedule, an application for benefit deductions fails if—

(a)the application is withdrawn,

(b)Secretary of State decides not to make deductions,

(c)appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State to make deductions succeeds, or

(d) Secretary of State ceases to make deductions at a time when P remains liable to pay any part of the sum due.

DISCOUNT WHERE COLLECTION ORDER MADE
Application of Part
18 This Part applies if—

(a) a collection order has been made in respect of the sum due, and

(b) the order states that P is not an existing defaulter or, if he is, that his existing default (or defaults) can be disregarded.

Discount on fine if the sum due is paid without default
19(1) P is allowed a discount on the fine if the sum due. less the amount of the discount, is paid without P at any time having been in default on the order.
(2)The amount of the discount is to be determined in accordance with fines collection regulations but must not be greater than 50% of the fine.
(3)The discount is given effect by extinguishing P's liability to pay the part of the sum due that is equal to the amount of the discount.
Meaning of "in default on a collection order "
20 For the purposes of this Schedule, P is in default on a collection order if he fails to pay any amount due under the payment terms (or, if they have effect, the reserve terms) on or before the date on which it is required to be paid.

VARIATION OF COLLECTION ORDERS CONTAINING PAYMENT TERMS
Application of Part
21 This Part applies if the court has made a collection order and the order contains payment terms.
Application to fines officer for variation of order or attachment of earnings order etc.
22(1) P may, at any time—

(a) after the collection order is made and before Part 7 applies, and

(b) when he is not in default on the order,

apply to the fines officer under this paragraph.

(2) P may apply for—

(a) the payment terms to be varied, or

(b)an attachment of earnings order or application for benefit deductions to be made.

(3) No application may be made under sub-paragraph (2)(a) unless—

(a) there has been a material change in P's circumstances since the collection order was made (or the payment terms were last varied under this paragraph), or

(b) P is making further information about his circumstances available.

(4) On an application under sub-paragraph (2)(a), the fines officer may decide—

(a) to vary the payment terms in P's favour, or

(b)not to vary them.

(5)On an application under sub-paragraph (2)(b), the fines officer may decide—

(a)to make an attachment of earnings order or application for benefit deductions, or

(b)not to do so.

(6)If he decides to make an order or application he must vary the collection order so that it states reserve terms.
(7)The reserve terms must not be less favourable to P than the payment terms.
(8)A decision of the fines officer under this paragraph must be in writing, dated and delivered to P.
(9)Subject to paragraph 23, the effect of—

(a)a decision under sub-paragraph (4)(a), and

(b)a variation under sub-paragraph (6),

is that the collection order has effect as varied by the fines officer.

Appeal against decision of fines officer
23(1) P may, within 10 working days from the date of a decision under paragraph 22, appeal to the magistrates' court against the decision.
(2)On an appeal under this paragraph the magistrates' court may—

(a)confirm or vary the payment terms (or the reserve terms),

(b)if the appeal is against a decision on an application under paragraph 22(2)(b) or if P consents, make an attachment of earnings order or an application for benefit deductions, or

(c)discharge the collection order and exercise any of its standard powers in respect of persons liable to pay fines.

(3)If the court makes an attachment of earnings order or an application for benefit deductions, it must vary the collection order so that it states reserve terms.
Nature of power to vary terms of collection order
24(1) A power to vary the payment terms of a collection order includes power to—

(a)substitute terms requiring P to pay by specified instalments on or before specified dates for a term requiring P to pay within a specified period, or

(b)substitute a term requiring P to pay within a specified period for terms requiring P to pay the sum due by specified instalments on or before specified dates.

(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (1), a power to vary the payment terms of a collection order under which the sum due is required to be paid within a specified period is a power to vary the date on or before which the sum due is to be paid.
(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (1), a power to vary the payment terms of a collection order under which the sum due is required to be paid by specified instalments on or before specified dates is a power to vary—

(a)the number of instalments payable;

(b)the amount of any instalment;

(c)the date on or before which any instalment is required to be paid.

(4)This paragraph applies in relation to the variation of the reserve terms as it applies in relation to the payment terms.

EFFECT OF FIRST DEFAULT ON COLLECTION ORDER CONTAINING PAYMENT TERMS
Application of Part
25 This Part applies on the first occasion on which P is in default on a collection order containing payment terms and none of the following is pending—

(a)an application under paragraph 22 (application to fines officer for variation of order or for attachment of earnings order etc.);

(b)an appeal under paragraph 23 (appeal against decision of fines officer);

(c)a reference under paragraph 42 (power of fines officer to refer case to magistrates' court).

Attachment of earnings order or application for benefit deductions to be made
26(1) The fines officer must make an attachment of earnings order if it appears to him—

(a)that P is in employment, and

(b)that it is not impracticable or inappropriate to make the order.

(2) The fines officer must make an application for benefit deductions if it appears to him—

(a)that P is entitled to a relevant benefit, and

(b)that it is not impracticable or inappropriate to make the application.

(3) If it appears to the fines officer that (apart from this sub- paragraph) both sub-paragraph (1) and sub-paragraph (2) would apply, he must make either an attachment of earnings order or an application for benefit deductions.
Increase in fine
27(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a)an attachment of earnings order, or

(b)an application for benefit deductions,

made under paragraph 26 fails.

(2) This paragraph also applies if the fines officer does not make—

(a)an attachment of earnings order, or

(b)an application for benefit deductions,

under paragraph 26.

(3)An increase is imposed on the fine which is the subject of the order.
(4)The amount of the increase is to be determined in accordance with fines collection regulations but must not be greater than 50% of the fine.
(5)The increase is given effect by treating it as part of the fine imposed on P on his conviction.
(6)But the liability to pay the part of the fine representing the increase—

(a) ranks after the liability to pay any other part of the sum due, and

(b) is subject to paragraphs 35(6) and 39(2) (liability to increase extinguished in cases of subsequent compliance).

Notice of increase etc.
28 If an increase is imposed, the fines officer must deliver a notice to P (an "increase notice")—

(a)informing P of the increase, and

(b)requiring P, within 10 working days from the date of the notice, to contact the fines officer, in person or in writing, with a view to reviewing the position.

OPERATION OF COLLECTION ORDER CONTAINING RESERVE TERMS
Application of Part
29 This Part applies if—

(a)a collection order contains reserve terms, and

(b)the attachment of earnings order or application for benefit deductions made under Part 3 or 6 fails.

Requirement to notify P on failure of an attachment of earnings order etc.
30 The fines officer must deliver to P a notice ("a payment notice") informing P—

(a)that the order or application has failed and the reserve terms have effect,

(b)what P has to do to comply with the reserve terms, and

(c)of his right to make applications under paragraph 31.

Application to fines officer for variation of reserve terms
31(1) P may, at any time—

(a)after the date of a payment notice under paragraph 30 and before an increase is imposed under paragraph 33, and

(b) when he is not in default on the collection order,

apply to the fines officer for the reserve terms to be varied.

(2) No application may be made under sub-paragraph (1) unless—

(a)there has been a material change in P's circumstances since the reserve terms were set (or last varied under this paragraph), or

(b)P is making further information about his circumstances available.

(3) On such an application being made, the fines officer may decide—

(a)to vary the reserve terms in P's favour, or

(b)not to vary them.

(4)A decision of the fines officer under this paragraph must be in writing, dated and delivered to P.
(5)Subject to paragraph 32, the effect of a decision under sub- paragraph (3)(a) is that the collection order has effect with the reserve terms varied in the way decided by the fines officer.
Appeal against decision of fines officer
32(1) P may, within 10 working days from the date of a decision under paragraph 31(3), appeal to the magistrates' court against the decision.
(2) On an appeal under this paragraph the magistrates' court may—

(a)confirm or vary the reserve terms, or

(b)discharge the order and exercise any of its standard powers in respect of persons liable to pay fines.

Increase in fine on first default
33(1) This paragraph applies on the first occasion on which P is in default on the collection order and none of the following is pending—

(a)an application under paragraph 31(1) (application to fines officer for variation of reserve terms);

(b)an appeal under paragraph 32(1) (appeal against decision of fines officer);

(c)a reference under paragraph 42 (power of fine officer to refer case to magistrates' court).

(2)An increase is imposed on the fine which is the subject of the order.
(3)The amount of the increase is to be determined in accordance with fines collection regulations but must not be greater than 50% of the fine.
(4)The increase is given effect by treating it as part of the fine imposed on P on his conviction.
(5)But the liability to pay the part of the fine representing the increase—

(a) ranks after the liability to pay any other part of the sum due, and

(b) is subject to paragraphs 35(6) and 39(2) (liability to increase extinguished in cases of subsequent compliance).

Notice of increase etc.
34 If an increase is imposed the fines officer must deliver a notice to P (an "increase notice")—

(a)informing P of the increase, and

(b)requiring P, within 10 working days from the date of the notice, to contact the fines officer, in person or in writing, with a view to reviewing the position.

OPERATION OF COLLECTION ORDERS AFTER INCREASE IMPOSED
Effect of compliance with requirement to contact fines officer
35(1) This paragraph applies if P contacts the fines officer as required by an increase notice under paragraph 28 or 34.
(2) The fines officer may decide—

(a)to vary the payment terms (or the reserve terms) in P's favour, or

(b)not to vary them.

(3)A decision of the fines officer under sub-paragraph (2) must be in writing, dated and delivered to P.
(4)P may, within 10 working days from the date of the decision under sub-paragraph (2), appeal to the magistrates' court against the decision.
(5)Subject to paragraph 39 (powers of court after increase), the effect of a decision under sub-paragraph (2)(a) is to vary the payment terms (or the reserve terms).
(6)If, after the payment terms (or the reserve terms) are varied under sub-paragraph (2)(a), all amounts due under the order, other than the part of the fine representing the increase, are paid without P being in further default on the order, P's liability to pay that part is extinguished.
Application to fines officer after increase for variation of payment terms
36(1) P may, at any time—

(a) after a relevant variation of the payment terms (or the reserve terms) and before paragraph 37 applies in relation to him, and

(b) when he is not in default on the collection order, apply to the fines officer for those terms to be further varied.

(2) "Relevant variation of the payment terms (or the reserve terms)" means—

(a)a variation under paragraph 35(2)(a) (variation in P's favour following increase), or

(b)a variation under paragraph 39(3)(a) (variation by court).

(3) No application may be made under sub-paragraph (1) unless—

(a) there has been a material change in P's circumstances since—

(i) the relevant variation, or

(ii) the last variation under this paragraph, or

(b) P is making further information about his circumstances available.

(4) On such an application being made, the fines officer may decide—

(a)to vary the payment terms (or the reserve terms) in P's favour, or

(b)not to vary them.

(5)A decision of the fines officer under this paragraph must be in writing, dated and delivered to P.
(6)P may, within 10 working days from the date of a decision under sub-paragraph (4), appeal to the magistrates' court against the decision.
(7) Subject to paragraph 39, the effect of a decision under sub- paragraph (4)(a) is to vary the payment terms (or the reserve terms).
Functions of fines officer in relation to defaulters: referral or further steps notice
37(1) This paragraph applies if P fails to contact the fines officer as required by an increase notice under paragraph 28 or 34.
(2) This paragraph also applies if—

(a)P contacts the fines officer as required by an increase notice under paragraph 28 or 34,

(b)the fines officer decides under paragraph 35(2) not to vary the payment terms (or the reserve terms), and

(c)no appeal under paragraph 35(4) (appeal against decision about variation following increase) is pending.

(3)This paragraph also applies if after the increase is imposed—

(a)there is a relevant variation of the payment terms (or the reserve terms),

(b)no relevant appeal is pending,

(c)no application under paragraph 36(1) (application for further variation in P's favour) is pending, and

(d)no reference under paragraph 42 (power of fines officer to refer case to magistrates' court) is pending,

but P is again in default on the order.

(4)"Relevant variation of the payment terms (or the reserve terms)" has the same meaning as in paragraph 36.
(5)"Relevant appeal" means an appeal under—

(a)paragraph 35(4) (appeal against decision whether to vary following increase), or

(b)paragraph 36(6) (appeal against decision on application for further variation).

(6) The fines officer must—

(a)refer P's case to the magistrates' court, or

(b)deliver to P a notice (a "further steps notice") that he intends to take one or more of the steps listed in paragraph 38.

(7)Any steps that the fines officer intends to take must be specified in the notice.
(8)A further steps notice must be in writing and dated.
(9)P may, within 10 working days from the date of the further steps notice, appeal to the magistrates' court against it.
The range of further steps available against defaulters
38(1) The steps referred to in paragraphs 37(6)(b) and 39(3) and (4) (powers to take further steps) are—

(a)issuing a warrant of distress for the purpose of levying the sum due;

(b)registering the sum in the register of judgments and orders required to be kept by section 96;

(c)making an attachment of earnings order or an application for benefit deductions;

(d)subject to sub-paragraph (3), making a clamping order;

(e)taking any other step permitted under provisions of fines collections regulations which apply any other enforcement power of a magistrates' court (with or without modifications).

(2) A clamping order is an order—

(a)that a motor vehicle be fitted with an immobilization device ("clamped"), and

(b)which complies with any requirements that are imposed by fines collection regulations under paragraph 46 with respect to the making of clamping orders.

(3) A clamping order must not be made except in relation to a vehicle which is registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22) in P's name.
Powers of court after increase
39(1) This paragraph applies if the magistrates' court is hearing P's case following—

(a)an appeal under paragraph 35(4) or 36(6) (appeals against decisions about variation following increase),

(b)a referral under paragraph 37(6)(a) (functions of fines officer in relation to defaulters), or

(c)an appeal under paragraph 37(9) (appeal against a further steps notice).

(2)If the magistrates' court is satisfied that the circumstances of P's case are exceptional, it may make an order that if, after the making of the order, all amounts due under the collection order, other than the part of the fine representing the increase, are paid without P being in further default on the order, P's liability to pay that part is extinguished.
(3)On an appeal or referral falling within sub-paragraph (l)(a) or (b), the court may—

(a)vary the payment terms (or the reserve terms);

(b)take any of the steps listed in paragraph 38;

(c)discharge the order and exercise any of its standard powers in respect of persons liable to pay fines.

(4) On an appeal against a further steps notice, the court may—

(a)confirm or quash the notice;

(b)vary the notice so as to specify any step listed in paragraph 38;

(c)vary the payment terms (or the reserve terms);

(d)discharge the order and exercise any of its standard powers in respect of persons liable to pay fines.

Implementation of further steps notice
40 If—

(a)P does not appeal within 10 working days against a further steps notice, or

(b)he does so but the further steps notice is confirmed or varied, any step specified in the notice (or the notice as varied) may be taken.

Power to order sale of clamped vehicle
41(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a)a motor vehicle has been clamped under a clamping order, and

(b)at the end of the period specified in fines collection regulations under paragraph 46 any part of the sum due is unpaid.

(2) The magistrates' court may order that—

(a)the vehicle is to be sold or otherwise disposed of in accordance with those regulations, and

(b)any proceeds are to be applied in accordance with those regulations in discharging P's liability in respect of the sum due.

Power of fates officer to refer case to magistrates' court
42(1) The fines officer may refer a case to the magistrates' court at any time during the period which—

(a)begins the day after the collection order is made, and

(b)ends with the date on whicli—(i) the sum due (including any increase to which he remains liable) is paid, or(ii) the order is discharged.

(2) On a referral under this paragraph, the court may—

(a)confirm or vary the payment terms (or the reserve terms).

(b)discharge the order and exercise any of its standard powers in respect of persons liable to pay fines, or

(c)to the extent permitted by fines collection regulations, exercise a power it could exercise under any other paragraph.

(3)Fines collection regulations may provide for the fines officer to have the power to issue a summons for the purpose of ensuring that P attends a magistrates' court to whom P's case has been referred under this paragraph or paragraph 37.

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
Fines collection regulations
43 In this Schedule "fines collection regulations" means regulations made by the Lord Chancellor for the purpose of giving effect to this Schedule.
44(1) Fines collection regulations may, for the purpose of giving effect to this Schedule and section (Collection of fines and discharge of fines by unpaid work) so far as it relates to this Schedule, make provision modifying (or applying with modifications) any enactment which relates to fines or the enforcement of payment of sums falling within paragraph 1(1).
(2)The enactments which may be so modified (or applied with modifications) include enactments containing offences.
(3)Fines collection regulations may make different provision for different cases.
45 Fines collection regulations may, for the purpose of giving effect to the powers to make attachment of earnings orders, make provision as to the method for calculating the amounts which are to be deducted from P's earnings.
46(1) Fines collection regulations may, for the purpose of giving effect to the powers to make clamping orders and to order the sale of clamped motor vehicles, make provision in connection with—

(a)the fitting of immobilisation devices;

(b)the fitting of immobilisation notices to motor vehicles to which immobilisation devices have been fitted;

(c)the removal and storage of motor vehicles;

(d)the release of motor vehicles from immobilisation devices or from storage (including the conditions to be met before the vehicle is released);

(e)the sale or other disposal of motor vehicles not released.

(2) Fines collection regulations must provide that an immobilisation device may not be fitted to a vehicle—

(a)which displays a current disabled person's badge, or

(b)in relation to which there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is used for the carriage of a disabled person.

(3)In this Schedule—
"disabled person's badge" means a badge issued, or having effect as if issued, under regulations made under section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (c. 44) (badges for display on motor vehicles used by disabled persons);
"immobilisation device" has the same meaning as in section 104(9) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (immobilisation of vehicles illegally parked);
"motor vehicle" means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads, except that section 189 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (exceptions for certain vehicles) applies for the purposes of this Schedule as it applies for the purposes of the Road Traffic Acts.
47 Fines collection regulations may make provision relating to cases where a person who is subject to a collection order changes his place of residence.
Offences of providing false information, failing to disclose information etc.
48(1) P commits an offence if, in providing a statement of his financial circumstances to a fines officer in response to a relevant request, he—

(a)makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular,

(b)recklessly provides a statement which is false in a material particular, or

(c)knowingly fails to disclose any material fact.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under sub-paragraph (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
(3) P commits an offence if he fails to provide a statement of his financial circumstances to a fines officer in response to a relevant request.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under sub-paragraph (3) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
(5) A relevant request is a request for information about P's financial circumstances which—

(a)is made by a fines officer, and

(b)is expressed to be made for the purpose of determining whether or how the fines officer should vary the payment terms (or the reserve terms) of a collection order in P's favour.

(6)Proceedings in respect of an offence under this paragraph may be commenced at any time within—

(a) 2 years from the date of the commission of the offence, or

(b) 6 months from its first discovery by the prosecutor,

whichever ends first.

Offence of meddling with vehicle clamp
49(1) A person commits an offence if he removes or attempts to remove—

(a)an immobilisation device, or

(b)an immobilisation notice,

fitted or fixed to a motor vehicle in accordance with a clamping order made under a further steps notice or under paragraph 39(3)(b) (powers of court after increase).

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
Meaning of "standard powers in respect of persons liable to pay fines "
50 In this Schedule "standard powers in respect of persons liable to pay fines" means any power—

(a) that a magistrates' court would have had if P had not been subject to a collection order but had been liable to pay the sum due, and

(b) which fines collection regulations apply (with or without modifications) for the purposes of this Schedule.

Meaning of references to pending appeals
51 For the purposes of this Schedule the period during which an appeal under this Schedule is pending is to be treated as including the period within which the appeal may be brought (regardless of whether it is in fact brought).
Meaning of "10 working days "
52 In this Schedule "10 working days" means any period of 10 days not including—

(a)Saturday or Sunday,

(b)Christmas Day or Good Friday, or

(c)any day which is a bank holiday in England and Wales under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 (c. 80).

Meaning of "the magistrates' court"
53 In this Schedule "the magistrates' court", in relation to a collection order, means any magistrates' court acting in the local justice area in which the court which made the order was sitting."
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 20 to 23.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 20 to 23.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
24 After Schedule 5, Insert the following new Schedule—

WORK ORDERS
Introductory
1(1) This Part of this Schedule applies if a person aged 18 or over ("P") is liable to pay a sum which is or is treated for the purposes of Part 3 of the 1980 Act as a sum adjudged to be paid by conviction of a magistrates' court.
(2) In this Part of this Schedule—
"the prescribed hourly sum" means such sum as may be prescribed by regulations;
1402
"regulations" means regulations made under this Schedule by the Lord Chancellor;
"the relevant court" means—

(a)the court imposing the liability to pay the relevant sum, or

(b)if that liability has previously been imposed, the magistrates' court responsible for enforcing payment of the relevant sum;

"the relevant sum" means the sum for which P is liable as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1), but excluding any pecuniary compensation, any pecuniary forfeiture or any sum due in respect of prosecution costs.

Cases where work order may be made
2(1) The relevant court may, on the application of a fines officer or of its own motion, make an order under this Schedule (a "work order") where—

(a)it appears to the court that in view of P's financial circumstances all the following methods of enforcing payment of the relevant sum are likely to be impracticable or inappropriate—

(i) a warrant of distress under section 76 of the 1980 Act,

(ii) an application to the High Court or county court for enforcement under section 87 of the 1980 Act,

(iii) an order under section 88 of the 1980 Act,

(iv) an attachment of earnings order,

(v) an application for deductions to be made by virtue of section 24 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (recovery of fines etc. by deductions from income support etc.), and(vi) a collection order under Schedule (Collection of fines),

(b) it appears to the court that P is a suitable person to perform unpaid work under this Schedule, and

(c)P consents to the making of the order.

(2)A court which is considering the making of a work order may issue a summons requiring P to appear before the court.
(3)A magistrates' court which is considering the making of a work order may order P to give to the court, within a specified period, such a statement of his means as the court may require.
(4)Subsections (2) to (4) of section 84 of the 1980 Act (offences in respect of statement of means) apply to an order made under sub-paragraph (3) as they apply to an order made under subsection (1) of that section.
Provisions of order
3(1) A work order is an order requiring P to perform unpaid work for a specified number of hours, in accordance with instructions to be given by the fines officer, in order to discharge by virtue of this Schedule his liability for the relevant sum.
(2) The order must also—

(a)state the amount of the relevant sum,

(b)specify a fines office to which the order is allocated, and

(c)specify a person ("the supervisor") who is to act as supervisor in relation to P.

(3)The specified number of hours is to be determined by dividing the relevant sum by the prescribed hourly sum and, where the result is not a whole number, adjusting the result upwards to the next whole number.
(4)A work order must specify a date ("the specified date") not later than which the required hours of unpaid work must be performed.
(5)In the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule "the fines officer", in relation to P, means any fines officer working at the fines office specified in the work order.
Effect of order on enforcement of payment
4(1) Where a work order has been made in respect of the relevant sum, payment of that sum may not be enforced against P unless the order is revoked.
(2) On making a work order, the court must revoke any order relating to the enforcement of the payment of the relevant sum.
Appointment of, and duties of, supervisor
5(1) A person may not be appointed as the supervisor without his consent.
(2) It is the duty of the supervisor—

(a) to monitor P's compliance with the requirements of the work order, and

(b) to provide the court with such information as the court may require relating to P's compliance with those requirements.

Obligations of person subject to work order, and effect of compliance
6(1) Where a work order is in force, P must perform for the number of hours specified in the order such work, at such places and at such times as he may be instructed by the fines officer.
(2) The fines officer must ensure, as far as practicable, that any instructions given to P in pursuance of the work order are such as to avoid—

(a)any conflict with P's religious beliefs, and

(b)any interference with the times, if any, at which he normally works or attends school or any other educational establishment.

(3)If not later than the specified date P performs work in accordance with the instructions of the fines officer for the specified number of hours, his liability to pay the relevant sum is discharged.
Effect of payment
7(1) Where a work order has been made in respect of any sum—

(a) on payment of the whole of the sum to any person authorised to receive it, the work order ceases to have effect, and

(b)on payment of part of the sum to any such person, the number of hours specified in the order is to be taken to be reduced by a proportion corresponding to that which the part paid bears to the whole of the relevant sum.

(2) In calculating any reduction required by sub-paragraph (l)(b), any fraction of an hour is to be disregarded.
Revocation or variation of order
8(1) If, on the application of the fines officer, it appears to the relevant court that P is failing or has failed to comply with a work order without reasonable excuse, the court must revoke the order.
(2) If, on the application of the fines officer, it appears to the relevant court—

(a)that P has failed to comply with a work order but has a reasonable excuse for the failure, or

(b)that, because of a change in circumstances since the order was made, P is unlikely to be able to comply with a work order,

the court may revoke the order or postpone the specified date.

(3)The relevant court may of its own motion revoke a work order if it appears to the court that, because of a change in circumstances since the order was made, P is unlikely to be able to comply with the order.
(4)A work order may be revoked under any of sub-paragraphs (1) to (3), or varied under sub-paragraph (2), before the specified date (as well as on or after that date).
(5)Regulations may provide for the fines officer to have the power to issue a summons for the purpose of ensuring that P attends the court to which an application has beer made under sub-paragraph (1) or (2).
Allowing for work done
9(1) If it appears to the court revoking a work order under paragraph 8(1), (2) or (3) that P has performed at least one hour of unpaid work in accordance with the instructions of the fines officer, the court must by order specify the number of hours of work that have been performed; and for this purpose any fraction of an hour is to be disregarded.
(2) Where the court has specified a number of hours under this paragraph, P's liability to pay the relevant sum is discharged to the extent of the prescribed hourly sum in respect of each hour.
Effect of revocation
10(1) Where a work order is revoked under paragraph 8(1), (2) or (3), immediate payment of the relevant sum (subject to any reduction under paragraph 9(2)) may be enforced against P.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not limit the court's power, on or after the revocation of the work order, to allow time for payment or to direct payment by instalments.
Order not directly enforceable
11 The obligations of P under a work order are not enforceable against him except by virtue of paragraph 10(1).
Evidence of supervisor
12(1) This paragraph applies where—

(a)it falls to a court to determine whether P has performed unpaid work in accordance with a work order, and

(b) the court is satisfied—

(i) that the supervisor is likely to be able to give evidence that may assist the court in determining that matter, and

(ii) that the supervisor will not voluntarily attend as a witness.

(2) The court may issue a summons directed to that person requiring him to attend before the court at the time and place appointed in the summons to give evidence.
Provision of information
13 Regulations may—

(a)require a work order to contain prescribed information,

(b)require the court making a work order to give a copy of the order to such persons as may be prescribed, and

(c) require the court revoking or varying a work order to give notice of the revocation or variation to such persons as may be prescribed."

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24 and do propose Amendments Nos. 24A to 24C thereto and Amendment No. 24D consequential on it:
Line 6, leave out "Part of this"
Line 10, leave out "Part of this"
Line 67, leave out "Part of this"
Clause 106, Page 58, line 19, at end insert—
"( ) regulations under Schedule (Discharge of fines by unpaid work) relating to the prescribed hourly sum."
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24 and do propose Amendments Nos. 24A to 24C thereto and Amendment No. 24D consequential on it.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
25 Schedule 7, page 114, line 40, leave out from beginning to second "for" in line 41 and insert—
"220(1) Amend section 82 (restriction on power to impose imprisonment for default) as follows.
(2) After subsection (4A) insert—

"(4B) The cases in which the offender's default may be regarded for the purposes of subsection (4)(b)(i) as being attributable to his wilful refusal or culpable neglect include any case in which—

(a)he has refused, otherwise than on reasonable grounds, to consent to a work order proposed to be made under Schedule (Discharge of fines by unpaid work) to the Courts Act 2003 (discharge of fines by unpaid work), or

(b)he has without reasonable excuse failed to comply with such an order."

(3) In subsection (5A),"
26 Page 114, line 44, at end insert—

"221A(1) Amend section 85 (power to remit fine) as follows.

(2) After subsection(2A) insert—

"(2B) Where the court remits the whole or part of the fine after a work order has been made under Schedule (Discharge of fines by unpaid work) to the Courts Act 2003 (discharge of fines by unpaid work), it shall also reduce the number of hours specified in the order by a number which bears the same proportion as the amount remitted bears to the whole sum or, as the case may be, shall revoke the order".

(3)In subsection (3), leave out "or (2A)" and insert ", (2A) or (2B)"."
27 Page 132, line 27, at end insert—

"371A(1) Amend Schedule 2 (police authorities established under section 3) as follows.

(2)In paragraph 1(1)(c) and (2)(c), for "magistrates" substitute "lay justices".

(3)For paragraphs 7 and 8 substitute—"7 The members of a police authority referred to in paragraph 1(1)(c) or (2)(c) must be lay justices each of whom is assigned to a local justice area wholly or partly within the authority's area.8 They shall be appointed—

(a)by the members of the police authority appointed under paragraph 2 or 5,

(b)from among persons on a short-list prepared in accordance with Schedule 3A."

(4) In paragraph 14(1)—

(a)in paragraph (b) for "magistrate" substitute "lay justice", and

(b)in paragraph (c) after "Schedule 3" insert "or 3A".

(5) For paragraph 18(2) substitute—

"(2) A lay justice appointed to be a member of a police authority under paragraph 8 shall cease to be a member of the authority if he ceases to be a lay justice assigned to a local justice area wholly or partly within the authority's area."

(6) In paragraph 19(2)—

(a)in paragraph (a), omit "or 8", and

(b)in paragraph (b), after "5" insert "or 8".

(7)For paragraph 27 substitute—"27 In this Schedule, "lay justice" has the meaning given by section 9 of the Courts Act 2003."

371B (1)Amend Schedule 2A (the Metropolitan Police Authority) as follows.

(2)In paragraph l(l)(c) and (2)(c), for "magistrates" substitute "lay justices".

(3)For paragraph 5 substitute—

"5(1) The members of the Metropolitan Police Authority referred to in paragraph l(l)(c) or (2)(c) must be lay justices each of whom is assigned to a local justice area wholly or partly within the metropolitan police district.

(2) They shall be appointed—

(a)by the members of the Metropolitan Police Authority appointed under paragraph 2 or 3,

(b)from among persons on a short-list prepared in accordance with Schedule 3A."

(4)In paragraph 9(1)(d) for "magistrate for a commission area" substitute "lay justice assigned to a local justice area".
(5)For paragraph 13(3) substitute—

"(3) A lay justice appointed to be a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority under paragraph 5 shall cease to be a member of the Authority if he ceases to be a lay justice assigned to a local justice area wholly or partly within the metropolitan police district."

(6)In paragraph 14(2)—

(a)in paragraph (a), omit "or 5", and

(b)in paragraph (b), after "3" insert "or 5".

(7)For paragraph 22 substitute—"22 In this Schedule, "lay justice" has the meaning given by section 9 of the Courts Act 2003."

371C (1) Amend Schedule 3 (police authorities: selection of independent members) as follows.

(2)In paragraph 1(1), after paragraph (b) insert—"for the purposes of paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 and paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 2A."

(3)After paragraph 1(4) insert—

"(5) In this Schedule "selection panel" means a selection panel established under this Schedule."

371D After Schedule 3 insert—

POLICE AUTHORITIES: SELECTION OF LAY JUSTICE MEMBERS
Lay justice selection panels

1 (1) There shall be a selection panel—

(a)for each police area for the time being listed in Schedule 1, and

(b) for the police area constituted by the metropolitan police district,

for the purposes of paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 and paragraph 5 of Schedule 2A.

(2) Each selection panel shall consist of three members, one of whom shall be appointed by each of the following—

(a) the designated members of the police authority for the area;

(b)the Secretary of State;

(c)the two members of the panel appointed by virtue of paragraphs (a) and (b).

(3)A designated member may be appointed as a member of a selection panel by virtue of paragraph (a) (but not paragraph (b) or (c)) of sub-paragraph (2).
(4)In this Schedule, "designated member" means a member appointed under paragraph 2 or 5 of Schedule 2 or paragraph 2 or 3 of Schedule 2A.
(5)Subject to paragraph 3, in this Schedule '"selection panel" means a selection panel established under this Schedule.2 A person shall be disqualified for being appointed as or being a member of a selection panel if, by virtue of paragraph 11 of Schedule 2 or paragraph 7 of Schedule 2A he is disqualified—

(a) for being appointed under paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 or paragraph 5 of Schedule 2A as a member of the police authority for the panel's area, or

(b) for being a member so appointed.3 Paragraphs 3 to 7 of Schedule 3 apply in relation to selection panels established under this Schedule as they apply in relation to selection panels established under that Schedule.

Functions of lay justice selection panels

4 (1) Where appointments of lay justices to a police authority are to be made under paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 or paragraph 5 of Schedule 2A, the selection panel for the authority's area shall prepare a short-list of candidates and send it to the police authority concerned.

1407

(2)Unless the selection panel are able to identify only a smaller number of suitable candidates, the number of candidates on the short-list shall be twice the number of appointments to be made.

(3)A lay justice shall not be included on a short-list in relation to an authority if he is disqualified for being appointed as a member of that authority by virtue of paragraph 11 of Schedule 2 or paragraph 7 of Schedule 2A.

5(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations as to—

(a) the procedures to be followed in relation to the selection of lay justices for inclusion on a short-list under paragraph 2, and

(b) the conduct of the proceedings of selection panels under this Schedule.

(2)Regulations under this paragraph may in particular—

(a)make provision (including provision imposing time limits) as to the procedures to be adopted when inviting applications for inclusion on a short-list under paragraph 4 and for dealing with applications received, and

(b) provide for decisions of a selection panel under this Schedule to be taken by a majority of the members.

(3)Regulations under this paragraph may make different provision for different cases and circumstances.
(4)A statutory instrument containing regulations under this paragraph shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of cither House of Parliament.
Procedure if too few candidates short-listed

6(1) This paragraph applies where the number of persons on the lay justice selection panel's short-list is less than twice the number of appointments to be made.

(2) The designated members may add to the short-list such number of candidates as, when added to the number short-listed by the selection panel, equals twice the number of appointments to be made.""

28 Page 133, line 6, at end insert—
"National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (c. 39)
376A After section 45 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 insert—
"45A Persons discharging fines by unpaid work
A person does not qualify for the national minimum wage in respect of any work that he does in pursuance of a work order under Schedule (Discharge of fines by unpaid work) to the Courts Act 2003 (discharge of fines by unpaid work).""
29 After Schedule 7, Insert the following new Schedule—
"TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
Interpretation
1 In this Schedule "the JPA 1997" means the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 (c. 25).
Orders contracting out the provision of officers and staff
2 Any order which, immediately before section 2 comes into force, was in force under section 27(3) of the Courts Act 1971 (c. 23), including, in particular, any order made under section 27(3) by virtue of—

(a)section 4(7) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (c. 9), or

(b)section 82(3) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (c. 23), shall have effect as if made under section 2 for the purpose of discharging the Lord Chancellor's general duty in relation to the courts (and may be amended or revoked accordingly).

Local justice areas
3 The first order under section 8 must specify as a local justice area each area which was a petty sessions area immediately before the time when that section comes into force.
Appointment and assignment of lay justices
4 A person who, immediately before section 10 comes into force, was a justice of the peace for a commission area under section 5 of the JPA 1997 shall be treated as having been—

(a) appointed under section 10(1) as a lay justice for England and Wales, and

(b)assigned under section 10(2)(a) to the local justice area which—

(i) is specified as such in the first order under section 8, and

(ii) immediately before section 10 comes into force, was the petty sessions area in and for which he ordinarily acted.

The supplemental list
5(1) The existing supplemental list shall have effect as the supplemental list required to be kept by section 12; and any name which, immediately before that section comes into force, was included in that list under a provision listed in column 1 of the table shall be treated as having been entered in the list under the provision listed in column 2—

Provision of the JPA 1997

Provision of this Act

Section 7(2)

Section 13(1)

Section 7(4)

Section 13(5)

Section 7(6)

Section 13(4)

(2) "The existing supplemental list" means the supplemental list having effect under the JPA 1997 immediately before section 12 comes into force.
Keepers of the rolls
6 A person who, immediately before section 16 comes into force, was under section 25 of the JPA 1997 keeper of the rolls for a commission area shall be treated as having been appointed under section 16 as keeper of the rolls for each local justice area which—

(a)is specified as such in the first order under section 8, and

(b)immediately before section 16 comes into force, formed part of, or consisted of, that commission area.

Chairman and deputy chairmen of the bench
7 A person who, immediately before section 17 comes into force, was under section 22 of the JPA 1997 the chairman (or a deputy chairman) of the justices for a petty sessions area shall be treated as having been chosen under section 17 as the chairman (or a deputy chairman) of the lay justices assigned to the corresponding local justice area specified in the first order under section 8.
Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate)
8(1) The person who, immediately before section 23 comes into force, was under section 10A of the JPA 1997 the Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) shall be treated as having been designated as such under section 23(a).
(2) A person who, immediately before section 23 comes into force, was under section 10A of the JPA 1997 the deputy of the Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) shall be treated as having been designated as such under section 23(b).
Justices' clerks and assistant clerks
9 A person who—

(a)immediately before section 27 comes into force, was a justices' clerk for a petty sessions area (or areas), and

(b)is transferred to the Lord Chancellor's employment by virtue of paragraph 11 of Schedule 2, shall be treated as having been designated as a justices' clerk under section 27(1)(b) and assigned under section 27(3)(a) to the corresponding local justice area (or areas) specified in the first order under section 8.

10 A person who—

(a)immediately before section 27 comes into force, was employed to assist a justices' clerk by acting as a clerk in court in proceedings before a justice or justices, and

(b)is transferred to the Lord Chancellor's employment by virtue of paragraph 11 of Schedule 2,shall be treated as having been designated as an assistant to a justices' clerk under section 27(5)(b).

11(1) Any regulations made under—

(a) section 42 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949 (c. 101) (compensation in connection with Parts 2 and 3 of the 1949 Act), or

(b) paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 to the Justices of the Peace Act 1968 (c. 69) (compensation in connection with section 1 of the 1968 Act),

and in force immediately before paragraph 20 of Schedule 4 to the JPA 1997 is repealed by this Act shall continue to have effect and may be revoked or amended despite the repeal by the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 (c. 55) of the provisions under which they were made.

(2) The power to make amendments by virtue of sub- paragraph (1) of regulations falling within paragraph (a) of that sub-paragraph shall extend to making provision—

(a) for compensation to or in respect of persons falling within sub-paragraph (3) to be payable if such persons suffer loss of employment, or loss or diminution of emoluments, attributable to anything done under Part 2;

(b)for the determination by persons other than magistrates' courts committees of claims for compensation to be made;

(c)for the payment by the Lord Chancellor of compensation payable under the regulations.

(3) A person falls within this sub-paragraph if—

(a)on 2nd February 1995 he held the office of justices' clerk or was employed to assist a justices' clerk, and

(b)is transferred to the Lord Chancellor's employment by virtue of paragraph 11 of Schedule 2.

(4) A person who under regulations made by virtue of sub- paragraph (2)(a) is entitled to compensation in respect of anything done under Part 2 is not entitled to compensation in respect of that thing under a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 by virtue of section 2(2)(a) of that Act.
Family proceedings courts
12 Any justice of the peace who, immediately before section 49 comes into force, was qualified to sit as a member of a family proceedings court shall be treated as having been authorised to do so by the Lord Chancellor under section 67 of the 1980 Act (as substituted by section 49).
Youth courts
13 Any justice of the peace who, immediately before section 50 comes into force, was qualified to sit as a member of a youth court shall be treated as having been authorised to do so by the Lord Chancellor under section 45 of the 1933 Act (as substituted by section 50).
Inspectors of court administration
14 Any person who, immediately before section 58 comes into force, was an inspector of the magistrates' courts service under section 62 of the JPA 1997 shall be treated as having been appointed as an inspector of court administration under section 58(1).
Collection of fines and discharge of fines by unpaid work
15(1) This paragraph applies if section (Collection of fines and discharge of fines by unpaid work) and Schedule (Collection of fines) are brought into force before section 8.
(2) Section (Collection of fines and discharge of fines by unpaid work) and Schedule (Collection of fines) have effect in relation to the period ending with the date on which section 8 comes into force as if any reference to a local justice area were a reference to a petty sessions area.
Register of judgments and orders
16 The register having effect under section 73 of the County Courts Act 1984 (c. 28) immediately before section 96 comes into force shall be treated as part of the register required to be kept under section 96."
30 Schedule 8, page 144, line 41, at end insert—
"In Schedule 2, in paragraph 19(2)(a),"or 8".
In Schedule 2A, in paragraph 14(2)(a). "or 5"."
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 25 to 30.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the Amendments Nos. 25 to 30.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed.

Extradition Bill
4.39 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [Part 1 warrant and certificate]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 9, leave out "with a view to" and insert "for"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Lamont, I beg to move Amendment No. 1 and speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 in his name and also to Amendment No. 33 in my name.
The question addressed by my noble friend's amendments is whether someone can be extradited to a category 1 territory for the purposes of interrogation after merely being accused rather than for the purpose of prosecution when there is already substantive evidence to warrant a trial. The Government's position throughout our debates is that the drafting in the Bill already guarantees that a person can be extradited for the purposes of prosecution and not for evidence-gathering purposes. Despite the Minister's insistence on this point, we are not convinced.
My noble friend's Amendment No. 1 would put the matter beyond all doubt and ensure that the arrested person should be extradited only on the basis that he or she would be prosecuted. It is our intention to avoid a fishing expedition.
My noble friend has also tabled Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 which provide a stiffer test to ensure that the person faces prosecution. I note that my noble friend is in his place and I am sure that he will speak in more detail on those amendments.
My Amendment No. 33 has been tabled to ask the Government to clarify some of the remaining uncertainties about the drafting of Clause 2 of the Bill and its impact on the ability of the police properly to carry out their duties of search under Clause 157. The Government published a consultation paper on the

1411
draft code of practice for the Bill earlier this summer. In Grand Committee—that lonely place upstairs where I was joined by a hardy band such as my noble friends Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, Lady Carnegy of Lour and Lord Lamont, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden—we laboured long and hard on this Bill. I put to the Government some initial questions about the responses but could not pursue the questions until the responses were published. They were published on 4th November.
The consultation paper asked respondents to comment on passages that are confusing, ambiguous or lack clarity. In particular, the Government asked whether,
"the distinction between investigation of the extradition offence and obtaining evidence for the prosecution of the extradition offence needed further explanation".
The resounding answer from the respondents was "yes". Nineteen respondents ߞ two-thirds of the total ߞ commented on the question. Of those, 18 said that the distinction required further explanation, with three respondents suggesting alternative wording. One respondent felt that the formulation was unworkable.
My amendment adopts the alternative wording suggested to the Government by the law reform committee of the General Council of the Bar. I could just as easily have adopted the drafting put forward by the Magistrates' Association or the Metropolitan Police Service. They would all have served equally well.
My questions to the Government are as follows. What action will they take as a result of these responses? Will they, for example, redraft the code of practice to adopt any of the drafting solutions offered to them by the respondents? If so, which of those drafting solutions? The Government, on page 5 of the response, point out that Parliament has been anxious to preclude any activity by UK police officers that could be deemed to be a fishing trip for evidence. We are still anxious. That is particularly because of the way in which the Government's response continues. They state:
"Clause 2(3)(b) of the Bill explicitly provides that the person's extradition must be sought for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence".
But then they go on to state:
"Any investigation of the extradition offence after a request has been made could be deemed to undermine this provision".
Why only "could"? Why not "would"? Does not that mean that the Government at heart recognise that an investigation rather than a prosecution could occur? What reassurance can the Government give today that they have so far failed to find? I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, first, I apologise for being absent when my amendment was called. Either the annunciator is working with a considerable time-lag, or alternatively the last group of amendments was dispatched with extraordinary speed. I apologise for not having anticipated the latter.
We are pleased to see the return of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, to speak on this issue. We tried very hard with the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, and got
1412
nowhere. I greatly hope that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, will reply to the amendments in some detail and will listen with an open mind to the arguments for them.
My three amendments return to the question of whether it is sufficient for a person to be extradited when he is simply accused of an offence and it is not definite that he will be charged. There is a problem of terminology, or semantics, because we tend to assume that "accused" implies "charged", or is synonymous with it. But in continental Europe, that is not the case. The word "accused" may be consistent with the beginning of an investigation or an investigation continuing. I previously quoted the opinion of Mr Leolin Price QC about how arrest was the beginning of the process of investigation and that in many jurisdictions being accused was consistent with both being charged and not being charged. A person might be in custody for many months, held by an investigating magistrate under the continental system of investigating prosecutors, without there ever being a trial. The accused may not be charged until the endߞ or he may not be charged at all.
Amendment No. 1 deletes the words "with a view to". This point was first alighted on by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, who pointed out the vagueness of the phrase. I hope that by deleting those words, we are making it more definite that a person who is to be extradited is, in the mind of the extraditing authority, definitely going to be charged.
The Minister and the noble Baroness have frequently said that the Bill provides that a person cannot be extradited simply for questioning; there must be an intent to prosecute. But how can anyone know with that degree of vague wording? I agree that there is a problem; that any extraditing request could on its warrant have whatever we have written into our legislation. I agree that, as a problem, there is no way around that. Whatever was required by our legislation, however we framed it, could be written into a warrant. However, if prosecution were required after extradition and if a pattern of behaviour emerged with a particular country, no doubt the courts would take that into account in the future.
I do not want to weary the House ߞ we discussed the matter previouslyߞbut I believe that this is a serious issue. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, remarked that it was common knowledge that people in certain continental countries were sometimes detained for long periods of time without being charged. This increases the pressure to strike a bargain with the prosecutor; or the prosecutor, in order to protect his own position, may give the person a sentence that is equal to the length of time the person has been investigated. I quoted what John Mortimer QC said on this point. He has written a number of articles using the arguments incorporated in my amendments.
The Government have said on several occasions that they have never known a case of extradition from the UK where the problem I have described has arisen. They will not know if they do not ask the question and

1413
are not determined to look into the matter. There may not have been a case of extradition from the UK, but how do we know about the large number of British citizens in gaols in different countries within the EU?
I tabled a series of Written Questions which referred to the individual countries within the EU and asked how many people had been detained, had not been given bail and had not been charged. The Written Answer given by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, detailed the number of people in prison in different EU countries on 31st March last year but stated that the Government were not aware of anyone who had been detained without being charged.
I then asked what definition was used in the response to those questions: was it simply the word "accused" as opposed to the word "charged"? I should have thought that that was a very simple question to put to the Government. The reply that I received was that the Government did not know of anyone who had been held in prison without being charged. I am not sure of the relevance of that response to the question that I put.
Subsequently, I thought of another way of putting my questions. I asked how many people had been released without being brought to court. That would have given some indication of whether people had been detained without being charged. I was told that the costs of discovering that information would be disproportionate. With all due respect to the Government, I believe that that was an inspired question; indeed ߞif he does not mind my saying soߞ it was inspired by a conversation that I had over dinner with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I hope, therefore, that I shall have some support from the noble Lord for these amendments.
I consider this to be a serious issue, and it strikes me as a rather unworthy reply to say that the cost of finding out that information is disproportionate. I am not indulging in my own fishing expedition; I am trying to find out how systems of justice operate in other countries. It seems to me that debating the rights of someone who may be extradited or, indeed, discussing the rights of British citizens in other countries who have been put in gaol is a fairly serious matter. To put it politely, I am extremely disappointed that the Government do not feel that they can possibly answer that question.
With great respect to the Government, I have to say that for much of the time in Grand Committee the noble Baroness made the assumption that anyone who is accused is automatically guilty. Many of the remarks also implied that it was a two-way trade and that we want people to be extradited back here from other countries. I understand that that is in the public interest. However, surely the rights of the individual and of the person who may be wrongly accused or who may be unjustly imprisoned for long periods simply in the interests of investigation are matters of considerable importance and should not simply be brushed aside. It seems to me that the rights of the accused are being brushed aside. If Ministers were in opposition, I believe that they would be singing a
1414
different song and would be far more interested in this issue than they appear to have been in previous responses to amendments of this kind.
In the other two amendmentsߞAmendments Nos. 2 and 3ߞI have tried to tackle this problem by putting a time limit of six months within which a person must be charged or, alternatively, within which he must be charged and returned to this country. Of course, I see that those amendments are impractical but the Minister can no doubt understand what I am getting at. I am trying to address a problem but I certainly do not intend to press those amendments to a Division. However, what I do with regard to the first amendment will depend very much on what the Minister says in reply.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I give some support to Amendment No. 1, although I certainly would not support Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 if the noble Lord pressed them. However, I should make plain that, in supporting the amendment, I do not in any way associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said about the approach of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, to this matter. I consider her approach to have been exemplary. She has taken the greatest care and trouble to listen and, where possible, to give way to the amendments moved, as demonstrated by the considerable number of amendments that appear in her name on the Marshalled List today.
Everyone agrees that extradition will be only for the purposes of being tried and not for the purposes of being investigated. The Government said that that is already contained in the words,
"issued with a view to his arrest and extradition … for the purpose of being prosecuted",
and that, therefore, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is unnecessary.
If the interpretation of those words was solely a matter for the English courts, I should suspect, perhaps with the benefit of considering what the Minister said according to the ruling in Pepper v Hart, that that rule would probably prevail, but that is not the way that the measure is to be used. The warrant must contain a statement made by the foreign authority that that is the purpose for which the warrant is issued.
Foreign authorities may well be used to arresting people with a view to their being questioned and will obviously be keen to fill in the form of words required in order to obtain an individual's extradition if that can be squared with their conscience. It seems to me desirable that the wording should be as explicit and as unambiguous as possible so as to make it as difficult as possible for foreign authorities to bend or adapt the rules to fit their view of life and to fill in the form saying, "Of course, this is done with a view to his prosecution. We don't question anyone unless it is with a view to his prosecution. But whether we shall be able to have him prosecuted will depend on the answers that we get to our questions".

1415
Therefore, I believe that, in those circumstances, there is something to be said for making the words 150 per cent explicit. I ask the Minister to give way on that point, which, he said, makes no difference because, on any basis, the wording is already included in the Bill.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps I may raise a question with the Minister. It was debated at some length in the House of Commons but, so far as I know, it has not been debated in our proceedings on this Bill. No doubt the noble Lord will put me straight if I am wrong.
The meaning of the Bill and the amendment depends largely on the language that we use. What does the language that we use mean and, more importantly, what does it mean in other EU countries with whom we shall be working on extradition in futureߞ particularly Italy? I believe it is acknowledged that Italy has more people languishing in its gaols without the prospect of trial than almost any other European nation. I declare an interest in that I speak Italian, and have done for some time. Therefore, I particularly wish the Minister to bring his mind to bear upon the vital Italian word "prova". In Italian, "prova" means "trial". It also means "proof or "testing". I understand that in the legal profession in Italy the word "prova" also means "the testing of legal evidence".
It would be helpful if the Minister could tell the House the Government's understanding of what the word "prova" will mean in Italy as regards the Bill. What will be the meaning of the Bill in Italy? What will be in the Italian magistrate's mind when he extradites someone from this country for prova in Italia? Does it mean what the noble Lord says it means? Will that person go straight for trial or for the well-known process of investigation by a visiting magistrate in Italy, when one might add the words, "God help him" in any case? However, so far as concerns the Bill, the Minister's answer may be useful, even at this stage.
5 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I rise to support Amendment No. 1 and to query a matter which seems to be accepted on all sides in the debate; that is, that "accused" means "charged".
If there is a killingߞa homicideߞand someone is found in the same house with a blood-stained knife, it is almost certain that he will be taken into custody and arrested. So the question arises: why is he being arrested? One can take refuge in the formula that he has been arrested to assist police with their inquiries. One could say that he has been arrested on suspicion of being concerned in the homicide. But in ordinary parlance, surely, what one says is that he has been arrested because he is accused of the homicide. Whether the police go on to charge him within the four days allowed is a different matter but that he is being accused I should have thought was clear.
1416
Stupidly, I had not anticipated this point. I believe it may have arisen on the Criminal Justice Bill yesterday where we were extending the period during which someone can be detained without being charged if a terrorist offence is involved. How does one decide whether a terrorist offence is involved unless the man is accused of it? We should not assume that accused means charged. I think it means "in custody in connection with".
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I shall not detain the House, except to say that my noble friend Lord Pearson made an important point. The whole question of language, interpretation of language and the way various member states use certain words in the law is very much a consideration of this point. Quite frequently in the European Union, when it comes to the crucial point in discussion at which legislation is being worded there are problems of language. Our precision of language and the very large vocabulary of English makes us particularly sensitive to this point. Like French, Italian is a flexible language with a smaller vocabulary, so it is more often the fact than in English that one word can have several meanings. I believe that is the point made by my noble friend.
In deciding this issue the House must not forget that we are discussing a measure which takes away the last moment of protection, the final stage protection, by the Home Secretary of a citizen of this country whose extradition is demanded. It is crucial to justice for our own citizens, as for other citizens in the European Union, that the wording of the Bill is in no way ambiguous. It is ambiguous and I am sure the Government should change it. I hope that the Minister will be more successful in persuading his colleagues than the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. I am sure she tried and that she understood the argument very well. I hope that he will tryߞperhaps he has triedߞas it is a very important measure. I support Amendment No. 1.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I, too, support Amendment No.1. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, was correct. To get this right, we should be 150 per cent certain that the accused, or whoever it isߞthe criminalߞ will receive fair treatment. I would have thought that that was an amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, would be very happy to accept, which would then satisfy everyone.
However, another point I should like to raise arises from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, regarding the Italians. Apparently, they are not very happy about this extradition warrant. Only today I read the EUobserver on-line and noted a report which stated that the European arrest warrant has caused splits within Italy's coalition. They became apparent yesterday as Justice Minister, Roberto Castelli, from the right-wing Northern League, exposed rifts between himself and the premier, Silvio Berlusconi over the European arrest warrant.

1417
It appears that the Justice Minister, Mr Castelli, did not approve of the European arrest warrant. It was only approved against his will by Signor Berlusconi. So, there are differences about the European arrest warrant within Italy and the Italian Government. Mr Castelli is concerned that the arrest warrant does not contain guarantees for the defence of the suspect. If the Italians of all people are concerned that the proper guarantees do not exist for the defence of the suspect, why on earth are we agreeing the European arrest warrant?
We must also bear in mind that this legislation is due to come into effect on 1st January. I do not know how it can with two senior Italian Ministers quarrelling among themselves. Only three countries have so far approved the European arrest warrant. If the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, wants additional reasons for accepting the amendment, I hope that I have now provided them.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I start by associating myself with the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, about the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, who handled the Bill in earlier proceedings in a wholly exemplary way.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and with all other speakers so far that it is clearly necessary that extradition should be used only for the purpose of a prosecution and not for the purpose of an investigation which might or might not lead to a prosecution. Where I find difficulty is in seeing how Amendment No. 1 achieves that purpose.
The relevant passage, which is Clause 2(3)(b), states:
"The Part 1 warrant is issued with a view to his arrest and extradition to the category 1 territory for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence".
The argument so far seems to be based on the assumption that the warrant is issued with a view to arrest and extradition to the category 1 territory with a view to being prosecuted for the offence. That I think might be a different situation. But it seems to me that the only purpose for which extradition can be granted under Clause 2(3)(b) is,
"for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence".
For that reason, I am unable to see how Amendment No. 1 actually takes the matter forward any further.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will help me on this issue. I should have thought that the phrase,
"for the purpose of being prosecuted",
is considerably wider than "being charged with". It could involve interrogation or investigation and those would result in prosecution. Surely, "being charged with"ߞa chargeߞis a different thing. The words,
"for the purpose of being prosecuted",
strike me, as a complete layman, as being much more vague than the words "being charged with".
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, perhaps I may just reply to that. Of course, the charge is an event that happens at one particular point in time. It is possible, therefore, that someone is extradited who has already been charged. It is also possible that someone might be extradited for the purposes of a prosecution for which they have not yet been charged because the requesting country has never been in a position to further process the charge on them. So I do not think that "charge" is an appropriate word.
Certainly, "prosecution" appears to be perfectly adequate. Investigation prior to a decision whether to go ahead with a prosecution is not sufficient.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I am very interested obviously in what the noble Lord says and I can see the logic of what he has said against my amendment. Given that he agreed that there is a potential problem, does he have a better amendment in mind?
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, no. On this particular point I do not. I think that the problem will arise only if it turns out that countries have been seeking extradition and when they achieve it they do not proceed to prosecution. Of course, for some years now it has not been necessary to produce a prima facie case before extradition is achieved under the Council of Europe convention. So far as I am aware, there is no evidence that this problem has raised its head.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, for tabling his amendments and for his kindness in welcoming me back yet again to the Bill. I said goodbye so many times that even I got bored with apologising for returning. Regretfully, I do not think that I shall necessarily make him rejoice with my remarks.
We all know what we want the clause to do: to allow extradition to take place only where there will be a prosecution. Clearly, we are talking about accusation not conviction cases. We believe that the clause as drafted has this effect. I add that the Extradition Act 1989 provides for extradition where a person "is accused" of an offence. We currently operate under legislation which has the same terminology and thrust. The Extradition Act 1989 goes no further than that.
Our present legislation uses the term "is accused". That has not given rise to a problem. However, the Bill goes further than the 1989 Act.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. Does the noble Lord agree that the whole purpose of the Bill is to expedite extradition? He gave illustrations of the reduction in the average length of time for future extraditions. Does it not follow, therefore, that there are likely to be more extradition cases in the future? The fact that this has not happened in the past is not a guide to what will happen if there is a considerable increase in the number of extradition cases.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, it may do. We do not know. The Bill certainly intends to try to do two things. I am at risk of going back to a Second Reading speech at Third Reading. It is essentially trying to ensure that procedural reasons for avoiding extradition and facing trial for a properly laid charge can no longer be allowed to frustrate justice. We have heard the argument for that many times. It is important because international crime is increasing and to combat it there must be an effective means for extradition between civilised societies.
However, as I shall develop in a moment when I speak to the issue in more detail, the Bill also puts in place powerful safeguards. So it does not seek to ride roughshod over the rights of someone who is sought for extradition; if anything, the power of the courts in this respect is strengthened. But the Bill actually says that the procedural delays that have been usedߞ naturally enough by people who do not want to face trial, and that is what one would expect they should doߞwill be curtailed because it is not in the interests of justice that they are allowed to continue.
So, as I was signalling, our present legislation uses the term "is accused". Notwithstanding that, the Bill goes further than the 1989 Act in saying that a warrant must have been issued,
"for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence".
I do not see how that can be ambiguous in any way. Of course the court, which makes the decision, must be satisfied that that is the case.
We do not anticipate any difficulties regarding fishing trips or warrants issued for investigatory purposes. Extradition in accusation cases is for prosecution. That is the basis on which extradition is currently run with our international partners and that was the basis on which the European arrest warrant framework decision was agreed.
If a warrant was issued for the purpose of investigation, it could not be certified or executed in the UK. It would not be a Part 1 warrant as defined in the Bill. For those reasons we believe: that the Bill is correctly drafted. We are not being obdurate for the sake of it. My approach on Bills is always to give if we can actually abbreviate our purposes. But we do not see a flaw here: we do not see a problem.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble Lord said that a warrant which is issued not for the purpose of trial but for the purpose of questioning will not be a Part 1 warrant. Is that really right? One requirement of a Part 1 warrant is that it contains a statement by the foreign authority as to the purpose for which it has been issued. The English court, surely, has no power to go behind that statement and investigate whether it is in fact true. That was the point I sought to make.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Viscount is right on one level. In international and mutual recognition arrangements between civilised societies certain things have to be taken on trust until there is a basis for having doubts about them.
1420
It is not possible to look behind the statement of another country, which is a signatory to the ECHR, when it says, "This is what we want the person to do". It is not possible to do that now. There is no difference in what we are talking about now from the current law of the land in this respect. In order to show where there is a difference in this legislation let us take an example that was touched on. If a member state of the European Union, despite its obligations under ECHR, on a sequence of occasions sought to flout the explicit intent and meaning of the framework agreement, one would expect a defence advocate to make those arguments before the judge in any extradition request put before a court. They would clearly point to whether there was doubt or dubiety at all in those respects.
However, generallyߞas I think that situation is unlikely to happenߞcertain things have to be taken on trust between civilised societies. Otherwise the consequence is that one could never expedite someone to another countryߞor they to usߞto face trial. That is a very serious mischief. I do not need to spell it out.
The second and third amendments tabled by the noble Lord would introduce a requirement that the requesting territory guarantee that the person will be prosecuted within six months of his extradition. The framework agreement does not include that requirementߞnor does our current law or procedure. It would therefore be highly unlikely that any warrant would contain such a guarantee. Were those amendments to be passed, given that a request from another EU member state would not contain such a guarantee, that would mean that we could never extradite someone to another EU member state. That must be a massive mischief.
Basically, if someone were sought for prosecution in France for an offence that he committed in France, because there was not exact synchronicity, he could never be extradited to France. That is not our current law and the Government's position is that such a law would be against the interests of justice and international efforts to combat criminality.
The third amendment goes one step further. It would provide that the statement would have to say that the person would be prosecuted within six months of his extradition. Again, that would unilaterally impose extra conditions on other European Union states and then unilaterally impose a sanction on the requesting state.
Far from strengthening the Bill, that would weaken it beyond all recognition. There may be reasons why the prosecution may legitimately take longer than six months to beginߞfor example, if the person is suffering from an extended illness or has sought extra time to prepare his defence. Writing such a provision into the Bill would give an opportunity to string out and delay the case.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, for his signal; I shall not labour the point.
I turn to some of the practical points that have been raised. I confirm that we are continuing to work with other member states on the operation of the European arrest warrant system, including the rights of arrested and extradited people. By that I mean no more than

1421
putting the framework agreement into law in member states; we have no reason to believe that other member states will not do so. It is also important that we try to ensure through inter-ministerial discussions and work through officials that the practice of the operation is as good as it should be in all member states.
I now turn briefly to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay: Amendment No. 33. I am sympathetic to the principle behind it and do not think that there is a great deal of difference between our positions on the matter. However, the amendment is unnecessary. Let me explain why.
Clause 157 provides that a magistrate may issue a search warrant for material believed to be evidence of the extradition offence for which the person is sought. The amendment rightly picks up on a concern discussed in the House that searches should be carried out only for the purpose of obtaining specific evidence for use in the prosecution of a person wanted for an extradition offence. Searches should not be used as an excuse for wider "fishing trips" for evidence on behalf of the requesting country.
We agree that extradition should be sought only for the purposes of prosecution and that the conduct of any search and seizure operation under the Bill must support that principle. That is why we included a section in the draft extradition code of practiceߞ which the noble Baroness has adopted as the basis for the amendmentߞadvising officers that searches should not constitute investigation of the extradition offence. I am pleased to accept that we shall redraft the code of practice; we are considering which of the suggested formulations to adopt. We want to make that as clear as possible, so that the distinction between investigating an offence and gathering evidence for the prosecution is understood by everyone. We take that point, but the code of practice is where that should be focused.
As drafted, Clause 157 provides that an officer applying for a search and seizure warrant must explicitly state the material sought and the premises where that material is believed to be. We therefore believe that the clause provides sufficient safeguards, buttressed by a clear code of practice, on which we commit to work. Officers searching under Clause 157 will be authorised to search for and seize only material specified in the warrant.
I turn to some of the many interesting and important points raised in the debate. I have discussed "fishing trips". The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, is right; he has got me there; my Italian does not go much further than what I have learnt from Mozart and Verdi. Of course, that is not the point; he asked how other countries incorporate international agreements into their law to ensure that they have encapsulated their spirit. I am not an expert on that, but I know that there are such expertsߞI am not sure whether they are called juristsߞwho, between them, have detailed knowledge of the meaning of international law.
1422
While I am discussing Italy, as for Signor Castelli, whom I have met several times in my present and future roles, I have not heard that the Italians have any doubts about the issue. I should be surprised were they not to sign, given that they have the presidency. They have already agreed it; so they are already on charge to legislate to do so. They already have an international commitment to do so. If the point that the noble Lord was makingߞthis is at third handߞwas that there are concerns, the fact that signatories to it are all signatories to the ECHR gives fairly strong buttresses on bail, rights to translation, and so on. I need not continue.
I have covered most of the issuesߞif not to everyone's satisfaction. I return to the emphasis. We seek to continue extradition with other member states and to strip out only time-wasting delays that have sought to frustrate people being brought to justice. We have stronger protection in the Bill than in current legislation, by giving the judge powers to be satisfied that someone taken to trial will be met with ECHR conditions. That is progress, not reversal; that is why, with regret, I cannot support the amendments.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, as it was me who rather unexpectedly found myself moving Amendment No. 1, it is my duty to respond to the Minister.
First, I associate myself with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about the working relationship that we have had with the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, on the Bill. We met her yesterday to discuss matters not covered by today's amendments concerning the Bill's further progress. That meeting was as constructive as has been every previous meetingߞin other words, very constructive.
In tabling Amendment No. 1, as he pointed out, my noble friend was careful to adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, at a previous stage. I agreed that that drafting was appropriate. I agree entirely with the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that we need to be 150 per cent sure in this part of the Bill about what we mean. We must be as explicit and unambiguous as possible.
Part 1 provides a new system of extradition, which all of us want to proceed in as fair and speedy a way as possible, while affecting only those who should properly be caught by extradition law. That is the problem: how we ensure that only those who are properly caught by it are so covered.
By a system almost of osmosis, I have been able to discern from my noble friend that, although the Minister has, as ever, been eloquent in his defence of the Government's position, we do not feel that he has sufficiently reassured us on Amendment No. 1ߞ although he has on the other three amendments in the group. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
5.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 110; Not-Contents, 161.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Liverpool, E.

Attlee, E.

Luke, L.

Bitten, L.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Bledisloe, V.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Byford, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Caithness, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Monson, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Montrose, D.

Cobbold, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Moynihan, L.

Colwyn, L.

Noakes, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Northbrook, L.

Craigavon, V.

Northesk, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Denham L

Onslow, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Parkinson, L.

Dundee, E.

Patten, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Peel, E.

Elles, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Elton, L.

Plumb, L.

Fowler, L.

Quinton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rawlings, B.

Garel-Jones, L.

Rees, L.

Geddes, L.

Renton L

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rogan, L

Glentoran, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Goschen, V.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Greenway, L.

Sharpies, B.

Hanham, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henley, L.

Slim, V.

Higgins, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Stewartby, L.

Hooper, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Howe, E.

Swinfen, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Inglewood, L.

Ullswater, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Vivian, L.

Jopling, L.

Waddington, L.

Kimball, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Wakeham, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Addington, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ahmed, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Alli, L.

Billingham, B.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Blackstone, B.

Andrews, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Avebury, L.

Bragg, L.

Barker, B.

Brennan, L.

Barnett, L.

Brett, L.

1424

Bridges, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brookman, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Burlison, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Carter, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Chandos, V.

McNally, L.

Chorley, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Christopher, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Crawley, B.

Mishcon, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Mitchell, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.[Teller]

Morgan, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Derby, Bp.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Desai, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dholakia, L.

Newby, L.

Dixon, L.

Nicol, B.

Donoughue, L.

Palmer, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Parekh, L.

Dubs, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Elder, L.

Pendry, L.

Erroll, E.

Pitkeathley, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor

Radices, L.

Rea, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Rennard, L.

Filkin, L.

Richard, L.

Gale, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Geraint, L.

Rooker, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Roper, L.

Gilbert, L.

Russell, E.

Golding, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Goldsmith, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Goodhart, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Goudie, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Grabiner, L.

Sheldon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Grantchester, L.

Simon, V.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hamwee, B.

Strange, B.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Harrison, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Haskel, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hayman, B.

Thornton, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Tordoff, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turnberg, L.

Hoyle, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L

Walmsley, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Warner, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Jones, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Jordan, L.

Weatherill, L.

Judd, L.

Whitaker, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Whitty, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wilkins, B.

Layard, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.38 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Person arrested under Part 1 warrant]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 30, leave out from beginning to first "as" in line 31 and insert "A copy of the warrant must be given to the person"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Scotland. Although they are government amendments, they could probably more accurately, and with great courtesy, be described as "Bledisloe amendments", as they closely reflect the suggestions made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, to whom I pay tribute.
Noble Lords will recall that the Bill was amended on Report to provide that any person arrested in an extradition case has the right to be shown a copy of the warrant. That was welcomed by noble Lords, but the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, suggested that we should go a bit further and make the requirement that the person should be given a copy of the warrant. We are happy to accommodate that suggestion; that is the effect of Amendments Nos. 4, 9, 22 and 26. They impose a requirement that a person must be given a copy of the warrant as soon as practicable after arrest.
In the light of this stricter requirement, we are also adopting another of the noble Viscount's suggestions. The House may recall that the Bill as currently drafted provides that failure to comply with the obligation to show or give the warrant to the person at the earliest possible moment leads to an entitlement to automatic discharge. The noble Viscount suggested that there is a world of difference between an inadvertent failure in a busy police station to give the person a warrant for a couple of hours and a deliberate attempt to deprive the person of the warrant.
The noble Viscount suggested, thereforeߞand we strongly agreeߞthat the matter should be brought before the district judge who has discretion over whether the person should be discharged, depending on the facts of the case. In reaching a decision, the judge can decide how serious the failure to comply with the obligation was. I trust that the House will welcome the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, we are grateful to the Government for this concession which, as the Minister said, reflects discussions in Committee and on Report. There was concern on all sides of the House that the person should be given a copy of the warrant as soon as practicable. I also note that the amendment is a response to the suggestion made on page 8 of the responses to the consultation on the draft code of practice. It would be best practice if, after arrest, the custody officer is required to give the person a copy of the warrant to read and retain. We support the changes and thank the Government for them.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, after the Minister's over-generous remarks, I cannot miss this opportunity of thanking him for adopting the suggestions and for bringing them forward. In particular, I find it desirable
1426
that the judge should have a discretion when there has been inadvertence, rather than a serious criminal being released because of some procedural matter that has made no practical difference. I thank the Minister very much.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we support these amendments now as we have done at earlier stages.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendments Nos. 5 to 7:
Page 3, line 34, at end insertߞ
"(3A) If subsection (2) is not complied with and the person applies to the judge to be discharged, the judge may order his discharge."
Page 3, line 35, leave out "(2) or"
Page 3, line 39, after "subsection" insert "(3A) or"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 5 [Provisional Arrest]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 3, leave out "reason to believe" and insert "reasonable grounds for believing"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 21, 25 and 32, and Amendments Nos. 35 to 37. I shall be brief, because we are giving effect to a government concession.
At various places in the Bill, police officers and judges are required to act if they have "reason to believe" certain things to be the case. Various noble Lords have suggested that it might be better if the test were based on a requirement for "reasonable grounds for belief. We are happy to accommodate that suggestion, which is the purpose and effect of these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, we welcome this government amendment, which is in response to one put forward in Committee and on Report, which was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, as well as noble Lords on these Benches.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Person arrested under section 5]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendments Nos. 9 to 13:
Page 4, line 34, leave out from beginning to "to" and insert "A copy of the warrant must be given"
Page 4, line 36, leave out "or (5)"
Page 4, line 37, at end insertߞ
"(6A) If subsection (5) is not complied with and the person applies to the judge to be discharged, the judge may order his discharge."
Page 4, line 40, at end insert "or (6A)"
Page 5, line 1, at end insert "or (6A)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 8 [Remand etc]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 6, line 13, leave out "there are exceptional circumstances" and insert "it to be in the interests of justice to do so"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can again be brief. The announcement on Report that we would make these concessions was welcome. As currently drafted, the Bill allows for the extradition hearing to be postponed when the judge considers there to be exceptional circumstances. The noble Lord and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, made considerable contributions to earlier stages of the Bill. He suggested that the clause be altered to allow for postponements when it is in the interests of justice. We are happy to agree with that suggestion, which is the purpose of the amendments.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I rise to thank the Government for this amendment and for picking up the wording originally brought to the Committee by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden in an amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Anelay and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. We are happy with what is now proposed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 [Request for consent to other offence being dealt with]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 28, line 18, leave out "there are exceptional circumstances" and insert "it to be in the interests of justice to do so"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 57 [Request for consent to further extradition to category 1 territory]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 29, line 35, leave out "there are exceptional circumstances" and insert "it to be in the interests of justice to do so"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 60 [Return of person to serve remainder of sentence]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 32, line 8, after "sentence" insert "if and"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 31. Briefly, these are drafting amendments. The Bill will allow us for the first time temporarily to extradite serving UK prisoners to stand trial abroad. The Bill provides that time spent abroad does not count against the UK sentence because otherwise the person would be credited twice for the same custody time. The one exception to that is that, following a suggestion from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, time spent abroad does count against the UK sentence if the person is not convicted at the overseas trial. I am grateful for that point, because, clearly, it is in the interests of justice. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Lamont of Lerwick moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 69, insert the following new clauseߞ
"COMMENCEMENT OF PART 1 (NO. 1)
This Part shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid a report before both Houses of Parliament confirming that all category 1 territories have demonstrated that they have an effective system of legal aid."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 18 to 20. The three amendments delay the commencement of the Bill with reference to three considerations: legal aid, translation facilities for the accused and the existence of a proper system of Euro bailߞa system designed to ensure that foreigners are treated in exactly the same way for bail purposes as nationals of the countries in which they are detained.
The European arrest warrant and the framework document have been justified as creating one judicial and legal space. I do not know whether the Government would go along with that. However, it would follow that, if we are to have one legal space, we should have one broadly similar system of bail.
There is a flaw in the Government's approach in the Bill. They do not acknowledge that a foreigner is, for several reasons, naturally at a disadvantage in a foreign court. A foreigner in a UK court would also be at a certain disadvantage. Such people can be at a disadvantage because they cannot get bail or legal aid, and may simply not understand what is going on in the court because they do not speak the language. That is why we have to be careful about extradition. We have to have a series of thresholds. That is why we do not extradite for insignificant offences. It is why, in the past, we have had the principle of double criminality. There are risks of injustice occurring through the process of extradition. As I said, we must recognise that the risks that are always there can be increased when a person faces justice abroad, and that person may be innocent.
Amendment No. 18 refers to legal aid. One of the disturbing considerations in our arguments about the European arrest warrant is the absence of legal aid in quite a number of European countries. Many Mediterranean countriesߞSpain, Greece and Portugalߞdo not have adequate systems of legal aid. How can we have a system of adequate justice if there is no adequate legal aid?
That was clearly illustrated in the case of the plane spotters in Greece, which has been rather brushed aside on the grounds that it was not actually extradition. However, the case illustrates a number of issues that could easily arise with accelerated extradition procedures, as provided for in the legislation. Amendment No. 18 provides that the Secretary of State should conduct an investigation and lay before Parliament a report about legal aid within the area covered by the arrest warrant.
Amendment No. 19 adopts a similar approach but with respect to translation facilities. Fair Trials Abroad has highlighted how foreigners or British citizens in European courts often find that they do not have adequate translation facilities during court

1429
proceedings or for the translation of documents. Under the European Convention, in theory, there are certain provisions relating to translating facilities.
Fair Trials Abroad says that it has never come across a case in France where adequate facilities have been provided. It has also made extremely serious criticisms of what happens in Portugal. I understand that in Finland the cost of translation falls on the accused, although sometimes some legal aid may be available for part of the cost. I remember watching on television recently a documentary about Geoffrey BoycottߞI am not seeking to comment on the caseߞwho found himself accused in a French court of domestic violence. He was found guilty. When he came out he said that he had not understood a word of the proceedings, which seemed a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. Anyone accused, appearing in court, should have simultaneous translation. Again, the approach in the amendment is that a report should be placed before the House.
Amendment No. 20 refers to bail and has a completely different approach. It would be insufficient just to have a report laid before the House. With respect to a person standing trial in another country, the problem is that there may be prejudice against him being given bail simply on the grounds that, because he is a foreigner, the courts think that he may abscond and, therefore, they would have to go through all the business of re-extraditing him. As has been advocated by many people, including, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and Fair Trials Abroad, one way of dealing with that situation would be to have a system of "Euro bail". This is the first time for a long time that I have advocated a measure of European integration, but it illustrates how one European problem leads to another. This is a very serious problem from the point of view of justice.
The whole concept of Euro bail would be that bail would be made available to non-nationals on the same basis as though they were nationals of that country; that is, the risk of flight out of the country would not be a major consideration. Euro bail would be accompanied by a system whereby the country from which the accused came would be obliged to re-extradite him if he absconded. The three issues of bail, translation and legal aid are very important and bring out one of the fundamental problems of the Bill, which is that a person standing trial in another country faces certain natural disadvantages. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I support my noble friend, particularly on Amendments Nos. 19 and 20. If the Minister cannot assure us that, for certain, anyone being extradited to any member state would be able to have legal aid and simultaneous translation, the whole concept is flawed. That applies not only to the present European Union but also to when the next two waves of members come in. We are probably some distance from being able to ensure that in some of those countries. The Minister must give us that assurance or we should be very concerned.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I cannot support the concept of the amendments; namely, that the entire
1430
Part I shall not come into force until these things have happened. However, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, raised a very valid point. The necessity for these provisions and, in particular, the whole issue of an agreement for "Euro bail" is a matter which affects not merely those extraditedߞindeed, not principally those extraditedߞbut those arrested in a foreign country who do not need extradition because they were arrested and kept there.
One can quite understand a foreign country saying, "There is no point in my giving you bail because the only point of you having bail is to go back home and get on with your job until the trial comes on. But once you have gone back there, I have got no way of getting you back without going through the whole process of extradition". Therefore, one can understand a reluctance to grant bail to foreigners. However, it means that it is grossly unfair and very oppressive on those who are arrested in foreign countries or on those who are extradited. I strongly urge the Minister to do everything he can to forward the cause of the Euro bail agreement.
I agree that it is a different matter, but its desirability is surely finally and totally demonstrated by the fact that we have no less a Euro-sceptic than the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, strongly pressing for a Euro agreement. In those circumstances, it must be right.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, my noble friend has raised the very important issue of the relative advantage or disadvantage of someone in a foreign court, whether it be a UK citizen overseas or an overseas citizen in the UK. He has done so against a background of the importance of legal aid, adequate translation and bail. For those of us who have received briefing from Fair Trials Abroad and other organisations, clearly there are some important points and issues to be addressed. We look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
My noble friend might be able to comfort himself somewhat that, as a result of points made by him and others in Committee and on Report, Clause 22, entitled, "Minimum procedural rights", now offers some protection and prevention. It particularly allows the Secretary of State to monitor subsequent conduct in different territories and, where that conduct falls short, to draw that fact to the attention of a judge in subsequent cases. Those improvements that have come about, I think, through the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, have gone a long way to meeting that which my noble friend is seeking. Nevertheless, there is still an issue here to be answered by the Government.
6 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of Fair Trials Abroad. On this occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, will find me much more supportive than I was on his first group of amendments. While my support might not necessarily go so far as to support him in the Division Lobby if he chooses to divide the House, the principle behind these amendments is absolutely vital.

1431
Fair Trials Abroad has found that the two main problems encountered by people facing trial in foreign countries, in particular in the European Union, are the absence of proper legal aid and the lack of competent translation and interpretation facilities. I wish to make a minor point: I would not go so far as to say that simultaneous interpretation is necessary. That would require fairly high-powered electronic equipment to be made available in each courtroom. I should have thought that competent sequential translation would be adequate. However, there is no doubt that the absence of legal aid and lack of interpretation facilities are serious problems.
I recognise that both elements are referred to specifically in Article 6.3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. If it becomes apparent that in certain countries the rights of people who are extradited are not being respected, then obviously it will be possible, under the terms of Clause 21, to object to extradition on the grounds that the convention rights of the person to be extradited will not be met. That will depend on evidence being provided to establish a case for that purpose.
I regret that it did not prove possible to reach a European framework decision on minimum standards of procedure. That would have provided a valuable balance to the contents of the European framework decision that led to the European arrest warrant.
I would be even more enthusiastic about the idea of establishing "Euro bail", because that issue causes real hardship in a significant number of cases. There is no doubt that in a number of countries there is a natural tendency not to grant bail to someone who is a foreigner and who may therefore disappear home. The country could not be certain of getting the person back, and even if it did get him back it would be only after a lengthy struggle. If that is coupled with lengthy periods of detention before trial, the problem would be doubled.
Certainly Fair Trials Abroad has come across a number of cases where people have been detained for very long periods before trial, at the end of which sometimes they have been found innocent. Particular problems have arisen in Spain with cases involving lorry drivers. From time to time, lorry drivers are found transporting drugs or other contraband in the backs of their lorries which they claimߞsometimes rightly and sometimes wronglyߞthey have been carrying without their knowledge. They are detained for long periods in a foreign country; they are not given bail, and often their families cannot afford to travel out to the country to visit them, which increases their hardship yet further.
I understand that discussions are being held with the countries of the European Union which seek to establish some kind of Euro bail system, but that they are still at a preliminary stage. It is important that those talks should be pressed and I hope very much that the Government will be able to express their intention to push for a Euro bail system. It would mean that if someone jumps bail, they would be automatically returned to the country from which they
1432
were bailed. In due courseߞI hope sooner rather than laterߞI hope that we will be able to establish a Euro bail system.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, for introducing this debate because in a sense it covers one of the central themes of our discussions on the Bill. It is right and proper that we come back to it at the final stage in this House.
We have been extraditing to other European Union and Council of Europe countries for over 100 years. Never before have we required a Secretary of State to produce a report on those countries' criminal justice systems.
The single most significant change to extradition procedures to Council of Europe countries came with the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. That legislation paved the way for the removal of the requirement for those countries to produce prima facie evidence. Essentially, we operate on mutual recognition between ourselves and other civilised states which we believe uphold the basic principles of the law. Yet that important change was not conditional on a report on various aspects of the criminal justice systems of the countries concerned. Nevertheless, one might say that times have changed and that the burden is still on the Government to consider whether that is good enough.
Let us look at what the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, has specifically proposed in his amendments. While I do not wish to raise hopes, let us pretend for the sake of argument that the Government agreed and produced a report that said that the system in the extraditing country was acceptable. While that may or may not be of comfort, it would not guarantee that, in the future, the system would not change. A snapshot judgment would have been made at a particular point in time about the criminal justice system in another European country.
For that reason and for other more fundamental reasons, we have not taken that route. Rather, we have chosen a substantially better route to ensure that someone who is sought for extradition has their basic rights met. A number of noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment have already signposted how powerful those terms are as they are currently set out in the Bill.
First, Clause 21 ensures that a judge will make the decision on whether to agree to an extradition; it is not for a Minister to decide. That responsibility is placed very firmly on a judge. The clause states:
"If the judge is required to proceed under this section … he must decide whether the person's extradition would be compatible with the Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998".
If the judge is not so satisfied at the specific time and with regard to the specific person before him that their convention rights would be met, he must not agree to extradite.

1433
The Bills goes further in Clause 22 by providing that:
"In reaching a decision under section 21(1) the judge shall have particular regard to the person's Convention rights and Article 6.3 of the European Convention on Human Rights".
If he needed to do so, although it would be most unlikely, the judge would look at the article, which covers the right to a fair trial. The position is made explicit:
"Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly in a language which he understands;…
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require".
The last point is relevant to our discussion:
"(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in the courts".
Those decisions will not be in the Government's power; they will be the responsibility of the judge.
Noble Lords know how the system will operate. We have an expert Bar that will deal with extradition cases and it is self-evident that, when the Bill is passed into law, counsel will use these measures powerfully. Arguments will be put before the judge if there is evidence to support the assertion that, in country X or Y, convention rights will not be met. If my memory serves me right, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, raised concerns about whether, having closed some loopholes, one might be at risk of creating another great panjandrum of defence around this.
But we are where we areߞand we are at the right place. The Bill could not be clearer in seeking to give a mechanism to the judge to decide, in the specific instances of a particular case before him, whether the convention rights would be met. Without labouring the point, the Bill is as powerful as it possibly could be to meet the aims that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, seeks to achieve.
As to Eurobail, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, negotiations are at a very early stage. I cannot say whether anything will come of them but the UK will play a full part in such negotiations. When we referred to Eurobail previously, we came to the view in Committee that in itself it would not necessarily assist in this case because it would require the fugitive to be transferred twice between the two countries and there were technical reasons why its application may be considered inappropriate in this context.
Be that as it may, the central point is that the Bill could not be clearer in terms of giving a defendant who does not think that he will get a fair trial the strongest possible forum to advance that argument in a court of this country before a judge who is charged very specifically under the Bill. For these reasons, I hope that I have put at rest the minds of at least some Members of the House.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his support. His
1434
announcement that he would not join me in the Division Lobbies reminds me of Talleyrand's remark that he had heard a speech often that changed his mind, but his vote never.
As regards the issues of translation and bail, I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for the example that he gave of the plight in which lorry drivers find themselves in many European countries. There are few Members of the House of Commons who do not have constituents who have fallen into such a situation.
The noble Lord referred to Spain being a particular problem. Again, I am deeply disappointed that the Foreign Office is so obdurate about not giving information with regard to British citizens who have been detained in Spain and whether they have been charged or subsequently released without being charged. It is incredible that we can discuss these issues without officials in the Foreign Office being prepared to take off their jackets, do some work and give Parliament answers to questions in the normal way in which other departments have to answer questions. Those in the Foreign Office sometimes believe that they are far too grand to answer questions in Parliament.
The Minister referredߞas he and the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, have done throughout the passage of the Billߞto the European convention. He quite fairly rehearsed the rights that a person accused in a continental court would have under the convention. Those rights exist but, as regards legal aid and translation facilities, they seem to have had no effect whatever in raising standards. As I said, legal aid does not exist in most Mediterranean countries and translation facilities are not available in France, Portugal and Spain.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify one point. I have been in correspondence with a former trustee of Fair Trials Abroad about the situation in France, where translation facilities are available but their quality falls short.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, if I recall rightly, Fair Trials Abroad states on its website that in the cases that have come to itߞwhich, of course, are not necessarily typical but are cases that, by definition, have a problemߞit has not come across one that came up to the standards required. That is what the noble LordߞI see that he is noddingߞwill see on the website. Certainly it gives many, many examples.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, if it is as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, says it is and a judge, on the evidence put before him, thinks that that case is made, he will refuse to extradite.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, yes, although what good that will be to a lorry driver who is arrested while driving through Spain, I do not know. I agree that that does not come under the Bill.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, we are talking about extradition. That is what the Bill is about.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I totally accept that. I conceded that in my reply to the Minister.

1435
However, I am not entirely persuaded that a lorry driver threatened with extradition will be able to challenge on those grounds and will have the assistance of noble and learned Lords from this House. But we shall see.
The Minister also said that we have been extraditing people for 100 years. The conditions under which we have extradited people to continental Europe over 100 years have progressively changed. The prima facie rule, as Ministers have constantly reminded us, disappeared in 1989. That was a big change. We are now in a situation where Ministers are seeking to accelerate the process and to very much reduce the length of time that extradition cases take. As I have observed before, that is likely to mean that there will be more extradition cases.
As the Minister quite rightly pointed out, some countries have not even made requests for extradition because they feared the British system was so lengthy. That has been one of the arguments; for the Bill. If correct, it will mean that people on the Continent will be less reluctant to make requests for extradition from this country. So there will be more extradition cases. If there are more extradition cases, and if these are genuine issues —as a number of people have said they are—they will arise again and again.
We have debated this matter several times. I am disappointed with the Minister's reply—although I am grateful, as always, for his courtesy and the information he has given me—but I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Clause 72 [Arrest warrant following extradition request]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 40, line 7, leave out "it appears to the: judge" and insert "the judge has reasonable grounds for believing"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 73 [Person arrested under section 72]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendments Nos. 22 to 24:
Page 41, line 1, leave out from beginning to first "as" in line 2 and insert "A copy of the warrant must be given to the person"
Page 41, line 9, at end insert—
"(4A) If subsection (2) is not complied with and the person applies to the judge to be discharged, the judge may order his discharge."
Page 41, line 10, leave out "(2) or"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 74 [Provisional warrant]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 41, line 37, leave out "it appears to him" and insert "he has reasonable grounds for believing"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 75 [Person arrested under provisional warrant]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendments Nos. 26 to 28:
Page 42, line 40, leave out from beginning to first "as" in line 41 and insert "A copy of the warrant must be given to the person"
Page 43, line 4, at end insert—
"(4A) If subsection (2) is not complied with and the person applies to the judge to be discharged, the judge may order his discharge."
Page 43, line 5, leave out "(2) or"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 76 [Date of extradition hearing: arrest under section 72]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 43, line 41, leave out "there are exceptional circumstances" and insert "it to be in the interests of justice to do so"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 77 [Date of extradition hearing: arrest under provisional warrant]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 44, line 15, leave out "there are exceptional circumstances" and insert "it to be in the interests of justice to do so"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 133 [Return of person to serve remainder of sentence]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 72, line 18, after "sentence" insert "if and"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 143 [Issue of Part 3 warrant]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 79, line 10, leave out "is reason to believe" and insert "are reasonable grounds for believing"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 157 [Search and seizure warrants]:
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Clause 163 [Entry and search of premises on arrest]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 92, line 20, leave out "reason to believe" and insert "reasonable grounds for believing"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 165 [Entry and search of premises after arrest]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 94, line 9, leave out "reason to believe" and insert "reasonable grounds for believing"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 173 [Delivery of seized property]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendments Nos. 36 and 37:
Page 98, line 42, leave out "reason to believe'' and insert "reasonable grounds for believing"
Page 99, line 13, leave out "reason to believe'' and insert "reasonable grounds for believing"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 188 [Re-extradition hearing]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 107, line 30, leave out "the person must be taken to be discharged" and insert "and the person applies to the judge to be discharged, the judge must order his discharge"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can be brief. In moving Amendment No. 38, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 39, both of which stand in the name of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal.
On Report, we removed the various references in the Bill to "taken to be discharged" and instead provided for an automatic right of discharge where the appropriate time limits are breached. I fear we missed one reference to "taken to be discharged" and the amendment seeks to correct that omission.
This is not a resigning matter for either Ministers or officials, but I regret that we did not spot it earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 107, line 33, leave out "taken to be"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 213 [Article 95 alerts: transitional provision]:
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 122, line 12, leave out "and 50(3)(b)" and insert", 50(3)(b), 191(3) and 192(2)(a)"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor drafting amendment which is consequential on government amendments that the House agreed on Report. I apologise for the fact that the omission was not picked up then. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
The Bill is longer and better than it was when it entered the House by almost 250 amendments. I thank all Members of the House who have contributed to the process. We had a good Committee process and some proper challenges. I pay particular tribute to noble Lords on the Front Benches opposite, who worked purposefully on the Bill, and to the officials who have supported us. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Anti-social Behaviour Bill
6.19 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, before the Deputy Speaker calls the next group of amendments, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that, Her Majesty having been informed of the purport of the Anti-social Behaviour
1438
Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 14 [Security of tenure: anti-social behaviour]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 14, line 21, at end insert—
"( ) Section 83 of that Act is amended as follows—

(a)in subsection (1) for the words from "the possession" to the second "tenancy" substitute "an order mentioned in section 82(1A)";

(b)in subsection (2)(b) for the words from "an order" to "tenancy" substitute "the order";

(c)after subsection (4) insert—

"(4A) If the proceedings are for a demotion order under section 82A the notice—

(a)must specify the date after which the proceedings may be begun;

(b)ceases to be in force twelve months after the date so specified.";

(d)in subsection (5) for "or (4)" substitute "(4) or (4A)"."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Report, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised the issue of whether landlords were required to issue a notice to tenants informing them of the intention to seek a demotion order.
Demotions seek to be a preventive tool, as well as a final warning to tenants. In some cases, only the threat of loss of security of tenure is sufficient to make tenants realise the seriousness of their actions. Receiving a notice of the landlord's intention to seek demotion will impress upon the tenant that the landlord means business. In some cases, it may be sufficient on its own to bring about a change in behaviour and enable the landlord to avoid legal action altogether. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, therefore, require landlords to serve notice before issuing demotion proceedings and specify the information which the notice should contain.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for bringing this matter to our attention and enabling the Government to bring forward these amendments.
I shall refrain from making any comments on the amendments grouped with Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 until they have been spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I must apologise to the House regarding Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. I noticed last night that, in translation, an error had crept in. I was about to ask for them to be withdrawn but there was a conversation with the Bill team and I understand that the Minister has an answer to what the amendments should have been. Given that this is the last stage of the Bill, I am grateful for his help. However, I apologise to all concerned. The amendments should say "should only" instead of "shall"—it makes rather a difference.

1439
The amendments are to the clause covering proceedings for possession. They were tabled to make a request for guidance to the effect that fast-track eviction proceedings available for demoted tenancies should be used not for any reason other than for further anti-social behaviour.
We referred to this issue at Report; I expressed concern that tenants whose tenancy had been reduced to a demoted tenancy could, at the next stage, lose their homes as a result of a breach of more stringent tenancy conditions such as rent arrears. I am told by Shelter that this happens in the case of tenants placed on introductory or starter tenancies, where there are many parallels.
At Report, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, suggested that a landlord who put his energy into seeking a demoted tenancy would do so because it would be a real chance to work with the tenant to improve behaviour. Of course, we all hope that that would be the effect of demotion. The noble Lord said that that kind of landlord would not subsequently seek to end the demoted tenancy on a whim. I am told by Shelter that it would like to share the Minister's view but, on the basis of its experience, it is unable to do so. So I am asking for an assurance that guidance will make it clear that final possession of a demoted tenancy should be sought only for further behaviour capable of causing nuisance or annoyance.
It is easy for landlords to evict tenants under the parallel introductory tenancy regime. The court there has no discretion and the landlord simply follows the fast-track procedure. I hope that the Minister can provide some assistance at this late stage.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for listening to what we said about demotion orders. I thank the noble Baroness in particular for the two letters she wrote on the subject— one to myself on 5th November and one to my noble friend Lady Hamwee on 11 th November. They set out very clearly how the Government saw this development occurring and how the threat of the demotion order would, in many cases, be quite sufficient to enable the tenant to comply with reasonable conduct and not to need the imposition of the demotion order.
As a result of the Government's amendment, we very much hope that many tenants who would otherwise have received demotion orders will be heedful of the notice which will precede it and it will never become necessary to serve the order. We are most grateful to the Government for the consideration of the arguments that were made on Report.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his kind words. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for the way in which he has conducted himself during the course of the Bill's proceedings in raising important and sharp points.
I shall now respond to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4.1 suppose, in a sense, I am agreeing with the noble Baroness that her amendments are defective. They
1440
would not achieve their aim, which appears to be that demoted tenancies might be ended only for a further instance of anti-social behaviour.
Placing the amendments in Clause 16 is an error. Clause 16 deals with the discretion a court may exercise, while the amendments seek to deal with the discretion that a landlord may exercise. Clause 16 deals with the court's discretion to grant a possession order on the existing grounds of nuisance under Section 84 of the Housing Act 1985 in respect of secure tenants or under Section 7 of the Housing Act 1988 in respect of assured tenants.
The amendments are rather curious in respect of local authority demoted tenants, because Section 84 of the Housing Act 1985 does not apply to the ending of a demoted tenancy because demoted tenants are not secure tenants. Section 7 of the Housing Act 1988 does apply to demoted assured shorthold tenants but, if the landlord was seeking possession using ground 2 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988, he would already need to provide evidence of anti-social behaviour. It would then be a matter for the court to decide whether to exercise its discretion to grant the possession order.
Irrespective of the drafting issues, I can see that the noble Baroness is seeking to require landlords to act in accordance with statutory guidance to the effect that the landlord should seek possession of a demoted tenancy only where there has been a further instance of anti-social behaviour rather than for any other reason, such as rent arrears.
The Government do not support such an approach in any event. A demoted tenancy is just that—a lesser form of tenancy where the tenant has forfeited certain rights. Once those rights are forfeited, it is our intention that tenants can regain them only by proving that they are responsible enough to be in receipt of those rights. That includes a general obligation to maintain their tenancy responsibly.
Landlords seeking to end a demoted tenancy do not need to use the "nuisance" grounds for possession in any event. Both local authority demoted tenancies and demoted assured shorthold tenancies can be ended without proof of anti-social behaviour. In the case of local authority demoted tenancies, the landlord has to follow the procedure set out in the new Sections 143D, 143E and 143F, introduced into the Housing Act 1996 by Schedule 1 of the Bill.
In the case of demoted assured shorthold tenancies, registered social landlords are automatically entitled to a possession order if they have given a required notice under Section 21 of the Housing Act 1998. That is usually a two-month notice. For the demoted tenancy to have a deterrent effect, tenants must be under no illusion that the effect of demotion orders is that they receive a very insecure form of tenancy. The onus is then on them to prove to their landlord's satisfaction that they are responsible tenants. If the landlord is not satisfied for any reason, including the accumulation of rent arrears, the tenancy may—and "may" is the important word—be ended swiftly.

1441
I hear what the noble Baroness says on the matter. There is a disagreement between us, but in this grouping we have gone some way to helping noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I am grateful to our colleagues from the Liberal Democrat Benches for their support in part of what they are doing, but there are areas of policy in which we frankly disagree; and this is one of them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 15, line 1, at end insert—

"(4A) The court must not entertain proceedings for a demotion order unless—

(a)the landlord has served on the tenant a notice under subsection (4B), or

(b)the court thinks it is just and equitable to dispense with the requirement of the notice.

(4B) The notice must—

(a)give particulars of the conduct in respect of which the order is sought;

(b)state that the proceedings will not begin before the date specified in the notice;

(c)state that the proceedings will not begin after the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the date of service of the notice.

(4C) The date specified for the purposes of subsection (4B)(b) must not be before the end of the period of two weeks beginning with the date of service of the notice."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Proceedings for possession: anti-social behaviour]:
[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
Clause 36 [Interpretation]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 30, line 1, leave out "a district council,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Government made a valuable concession at Report stage, in relation to dispersal orders, when they agreed that dispersal orders could be made only by the police in agreement with the relevant local authority. That was most welcome. I can well understand the Government's reluctance for more than one local authority to be involved in the agreement. However, the question that I am not sure that we addressed with sufficient keenness is whether it is appropriate in all circumstances that that authority is the district council or the county council. I shall seek to argue that it should be the county council, if only to have the pleasure of hearing the Minister telling me why it should be the district council.
The fact of the matter is that in shire areas where there are two tiers of authority, the bulk of local government services are provided by the county council. County councils have the sole statutory responsibility at local authority level for services that will largely be involved with the key groups of people who are most likely to be dispersed. They have sole responsibility for young offenders, for social care
1442
including that of vulnerable adults and people with mental health issues, and for child protection and truancy. Those people would all be prime candidates for the possibility of being required to move on.
County councils have the lead statutory responsibility for the provision of youth offending services in a local authority area. In the case of juveniles who might offend against an order to move on by subsequently coming back into the area, the Minister made it clear on Report that, as they cannot be locked up, they will be subject to community sentencing, a fine, or a discharge if that were appropriate. The county councils have the key function in relation to youth justice, so it could be questioned whether they were the appropriate authority. It would be much more appropriate if orders designating areas in which people could be dispersed were made immediately with the authority with the responsibility for providing the statutory service to enforce the consequences of the orders being broken.
County councils are also responsible for co-ordination of the national drug strategy and local drug action teams, and so on. There is a long list of reasons why the county councils, which deal with the relevant local government services, are going to be most affected by the dispersal orders if anything goes wrong. I thought it was worth moving the amendment in order to get county councils involved in the process of designating areas where people can be dispersed. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand why the noble Lord has tabled Amendments Nos. 5 and 6, but they do not deliver exactly what he would like. The amendments would require the police to seek agreement from the county council, not the district council, before granting an authorisation.
Amendment No. 5 would remove the need for a district council in a two-tier area to give its agreement to the authorisation of the use of powers under Part 4 of the Bill. Amendment No. 6 would replace the need for district councils to give their consent with a requirement for county councils to give their consent instead. When we made our last amendment, I understood the need to include county councils. However, I am not sure that it is right in this case to expunge district councils.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, for the sake of clarity, I should say that I put the amendments deliberately in that form because of the Government's reluctance to have to consult more than one local authority.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have considered carefully the points made by the noble Lord in previous debates and this evening. We also recognise that organisations such as the County Councils Network are seeking to work constructively with the Government to drive forward and to tackle anti-social behaviour. We are very grateful to those organisations for their efforts.
We are keen to encourage county councils to play their proper part and welcome their engagement in these issues. However, on this specific point we remain

1443
of the view that the authorisation process as set out in the Bill is the most appropriate. District councils are those bodies that sit on crime and disorder reduction partnerships in all areas and are therefore, we respectfully suggest, best placed to work directly with the police when deciding whether an authorisation is needed in a particular area.
In addition, we may be talking about authorising the use of dispersal powers in relatively small parts of a village, town or city. In such circumstances the lower-tier authority—the district council—is likely to be best placed to assist the police in making that judgment. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that the Government have sought to address the issues that he has raised and that in no way do we seek to diminish the importance of county councils, or the work that they do with such success.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that at no time did I think that the Government had any intention of diminishing the authority and responsibility of county councils. I also hear what she said about the crime and disorder partnerships and working with district councils, which creates a close relationship between the district councils and the police.
There is a secondary problem which I probably should have mentioned but did not. None the less, it could be relevant. In all instances, one could disperse people across local authority boundaries and thereby export a problem from one borough to another. However, that applies equally to areas where there is, so to speak, single-tier local government. So I suppose that we will have to live with that.
I hear what the noble Baroness said on the matter. I do not wholly agree with her, but I suspect that we will have to agree to disagree on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 37 [Anti-social behaviour orders]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 7:
Transpose Clause 37 to after Clause 91.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 7,8,11,12,13,14 and 15. These amendments move all of the clauses in Part 5 to the end of the Bill. That is in accordance with the current drafting convention that dictates that parts of Bills entitled "Miscellaneous Powers" should be placed at the end. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Certain orders made on conviction of offences]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 8:
Transpose Clause 38 to after Clause 91.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 39 [Penalty notices for disorderly behaviour by young persons]:
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone Baroness Linklater of Butterstone moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 33, line 6, at end insert —
"( ) After section 2(3) insert—
"(3A) A penalty notice issued to a person under 18 must be given in a police station.""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to return for the last time to the issue of fixed penalty notices when applied to children and to speak to Amendments Nos. 9 and 10. The purpose of the first amendment is to ensure that the safeguards of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 code of practice C are on the face of the Bill. We feel that that is very important for this age group. The safeguards are there for very good reasons and recognise that 16 year-olds do indeed need to be managed in a different way and that being able to understand the full import of a fixed penalty notice is extremely important. On Report, the Minister said that to do so would be to reduce the effectiveness of the whole scheme because it would restrict the discretion of police officers. She also believed that it would be perfectly proper to issue a notice elsewhere provided that these young people fully understand the process.
It is precisely that proviso, coupled with the age of the young person, that PACE exists to cover and should of course be observed, and it can only be assured at a police station with an appropriate adult present. I have heard no argument at all to justify the move to disregard PACE in this context and I believe that it would be wrong to disregard it now. That is not to question the discretion of the police officers at all, but merely to recognise the important fact that these are young people who are being dealt with. I shall not rehearse the same arguments as I did last time in relation to the discriminatory financial implications of the fining process. I was reassured somewhat by the Minister on that point. However, I should none the less be grateful if she would explicitly confirm that lower penalties will indeed be set for 16 and 17 year-olds.
If the Minister is not prepared to amend the Bill, as I fear she may not be, I hope that she can assure me that the presumption will be that fixed penalty notices for under-18s will be issued only in a police station and in the presence of an appropriate adult; that the police operation guidance will clearly state the need to conform to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act code of practice C in respect of children and young people; and that the guidance will set out further preconditions for under-18s and their ability to understand the implications of the notice. I also understand that the Children's Society and other children's charities would welcome an assurance that they will be consulted on such guidance. I am seeking a lot of assurances. I dearly hope that we may get them and sleep easier in our beds as a result.
The purpose of my second amendment is to remove the powers of the Home Secretary to reduce further the age at which fixed penalty notices can be issued from the age of 16 to as low as 10 years old by statutory instrument. Having discussed it very briefly with the Minister and having thought about it further, I am afraid that I remain very uneasy about this device of keeping the door open to something that should not be allowed to happen and that she did not directly address when it was discussed on Report.
I must say, first, that I support the application of fixed penalty notices to adults. Indeed, the principle of dealing swiftly with low-level anti-social behaviour in this way—which deals with the problem at source, in an effective place; which hurts people's pockets, a very sensitive place; which does not waste valuable police time; and which does not leave the offender with a record—is admirable, and even more so since we are told that the outcome of the pilots has been successful. I assume that the results will be published in the near future so that we can see exactly how they were assessed.
We understand that the scheme is now to be extended to 16 and 17 year-olds—the subject of my first amendment. However, most crucially, the Bill states that the same sanction can in future, following the results of the next piloted stage, be further applied by statutory instrument to 10 year-olds. It is that to which I feel I must return one more time.
The noble Baroness said when we spoke about this on Report that this penalty will act as a deterrent. I wonder how real a deterrent such a penalty could possibly be to a 10 year-old who would not be paying the penalty anyway and who is unlikely to understand what it is all about or be able to give informed consent as code C of PACE requires. Nor do I see how the pilots on 16 and 17 year-olds will shed any light on how appropriate the sanction would be for children as young as 10. They are simply not in the same ballpark. What parents would punish a 17 year-old and a 10 year-old in the same way? It would not be on.
The principle at issue is that the extension of the fixed penalty notice scheme in this way is not acceptable because it is extending an appropriate adult sanction to children, which is not appropriate or acceptable. As I have said before, children are not small adults and should not be treated as such however awful and unacceptable their behaviour. That is why we have a youth justice system. That is what our system of humane, just and practical ways of dealing with children is all about. It can be argued that this is a relatively insignificant issue to be pursuing where the offences are minor and the sanction simple. However, the principle is not simple.
The other core issue is that the process of statutory instrument is not the way to go about the extension of the penalty. So this issue, with an important principle behind it, could go through on the nod, and that is what I take issue with. It is a matter that I believe merits proper consideration through the proper parliamentary process.
I have been urged to return to this issue one more time as the feeling is so strong among all the children's organisations that this is an inappropriate way to go about imposing an inappropriate sanction. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some reassurance that this matter will be given the proper time and attention which it deserves before it is allowed to be introduced into the armoury of the police.
Finally, while I am on my feet, I would like to raise one more issue. It is to do with some remarks that were made at Second Reading when I commented on the fact that the Opposition Benches were proposing to discuss only firearms and high hedges—both important matters— while totally ignoring all the other very substantive and serious issues that have subsequently been occupying us all for the past few weeks. That appeared to sting the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes—I only subsequently realised how extremely appropriate her name is for her chosen campaign in the cause of high hedges—into a response. While she agreed—at col. 1120 of Hansard—with,
"neither the tone nor most of the content",
of my speech—a view to which she is absolutely entitled and with which many may have sympathy—she also claimed that I had said that the Bill was,
"wrongly conceived and should never have been brought before us".—[Official Report, 18/7/03; col. 1121.]
In fact, what I said was as follows:
"When the Government and the Home Secretary find us on these Benches resisting some of the measures in the Bill, it is not because we disagree with the basic proposition. What is at issue is the ways and means of effectively and constructively dealing with those problems, and of how we perceive and manage those predominantly young people who display no respect, recognition or concern for the rights, freedoms, privacy or feelings of others".—[Official Report, 18/7/03; col. 1097.]
We have indeed had some interesting and illuminating debates about the means towards agreed ends covering both practicalities as well as some important principles. I should hate to think that anyone, including the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, believed that I or anyone on these Benches do not abhor anti-social behaviour, just as the Government do, even as we argue for the retention of important human rights on the one hand and seek— through our debates, which have been civilised and admirably piloted by the Minister—the most effective way of addressing the causes, the remedies and future prevention on the other. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I warmly welcome the statement of affirmation given by the noble Baroness in relation to the Bill. From time to time there may be some who may be forgiven for not getting entirely that impression, so I am glad that the noble Baroness said it so clearly. It is, of course, not only necessary to want to do good; one has to deliver and do that which enables good to be done. That is what we seek to do. I agree with the noble Baroness that much good work has been done in Committee and throughout the Bill's passage. I thank her warmly for her compliments which are not merited but are gratefully received by me none the less.

1447
I turn to Amendments Nos. 9 and 10. I understand why the noble Baroness pursues the matter but I regret to tell her that I still think that these issues are misplaced. The effect of Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 would be that under-16 year-olds would get a criminal conviction whereas, because of the proposals that we have made in the Bill, children over the age of 16 would not. I am sure that that is not the noble Baroness's intention.
Of course at this stage we could have brought forward primary legislation in relation to younger children if we thought that was merited. However, we do not think that it is. It is clear from the information that we have at the moment that including 16 and 17 year-olds is merited. We shall look at the information that comes from the pilots and the operation of the system in relation to that younger age group. If we find that there is evidence to justify coming back to the House and using the affirmative resolution procedure to say, "We should like to reduce this age limit even further to 15 year-olds, 14 year-olds or whatever", we have the ability to do so. Therefore, it is not right to say—as the noble Baroness suggests—that we are going to drop the age immediately to 10 year-olds. That is not our intent. We wish these procedures to be used judiciously and well and only if they are merited.
We appreciate the views expressed today and on previous occasions but we firmly believe that penalty notices for disorder have an important role to play in tackling anti-social behaviour by juveniles. They provide a valuable addition to existing powers and in our view complement them. They are aimed at relatively low level anti-social behaviour of the kind that causes a great deal of annoyance to the wider community. Juveniles who cause annoyance are not the sole preserve of the poor. Some very rowdy, disagreeable young people come, regrettably, from the very best of families. The measure applies to all those who behave badly in the way that we are discussing. That behaviour needs to be addressed. We have not changed our view about the need for this sanction to be available to the police in dealing with juveniles under 16 years of age. Extension of the scheme would give the police the power to tackle this behaviour. A notice will act as a deterrent but not leave the young person with a criminal conviction.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, before the noble Baroness goes any further, I ask for reassurance on the matter. If she is continuing to consider dropping the age boundary to 10, will she also consider carrying out further pilots? Will she give an assurance that she would consider further pilots before the age limit was dropped once again?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the modus operandi which we have adopted up until now is to have the power, pilot it, see whether it works—the noble Baroness will know that that was what we did with regard to adults—hone it to try to refocus it so that we get the best results and then seek to roll it out. We shall do the same kind of pilot with regard to 16 to 17 year-olds. It is a case of "suck it and see". We want to get it right. We need to be very careful to ensure that the scheme works. We are considering very much the utility of what we are doing.
1448
We believe that the fact that these penalty notices do not end in a conviction is an important factor in their favour. The noble Baroness, others on the Liberal Democrat Benches and my noble friend sitting behind me, who are very interested in and committed to children's issues, have made the point time and time again that it is important to get children on the right road, not give them a conviction early and deal with them properly. This facility is our way of doing that. The behaviour is tackled, the offender sees the results of his or her behaviour but gets a chance to mend his ways and keep out of the criminal justice system.
Excluding under-16 year-olds from the scheme would mean that they could be dealt with only in a way that would leave them with a record, whereas offenders over 16 who accepted a penalty notice would not be left with a record. In our view it is right to allow those under 16 the same opportunity to keep out of the criminal justice system. At the same time communities want the police to take action against anti-social behaviour committed in their neighbourhoods and this will enable the police to do that.
The Association of Chief Police Officers has urged the Government to extend the scheme to juveniles. As your Lordships will know, we intend to pilot the scheme first on 16 and 17 year-olds to see whether it could be usefully applied to younger age groups. I assure the noble Baroness that we shall pay very careful attention indeed to how it is working with that group when deciding whether to use the power to extend the scheme to under-16s.
Parents should take responsibility for their children's behaviour and they should be expected to pay the penalty on their children's behalf. That is no different from the current position when a court fines a child under 16.I am really asking: do you want a conviction or not? I am sure that the answer that the noble Baroness would give is that none of us really wants these children to have a conviction unless it is necessary. I ask the noble Baroness to consider that point.
I remind the House that the decision of the Home Secretary to lower the age will require the agreement of both Houses. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not oppose these powers. The noble Baroness will remember that the beauty of an affirmative resolution procedure is that either the House agrees to it or it strikes the order down. That option would be available if the House felt that the order was not merited. Penalty notices for disorder are intended primarily as an alternative for the police for low level anti-social offending such as being drunk and disorderly. The police final warning scheme will still remain the main disposal for under-18s. Supplementary guidance will be provided to the pilots to make it clear that penalty notices for disorder are an alternative option where they are thought a sufficient deterrent.
The noble Baroness asked for assurance that the safeguards of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 would be available to those under 18 years of age who were given a penalty notice for disorder. For both adults and juveniles, the application of PACE and the codes of practice under it depends on the circumstances of the

1449
individual case. PACE and the codes of practice offer protection to individuals who are arrested, detained and interviewed by the police. A person must normally be taken to a police station as soon as possible after he is arrested, and any interview should take place at the police station. Code C offers particular safeguards for juveniles, including the presence of an appropriate adult at the police station.
Under Section 2 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, a constable can give a penalty notice for disorderly behaviour to a person if the constable has reason to believe that that person has committed a penalty offence. In many cases, the constable will have reason to believe that a juvenile has committed a penalty offence without arresting or interviewing him. For example, the constable might have witnessed him throwing stones at a train or consuming alcohol in public.
The idea of penalty notices for disorderly behaviour is to give the police a quick and effective means of dealing with such cases. In them, if I may respectfully suggest it, it would be a waste of time to arrest the juvenile and take him to the police station, and the presence of an appropriate adult would not serve any purpose. Once he has been given the penalty notice, the juvenile will still be able to discuss with his parents and others whether to pay the penalty or make a request to be tried. Under the proposals, parents will be notified of the issue of the notice. They will have 21 days to either pay or ask the court for a hearing. We believe that that both protects their rights and ensures that the child has ample opportunity to understand what the notice was issued for and the subsequent process.
There are other cases that are less clear-cut, in which the constable may not be sure whether a penalty offence has been committed. For example, it may not be apparent whether the juvenile is drunk or unwell. In those cases, the constable might wish to talk to the juvenile about whether he has committed an offence. That would constitute an interview for the purposes of PACE codes, and the juvenile would have to be taken to a police station and interviewed in the presence of an appropriate adult.
I hope that those assurances help the noble Baroness. I cannot say anything very much about the levels of fine. Those matters will be taken into consideration, and there will be guidance. We would be happy to send the children's charities copies of the draft guidance for pilots for 16 and 17 year-olds, so that they can comment on them. We would take that into account. The level of fine that we impose will be the kind of issue explored as a result of the pilots for 16 and 17 year-olds. We have not at the moment fixed a set level, but I am sure that we can take those issues into account.
I hope that the noble Baroness understands a little more clearly why we think the provision a useful hybrid. It does not need the full panoply, but we hope that it will have a beneficial effect. It will be quick and the young person will know that their behaviour is disapproved of, albeit that they will not be treated so
1450
harshly that they end up having a conviction that may besmirch their career prospects and character unnecessarily for the rest of their life.
7 p.m.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for once again giving such a full and thoughtful response. I still feel that there is an inappropriate connection between the approach to children as young as 10 and teenagers as old as 17, albeit that the provision is a way, as she said, of possibly avoiding some sort of conviction. However, it boils down to a failure to make that kind of crucial distinction. We must always keep the needs of children in mind, however we go about dealing with their offences.
Although I recognise the possibility of affirmative resolution if such a situation were to be revisited, I understand—I have not had direct experience—that it is very rare indeed for an affirmative resolution to be voted down. Therefore, something would simply go through, so not much difference would be made in reality. However, I am very grateful for the Minister's offer to send draft guidance to the children's charities. I am sure that they will welcome that concession. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 11:
Transpose Clause 39 to after Clause 91.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 40 [Curfew orders and supervision orders]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 12:
Transpose Clause 40 to after Clause 91.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41 [Extension of powers of community support officers etc.]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 13:
Transpose Clause 41 to after Clause 91.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 42 [Report by local authority in certain cases where person remanded on bail]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 14:
Transpose Clause 42 to after Clause 91.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 [Proceedings under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972: power of arrest attached to injunction]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 15:
Transpose Clause 43 to after Clause 91.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 47 [Closure of noisy premises]:
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 39, line 10, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State may issue guidelines as to what constitutes a public nuisance in terms of duration and volume of noise."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the reason for tabling the amendment at such a late stage in the Bill is that we have only just had sight of the research conducted by MCM Research on behalf of Defra on noise from licensed premises. It would have been very useful to have it when considering the then Licensing Bill, when the issue caused a lot of discussion in the House at various stages. The research was commissioned by Defra a year ago, almost exactly to the day, to assess the potential impact of the Licensing Act on noise disturbance related directly or indirectly to the operation of licensed premises.
The report was finally published to coincide with the UK Noise Forum conference held on 29th October. Unfortunately, no slot was provided during the day for discussing the report, and I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who was billed to attend the conference in the afternoon, had to cry off at the last minute, so there was no ministerial statement apart from a press release from his department. Since then, he told me in answer to a Question that any comments that the public wished to make on the MCM report would be noted, although he did not go so far as to say that the Government would do anything about them.
Unfortunately, the consultants, the majority of whose clients were alcohol-related, were unable to predict what the effects of the Licensing Bill would be. They had to recommend merely that further research should be conducted on the frequency and nature of noise disturbance caused by patrons after they have left licensed premises, before and after the introduction of the new licensing regime under the Act. In other words, no one, least of all the consultants commissioned by the department, has the faintest idea whether one of the declared purposes of the Licensing Act—Section 4(2)(c) deals with,
"the prevention of public nuisance"—
is going to be achieved.
Clause 47 of the Bill comes partly to the rescue by giving the local authority a closure power where,
"a public nuisance is being caused by noise coming from the premises".
According to the regulatory impact assessment, that should produce a decrease in the number of complaints of noise and nuisance by residents living near such premises. The police already have similar but not identical powers under the Licensing Act 1964, as amended by Section 17 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. It would be useful to know from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, the reason for the variation in the wording of the powers in this Bill from that in Section 17 of the 2001 Act.
Unfortunately, the clause deals only with noise from inside the premises. As MCM Research said, many of the respondents considered that the disturbance in residential areas caused by patrons after they had left
1452
the premises would continue to be an intractable problem. The noble Lord may remember that we had long and detailed discussions on that during proceedings on the Licensing Bill, led principally by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury. He asked me to say that he, too, is very concerned that Clause 47 does not tackle the problem, about which we then spoke, of the menace of noise nuisance caused not by people who are inside the clubs and discos, but by the patrons after they have left those establishments.
The consultants suggested that national guidelines should be developed on the definition of noise disturbance, together with appropriate assessment criteria and measurement procedures. They said that those should allow for environmental factors and take into account the times at which noise is generated, which may affect individual residents' perception of the nuisance. For example, what is acceptable at 8 p.m. or 9 p.m. would be quite intolerable at 3 a.m.
Although noise from revellers outside clubs and discos can be dealt with as a statutory nuisance only when it reaches a much higher threshold, it would still be useful to have some idea of the level at which the police could take action against it under existing legislation.
The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to issue guidelines. I hope that we may have some indication that, as far as Clause 47 is concerned, those guidelines will be quantitative, so that local authorities will be able use the powers in the confident knowledge that their actions will be supported by scientific measurements.
The Institute of Acoustics has already done some work on what constitutes unacceptable disturbance and its advice might be useful in that regard. The institute's good-practice guide on the control of noise from pubs and clubs does attempt a definition on which the guidance for the clause might draw.
In many of our towns and cities, people's lives are being made a misery by the metastasis of the all-night booze economy into what used to be quiet residential neighbourhoods. That will be now be further aggravated by the Licensing Act 2003. Let us offer those people a little reassurance that there will be a firm upper limit to the nuisance that they have to endure. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Derby: My Lords, the problem of noise is in part a technical matter, and its regulation by the consultants commissioned by Defra is even more technical, so I do not intend to stray into that territory. However, our cities and towns are now increasingly places where the success of the entertainment industry is a part of their future prosperity. In my own county of Derbyshire, there has been much regeneration of towns, and of the city of Derby in particular, thanks to new clubs, restaurants and other entertainment venues.
The Church does not wish to be a killjoy in that matter, but it is important that we have confidence in the licensing of such places. In dealing both with the issue of law and order outside clubs and pubs and with the

1453
problem of noise, it is important that the regeneration of urban economies through the entertainment industry is balanced against the need to preserve diverse communities where people's different needs and rights are respected. I have in mind particularly the disturbances experienced by one young vicar and his family, serving in a deprived town centre and committed to living among those whom he serves. At times, they have been almost driven from their home. The voice, indeed the noise, of local residents has been faint and drowned out in the planning process. In the context of noise nuisance, it would be helpful if the Minister were able to report on any progress in splitting A3 user class— the distinction between teashops and nightclubs.
The faint voices of local residents have echoed apparently unheard as licensing hours for surrounding pubs and clubs have been successively extended into the early hours. That has led to regularly unacceptable traffic flows, levels of noise and loutishness after midnight.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, speaks to that need and I welcome it. There can be no quarrel with clear guidance on what constitutes a nuisance in terms of noise, always providing that data and guidelines lead to action.
7.15 p.m
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am wholly sympathetic to what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is trying to achieve, but is not the drafting of the amendment slightly defective? It refers to the duration and volume of the noise, but not to the timing of the noise. As he indicated himself, a certain volume of noise measured in decibels that would be perfectly acceptable at 6 o'clock in the evening would be quite intolerable at 3 o'clock in the morning. The amendment as drafted does not quite take that into account.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for bringing forward the amendment even, as he said, at this late stage. It is valuable to have further discussion on the subject, but I am not entirely confident that I will able to answer all his points and the points that were raised by the right reverend Prelate. However, we will see where we get.
I am entirely in agreement with all noble Lords who have spoken on the matter. Having led a local authority for some 13 years, I can confirm that noise nuisance, particularly in and around the Brighton seafront, was always a problem, especially to people living in small streets close to a club—and it always will be a problem, because it is not easy to resolve. The policing, monitoring and careful management of those areas will be a major issue, because we increasingly live in a night-time economy, especially in places like Brighton and Blackpool. We should recognise that that brings benefits, but also considerable problems. In part, Clauses 46 and 47 aim to deal with exactly those problems and issues.
1454
The clauses propose a new power for local authorities to issue closure orders of up to 24 hours on licensed premises to prevent a public nuisance. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out, they address activities within the premises, but less so without. I cannot answer the noble Lord's precise point about the variation in wording. I will have to reflect on that further as it has not been raised with us previously. However, I acknowledge the point and we will try to deal with it.
I would also like to congratulate the noble Lord on coming forward with an amendment that would provide the Secretary of State with more powers. That is an interesting departure from previous positions adopted by Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches. Their providing us with an opportunity to issue guidance is a blessing that 1 am loath to put on one side.
The decision whether a public nuisance is occurring should be left to the investigating environmental health officer's judgment, based on his skills, experience and training. I shall speak a little more about that in due course. Such a discretion would allow the investigating officer to take into account not only the volume and duration of the noise, but also the characteristics of the neighbourhood; the type and frequency of the noise; the time of day or—more likely—night when it occurs; and what alternative measures could be taken. He could also assess whether the licensee is taking reasonable steps to control the noise. That is an important consideration.
In the local authority setting, the relationship between the enforcers and those who are responsible for the management of premises is important. On visits that I have made in the past, I have seen how important it is that that relationship is developed. It enables both parties to understand the parameters of what is desirable and what can be achieved, and also what is right in the circumstances. Those judgments should be made according to the neighbourhood and surrounding premises.
It is our belief that the flexibility will allow officers to distinguish between a level of noise that might be appropriate for a nightclub in a busy city centre, but would almost certainly be inappropriate for a country pub in a quiet residential area—and to take account of those many issues where premises sit uneasily together.
The amendment seeks to provide the Secretary of State with the power to issue guidance to local authorities on setting and delivering effective noise control policies. That guidance is already there and available within the noise management guide. I am sure the noble Lord will know that previously the guide was produced by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health in consultation and careful discussion with departments. Now it falls to Defra to work with the institute.
The guide is being jointly updated by Defra and the CIEH. I pay tribute to them. In an earlier professional incarnation, I spent a great deal of time with environmental health officers. The work they have done on noise and noise nuisance is most valuable. We believe

1455
it is right to concentrate our efforts on updating that guidance. It will provide the background thinking to the way in which enforcement takes place. The research will be valuable and will form part of the background information necessary to update the guidance.
A number of other points were raised and I shall try to deal with them in turn. The right reverend Prelate asked about planning changes to class A3 premises. The ODPM has brought forward the change suggested, but I need to provide the right reverend Prelate with more detail. I shall put that in correspondence to him and share it with all those who have taken part in the debate.
Clause 47 targets noise from premises and that will fall to the local authorities. As regards areas outside premises, clearly, the local authority enforcement officers will want to work closely with the police. They are, after all, responsible for dealing with noise in the streets. They have a range of powers already to deal with the order and supporting guidance, including, controversially, fixed-penalty notices. There is a working relationship and we expect that to develop. Furthermore, it falls to them to deal with the public order aspects of noise nuisance on the streets and in the community.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about the Licensing Act and the ability which should exist to take account of the cumulative impact of a large number of premises, particularly clubs. The Licensing Act enables a licensing authority to make a statement in relation to the cumulative impact of licensed premises when it receives representations and complaints. It will allow it to refuse licences when, on balance, it believes that to be right, particularly where a new application comes forward. With the development of licensing legislation and bringing that together with other local authority licensing functions, we see greater coherence developing in the next few years. That has been a problem, as I am sure noble Lords with local government experience will readily acknowledge.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling the amendment, but we do not believe that it will necessarily achieve his aim. Guidance is already available and it is being updated to take account of changes in legislation. In this instance, the way in which that is being drawn up through the CIEH officers working closely with Defra will best suit us, rather than having to give a new power to the Secretary of State. I hope that having heard that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister may be surprised to learn that I did not believe that he needed my permission to issue guidance on this clause. My amendment was designed to tease out the guidance that the Secretary of State might issue. The Minister has been helpful in explaining what he believes will happen in the joint update between Defra and the CIEH.
I offer one qualification to the way the guidance has been formulated: it does not take into consideration the views of the residents. That has been the case
1456
throughout our discussions on the nuisance of noise. The right reverend Prelate mentioned it yet again in saying that there should be a balance between the need to regenerate a community and the needs of the local neighbourhoods which surround the developments. That is where we have not got the balance right. Although the environmental health officers are best competent to say what constitutes a nuisance, if the views of local residents are ignored there will not be harmony between them and the developers.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, perhaps I may try to be a little more helpful. It will be important, particularly for local authorities as custodians of the policy and its enforcement, to have a view on the issue. I will undertake to ensure that the LGA is consulted in the development of guidance. I am sure that it would be in any event, but it is worth putting that on the record. The interaction between the local authorities as custodians and the local communities will be very important. However, one could ably argue that environmental health officers, because of their frontline jobs, are in touch with public opinion on these issues.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Ministers additional reassurance is most helpful because the LGA will be in touch with local residents. It will feel the electoral pressures of people who are dissatisfied with the arrangements that are made.
However, I do not accept the Minister's assertion that this is always an issue and always will be. There can be a balance of interests between the developers and local residents, even in a place such as Brighton of which he has considerable knowledge. That is no less the case in other places which do not spring to mind as great hot spots of entertainment; for instance, the cities of Derby or Bath. Many cities in England and Wales were formerly quiet cities where people went for the kind of entertainment to be found in, say, Bath. I do not want to typify Bath, but people went there to visit the Pump Room, the theatre, and so forth and did not expect to find large crowds of noisy revellers on the streets at 3 a.m. preventing them getting to sleep in the hotels.
That is the balance we must strike. The Minister's comments today may be of some reassurance to those who are suffering from the blight. I am therefore most grateful to the Minister for considering my proposal. I do not intend to press the amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61 [Sale of aerosol paint to children]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 48, line 18, leave out second "an" and insert "a large"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 17, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 18 and 19. We are grateful that on Report the Minister was helpful to my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith and accepted that 16 was a more appropriate age to limit the sale of aerosol spray cans than 18. At the Report stage, I tabled amendments which sought

1457
to deal with the problem in another way, but in order to save your Lordships' time, I did not move them. However, your Lordships now need to consider whether the sale of far smaller aerosol paint tins to youngsters still needs to be prohibited. Some companies, such as Humbrol, produce smaller-sized aerosol cans of 100 millilitres that are used for model-making and other arts and crafts. Aerosol cans of that size would be fairly ineffective for graffiti and, indeed, a 100-millilitre can of spray paint would hardly do very much for the "street cred" of graffiti artists.
The distinction between smaller-sized cans and the larger ones of 300 millilitres or more, which are commonly used for graffiti, is therefore important. It seems to me to be unnecessary to prohibit the sale of smaller-sized aerosols to those who are under the current agreed age limit. Doing so would adversely affect and demotivate children who are creatively inclined and who engage in constructive pastimes, such as arts and crafts.
The proposed amendment would allow those under the age of 16 who use aerosol spray cans lawfully to continue to be able to buy them. The amendment works by providing prohibition only for large spray cans defined as being over 125 millilitres. That would leave the smaller cans outside the scope of the Bill. I am sure that the Minister will find my amendment very attractive—even irresistible. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not like to upset the noble Earl but my speaking note states "Resist". It could probably simply say "Resist" and leave it at that. I find this a somewhat incredible amendment. As it stands, Clause 61 seeks to outlaw the sale of aerosol spray paints to children in order to reduce incidences of graffiti. As the noble Earl explained, the amendments would limit the coverage of the clause to large aerosols only.
I confess that I cannot see the logic of the noble Earl's argument. Surely small aerosols are just as well suited—perhaps even better suited—to criminal damage as large ones. They can far more easily be concealed about one's person. I should have thought that the smaller aerosol can would probably be attractive to someone who was determined, as graffitists appear to be, to exercise his art—if one can call it that—more or less anywhere. I do not believe that the average graffiti artist is too worried about his street cred, other than ensuring that people can see the effect of his activities.
I also wonder how the noble Earl would see his proposal being policed. I believe it is extremely hard to see a way in which the amendment could work in any practical sense. If it were amended in this way, I cannot see that the clause would any longer take the tools of the graffiti trade, if it can be described in that way, out of the hands of children.
Therefore, on grounds of practicality and logic, I cannot see any place for this amendment in our Bill. I understand what the noble Earl is saying but I do not
1458
believe that the effect of his amendment on Clause 61 would be to provide a serious disincentive to young people in general to use Humbrol paints. Young people have used those paints for many years in the way in which I used them as a child without needing to indulge in acts of graffiti. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment and I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he not realise that 125 millilitres is no more than the size of a large glass of wine? One cannot cover very many walls with that volume.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, if one carried a few of those cans, I am sure that one could make a pretty fine mess of a wall without trying too hard.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I had a sneaking feeling that the Minister would come up with an argument along the lines that he has articulated. However, a youngster could also buy a king-sized magic marker pen, and the damage that such pens do is much in evidence on the Tube system. Perhaps the Minister would say why we are not banning those.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, if people use marker pens to deface public space and cause criminal damage, of course they can be dealt with if they can be caught and apprehended. We are trying to ensure that we deal with the issue of spray cans and nip that problem in the bud. But I believe that the order of damage that can be caused by their use is also somewhat wider.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for the careful consideration that the Minister has given to my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.]
Clause 66 [Aggravated trespass]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 51, line 9, at end insert—
"(b) after paragraph (c) insert—
"(d) of causing obstruction or disruption to the general community""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, last week we were all treated to reports—and some of us experienced the consequences—of a man who climbed up a crane on a site near the Tower of London. According to reports in The Times, he caused losses to the community at large of many millions of pounds and cost the police £10,000 per day. We know that the congestion consequences of that action were huge. A major gateway to the City of London was blocked for three days and the traffic back-up caused immense frustration and vexation to many people. The man in question has come down, thank heavens—he was bound to in the end—and he has been charged with causing a public nuisance and a danger to public safety.
The difficulty that I seek to overcome is that there is a lack of definition of the offence of causing a public nuisance. It is a common law offence or it is defined under various other Acts—for example, the Environmental Protection Act, which clearly would not be relevant in a case such as this, If ever there was a case of aggravated trespass, this was it. However, Clause 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 states:
"A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land"—
we have deleted the words "in the open air"—
"and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in … does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect… of intimidating those persons … so as to deter them … from engaging in that activity … of obstructing that activity, or … of disrupting that activity".
I doubt whether the man who climbed up on the crane had any intention of doing any of those things. Apart from the fact that he probably knew that he would attract some television cameras and some amusement, I do not suppose that he had really thought of the consequences of what he was doing. Therefore, I believe that it would be helpful to add a paragraph (d) to the subsection of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act from which I quoted so that the section would then read,
"does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect of … causing obstruction or disruption to the general community".
Although the wording of my amendment may not be perfect, I believe that it would make it plain that if someone did something which caused general chaos, there would be a clear section of the law under which he could be charged. My attempt was to try to define that. I may well have failed. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness will tell me that I have, but I believe we should give the matter some consideration. There is no doubt in my mind that we should make it very clear that if someone undertakes the type of enterprise with the consequences that I have described, he should be well aware that there will be clear adverse consequences for him personally. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I very much understand the desire of the noble Lord to attempt to give the police additional powers to deal with protesters who seek publicity for their cause by climbing tall structures. However, we are not convinced that the police lack the powers to deal with that type of protest, nor do we think that the noble Lord's amendment would do what he wants it to do, albeit I accept that it is a stalking horse for us to have this debate.
While it would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail on any particular case, everyone has the right to protest peacefully about issues on which they hold sincere views. However, we do not think that that right extends to disruption to the wider community. I agree with the noble Lord's comments in that regard. There are various offences which might be committed in situations such as this;; for example, aggravated trespass and causing a public nuisance.
1460
The police have a duty of care. Issues of safety for the protester, the general public and police officers will be of paramount concern in these situations.
I suggest that the noble Lord's amendment, which seeks to extend the offence of aggravated trespass, is drawn too widely. We do not think that it is necessary. All the amendment does is to widen who could be trespassing on land to cover protesters who are intentionally causing obstruction or disruption to the general community. Even with the amendment, the offence of aggravated trespass will still apply only where someone was engaged or was about to engage in any unlawful activity.
I remind the House that the police have the power to direct persons to leave land where a person is committing or intending to commit the offence of aggravated trespass, and if a direction is not complied with they can arrest an individual. In view of the powers that the police already have to deal with this type of protest, I do not think, with respect, that the noble Lord's amendment is necessary. It is always a matter for the police to choose between the various different powers which they wish to alight upon because of the circumstances of the particular case. They will take fully into account the safety issues that might prevail if they adopt one course rather than the other but that does not change the fact that the powers are available to them. Therefore, I invite the noble Lord not to press his amendment. I am sure that he will not.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, in view of the existing powers she mentioned, can she say whether some charge will be brought against this so-called Spiderman who was on top of the crane for so long? He must have been well aware of the disruption he caused and there must have been plenty of witnesses.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I tried to make clear that I cannot comment on individual cases, particularly when they are sub judice. Noble Lords will gather that there have been proceedings taken. I think I can go as far as to say that when the person concerned came down from the crane he was charged with being a public nuisance and causing danger to public safety. The offence with which he has been charged is triable either way. It attracts a six months custodial sentence and/or level 5 fine. That penalty is higher than that for aggravated trespass, which is a summary only offence. I do not think that I can, with propriety, go any further than that.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. I had done what I could to find out what was available, without prejudice to what might happen. I was careful not to comment on the merits of the particular case and simply used it to provoke the noble Baroness, if I might put it that way, into the explanation she gave. I hope that others elsewhere will take notice of that. I thought it essential to obtain wider knowledge of what might happen if one indulged oneself in that way. I have

1461
always wanted to climb a crane but I am certain that I shall not do so now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.45 p.m.
Clause 67 [Power to remove trespassers: alternative site available]:
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 51, line 14, at end insert—
"( ) In section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, after subsection (3) insert—
"(3A) Any direction under subsection (1) shall include a list of relevant caravan sites on which there are suitable pitches for the persons who are the subject of the direction.""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Report we sought to align the police power to direct travellers to leave an unauthorised site under Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 with those in Clause 67 of this Bill. We were told by the Minister, to my very great disappointment, that the Government had deliberately set out to create two entirely different regimes for the police to direct travellers to move off an unauthorised encampment.
We were told that in a case where local authorities had already provided sites and suitable pitches were available, the police would use the powers in the Bill but where no suitable pitches were available they could use the powers they already have in Clause 67 of the 1994 Act, to which the amendment refers.
At no point has any Minister contested the assertion that in the 157 local authority areas where there were unauthorised encampments, at the time of the January 2003 ODPM survey there were no suitable pitches available on any of the official sites and that there will not be any pitches available within the foreseeable future. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, for saying that I sent her evidence in the shape of a survey which I conducted in August and the first week of September on the failure of the local authorities in those 157 areas to carry out their statutory duties under the Homelessness Act. In fact I sent a copy to the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, following a conversation I had with him about progress as we had a debate on gypsies and travellers earlier in the year. I thought he said that he had sent it on to the noble Baroness, but obviously he did not. However, I have also sent a copy of the survey to the ODPM. Copies are available on the Shelter website and on the website of the Traveller Law Reform Coalition.
The survey showed that not one of those local authorities has any plans to construct new sites and there is nothing in the Bill to give them any incentive to construct sites. The Government now say that they will make a Statement about Pat Niner's report to the ODPM in spring 2004. If they come round then to the idea of reinstating the duty of local authorities to provide enough sites for gypsies residing in or resorting in their areas, as provided for in the Caravan Sites Act 1968, there will then be a period of
1462
consultation followed by legislation and the earliest that anything could happen would be well outside the timescale of five years in the Niner report. I assume that they will accept the recommendation that Niner made that there should be a resumption of the statutory duty, and that may well not happen. But during the five years that she surveyed, she said that there was a requirement for between 3,000 and 4,500 pitches. We might get one-twentieth of that number, all of which are likely to be on transit rather than residential sites.
The Government are just as adept at putting off decisions as their predecessors have been for the past 35 years. I was forcefully reminded of that by one of the documents in the national archives, which has just been released under the 30-year rule, reference June 1974 AT78/7, where a civil servant wrote in a briefing which was then given to Ministers:
"There is precious little electoral advantage in providing a site and there are strong incentives to procrastinate and to hope that the problem will simply go away".
That has a very familiar ring. What Mr John Downie, the civil servant at the Department of the Environment, then wrote is equally true of councils and governments today: They would get no brownie points from the electorate as a whole for the comprehensive strategy demanded by Niner, so they just let things drift: plus ça change, plus c'est la mime chose".
The refurbishment grant, on which the noble Baroness and her Government have relied as evidence that they are doing something, has now been extended for the two years 2004–5 and 2005–06. The Government have given a total of £8 million to local authorities for those two years, compared with the £16.78 million which Pat Niner says is the minimum necessary over the period 2002–07 simply to bring up sites to the standard and to maintain them at that level; not to buy any new sites.
There may be some uncertainty about the figures, as the Government have claimed, but the difference between the Government's plans and the recommendations made by one of the foremost experts in the field is vast. There is no doubt at all that in each of the past two years there has been an increase in the number of travellers on unauthorised sites, arising from under-provision.
Leaving the police with the power in Section 61 to shift gypsies from one unauthorised site to another, often within the same area, while doing nothing to correct the shortage of accommodation which leaves the travellers with nowhere that they can lawfully stop, is a manifestly unworkable policy. It certainly will not do anything to alleviate the "aggro" caused to residents of houses when an increasing number of unauthorised travellers camp in their vicinity.
This clause is about a symptom, not the disease. The Government have already rejected the proposition we advanced on Report, that we should stop treating the symptom without thinking about the cure. So the amendment aims to provide at least a record of where the symptom is hurting. It would provide that every

1463
time the police exercise the Section 61 power that they will do so in the full knowledge that the problem is simply being shifted and not solved. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to which I have put my name. Throughout the discussion on this part of the Bill, we have voiced the concerns of organisations—the Children's Society, Save the Children, the Gypsy Council and others—which have been worried that the provisions in this section of the Bill would have the effect of criminalising Roma and traveller people and rendering more difficult the access of their children to education and healthcare.
During the passage of the Bill the Minister has given certain assurances as to the Government's good intentions. These have been passed on to the organisations concerned. The Government have also introduced a couple of amendments which were designed to deal with some of the worries to which we have given expression.
However, concerns remain. It is generally admitted that there is a shortage of suitable sites, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said. Some local authorities do not seem to take very seriously the obligation to provide suitable alternative sites. Eviction, with all that that means in terms of disruption and trauma for families and children, must always be a last resort; and removal as a result of negotiation is always much to be preferred. Suitable pitches must be available before people are faced with eviction. That is surely reasonable.
It is also true, and there has been considerable evidence of this, that there is a certain amount of discrimination against Roma and traveller people. There was a report in the newspapers today about harassment, to which Roma people have been suffering, in East Sussex, for example, and the CRE has been moved to say that something should be done about this kind of discrimination.
If people constantly face the possibility of eviction from the sites they occupy, they are bound to feel that this persecution has some effect. Of course, we must do everything we possibly can to prevent that happening.
The amendment, which is now moved as a last attempt to deal with these problems, is entirely reasonable. I urge my noble friend to accept it.
The Lord Bishop of Derby: My Lords, the issue of the traveller community has been of concern to this House for some time. There are problems with the provision of facilities for travellers, as the Minister said in Committee on 7th October. So, I welcome the fact that the ODPM's homelessness unit will incorporate the research of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, into its own strategy.
Given the pastoral reality that homelessness among travellers is serious, my concern and my question is whether it is wise to strengthen the powers of the police, as the Bill does, without tying those additional powers into the provision of further facilities. In the
1464
course of my work I have visited authorised residential sites, which are well placed with an effective warden or manager and satisfactory amenities. All parties, including travelling people, local authorities and the police have worked together with positive outcomes for residents and the community at large.
On the other hand, I have no doubt that the Government can and will supply details of the problems caused by illegal trespass. No one can doubt the need for the police to have powers to control such a general nuisance. But, unless there is more of a concerted strategy to provide additional help as well as strengthening police powers, grounds for concern will remain that the enforcement aspect of this issue is taking precedence over the pastoral. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, seeks to tie together these two aspects in a way that I find convincing and I would like to support the amendment.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I also support this practical amendment. It points up the biggest problem about the whole issue: this shortage of permanent and transit sites which constitutes a failure of our local authorities properly to consider what the local needs of all our communities are. This is really indirect and sometimes direct discrimination. I think it engages the Human Rights Act.
I very much agree with the right reverend Prelate. Indeed, when I was a CharterMark assessor, I had the opportunity to visit permanent gypsy sites in the boroughs of Kent which were extremely well maintained and no problem to the local residents.
I add that I am most grateful to my noble friend for copying to me her letter to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, of 10th November on these issues. I express the hope that in preparing the guidance which will be provided, her department will also consult the gypsy, Roma and Sinti communities as well as the Commission for Racial Equality and the Local Authority Associations.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I rise to resist the amendment. In doing so, I want to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, my noble friends Lady Turner and Lady Whitaker and the right reverend Prelate for their contributions, which were most thoughtful. I think that a thoughtful approach is best regarding very difficult issues relating to travellers, gypsies and Roma folk generally. It is not an easy issue. Retreating as it were to my local authority experience, they used to provide the local authority with many headaches and difficult decisions to make. Those difficult decisions were not made any easier when the Caravans Act 1968 was effectively repealed. Speaking personally, it made life much more difficult.
Having said that, I can well understand concerns expressed by voluble residents, certainly in parts of my borough, about poor behaviour and behaviour that was provocative and caused a nuisance. We have to try and strike the right balance. The noble Lord certainly accepts that difficulties have been caused. Other speakers have also accepted that point.

1465
The amendment seeks to add a further condition to the existing power to issue a direction under Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. I made clear on Report that existing powers can be used only if reasonable steps have been taken by or on behalf of the occupier to ask the trespassers to leave where the trespassers have caused damage to land or to property on land; or have used threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour towards the occupiers; or where the trespassers have six or more vehicles between them.
The amendment would require a direction to direct trespassers to leave land made in those circumstances to include a list of suitable pitches. It certainly does not go so far as does the noble Lord's previous amendment. We do not want the use of those existing powers to be made more difficult, complex and bureaucratic through that additional requirement. Where local authorities have provided sites and there is a suitable pitch on that site, the police will have the power to remove trespassers from unauthorised sites under the new powers in Clauses 65 to 69.
As I said, I appreciate that the amendment does not prevent the police using their powers if there is no suitable site. However, where trespassers have caused damage to land, where they have used threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour, or where they have six or more vehicles between them, it is right that the police can act swiftly to restore the land to its owner. The amendment places additional thresholds— requirements —on the police before they can act. That is not right or appropriate.
In his usual, skilful way, the noble Lord has used this debate to raise broader issues; I can understand why. I certainly share some of the concerns that he and others have raised in this useful mini-debate. But the amendment is not the right way to proceed. It would prevent the authorities being able to act in difficult circumstances in which it is right that they do so to prevent a continuing nuisance.
As for the broader issues, the Niner report is under active consideration. I heard what the noble Lord said about the value of prevarication, but it is under active consideration. There are several alternatives to the proposal to reimpose the duty on local authorities— such as further changes to the planning regime. I do not say that that is a definite proposition, but it is certainly a further consideration. There are no immediate proposals to make decisions, but decisions will be made and the view is that come next spring— perhaps in April—a firmer line on policy in those matters will be taken.
I can make no promises about the outcome of those further considerations, but there are important issues to be considered and it is accepted that there is a shortage of available sites. My guess—my summation— is that it is likely that more money is being spent by local authorities than the grants that have been made available.
That is certainly true if my experience as a local authority leader is anything to go by: we felt obliged to provide for what were described as tolerated sites simply because of the sheer pressure being placed on us
1466
in our urban area to deal with travellers parking their vans, trucks and cars on the roadside and causing a nuisance of a different sort. We had to provide some sort of facility. I guess that many local authorities have had to take similar action.
I think that it goes without saying, because it is common sense, that a more coherent, more cohesive strategy is required than has perhaps emerged for some years. That takes some time to sort out; no doubt there will have to be some delicate discussions between the several tiers of local and central government. This is not the Bill that can sort out that problem.
I congratulate the noble Lord on tabling the amendment, sparking this debate and encouraging others to join it, because the issues are important. Doubtless, dealing with some of the issues that travellers, gypsies and other travelling communities can create when rubbing up against settled communities requires careful thought. The Government have taken some important steps—not least by ensuring that at least some money is available to local authorities to begin important upgrading work and to extend some sites. The noble Lord made some powerful points about expenditure on that. It is not for me to judge, but we recognise that problems exist. No doubt this area of policy will unfold during the next few months.
So I must resist the amendment; it is unhelpful. The clause will help the police and local authorities to tackle abuse where nuisance is properly acknowledged to exist; it is accepted that it should be tackled as we propose. So I am grateful to the noble Lord. I must resist the amendment, but I have listened carefully to the important points that have been made during the debate.
8 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, can he answer my point about consultation with gypsy organisations in preparing the guidance?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I would expect that where guidance is drafted and considered, there would be such consultation. I know that the gypsy organisations, in particular, have a well respected history and tradition of providing their views volubly on matters pertaining to guidance.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Turner and Lady Whitaker, and to the right reverend Prelate, for their support for the amendment, which we tabled to expose the fact that the Government's policy is the wrong way round. They are providing the initial powers under Clause 67 while not taking the first step towards providing the sites—which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said, local authorities do not at present take seriously. Of course they do not, because there is no statutory obligation and no money. In the old days, under the 1968 Act, there were both: they had to provide sites for gypsies residing in or resorting to their area; and they received a 100 per cent grant.

1467
If the Minister imagines that something that falls desperately short of that scheme will do the trick, he is very much mistaken. We certainly look forward to the announcement that he foreshadowed next spring of what is the Government's policy on the Niner report. I wonder why they cannot at least say that they accept her principal recommendation, which is that the Government should have a clear, widely understood national policy towards the accommodation of travellers. We do not have that; and we have never had it. The opportunity was lost at the time of Sir John Cripps's report, in which he recommended that all the local authorities should get together with the Government and have an agreed scheme for the provision of a certain number of sites within an agreed timetable.
The right reverend Prelate said that homelessness of travellers is a serious matter— we know that from the ODPM's own figures. Under the Housing Act 1996, everybody on an unauthorised site is ipso facto statutorily homeless, and there are 3,000 such caravans. How can Parliament continue to provide additional enforcement powers while we know perfectly well that 3,000 families live homeless in those conditions? As the Minister rightly says, those conditions cause difficulties in the settled areas where the caravans are located.
I am very sorry that the noble Lord has insisted, yet again, on doing things the wrong way around— giving local authorities additional enforcement powers while doing nothing whatsoever to solve the problem of accommodation shortages. However, we have no alternative but to wait until next spring to find out the Government's policy. I hope that they will consult not only on the guidance on the enforcement powers in the Bill, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, said, on the formulation of their strategy. If they produce a policy next spring that does not match the needs perceived by the travelling community and the many organisations that support it—including the CRE, which is far more active than ever before— another opportunity will have been missed.
I hope that the noble Lord will take the message from this debate to consult widely on the formulation of the strategy, which will appear next: April, and that that strategy will include comprehensive knowledge of the needs of gypsies from themselves. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we now move to a very special part of proceedings, when I can thank all noble Lords for the energy and vigour with which they have scrutinised the Bill. I thank all Front-Benchers for participating in making this Bill something that we can all think gives us credit. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her kindness and consideration throughout the Bill. She has dealt with us all with immense care. In doing so, she has revealed the care
1468
and trouble that she intends should be taken for those who suffer from those problems, or who must deal with them, in the community. The Bill is better for our consideration. We are very grateful to her for her care of us and of the subject.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) (No. 2) Order 2003
8.11 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th September be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the House approve the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) (No. 2) Order 2003, which will reclassify cannabis to a class C drug on 29th January 2004.
I note the concern that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has expressed in his amendment about the levels of use of cannabis and the risks to the health of young people. I will come to those very important issues shortly, but I first wish to set the proposed reclassification of cannabis in its proper context.
The misery that can be caused by the use of illegal drugs, particularly class A drugs, cannot be underestimated. Their use affects the well-being of individuals and families, as well as striking at the very fabric of communities, feeding a cycle of crime, violence and decay. The Government's drug strategy must deliver real change on the ground in relation to the most dangerous drugs and the most damaged communities. Key elements of the strategy are educating young people about the dangers of drugs, preventing drug misuse, combating the dealers and treating addicts.
Our programme of interventions brings those arrested into treatment, so breaking the cycle of committing crime to fuel a drug habit. The Government are increasing their direct annual expenditure on tackling drugs from just over £1 billion this financial year to nearly £1.5 billion from April 2005—an increase of some 44 per cent.
Young people are our highest priority. We have launched the Frank campaign, using carefully researched advertising designed to make a real difference to young people's attitudes to illegal drugs—drugs can ruin lives very quickly. Education policies are now in force in 96 per cent of all secondary schools. We must recognise that there are no quick or easy fixes to the scourge of drugs. However, we are taking action based on evidence of what works, and, to be effective, we need to be honest in our approach and listen carefully to the scientific advice that we get, and not be led by prejudice or emotion.
It was those underlying themes that led the Home Secretary to announce to the Home Affairs Select Committee in October 2001 that he was asking the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to consider

1469
the classification of cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Cannabis use has increased steadily over the past 30 years, in spite of cannabis being a class B drug. The treatment of all drugs as equally harmful has lacked credibility with young people, and individual police forces have put in place their own disparate policies on the policing of cannabis possession, leading to inconsistency and a lack of proper political accountability.
The Government's proposal to reclassify cannabis to class C, in line with the recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, will enable us to correct these anomalies. But let me make it absolutely clear that we are not legalising cannabis. Our message is that cannabis is harmful and it will remain an illegal drug. However, in terms of its harmfulness, the advisory council is clear in its view that cannabis is not comparable either with class A drugs, such as crack cocaine or heroin, or with other substances, such as amphetamines, which are currently in class B. Our drugs laws and our education messages to young people must reflect that scientific assessment if they are to be effective and credible. So the reclassification of cannabis will help the Government to convey a more effective and credible message, especially to young people, about the dangers of misusing drugs.
We will start an education campaign in early January to get the simple message across to young people that cannabis remains illegal and is harmful, by making a leaflet widely available to young people and through extensive radio advertising. To answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, directly: the Government do not accept that a high level of use of cannabis is inevitable. We will try to make an impact on that level through effective advertising, and begin to turn young people away from becoming regular cannabis users.
Secondly, reclassification will provide an opportunity for putting in place a consistent and properly thought out regime for policing cannabis, in line with its status as a class C drug. We have included proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill to retain the power of arrest for the possession of cannabis. Under the published police guidance, which applies to all persons 18 years of age and over, there will be a presumption against arresting a person who is found in possession of cannabis. But a police officer may arrest in the following four circumstances: when a person is smoking in public view; when a person is known locally to have been dealt with repeatedly for possession of cannabis; when there is a locally identified policing problem; or when the person in possession is in the vicinity of a school or other premises used by young people.
Young people under the age of 18 will be dealt with under the statutory warning scheme set out in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In most cases, they will receive a formal reprimand for a first instance of cannabis possession. This will be administered in the police station, so that the police can properly investigate whether there are any underlying issues
1470
around the person's drug use which need be to investigated and possibly referred for appropriate help. This overall regime for policing cannabis possession will ensure that action is properly taken by the police against someone who is causing a problem or needs help, while avoiding needlessly criminalising large numbers of young people.
Reclassification will also enable the police to redeploy their resources into tackling more serious offences, including dealing in class A drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine, which do the most harm to users, their families and communities, as well as enhancing our work to get people into treatment.
Perhaps I may say something about dealers. The Government take dealing in any illegal drug very seriously. We have therefore brought forward proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill to increase the maximum penalty for dealing in a class C drug from five to 14 years imprisonment. That will mean that, following reclassification, the penalty for dealing in cannabis will remain at its current level. The courts will continue to be able to impose tough sentences on serious dealers.
In this House, there are many different views about the correct response to cannabis. I know that some noble Lords advocate complete legalisation, arguing that that would cut the link between young users and criminal dealers. The Government respect that view, but believe that it would inevitably lead to a massive increase in the use of cannabis and the health problems that would result. Cannabis is harmful. In our view, it would be highly irresponsible for any Government to gamble in that way with young people's health.
Other noble Lords believe that cannabis should remain a class B drug, arguing a number of health concerns with which I shall deal in some detail. The issue of whether cannabis is a gateway drug to class A drugs has been debated for many years. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs looked at this issue when it considered the classification of cannabis and concluded that no causal link had been established since there were many other factors which might act as gateways. Obvious examples are alcohol, tobacco, solvents and stimulants. The fact is that the great majority of cannabis users never move on, thankfully, mercifully, to class A drugs.
Suggestions have been made that cannabis smoked today is up to 20 times as strong as that smoked 30 years ago. The data that the Forensic Science Service analysed on cannabis seizures do not support that contention. It is correct that some of the new indoor-grown strains of cannabis now on the market are stronger than that which was smoked 30 years ago, but by a factor of two or three times stronger, and not 20 times, as many have suggested. On the other hand, much imported herbal cannabis and cannabis resin is little different from that used 30 years ago.
I turn now to the possible link between cannabis use and the development of mental illness and, in particular, schizophrenia. It is true that some research material was published in the British Medical Journal as recently as last November. I know that some noble

1471
Lords have taken a keen interest in that issue. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs considered it in depth during its deliberations, but it concluded that no clear causal link had been demonstrated. On the other hand, the council was clear that cannabis use, unquestionably, could worsen an existing condition of schizophrenia. The council will continue to monitor any developments in research.
As regards the possible link between cannabis use and the development of lung diseases, clearly the smoking of any substance is potentially dangerous. However, those who seek to draw inferences from the number of premature deaths caused by tobacco smoking need to be very cautious. While the smoking of cannabis is undoubtedly harmful, cannabis users generally smoke fewer cigarettes per day than do tobacco smokers, and most give up in their thirties, so limiting the long-term exposure that we know is the critical factor in cigarette-induced lung cancer.
No approach to the drugs problem is without risk, but we believe that the strategy I have outlined provides the best possible opportunity to bring credibility to our drugs education, in particular to sharpen up our education messages to young people on cannabis and to get the priorities of law enforcement and treatment directed at class A drugs. This strategy has widespread support, not only from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, but also from the police and all the major organisations working with drug misusers.
It is proposed that the draft order will be brought into force on 29th January 2004 to coincide with the date when the related provisions contained in the Criminal Justice Bill, which I have mentioned, would also be brought into effect if they are approved by this House. That is why the Government are proposing the draft order now rather than waiting until the Criminal Justice Bill has been approved by this House. I commend the changes proposed in this order.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th September be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
8.26 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, to insert "but this House notes that the order may lead to increased use of cannabis with risks to the health of young people and regrets that the order is being made before the Government's proposals concerning class C drugs have been finalised".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as ever, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for her characteristically thorough explanation of the Government's proposals. However, even her professionalism cannot disguise the fact that the Government are in the most enormous muddle over their drugs policy. This is no theoretical muddle, it is one with practical and serious consequences for the health and behaviour of a significant proportion of our population, in particular our young people. That is why I have tabled this amendment.
I shall come to the flaws in the Government's case in a moment, but first I begin with a word of thanks. Through the usual channels, the Government have arranged this debate so that noble Lords who wish to attend and participate can do so at a reasonable length and at a reasonable hour. Contrast this with the position in the other place. Whatever one's views on cannabis, we can all agree that it is a topic which arouses strong opinions. When this regulation came before the other place, the Government allocated it a total of one-and-a-half hours for debate. It is clear, on reading the debate in Hansard, that many potential contributions went unheard. The debate on the regulation was followed by a debate on the Mersey Tunnels Bill, which was not time limited. Which measure was the more important? Which commands greater public interest? The answer is obvious. The Government often express the concern that people consider that Parliament has little relevance. If the Government really think that one-and-a-half hours was sufficient time to debate cannabis, one can see why the general public might believe that Parliament is indeed out of touch.
I wish to make one final point about the debate held in the other place. Given the importance that the Government have accorded to their drugs strategy— and referred to again by the noble Baroness in her remarks—it would have been good if the Home Secretary could have attended that debate to hear the views expressed, instead of leaving it to his Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Caroline Flint, to try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
I turn to the remarks of the noble Baroness. In my view, to make sense of the Government's policy, you have to believe one or both of the following: first, that cannabis use is not specifically harmful; and, secondly, that reclassifying cannabis from class B to class C does not send any signal on its acceptability. I should like to examine both of those propositions.
First, I address the proposition that cannabis use is not specifically harmful. The link between cannabis use and later depression, anti-social behaviour, psychoses or schizophrenia has been significantly strengthened by various new studies. In her opening remarks, the noble Baroness referred to the British Medical Journal of 23rd November 2002. She passed over it quite lightly, but it contains reports of four heavy studies covering 50,000 army conscripts in Sweden, 1,600 students in the state of Victoria in Australia and 1,000 people in Dunedin, New Zealand. It is hardly a lightweight study. It covers many parts of the world.
One of the key conclusions of that research is that people who start smoking cannabis in adolescence are at the greatest risk of developing mental health problems. Researchers have concluded that eliminating cannabis use in the UK population could reduce cases of schizophrenia by as much as 13 per cent. Research on cannabis and its link to mental disorders is coming through at an ever-growing rate. In the view of Professor Edwards of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs—a body referred to by the noble Baroness—we

1473
are in a rapidly changing field of knowledge, and new knowledge is making cannabis look more dangerous, not less.
The effect of cannabis on the brain has been analysed by a distinguished expert on brain processes. Professor Susan Greenfield—properly known to your Lordships as the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield— wrote in the Observer on 18th August 2002:
"I challenge any advocate of cannabis to state what a 'safe dose' is. Until they do, surely it is irresponsible to send out positive signals, however muted?".
She went on to say:
"We do know cannabis smoke contains the same constituents as that of tobacco: however, it is now thought that three or four cannabis cigarettes a day are equivalent to 20 or more tobacco cigarettes, regarding damage to the lining of the bronchus, while the concentration of carcinogens in cannabis smoke is actually higher than that in cigarettes".
It also, she said, modifies the configuration of the networks of brain cell connections. This will make you see the world in a different way, characteristically one depleted of any motivation.
Evidence such as this suggests that cannabis can cause, at the very least, impairment in attention span and cognitive performance, and we do not truly know the full potential that regular use of cannabis might have.
Similarly, we do not yet know the full extent to which cannabis potency has increased since scientific experiments on the drug first took place 30 years ago. The noble Baroness quoted from remarks made by Caroline Flint in another place on 29th October about the evidence of forensic scientists that cannabis is no stronger than it was 30 years ago. But some forms of cannabis, such as sensimilla and skunk, have only recently become cultivated in this country and it is too soon for the effects of such strong herbal forms to be fully understood.
Recently a journalist, Tony Thompson, wrote in the Observer, on 2nd November 2003, about a new form of high quality cannabis now being imported from South Africa called dagga. We cannot yet establish the potency of many of these types of cannabis which are new to our shores, or for that matter the consequences of excessive smoking. The Government have to admit that they cannot know the full physical and mental effects of repeated cannabis use, and especially of stronger, more potent strains. In the absence of certainty on those important points, one has to ask: why change the law?
As to the second proposition, that reclassifying cannabis will not send a signal to people, particularly young people, that the dangers of using it are not as great as once thought, changing the law so that cannabis is reclassified as a class C drug appears to be seen as necessary by the Government, according to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, to reflect a shift in public opinion and to separate the drug from the issues associated with harder drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine.
But cannabis, which is now a class B drug, is already quite clearly separated from heroin and crack cocaine, both of which are in class A. I cannot see how making cannabis a class C drug will emphasise the perils of heroin. But making it a class C drug will serve to undermine the message as to its risks.
I usually labour in your Lordships' House in decent obscurity, but since my name appeared in connection with this amendment I have been besieged. I had no idea about the strength of public feeling; about the dangers of the signal being sent by the downgrading of cannabis to class C. Public opinion is concerned on two points: first, that downgrading will increase drug use and, secondly, that the increased use of cannabis will lead to the increased use of other, harder drugs— the gateway effect referred to by the noble Baroness.
An e-mail from Mrs Gillian Broadfoot is typical of the many that I have received. She wrote:
"I am the mother of a teenager who is now 16, who used cannabis for two years without my knowledge, but who changed quite dramatically in his behaviour and attitudes as a result. He left school when he turned 16, having lost all motivation, and his school work having deteriorated steadily. His health suffered too, and when we discovered that he was using cannabis it was a shock, but even more so that a large number of his peers were too. I work amongst drug-addicted young people and I have yet to meet one who did not begin by using cannabis, believing it was not harmful. It has certainly proved, in my experience, to be a gateway drug".
Is Mrs Broadfoot right that liberalising cannabis laws will result in more people using it and possibly more people having problems with cannabis and other drugs? The former government drugs tsar, Keith Hellawell, certainly thinks so. Asked whether the change in the law would lead to more drug-taking, Hellawell answered:
"The evidence from elsewhere is that it does. The people who have been deterred from taking cannabis because it is illegal will certainly now have the impression that it is all right to do it".
Asked if he thought there would be a connected increase in crime, he replied, "Yes".
Downgrading can only encourage cannabis use—it certainly cannot discourage its use. Users will be drawn to the dealers and tempted to try other, harder drugs. Drug use is a consequence of a lifestyle, in which cannabis, because it is more available, tends to be the first drug that people encounter. One has to accept that the choice then to take cocaine or ecstasy is a consequence of an individual's predisposition to seek and use drugs. But why make it any easier for someone with a predisposition to use drugs to start climbing that tragic ladder? How will this, in the words of the noble Baroness, break the cycle?
In the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill, on 7th July this year, I referred to a pre-teen drugs misuse survey carried out in Glasgow. The noble Baroness very kindly agreed to look into the matter further. In a letter I received on 3rd November, she expanded upon the disturbing statistics. She wrote:
"The research found that the anti-heroin messages of recent years seem to have been well absorbed by this age group. Nevertheless, it concluded that by the age of 12, a small proportion of pupils will already have started misusing drugs and whilst principally confined to cannabis, for some pupils this early age of onset involves other drugs. This is worrying, particularly where heroin and other class A drugs are involved".
Phrases such as the "age of onset" used to describe pre-teen cannabis smoking suggest that the noble Baroness sees the habits of 10 to 12-year-olds as the initial stages of more serious drug-taking. What message does downgrading cannabis send to the 10 to 12 year-olds of Glasgow?
I suggest to the House that the two main arguments behind the Government's reclassification—cannabis is not truly harmful and reclassification sends no signal— do not stand up to critical examination. I am afraid the Government's case is not only illogical; it borders on the deceptive. While the Government are proposing, with a good deal of publicity, to downgrade cannabis from class B to class C through this regulation, they are at the same time proposing in the Criminal Justice Bill—currently before your Lordships' House, as the noble Baroness has said—to upgrade the penalties for all class C drugs, making possession an arrestable offence. No matter that in 2000 there were 70,000 cannabis-related arrests and only 331 for all the other 117 drugs currently in the class C category.
This was a classic attempt by the Government to spin. They are telling those who believe that cannabis law should be liberalised that they are reducing the category from class B to class C, while telling those who want to take a tough line on drugs that they are increasing the penalties for all class C drugs.
Peter Lilley, speaking in the debate in the other place, concluded:
"The Government have got the worst of all possible worlds. They will simultaneously encourage more people to use the drug because people will know that there is no effective punishment for its use, but it will remain illegal and thus be available only through illegal gangs".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/10/03; col. 355.]
Following extensive debate in your Lordships' House, the Government have seen the illogicality of that position and have very kindly agreed to introduce amendments to affect the decoupling of cannabis and other class C drugs in the Criminal Justice Bill. How will they do that? We do not yet know because we have yet to see their proposals. That is the reason for the second half of my amendment.
Finally, a thought for the police, who are going to have to interpret and enforce this muddle. How can the Government expect the policy to be enforced fairly or evenly across different parts of the country and, no less importantly, across different racial communities? That patchwork quilt must surely be a recipe for increasing distrust and dislike of the police—the very reverse of what we should seek to achieve if we are to be truly successful in our fight against drugs.
I received an e-mail from Mrs Jan Berry, the chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales. She says:
"Confusion surrounding the future legal status of cannabis has been caused by the decision to reclassify. Whilst I can understand the reasoning for the reclassification, the message being sent out appears wholly inappropriate, particularly as the jury is still out on the longer-term health implications. I believe concerns about the priority given to policing cannabis have been addressed already, without the need for legislative change. This time and energy currently being given to reclassifying cannabis could, we believe, be used far more effectively to rebalance the UK. drugs
1476
strategy, particularly in respect of education and treatment. The fact remains that cannabis does not need to be reclassified to be reprioritised".
To conclude, the Government's gyrations would be almost comic if they did not have such potentially serious and tragic consequences for our society. The Government should not seek to push the order through in face of the evidence against it and the adverse public reaction. They should first clarify their position as regards their proposals for cannabis and other class C drugs in the Criminal Justice Bill, allow time for proper consideration and, after taking into account all the factors and research that have emerged since the reclassification was first put forward, introduce revised proposals—if any are required. I hope that the Minister will seek to withdraw the regulation before us tonight. In the mean time, I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert "but this House notes that the order may lead to increased use of cannabis with risks to the health of young people and regrets that the order is being made before the Government's proposals concerning class C drugs have been finalised".—(Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts.)
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, in rising to support this order—but to speak against the amendment—I do not do so without reservations about matters closely related to it. The order is a step in the right direction and, I am glad to say, it is based on sound evidence and expert opinion. It would have been outrageous if the Government, having set up the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, had not taken its advice, as well as that of the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place and the Runciman Committee, that cannabis should be reclassified to class C. All those organisations considered the evidence carefully from an expert point of view and reached their conclusions.
The purpose of the classification system is to make clear the differences in levels of harm and danger associated with various drugs. It is clear to the experts, who have looked at all the most up-to-date evidence, that cannabis, although not without dangers for some users, rightly belongs in class C. That is why I am concerned about the Government's attempt to create two kinds of class C drugs. I often wonder into which category that legal drug tobacco would be put if it had been discovered last year, since 120,000 people die every year from smoking tobacco, at great cost to the public purse and great distress to patients and their families. It is undoubtedly the tobacco that is often smoked with cannabis that causes some of the lung problems.
The Government have also responded to the clear benefits demonstrated in the Lambeth experiment, where the police have told us that hundreds of hours of police time were saved by the presumption against arrest for personal possession, equivalent to 1.8 full-time police officers. If that were replicated across the country, I understand from research by Rowntree that

1477
we could save £50 million, which represents 500 full-time officers. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us something about how that large chunk of police time will be redirected once this order is in place.
The Lambeth experiment has not been without its critics and rumours have abounded. However, Lambeth police tell us that there is no evidence of the rumoured influx of dealers or customers since the proportion of people cautioned for possession who came from outside the borough remained constant during the experiment. Besides, when the system is rolled out nationally there would be no question of drugs tourism. Nor was there any evidence of increased usage. A police survey of local schools did not reveal any reported increase in pupils being intoxicated. However, at the same time, the number of arrests for class A dealing offences increased by around 10 per cent and there was a 44 per cent increase in arrests for possession of cocaine. Clearly Lambeth police were making good use of their freed up time.
It is important to send out the message that if we reclassify cannabis we are not legalising it and there is no green light for smoking cannabis. But the great gain to be had is that we can get much tougher and more effective in tackling the terribly dangerous hard drugs and their dealers. That message must be coupled with even more effort at educating young people about the harm caused particularly by harder drugs and being honest about any dangers associated with cannabis. There is no evidence that the cannabis being sold in this country now is any stronger on average than it was 20 years ago—I accept the Minister's statement about that—but there are people such as schizophrenics for whom the dangers of using cannabis may be greater than for other members of the population. So it is important to be clear and honest and keep this particular matter under review.
The main thing is that the messages we give to young people are credible. That is why we on the Liberal Democrat Benches have long called for cannabis to be reclassified. All young people know that it is much less dangerous than class A or B drugs. The law is an ass if it does not reflect that. We know that its use is very widespread. When this matter was debated in another place, it was claimed that about half of 16 year-olds have tried it. It could be argued that there is already a green light with that generation. The young know that cannabis is not as harmful as class A or B drugs and they know that the majority of cannabis users never go on to use other drugs and most use it for only a short period of their lives. What we need to do for them, if they choose to use it, is to protect them from contact with dealers in hard drugs and organised criminals.
It is pretty clear to me that the gateway theory is not credible; on that I again agree with the Minister. The excellent research document by DrugScope entitled Cannabis and the Gateway Hypothesis said:
"Gateway theory is often misunderstood. It is not about cannabis leading to harder drugs, it is about common profiles, environment, experience and access".
1478
The main danger is that the Government have not addressed the thorny issue of providing the many existing cannabis users—who are in every other way law abiding citizens—with a way of obtaining their supply without having to get it from dealers and criminals whose main aim is to get them onto harder, more addictive and more profitable drugs. Although people have taken the matter into their own hands, and already 50 per cent of cannabis used in this country is home grown, it is still done at risk of arrest. If the objective is to cut the so-called link between cannabis and hard drugs, which I believe is mainly where and by whom they are supplied, why will the Government not make it clear that growing your own for your own use does not risk arrest?
Evidence from the Netherlands suggests that decriminalising cannabis use does not lead either to increased usage nor to increased use of hard drugs. Whereas the average age of heroin users in this country is 21 and falling, the average age of heroin users in the Netherlands is 45 and rising. I am not advocating that the fudged arrangements in existence in the Netherlands should be adopted here—far from it—but we have not tackled the problem if we do not tackle the supply. It is said that, although most cannabis users do not go onto hard drugs, most hard drug users started with cannabis. I believe the major reason for this is that they have to get cannabis from criminal dealers, and those dealers make it their business to try to gain a customer for life—however short and miserable that life might be—by getting the user onto hard, addictive drugs. That is the only link with crime. There is no evidence that people steal to support a cannabis habit as it is fairly cheap.
I now turn to the guidelines on arrest published by the Association of Chief Police Officers two months ago. First, I should like to ask the Government on whose advice have they added a presumption in favour of arrest for possession of cannabis now that it is to be a class C drug? There was no such recommendation in the report of the Select Committee in another place, the Runciman report or in the report of the advisory council, nor were changes to the arrangements for arrest and sentencing mentioned in the Government's drugs strategy. Yet, while reclassifying cannabis to class C, the Government have now introduced a presumption for arrest for class C drugs for the first time. To solve the problem that raises for other class C drugs, they now propose to introduce another separate category. Is cannabis now a class B2 drug, or do we now have in effect a new class D, and if so, on what evidence basis? That is the muddle that I identify.
Having said that, I am most concerned about the discriminatory nature of the guidelines. It seems that you can now smoke cannabis without getting arrested unless you happen to be under 18 or have a mental disability. According to the guidelines, in addition to smoking cannabis in public view, causing disorder, smoking it near youth clubs and schools or being a regular offender—that is perfectly reasonable—we now have a presumption that anyone under 18 or a

1479
"vulnerable person" will be arrested and taken to the police station for a warning or other such measure. A "vulnerable person" is described as,
"a person who may be mentally disordered or mentally handicapped or incapable of understanding the significance of questions or replies".
Despite the fact that the next sentence of the guidelines says that,
"such people should be dealt with within the terms of this strategy by being arrested, their own personal welfare and interests being paramount",
I am most concerned about this. How can it possibly be in the interests of the welfare of such a person as those described to be hauled off to a police station and questioned? How terrifying is that for someone with a mental handicap? Surely this is a role for joined-up services and multi-agency working? Why not have a police officer contact the person's GP or social services instead of this draconian response, dragging the person into the criminal justice system for doing something for which a similar non-handicapped person would no longer be penalised? In the case of a young person, surely there is a more appropriate response.
My other concern is about consistency. Here I echo many of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. These guidelines give high levels of discretion to the police and there are indications that already the police in Scotland are saying that they will arrest in the vast majority of cases. How are the Government intending to monitor the consistency of the operation of the guidelines? I hope that the Minister can enlighten us. Already we have enormous discrepancies in police practice. The proportion of cannabis offences resulting only in a caution varies across police forces in England and Wales from 87 per cent at the highest to 29 per cent at the lowest. This is a matter that has long caused great concern to people with MS who used cannabis products for therapeutic reasons. While I was delighted to see recently that NICE has now confirmed these benefits and we are close to getting a licensed pharmaceutical product, the Government really need to do something about the inconsistency across police forces.
Finally, I am most concerned about the list of misuse of drugs offences for which the penalty is being increased in the Criminal Justice Bill. For example, it seems that you can now be liable for a 14-year custodial sentence for allowing someone to smoke a joint in your house, despite the fact that that person would not be arrested for it. Does that really make sense from a Government who claim to be responding to the reality of the drugs situation in this country?
The rise in cannabis usage over the past 30 years referred to by the Minister is a clear indication that the way in which the law and the justice system have been dealing with it up to now has not worked. That is why I welcome this move forward. Yet instead of courageously taking good advice and properly decriminalising personal use of cannabis, the Government are hedging the order around with other things that return us in effect
1480
to the status quo. Actually, the situation is worse than the status quo if we count the discriminatory and potentially damaging nature of the ACPO guidelines.
I have mentioned my reservations. I can hardly oppose the order and I do not, but I am deeply concerned about the way in which its potential benefits may be neutralised by this timid Government.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords—
Lord Adebowale: My Lords—
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords—
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I think that it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, in his amendment to the order. Until we have proof that changing the classification of cannabis will not lead to its increased abuse, its classification should not be changed. I do not think that we have that proof, or that experience in other countries suggests that if we were to liberalise the use of cannabis we should not regret it.
Having said that, I find it unacceptable that the use of drugs of whatever class should not be permitted for medical reasons. It is well known that many sufferers from multiple sclerosis derive great benefit from smoking cannabis, which alleviates the pain that they suffer. Taken in tablet form, many sufferers do not find it nearly so effective. Sufferers from some forms of cancer find that it helps the unpleasant side effects of radiotherapy and chemotherapy.
Long ago, tincture of heroin used to be prescribed by GPs for bad coughs, and was very effective. Heroin was the principle ingredient of Dr Collis Brown's Chlorodyne, a remedy for diarrhoea much used by travellers in third-world countries. After heroin ceased to be an ingredient, it never worked so well. Cocaine was sometimes used as a dental anaesthetic. I frequently had it as my dentist was allergic to Novocaine. It was actually much more effective than Novocaine and, what is more, a delicious sense of euphoria was a pleasant side effect. However, where such drugs are used for medical reasons, for a very limited time until the necessity ceases, or occasionally, they do not usually lead to addiction. Where they are used indefinitely to alleviate an incurable condition, I do not think it matters much whether they lead to addiction.
I have never been able to see why people who are suffering and whose only palliative is a class A or B drug should be deprived of their only effective medication because it might fall into the wrong hands and some silly fool might become an addict. That is getting our priorities wrong. I hope that the Government will think very seriously about this.
9 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I find myself in a very unusual position, in that I am supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, because I want to speak against the order. I shall do so by asking the Government four questions.
Is cannabis harmless? Cannabis is a mind-altering drug that has a ravaging effect on the brain, as Hamish Turner, the president of the Coroners' Society stated. He said that it was a significant contributory factor to 10 in every 100 deaths that were put down to suicide or accident. Fourteen year-olds taking cannabis are 50 times more likely to damage their brain. Police experts say that the drug is so powerful that it can stay in the blood and impair judgment at the wheel of a car for up to two weeks. It is linked to schizophrenia, hallucinations and delirium. One has only to walk the streets in certain areas to see the poor, delirious, hallucinated creatures out there.
A Swedish study found that cannabis users were 18 times more likely than non-users to take their lives by jumping from a height. Noble Lords may not have heard of James Taylor. He was 31 years old. He hanged himself in his Torquay flat. He had smoked cannabis since he was 15. His mother, Mary Taylor, said that it destroyed her son and her family life.
We know that cannabis is addictive. It damages short-term memory. Those who smoke cannabis find themselves in no man's land. They may enter a state of euphoria, but it does not last long.
Would downgrading cannabis stop people taking harder drugs? Research shows that there is a progression from cannabis to drugs such as cocaine and heroin. The New Zealand study to which reference was made showed that cannabis users were 60 times more likely to take other illegal drugs.
Angela Watkinson, a Conservative MP for Upminster, slammed the idea that reducing cannabis to a class C drug would free police to deal with class A drugs. She noted that cannabis is a gateway to class A drugs and would cause more problems. Having worked in the community, I can confirm that what she said was true.
The zero-tolerance approach has been proved to work better in Sweden. That country is tough on drugs and the law is consistently enforced. Only 9 per cent of Swedes aged between 16 and 59 have tried illegal drugs, in contrast to 34 per cent in Britain.
I come to my third question. Would relaxing cannabis laws free the police to tackle more serious crime? I could tell your Lordships of cases where women have sat on park benches all night, not daring to go into their homes because their children are cannabis takers. Their handbags are rifled. The little tins in which they keep the money for the gas—some noble Lords may have forgotten those days—are empty when the bill comes. Telephones and gas metres are rifled to feed the cannabis habit.
I shall not go into the details of those cases, but I shall highlight the Lambeth study to which reference has been made. Lambeth police's experimental
1482
approach, which involves verbally warning, rather than arresting, possessors of cannabis for personal use, led to open drug dealing in the streets. I say it because I saw it. There was a huge escalation of hard drug dealing and drug use even among children. Children were led to cashpoints to draw out money to pay drug users, even if they did not use drugs themselves. They did it because otherwise they were told that they were being square.
Chief Superintendent Brian Moore said:
"The centre of Brixton is a 24-hour crack supermarket".
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Michael Fuller, who has now been promoted, stated that children were going to school while "stoned". That means having taken drugs. Parents were worried that relaxing the laws could make the problem even worse.
Children themselves felt that the police, by their liberal approach, were sending them mixed messages about drug use. Labour MP, Kate Hoey, fiercely criticised the scheme, saying:
"There are more drug dealers on the streets than ever. Many young children are going to school in the morning zonked out on a very hard kind of cannabis".
Fred Brougham, chairman of the Police Federation, stated:
"Young people were telling everybody that cannabis is now OK, that it is OK to possess it in the streets, in the schools".
He also said that,
"crack abusers and crack dealers are becoming more visible and more active",
as the barriers break down.
My last question to the Government is: are the Government hoping to eradicate the black market and bring the proceeds from cannabis into the formal economy? You do not get cannabis for nothing. Someone is selling it. What is the Government's aim? Are they saying that you can sell cannabis and improve the economy of the country? Is it becoming formal? What is this about?
In Holland, where cannabis can be legally sold in licensed cafes, most of that sold is from the illegal crop—the very strong cannabis. Anyone who has recently been to Holland can tell you that the sight of beggars on the streets is nothing compared to the zonked-out creatures you see when you walk the streets there. Even in the licensed Dutch cafes, 70 per cent of cannabis is estimated to be illegal stock, therefore no tax is paid on it and the economy cannot benefit.
The black community, especially the mothers, ask, "Is this another 'sus' on us: to zonk our children out?" For whatever reason, it is prevalent in the black community. I ask the Government to be mindful of the next generation and what they are really saying. They have said that cannabis is not becoming legal, but the message going out to young people is, "You can smoke as much as you like as long as you are not caught". If the police are so busy, how many times will they knock on my door and ask me whether I have any cannabis plants inside? I do not know.

1483
What does all that mean? It means that even if cannabis were legal, most drug dealers would continue to deal in illegal drugs and would probably not switch over to that which is supposedly newly legalised. This is not the best move the Government have made.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, who has spoken so movingly. I suspect that during the past few days she has received many letters about this subject. I certainly have. Many of the letters I have received have been from parents of teenagers who point out the obvious; namely, that reclassification and the new policy of the police only to caution sends out entirely the wrong signal to young people and makes their task as parents almost impossible.
I know that the Minister denies that, but the new policy does tell young people that smoking cannabis is okay, whatever is the Government's intention. It tells young people that smoking cannabis is okay when it is nothing of the kind. Not only does it all too often lead to the use of heroin and crack cocaine, traded by the very same dealers from whom the cannabis is obtained, but it is a very dangerous drug itself, as I shall seek to show in a moment.
We cannot say with certainty that more people will be introduced to heroin and cocaine as a result of declassification, coupled with the new police policy of merely warning cannabis users, but it is infinitely depressing, as the noble Baroness mentioned a moment ago, to read comments such as those of Chief Superintendent Moore of the Metropolitan Police, who has worked in Lambeth and Brixton. He said that the introduction of the cannabis pilot scheme in Lambeth has resulted in the centre of Brixton becoming,
"a 24-hour crack supermarket".
What we do know with absolute certainty is that saying that cannabis is okay will lead to more young people trying the drug. Yet we all know that using cannabis is not okay. It is a mind-bending substance— very mind-bending. The Minister said that the advisory council does not accept that the cannabis being traded today is stronger than that used 30 years ago. But that is not the view of many experts. It is certainly not the view of Dr Ian Oliver, independent consultant to the UN Drug Control Programme, who said that it is 10 times stronger than that smoked by the "flower-power" generation of the 1960s. That is an expert opinion that cannot simply be discarded because people sitting on the advisory council do not agree with it.
Cannabis is a drug which reduces concentration and slows down reactions. Its use accounts for two-thirds of drug-related road deaths. It is a drug which affects the memory and a person's ability to learn. In societies where its use is habitual, one can see its effect on people's ability to work regularly and to hold down jobs. To put it bluntly, it nurtures layabouts. I have seen it. It is a substance that many experts say is far more likely to cause cancer and lung damage than smoking tobacco.
1484
But, worst of all, it is a drug which increases the risk of mental illness. I find it impossible to accept the conclusions of the advisory council on this matter. In April this year, Professor John Henry, a toxicologist at Imperial College, said at the Royal Society of Medicine conference in London:
"Regular cannabis smokers develop mental illness. There is a four-fold increase in schizophrenia and there is a four-fold increase in major depression".
That is not only his opinion. In 2002, a study at King's College London, led by Dr Louise Arsenault, showed that cannabis can trigger schizophrenia and is not chosen only by people predisposed to develop the illness. In the past year or so, as mentioned by my noble friend, three other studies have linked the drug with depression and schizophrenia—one of them a Dutch study, which found that those taking large amounts of cannabis were seven times more likely to develop a psychotic illness.
Two months ago, the papers reported the suicide of Charles King, a student aged 23 who developed a mental illness induced by cannabis use. He left a note saying:
"Cannabis has ruined my life".
I have to tell your Lordships that I personally know only too well that cannabis does ruin people's lives. It has come close to ruining the life of someone very close to me who has suffered from schizophrenia as a result of cannabis use. That is the diagnosis. So, do not tell me that cannabis is pretty harmless.
My attention has been drawn to some of the irresponsible rubbish put out by government-funded bodies. Connexions, an advice service set up by the Department for Education and Skills, has published a leaflet telling people how to smoke cannabis and then purports to lists its effects:
"It can make you feel relaxed, chilled out and giggly—more sociable and chatty—you may get an attack of the munchies",
meaning you feel the need to eat everything in sight.
"You may feel paranoid, which means you think everyone is looking at you".
That is the effect of cannabis in the minds of the irresponsible people who drafted that pamphlet. I am told that it has recently been withdrawn or banned following public protests, but not before it had been sent to 3,500 secondary schools. The fact that it went out in the first place makes absolute nonsense of the claim made in another place by Caroline Flint, the Under-Secretary of State, that the Government's message remains that cannabis is illegal and harmful. It is no use parroting those words when all their actions result in the message being entirely different; the message being that cannabis is not all that serious a drug and, "won't do you much harm".
Whether the Government wanted this to happen or not, the message which has come across since the change in policy is that cannabis is okay. That message is irresponsible and wrong. I support the amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Adebowale: My Lords, this debate is hotting up nicely. It is obvious that I shall now be labelled somewhat irresponsible as I am about to admit that I am the Chief Executive of Turning Point, a social care organisation which deals with around 30,000 people with substance misuse challenges, 10,000 of whom are young people. I also happen to be a member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. When one looks at the members of that advisory council, I find it hard to believe that they arrived overnight at the advice they gave to Government. Certainly, looking at their honourable qualifications, it beggars belief that those people are irresponsible or arrived at their conclusions lightly.
Perhaps I may comment on some of the points raised. I support the decision by the Government to reclassify cannabis from class B to class C. Like many noble Lords, I do not think that the Government go far enough. The reclassification reflects public attitudes to cannabis and accepts the fact that a large number of people use it. I say that with full regard to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids. I, too, have been to Holland. I have worked in Brixton and walked the streets of Lewisham. I understand, because I talk to young people and, indeed, live on an estate where many young people smoke cannabis. The problem with the debate is not about the classification of cannabis. No one has said that leaving cannabis as a class B drug—I am sure that some noble Lords would be happy to see it classified as class A—would be a credible solution to the problems mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids, and, indeed, the noble Lord.
Surely, sending young people to prison as a result of their cannabis use cannot be reasonable treatment. Indeed, the Government's own figures on the use of prison and punishment as a response to drug misuse give cause for concern. The latest report on drug treatment and testing orders shows that 53 per cent of prisoners discharged from such orders in 1998 were reconvicted within two years of discharge compared to 59 per cent of those who did not complete a drug treatment and testing order.
So there are serious questions to be asked. If we are to keep the current classification of cannabis or, indeed, increase it and thus increase penalties and arrest more people and put them in prison, how will that help people? How will that help the young people mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids? I fear that that is heading in the wrong direction.
Furthermore, we need to understand what young people and many members of the public who smoke cannabis—I have to say on a daily basis—understand from their own experiences about it and its relation to other drugs. We have to deal with the facts. The fact of the matter is that cannabis is not the same as crack cocaine or heroin. As much as noble Lords may want to believe that that is the case, it is not.
1486
We need to be aware of all the facts and to encourage intelligent discussion. When cannabis is compared with other drugs against criteria such as mortality, toxicity, addictiveness and its relationship with crime, it is less harmful to the individual and society than other illicit drugs and even alcohol. That is understood by the public, and it is certainly understood by young people.
The evidence of the drug's long-term effect on mental health is not so clear-cut. No doubt we can all name a professor or an expert who will say that smoking cannabis causes schizophrenia. Indeed, in 1933 at the World Health Organisation the Egyptian delegate stood up and said that cannabis causes people to go crazy. We have all see the film produced by the Americans in 1933 called "Reefer Madness", which claimed that smoking cannabis turns you into a raving lunatic. These statements are simply not helpful; they do not accord with the facts.
People with mental health problems may be more likely to be drawn to the drug. We have seen that at Turning Point; I have seen it from my own experience of more than 20 years working with socially excluded people, many of whom take drugs including alcohol. It may exacerbate mental health problems in people with a pre-existing mental illness; so will poverty; so will depression; and so will not having a job. But the evidence suggests that while cannabis consumption is increasing, the incidence of schizophrenia is not. That is a fact which would suggest that cannabis is not to blame.
I do not believe that reclassifying cannabis will lead to more people using it. Currently, in the UK at least 8 million people use the drug, while 2 million people use it regularly. My discussions with young people informed me that many already socially accept the drug and that any change will be of little relevance to them, other than they will face fewer risks of being criminalised for its use, which, to be honest, they welcome.
There may be an increase among those already using the drug. Evidence from Australia has shown that although cannabis decriminalisation, which was introduced in some states, did not lead to new cannabis users, those who used it daily slightly increased the amounts they smoked.
I am also doubtful—and I think we should be very doubtful—about the idea of cannabis as the gateway drug. The Government's own research has shown through The road to ruin? that there is no evidence that cannabis acts as a gateway drug to other drugs. There is some evidence, however, that cigarettes and alcohol do. Indeed, again, when I talked to many of the 30,000 or so people that Turning Point sees each year, they talked not about cannabis, when one examined their drug history, but about going to the pub, having a drink, having their inhibitions relaxed and then being introduced to cannabis. If we are going to talk about gateway drugs, let us talk about all the gateway drugs and include alcohol and cigarettes.
That is why I believe that we need to have a sophisticated and credible approach to this drug. With so many people using it and, frankly, so many

1487
comfortable with its use, we need to get the message right and get across the facts in a way that is accurate, non-confrontational and relevant to young people's lives. I also strongly believe that, with so many people buying the drug from the black market, we need to get the legal position right too.
The fact is that day in and day out, tens of thousands of young people make contact with dealers to buy cannabis. Although most buy what they need and leave, many, because they are forced to deal with people selling other drugs, as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, such as heroin, cocaine or Ecstasy, are more likely to buy and use those other drugs. In effect, it is not the use of the drug that encourages people to move to harder drugs but the existence of a single drugs black market. With the reclassification, cannabis possession will carry a minimal risk of prosecution, while selling it will carry a stiff penalty. To be clear, the Government's decision to increase the penalty within the class C band to 14 years makes selling it a high-risk criminal activity.
I must be honest: I am a little confused by the legal acrobatics that the Home Secretary has performed to reclassify cannabis. To recount, following the announcement in June 2002 of the bold step to reclassify the drug to class C, there have been two rather confusing steps backwards. First, there is the move to apply a maximum of 14 years for supply of the drug, despite other class C drugs carrying a five-year maximum. Secondly, as your Lordships will be aware, under the Criminal Justice Bill currently passing through the House, cannabis possession is to be made an arrestable offence.
If I am not mistaken, we will have created a separate classification for cannabis, which is none too distant from the position from which we are supposed to be moving away. In addition, what is to become of cannabis oil? As your Lordships will be aware, certain forms of cannabis oil extracted from the raw plant are regarded as a class A drug. What will the changes mean for that form?
Is it therefore any wonder that the public, rather than receiving a credible message about the drug cannabis, are confused by those moves and unsure how they will be affected—no doubt leading to further public disregard and disaffection for the legal system? That also brings into question the suitability of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and whether the current classification system is working at all.
Perhaps it is time that we took a good look at our drugs laws to reassess them to see how they work in today's society, because much has changed since 1971. The rationale behind the reclassification should be to get our message credibly and clearly across and to separate the market for cannabis from those for hard drugs. Unfortunately, I fear that neither of those objectives will be achieved by the new measures. Indeed, the unique classification of cannabis may well undermine the whole approach. By removing much of the risk of prosecution while sustaining the penalty for supply, the law may provide a perverse incentive to
1488
traffic more harmful drugs. If dealers are risking stiffer penalties for cannabis, they are more likely to deal in harder drugs as well.
Turning to the advice issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers, I am very concerned by its statement that a,
"person who may be mentally disordered or mentally handicapped or incapable of understanding the significance of questions or replies",
may be arrested. That very language moves away from our providing appropriate support and help to the most vulnerable.
Like other noble Lords, I fear that the Government's muddled plans for reclassification may be nothing other than a fudge and something of a face-saving manoeuvre. I fear that the changes will only continue to drive the ever-increasing number of young cannabis users underground by encouraging them to use behind closed doors and to disrespect government and the law by coming into contact with poly-drug dealers. The law will continue to make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding young people and perpetuate an environment of mass public disobedience.
The Government must listen to the people whom this law will affect the most and move the debate forward. Cannabis is not heroin; it is not crack; it is not as dangerous as either of those drugs. Decriminalise cannabis; separate it from more harmful drugs; provide unbiased and accurate information: provide support and treatment where it is needed; and tackle the real problems facing young people today, such as crime, unemployment, poverty, inequality and injustice.
We can best prevent harm by empowering young people to make up their own minds about cannabis using credible information and encouraging them to discuss their experiences, rather than hiding or denying them because government and the laws misunderstand them.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, it is with a heavy heart that I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I spent some years in charge of a drugs squad and I have seen the damage that drugs cause. I know that your Lordships would not argue with that; we all agree that they are very damaging. It is unarguable that, if you liberalise and legalise the use of drugs, more people will take them. A good example is the Netherlands, where, according to my information, cannabis use trebled once the law was liberalised. There is no argument on those terms.
I do not understand the change. If we simply wish to change police activity, the Government could issue instructions to the police—we do not have to change the law. The danger with changing the law and reclassifying drugs is that it sends a powerful signal to youngsters throughout the country. Many people to whom I have talked believe that cannabis is being legalised; they do not understand that it is simply being reclassified. I am at great pains to explain to them that the law is still the same. The government information

1489
states that nothing is changing. If nothing is changing, and the police still have the power to arrest, as they do, what is the point of the reclassification? It sends the wrong signal and increases usage, which is the important point.
I shall not keep noble Lords long. I could speak all night on the subject, and I have done. If we increase the usage of a mind-bending drug—such as alcohol, which is unarguably the same—we must give the police the power and the mechanism to deal with it, but there is no breathalyser for cannabis. People will use more cannabis and drive under the influence of it—they do now. There has been a massive increase in road fatalities of people found to have drugs—of all kinds, admittedly—in their bodies. For that reason alone, it would be a dangerous and retrograde step to send the powerful signal to youngsters that it is okay to smoke dope. Do not do it.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, there are genuinely held differences of view on the best way to handle drugs such as cannabis, which is obviously less dangerous than class A drugs such as crack cocaine. But we have already differentiated—one of the first things that I learned at school was the difference between A and B. We do not have to take steps to differentiate crack cocaine from cannabis; we have already done so.
I recognise the difficulties for the police with the present classification of cannabis as a class B drug. But the proposal in the order to reclassify it as a class C drug is a mistake, despite the favourable advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. There has been only one reference to the provision in the order— I wish to repeat it on the record—that it will reclassify as class C drugs all cannabis preparations, some of which are now classified as class A drugs and the rest as class B drugs. We must be clear on what we are doing in the order, with which I disagree.
The extent to which cannabis makes its users more likely to develop a psychotic illness is disputed, although I believe that it has some such effect. I note the Minister's observation that there was clear evidence that it worsens an incipient condition. It would be pretty bad, for example, to have more schizophrenics than at present. That would be a sad affair for the people themselves and their carers. Like many other noble Lords, I am very concerned about the problems of mental health. I have spoken about it in the House on several occasions; for me, it is an extremely important point.
There is evidence that in some cases cannabis use acts as a gateway to the use of significantly more dangerous drugs. The Minister said that the great majority do not move on to the more dangerous drugs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said that the majority do not move on. What sort of an argument is
1490
that? What about the minority? That is a point about which this House should be concerned. I was shocked to hear those statements.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Yes, I did say that, but I tried to explain that some cannabis users move on because they obtain their cannabis from dealers who are doing their very best to get them onto hard addictive drugs. That was my explanation.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. That is another reason for not changing the classification of cannabis. It is quite a clear argument against what the noble Baroness was stating. I heard it from some other noble Lords here and was not impressed with the argument from any of them.
For those reasons, I do not consider that we should agree this order. However, if contrary to my view it does go through, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, in which the House is invited to express the view that the order may lead to increased use of cannabis with the risks to the health of young people. The amendment does not go as far as I would wish, but I support it because it is an expression of an opinion with which I agree.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I suspect that this is one of those debates in which most noble Lords will not change their minds, however eloquent and impassioned the speeches are on one side or the other, or however well informed they are—such as the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale. I will therefore speak for a very short time because I know that whatever I say will not change anyone's mind.
My credentials for speaking are that for many years I was a general practitioner in an area where there was a high level of drug abuse. I dealt with many people who had problems with drugs, especially heroin, but not once during a lifetime of practice did I ever have to deal with someone who was ill because of the use of cannabis. My other credential is that I was a member of your Lordship's Select Committee on Science and Technology during its inquiry into the scientific and medical evidence for cannabis with a view to examining its use as a medication.
We obviously looked at the possible harmful effects of cannabis. Nobody denies that there are harmful effects. However, one of the main reasons for reclassifying it is stated in paragraph 4.3 of the report:
"The acute toxicity of cannabis and the cannabinoids is very low; no-one has ever died as a direct and immediate consequence of recreational or medical use".
That is extremely important, because all the drugs in classes A and B can cause death very quickly, not only by chronic use.

1491
If one looks at the long-term effects, certainly, cannabis can affect people's mental health. Paragraph 4.11 states:
"It is … well established that cannabis can exacerbate the symptoms of those already suffering from schizophrenic illness and may worsen the course of the illness; but there is little evidence that cannabis use can precipitate schizophrenia or other mental illness in those not already predisposed to it".
We have heard about research reported a year ago in the British Medical Journal, but there are other views. That research has to be looked at in the light of further research. It is not the final word. Although cannabis can precipitate some mental illness, it causes nothing like as much harm as alcohol or tobacco. Alcohol can kill people acutely—if they drink a whole bottle of spirits—quite apart from causing lingering death, and we all know what tobacco can do in the long term. Those two substances are not class A, class B or class C—they are not classified at all.
As regards the Dutch experience, it is true that when cannabis was decriminalised, usage increased for a while. It then went down again and has stayed stable. Far from cannabis being a gateway drug, in those circumstances it seems to satisfy the needs of young people who do not then go on to heroin. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, heroin use is lower in Holland—among Dutch people—than in other European countries. She also said that there is a dwindling band of heroin users who are getting older, but that there are no new users coming into the picture.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that Amsterdam is the drug capital of the world?
Lord Rea: My Lords, I absolutely accept that because people go there from all over the world.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: Why?
Lord Rea: My Lords, I do not need to answer that; it is perfectly clear. The problem with freeing access to drugs in one country is that people go to it like bees to honey. It needs to be approached internationally.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, mentioned the huge public reaction that he has noticed as a result of the order. I suggest that it can seem as if there is a strong public reaction when a highly motivated, small minority gets into gear and has well-organised lobbying material. That is very different from reflecting the majority of public opinion, who, I think, support the order. I support my noble friend on the Front Bench.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I have a few questions for the Minister; I hope that the answers will be of interest to the whole House. As other noble Lords have said, I, too, have had many letters from concerned people about the message that the order will give to our young people and the world beyond.
My main concern is the moving of class A drugs to class C. Liquid cannabis, cannabinol and cannabinol derivatives (THC) are in the class A category at
1492
present. Cannabinol is a crystalline phenol obtained from cannabis; it is very toxic. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, said that it is not. I looked it up in the Library tonight; it is described as very toxic. I consider that moving the drugs from class A to class C is very dangerous.
At present, any class B drug prepared for injection counts as a class A drug. Is that also to be moved to class C? That has not been mentioned tonight. What about the dangers of hepatitis and other infections, such as HIV, if it is to be declassed to class C? The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, has two delightful boys. I met them the other day. Those are the young people that we must try to protect. I hope that the Minister will look at the order again.
Last night at dinner, I sat next to a psychologist, Paul Kennedy, who teaches at Oxford University. I discussed the order with him. He said that cannabis is dangerous to the brain and could encourage schizophrenia. I hope that the Government think again about class A drugs and, especially, injecting. I do not worry about long-term disabled people using cannabis if it relieves their symptoms. That is another matter and a different message.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I have received letters from all over Scotland on this subject. I know very little about it; I am not an expert and I have not worked with those who have been in trouble with drugs. The letters reflect the fact that people do not want to see Edinburgh or London become like Amsterdam: the second drugs capital of the world.
These people know what they are talking about from experience in their own families, through their children. Some are doctors dealing with their patients. Others are academics who have studied the subject. I have also received letters from two relatives of people who have been sent to prison for drug dealing. All are absolutely astonished at what the Government are doing.
I say this: I back the amendment because it is the only amendment we have, but I agree with a very distinguished and senior Back-Bencher on the Government Benches who earlier this afternoon asked me: "What on earth is your party doing not throwing this order out?". However, since this is the only amendment, I shall back it.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, we have heard a most moving speech from my noble friend Lady Howells of St Davids, and I believe that the Government should listen to her testimony. I wish to make only three points.
First, over the years, both as a recorder and as an advocate, I have seen the penalties imposed becoming less and less severe. The lower the penalties imposed, it seems, the greater the use. Secondly, what is the Government's response to Kate Hoey, the Member for Vauxhall? As the elected representative, she has a deep personal knowledge of what is happening in the area. I know, from living in the area for some of the time, that over recent years drug dealers have spread from

1493
the centre to some of the most desirable streets in Vauxhall. It takes an enormous effort, as I know personally, to get rid of them. Local mothers with young children in the area are deeply concerned.
The third and final point I want to make is this. What signal does the Minister believe the Government's proposals for declassification will send to my grandchildren, and those of other noble Lords, shortly to become teenagers? Are they more or less likely to dabble in taking cannabis?
Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, my antennae tell me that perhaps a vote is in the offing and that we have spoken for long enough, but I want to make one or two brief points. I would suggest that the Minister has destroyed her own case with two statements. One of her statements was that already the quantum of cannabis use has gone up, so that we are on a rising tide. The second point I noted from her remarks was that to legalise the use of cannabis would lead to a massive increase in its use. If that is so, what does that tell us? It tells us that there is a market and an appetite waiting to take more cannabis. Who is going to take it? The noble Baroness gave the answer by telling the House that one of the circumstances under which a pusher with drugs can be arrested is if that person is in the vicinity of a school.
When one adds those together, one has a market of young people wanting to get to this drug and, as a sub-class of the vulnerable, are those referred to as having an incipient condition. Some linkage with mental instability is undoubtedly caused by or is related to cannabis.
We come to the usual question, one that often arises in this type of debate. Looking into the crystal ball, what will be the likely effect of the policy now being proposed? Will it be, as the Minister and the learned committee have suggested, that there will be no serious increase, or will it be as described by a social worker who wrote to me from Dagenham? She said:
"I write to you in distress that the drug cannabis is to be reclassified. If anything as a youth worker I think it should be raised to 'A' rather than dropped. I have watched young people changed very much for the worse because of this drug. Reclassifying cannabis will send out a clear message that the use of cannabis is OK. They are already confused enough... Please protect our young people in society".
Whose view do you accept? What view do you take? I go for the youth worker. What he says is very sensible.
The only surprise in the debate is the timidity of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I greatly respect him and his aggression, which can be displayed to great force on some occasions, but the amendment merely states that,
"this House notes that the order may lead to increased use of cannabis with risks to the health of young people".
It does not deplore the order aggressively; it merely notes it in a rather calm way.
Those who are vulnerable are the young of our country. If Lady Macbeth had seen that draft she might have said to the noble Lord, "Infirm of purpose? Give me the daggers". The dagger we want is one with
1494
which to strike down the order. I urge your Lordships to reject it—if we can do so—or, if not, to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson.
10 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, it has been a heated debate in which strong views have been expressed. I shall speak briefly in support of the amendment.
Like many of your Lordships, I have been inundated with personal letters from individuals and faxes from organisations. There may or may not be some exaggeration in the claims made, but at the very least they should make one think hard about whether reclassification would not send out the wrong signals.
I am sure that all noble Lords would, like me, wish to support any move that would genuinely reduce the all too profitable role of drugs barons in this country. However, the results where some form of declassification or reclassification of drugs has taken place elsewhere do not look encouraging. I shall not go over the Dutch experience or, indeed, the Lambeth experience, other than to say that quite clearly there was open dealing there during the period of the experiment. However, I hear that there are differing views on that.
The potential medical ill effects of cannabis have come through very clearly indeed, particularly in regard to mental illness, which seems to occur far too often. Cannabis may not be 20 per cent stronger than it was in the 1960s, but it is certainly stronger today. Apparently it stays longer in the brain, with young boys five times more likely to be users. Education potential is at risk, with concentration and attention spans affected and the possibility of permanent damage caused to brain cells.
There is apparently, too, a great concern that cannabis use is a factor in road accidents—a point well put by the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate. The figures that I have read show that some 10 per cent of those responsible for fatal accidents tested positive for cannabis, and 80 per cent of those did not have an alcohol content above the limit.
It would appear that an increasing number of young children believe that cannabis has been legalised, but by no means do adults wish to vote in favour of decriminalising cannabis.
My two greatest concerns relate to addiction and those who are likely to be affected by it. It is very clear that cannabis can, and clearly does—if only sometimes—lead people into harder drugs. Adolescent users are apparently much more likely to use cocaine than those who never smoked cannabis and apparently almost 100 per cent of heroin addicts started on cannabis.
One then has to ask oneself who is the group most likely to become addicted. I suggest that the most vulnerable group would be those youngsters from disadvantaged and dysfunctional families—that is, the very group least likely to get the appropriate help and support from within their own families, and in which undesirable peer pressure has to be obeyed more often than not.

1495
As I know all too well from my years in the London juvenile courts, this pattern is all too familiar. Truancy is the first step, with the need for funds to feed the drug habit leading inevitably to crime—thus spiralling down the cycle of deprivation continues.
I hope the Minister will think again and, at the very least, agree to the delay suggested. I agree that it is a pretty timid step; nevertheless, it would be a way of showing the acceptance of the concern that is expressed by Members of this House.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. Having sat through the entire debate and listened to all the contributions, I think that the controversial nature of the contributions that have been made and the divided opinions that we have heard in your Lordships' House this evening should at least give us all pause for thought. Timid though the amendment may be, I think it is the right one, because at least it gives us the chance to reconsider before taking what I regard as a pretty momentous step.
In introducing the debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said—this remark has been quoted by several of my noble friends on the Cross Benches— that, mercifully, most cannabis users do not move on. On Friday last, I was in Liverpool, in part of the area I represented at one level or another for some 25 years. Earlier this year, in that same neighbourhood, I attended the funeral of a young man in his early twenties who had died of a heroin overdose. His mother was at the meeting on Friday last, and I put the proposition to her that not everyone who takes cannabis ends up as a heroin user. She responded to me by saying that she had never met anyone who was using heroin who did not start on cannabis. That is the key to this issue.
There is clearly a link between the use of drugs, and although it is true that alcohol and other factors must also be taken into account, it would be absurd to dispute that link and to move forward without any degree of consensus on these questions. The order before us will reclassify cannabis as a class C drug, putting it into the same category as sleeping tablets and anabolic steroids.
The Home Office website states that reclassification of cannabis should help the Government to convey an effective and credible message—to young people in particular—about the dangers of misusing drugs. But contrary to that statement and to everything the Minister has said this evening, reclassification sends the message that cannabis is harmless and not addictive, and that it is okay to take it. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, said, it also cultivates the common belief that it already has been legalised.
Following the Home Secretary's announcement last July that he intended to reclassify cannabis, Life Education Centres performed a survey among pupils. Some 86 per cent of primary school children thought that cannabis was now legal, and 79 per cent thought it was safe.
1496
The Government claim that reclassification is based on the medical evidence. However, the most recent evidence was not, and could not have been, taken into account when they came to this conclusion. The advice to reclassify cannabis was based on a report in 2001 by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. That report was commissioned by the Home Office.
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs does not have a balanced membership, and only a few scientists are among its members. There are around 32 members of the ACMD. Thirteen are leading members of pro-liberalisation organisations. It does not have a single member from any organisation opposed to the liberalisation of drugs, so no one can argue that this was a balanced committee taking all the evidence into account.
The ACMD reported in 2001, recommending reclassification. However, since then, significant new evidence has emerged linking cannabis with serious mental illness. That point was made very powerfully tonight by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who has so much experience as a former Home Secretary. The majority of psychiatrists now accept a link between cannabis and serious mental illness. Two years ago, that was not the case.
I give a brief summary of the new evidence. Schizophrenia, psychotic symptoms, depression and anxiety are strongly associated with cannabis abuse. Recent research confirms that cannabis can trigger psychosis even in those with no previous disposition to mental illness. The earlier cannabis use begins, the greater the risks. Eighteen year-olds who have used cannabis 50 times have a nearly seven-fold increased risk of developing psychosis over the next 15 years. Teenagers who use cannabis by age 15 have more than a four-fold increased risk of developing schizophrenia symptoms by the age of 26. Early cannabis use by the age of 15 increases the risk of schizophrenia compared to later cannabis use by the age of 18. Furthermore, a recently published study examined patients with recent onset of psychosis. It was found that patients with recent onset are twice as likely to have used cannabis compared with a population without psychosis. While alcohol consumption and consumption of illicit drugs other than cannabis was roughly equal in both groups, cannabis was used by 39 per cent of psychotic patients, but only 22 per cent of non-psychotic controls. That new evidence was produced by Professor Robin Murray of the Institute of Psychiatry.
It is clear that cannabis, far more than other illicit drugs, including class A drugs, is associated with mental illness. To claim that cannabis should be only a class C drug is simply not compatible with the medical evidence. As the evidence was published only last year, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs could not take that into account when reconsidering reclassification in 2001.
I know that it is late, but I should like to express my grave concern that the Home Secretary has so far refused to meet eminent scientists and leading researchers on cannabis, including four professors who want to present new research evidence to the

1497
Home Secretary. The scientists who have asked to meet the Home Secretary are Professor Robin Murray, Professor of Psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry in London; Professor John Henry, who was cited earlier, from Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine; Professor Heather Ashton, from the School of Neurosciences at the University of Newcastle; and Professor Colin Drummond, Professor of Addiction Psychiatry at St George's Hospital Medical School.
Will the Minister tell us why the requests for such meetings have not been acceded to? Surely, before reclassifying, the Home Office should examine the likely effects of reclassification on society, public health, driving, and the health service. Reclassification is very likely to lead to increased cannabis use. If a drug is perceived to be harmless—and reclassification will send the message that it is harmless—its use will undoubtedly increase. It is downright irresponsible to proceed with these orders tonight. I would rarely speak so strongly on a subject in your Lordships' House, but I support the amendment laid before us and I hope that, when we divide, the House will support it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall speak for just one minute—which may come as a relief to the Minister, who I know is anxious to wind up the debate.
First, I too have received many letters from families throughout the country who speak with first-hand experience of the damage done to their children and other members of their families. Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, is a highly respected and esteemed Member of this place. She is a foremost authority on brain research in this country, working in many of our main universities. When a lady of that calibre tells us that cannabis is harmful and dangerous and that the order should not be supported, I believe that we should listen to her.
Thirdly, I refer to the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids, who lives among a community where this is a very real issue and speaks with first-hand experience. Her speech was extremely moving.
I should also like to support Kate Hoey. The Minister said that one reason for reclassification was to put an end to confusion. However, the confusion was caused by the Home Secretary himself who initiated pilot schemes in some areas, including London. Kate Hoey, who lives in one of those pilot areas, has talked of the deep distress being experienced by that community.
Those are powerful advocates for saying that the Government should think seriously about withdrawing the amendment. I support my noble friend Lord Hodgson this evening, but I and so many other Members of this House have not agreed to vote against the order.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I will not make the long speech that I prepared earlier. However, I have a new point that I should like to raise with my noble friend the Minister. She said that the
1498
Government do not accept that a high level of cannabis use is inevitable. The Government argue that they want to have an impact on usage through advertising and education. May I suggest that they, and perhaps noble Lords too, should have a look at the Internet? They could go to the Google search engine and type in "cannabis". I think they will be amazed to see there that 730,000 websites deal with cannabis. The first of the websites, "cannabis.com", tells you everything you need to know about cannabis: how you can get hold of it; what is in their shop; what is in their chatroom; instructions on how to grow cannabis; information about all the different types of cannabis available; on and on it goes. It ends up by giving the price per gram or price per ounce, available through the post, changed on a monthly basis according to the market. That is the first of 730,000 such websites.
Going through the websites at random, you will see that the vast majority of them are in the same business. They are the dealers working on an international basis. It is available there through the post. I ask the Minister what the Government are doing about that. Are any attempts being made on an international basis, as with paedophiles, to tackle not only the sale and promotion of cannabis but access to information through the Internet on how to purchase crack cocaine and heroin? Those drugs figure similarly on other websites.
Young people widely use both mobile telephones and the Internet. Those are the ways in which life is changing so quickly for them. They can be approached in a quite different way from anything that we have seen previously. I should like to know, as this has not been mentioned either in the debate in the other place or here, what the Government and the police intend to do about that.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, we have heard an awful lot about an awful lot of experts in the course of this debate. I am not an expert on drugs. However, I have been chairman of a leading provider of day care for drug addicts in the City of Westminster for 10 years, chairman of the Addiction Recovery Foundation for 16 years, vice-chairman of the Parliamentary Group on Drug Misuse for 12 years, and I have probably taken rather more drugs than most of the other Members of your Lordships' House. So I am beginning to learn a little bit.
I have heard from all sides of the House confusion and from all sides of the House concern. Maybe we should try to step back for a minute and look to see if those two things come together. I have not heard one noble Lord on either side of this argument or any side of the House say that taking drugs is a good thing. From all sides of the House, noble Lord after noble Lord has risen and given us personal anecdote and expert view or general view about the dangers of drugs and in particular the danger of cannabis. All those noble Lords are entirely correct. Cannabis is a deeply undesirable drug. It is addictive. It is harmful. It causes problems to physical health. It causes all the problems described by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and many other noble Lords. However, in the general scheme of things, it is not half

1499
as dangerous as a lot of other things in our society. So we need to find a bit of balance there. However, everyone thinks that it is dangerous. Everyone would like to find a solution to the problem.
The other sentiment that we have heard on all sides of the House is that if we liberalise, legalise or somehow reduce the classification it will lead to a massive increase. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said that we should not go down this route unless there was proof that liberalisation does not lead to an increase in use. There is a certain amount of logic in what the noble Lady was saying, and of course that proof does not exist. However, I will tell your Lordships what proof does exist. Under the current regime, whether we reclassify or whether we do not, we will undoubtedly see an increase in use, next week and the week after, and the year after, as we have year on year for the past 30 years as we have tightened the rules and regulations and laws and increased the sentences and deployed more police and spent more money on the courts. That is costing us between £12 billion and £18 billion a year. That is the price of having our drugs policy centred around the Misuse of Drugs Act. We should bear that in mind.
Noble Lord after noble Lord has talked about the message that we shall send out today if we lower the classification, or if we maintain it, or if we do anything else with it. My noble friend Lord Bell knows an awful lot about sending out messages—much more than I do—but I do know one thing: not one single person under the age of 20, certainly not your 10 or 12 year-old in Glasgow, will give a brass farthing whether a drug is classed as B, C, D or Z. Indeed, they will not know or care.
My noble friend Lady Blatch rightly talked about Brixton and what had happened there with the experiments that the Home Secretary conducted. I lived in Brixton before that. Brixton has been full to the gunnels with drug dealers for 15 years. The police have walked up one pavement and the dealers have walked down the other. This reclassification will not make a blind bit of difference to that, and anyone who thinks that it will is living in Cloud-cuckoo-land. That is not the way the world works. As virtually every single speaker has said, the reality is that drugs, whether cannabis or heroin, constitute a very serious health problem, although heroin is clearly a great deal more serious than cannabis. However, cannabis constitutes a health problem. The way you deal with health problems is with healthcare, not through the criminal justice system, because that does not work. You can keep the classification at class B or at class C, or you can make it class Z, it will not make a blind bit of difference.
The order before us this evening is a complete and utter irrelevance. I suspect what happened was that the Home Secretary wanted to move in the right direction he was advised to move in, which was to try to get out of this criminal justice nightmare in which we currently live, but that the weight that descended on the back of his neck from his own Back-Benchers and, indeed, from Members of my own party, made him chicken out, so while lowering the classification with one hand
1500
he raises the penalties with another, which is a completely pointless act if ever I heard of one, but that is where we have got to.
As someone who has been involved in this subject and, I believe, spoken in every debate in this House concerning drugs in the 15 or 16 years I have been privileged to be a Member of your Lordships' House, I normally come in with a vague idea of what I shall do, what I shall say and how I shall vote. However, I came into this debate this evening with a blank piece of paper—luckily I have not written too much on it— without the slightest idea of what the order would achieve. Having listened very, very carefully and made masses and masses of notes, I am now completely convinced that I still do not have a clue what it will achieve, except that I am pretty certain that it will achieve absolutely nothing.
But what I have heard from all quarters of the House—which is very unusual in your Lordships' House on a difficult issue such as this—is that the House too is completely confused and was not swayed by the noble Baroness's very careful and, as always, clearly put argument. I understood her argument but it did not sway me. It did not convince me that the order was anything except completely pointless.
I listened very carefully to the amendment of my noble friend on the Opposition Front Bench. He tried to mitigate a shambles with a minor shambles. We shall end up with an even bigger shambles. The best solution this evening would be for the Minister to do what wonderful, clever and talented noble Lords and Ministers do on occasion and say, "I think that we have got this wrong. I should like to take it away and think again".
Your Lordships have the right, the power and the privilege to ask the Government to think again. We all want to achieve the same thing—reduction in drug use and the protection of young people. Everyone on all sides of the House is agreed on that but not one single speaker knows exactly how we should achieve it. I do not think that the Minister convinced us that she knows either. I for one would be much happier if I did not have to vote one way or the other, and if the Government very sensibly took the measure away.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I regret to tell the noble Lord that I do not think that I shall be able to fulfil his request.
This has been a really extraordinary debate. In many ways, it shows the utility of your Lordships' House. It has been wide-ranging, impassioned and, almost without exception, extraordinarily well informed. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is right when he says that we are all of one mind. We all agree that drugs are pernicious. We would all like to see them expunged and the young people in particular of our country released from their grip. Many people around the House have expressed different views on how we do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, says that the effort that the Government are making is completely and utterly irrelevant, and that my right honourable friend

1501
the Home Secretary has chickened out. I want to say how wholeheartedly I disagree on that. The order is not irrelevant. One had only to listen to the pain that was obvious in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and the passion of my noble friend Lady Howells to know that it was not irrelevant, but extraordinarily important.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, says that the Government are muddled, and that we are pointing in two directions. We are not. This is not a simple issue on which one can grasp from the air a simple solution and say, "That is it". If it were, we would have grasped that solution long before now. The Government are trying to do quite a difficult, brave and important thing. We acknowledge that cannabis is a harmful drug. Nothing that I said in opening the debate detracted from that. A number of noble Lords seemed to suggest that I had in some way equivocated. I did not. It is a drug that can have detrimental effects, particularly on those who have a vulnerability in relation to mental illness. It is not a drug that we believe should be legalised.
However, we have to face the reality of the situation in which we find ourselves as a community. Cannabis is widely used. There is a challenge for us in terms of what we do to release young people from that vice, as it is they in the main who are entrapped by it. There is an old adage that one can hate the sin but love the sinner. We seek to differentiate between the way in which we will treat the user of cannabis and its purveyor, provider or supplier. That is why we remain rigid in our opposition to those who sell the drugs, abuse our young people and derive profit from it. We are not ashamed to say that we will not move one jot in terms of the 14 years that should follow such people.
That does not make us inconsistent. In the steps that we are taking in the Criminal Justice Bill and other Bills that we have been privileged to discuss in this House, we seek to make a very clear distinction by the way in which we treat those who abuse drugs, so that treatment is available. That is a very important point.
I shall try, as briefly and quickly as I can, to deal with some points raised. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has been accused of being timid. I saw no timidity in his discourse. He referred to Professor Edwards as a member of the advisory council—of course, he is a former member—and to the ever-increasing body of research. That research has been taken into account. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, mentioned the increase in potency and the higher strength cannabis, which has in fact been on the market since the 1990s. Those issues did prey on our minds and we considered them well.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, gave us qualified support, because she accuses the Government of timidity. She said that we should go further and, in effect, legalise cannabis. My response is: "No. We think that we have gone far enough".
1502
The noble Baroness asked why there is a presumption for arrest. There is not. The presumption is against arrest. It is expected that in most cases a warning will be sufficient, together with confiscation of the drug. However, there are certain circumstances where arrest will be appropriate, as I outlined in my opening remarks. The increase in penalties for trafficking maintains our position in relation to the 14-year sentence.
I should respond next to the speech of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy. She asked about those who need cannabis for medicinal purposes. My right honourable friend has made clear that he is willing to amend the misuse of drugs legislation as necessary to allow the prescribing of a cannabis-based medicine as a form of pain relief. The Home Office granted a licence to GW Pharmaceuticals, who have conducted trials and have developed a cannabis-based medicine designed to relieve chronic nerve pain. The company is seeking marketing approval for the product from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. That is a process through which all new medicines have to go in order to protect public health. The Multiple Sclerosis Society supports that approach. Therefore, it is a matter that we are trying to address.
One of the most powerful speeches was made by my noble friend Baroness Howells. I understand each and every issue that she raised. However, if I may respectfully say so, many of her points were answered in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale. My noble friend raised some difficult issues and I shall answer her questions directly. She asked if cannabis is harmless. We do not say that it is. She then asked whether downgrading cannabis stops people from taking harder drugs. We have heard an answer to that. In response to the question whether relaxing the law on cannabis would free police to deal with more drugs, I draw my noble friend's attention to the crumbs of comfort that have been drawn from the Lambeth experiment. There has been a 10 per cent increase in arrests for class A drugs-dealing. In the 11 months to May 2002, 224 arrests were made, compared to 204 in the 12 months to June 2001. That was a result of greater police activity against dealers. In a survey of the people of Lambeth, 83 per cent of residents supported the scheme. Some supported it on condition that the police spend more time on serious crimes. We can therefore conclude from the surveys that they believed that the scheme was right.
However, I of course acknowledge my noble friend's remarks about the mothers of boys. I also acknowledge, as was indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Massam, that I have a personal reason for empathising with those who have those concerns.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, mentioned the Connexions leaflet. I should make it clear that its contents were not approved by the Government and, as the noble Lord said, the leaflets have been withdrawn. However, there is a job for us to do in educating our young people and giving them the skills

1503
and the knowledge they need to make informed choices. That is a campaign in which we intend to engage with vigour. Children need to hear that drugs are dangerous. They may vary in their danger, but none of them is conducive to good health. As many people have said, we need to look at the health effects. Cannabis has addictive properties. They are not as high as class A. Cannabis does not kill through overdose; it does not cause social and personal safety problems to the same extent; but we do not for a moment suggest that the effects are not aberrant, because they are.
As a number of noble Lords have said, the evidence about schizophrenia is inconclusive. The noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, says that the Government have been too timorous and that we should go further. I hope that the answers I have given to other noble Lords he will take as answers to his queries.
We are including all cannabis in the reclassification, including class C. It was a joy but also a pain to hear the pithy comments of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, whom I always enjoy, even when the barbs are directed towards me. I say to the noble Lord that the reclassification to class C is not a mistake. It enables us to do something which could be creative in responding to the needs many have called for. I welcome and thank my noble friend Lord Rea for his support drawn from his experience as a GP. That is valuable evidence indeed.
In answer to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, the oil will be included in the reclassification as C. The medical evidence indicates that that is an appropriate move. I of course hear what my noble friend Lord Mackenzie said about cannabis and driving. Everything that we do to limit the use of cannabis will, we hope, impinge on those issues and scientists are seeking to develop scientific means of establishing whether a person is impaired. Cannabis stays in the bloodstream for as long as 28 days—long after it ceases to impair performance.
Other organisations have supported what the Government have tried to do. They include the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs; the Association of Chief Police Officers; the Metropolitan Police Service; Turning Point; AdAction; DrugScope; the Home Affairs Select Committee in its report of 2002; the Police Federation; and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. None of them is irresponsible. All of them are committed to looking at the problem and trying to see whether they can help.
We have come on a long and tortuous journey. It has been difficult, but we believe that we have reached an honourable and good compromise. There is much for us to do. We will of course rely on those of good will to help us. We can, at the same time, move the broader drugs agenda squarely on to the menace of class A drugs. These are the drugs which can kill; which can insidiously destroy entire communities. We are now starting to make an impact in our strategy to reduce class A drug misuse and the effects of that.
1504
The Government are investing unprecedented levels of funds into drug treatment, education and enforcing the law. On education, we are targeting action under the Positive Futures programme to prevent the most vulnerable young people from getting involved in drugs. We are using sport and art to develop their skills to help themselves resist drugs and re-enter education and training. Positive Futures initiatives have been set up in 104 areas and 16,000 vulnerable young people are already receiving support under the scheme.
Connexions partnerships aim to provide teenagers with access to the support they need to take part effectively in learning and make a successful transition to adulthood. In some cases, Connexions will identify and refer young people with drug problems to specialist support. There are no easy solutions, but many of us have seen what young people can achieve and the wonders that they can perform when we help them out of the mire into which drugs have taken them. This Government believe that they have the right strategy, based on a realistic approach, to make a real and sustained impact on the drugs problem and to deliver substantial improvements. I invite your Lordships to endorse what the Government are trying to do—and trying to do bravely and correctly.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will it now mean that injecting cannabis is a class C situation? I believe that there should be no compromise with dirty needles and the risk of HIV and hepatitis.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I said, cannabinol—it is late at night; having sat on this Bench for a long time, I cannot even say the word— cannabis oil, if I may use a different form of the word, is included in the reclassification of class C drugs. All forms of cannabis will now fall within the class C classification.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, the hour is late and so I shall be very brief. I am extremely grateful to Members from all sides of the House who have spoken in support of my amendment. I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Carnegy and the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, thought that I was being lily-livered. Whether she supported me or not, it was a privilege to listen to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids. Due to the sincerity with which she spoke, whether she was for or against me, I would have been proud to hear that speech. She spoke sincerely about petty crime, family break-up and mental illness and made a terrific speech.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment. Those who were less supportive included, in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale. However, when they began to speak, I found that much of what they said was in tune with my thinking—that is, the noble Baroness referred to the muddle over the class C classification and whether we

1505
would have a class D, and she mentioned consistency by the police. The noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, used a great phrase, referring to the "legal acrobatics" of the Home Secretary, which is exactly what my amendment addresses.
However, the Minister rounded off her remarks by saying that the Government have been on a tortuous journey. You can say that again! They are trying to be all things to all men. The order sends a mixed message leading to a muddle. It may not seem to be a muddle from a desk in Whitehall, but the noble Baroness has only to listen to the messages from around the House tonight to know that the issue is a muddle out there in the country where it really matters.
Mine is not a fatal amendment, as it is termed, but it will send a clear signal to the Government that your Lordships are concerned about the dangers of the policy that the Government are following. Following on from the remarks of my noble friend Lord Mancroft, I do not believe that the noble Baroness will withdraw the order and think again—she shakes her head as I look at her. Therefore, I intend to test the opinion of the House.
10.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 61.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Attlee, E.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Bell, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Blatch, B.

Hylton, L.

Bridges, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Kimball, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Liverpool, E.

Byford, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Caithness, E.

Luke, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Lyell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Chalfont, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Courtown, E.

Mar, C.

Craigavon, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Crathorne, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Dixon, L.

Monson, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Montrose, D. [Teller]

Eden of Winton, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Elles, B.

Neill of Bladen, L.

Emerton, B.

Noakes, B.

Ferrers, E.

Northesk, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Glentoran, L.

Palmer, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Greenway, L.

Parkinson, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Renton, L.

Higgins, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Howe, E.

Seccombe, B.[Teller]

1506

Sharples, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Trumpington, B.

Ullswater,V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Waddington, L.

Strange, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adebowale, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Alli, L.

Hoyle, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Andrews, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jones, L.

Barker, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Burlison, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Carter, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Chandos, V.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Crawley, B.

Mitchell, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Morgan, L.

Desai, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dubs, L.

Rea, L.

Elder, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Rennard, L

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Richard, L..

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Sewel, L.

Gale, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Gilbert, L.

Thornton, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Walmsley, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Warner, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Whitaker, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Whitty, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
10.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the original Motion, as amended, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 37.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Adebowale, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Alli, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Andrews, B.

Gale, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Gilbert, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Carter, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Chandos, V.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Clark of Windermere, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Crawley, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Hereford, Bp.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Desai, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Dubs, L.

Hoyle, L.

Elder, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

1507

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Rea, L.

Jones, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Richard, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Lyell, L.

Sewel, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Thornton, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Ullswaer, V.

Mar, C.

Walmsley, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Warner, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Mitchell, L.

Whitaker, B.

Morgan, L.

Whitty, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Bridges, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Caithness, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Monson, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Neill of Bladen, L.

Chalfont, L.

Northesk, E. [Teller]

Eden of Winton, L.

Palmer, L. [Teller]

Elles, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ferrers, E.

Parkinson, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Renton, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Sharples, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Strewsbury, E.

Strange, B.

Hylton, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kimball, L.

Waddington, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion, as amended, agreed to accordingly.

Ragwort Control Bill
10.55 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Control of ragwort]:
The Lord Bishop of Hereford The Lord Bishop of Hereford moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out "prevent the spread of and insert "reduce the risk of horses dying from eating"
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I expected a certain exodus at this stage. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, if she has been caused anxiety by my amendment. There is undoubtedly a problem of horses suffering and dying after eating ragwort, but the scale of the problem is very unclear.
At Second Reading, evidence to support the contention was produced in a very muddled and inadequate way. As reported in Hansard at cols. 1239–40, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, underlined the need for proper scientific evidence to support legislation. That need was strongly affirmed by the Wildlife and Countryside Link, a consortium of nature conservancy bodies of great expertise. We do not believe that that evidence has been brought forward.
Supporters of the Bill have made some sweeping assertions, unsubstantiated and unreconciled, over the alleged spread of ragwort and the number of horse deaths. There is no mention of mortality trends. One would have expected comparative figures for several years to establish an increasing risk of ragwort poisoning, if that is indeed the case. Uncertainty about the distance that seed can travel—from several miles to 14 metres depending on whom we believe—and about the distribution of ragwort itself, conflicts with the evidence of the New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora published as recently as last year.
A number of questions were raised and not effectively answered at Second Reading. There is a confusing and not very convincing picture of a problem, although clearly there is a problem. There is a real danger of overlooking the importance and the value of ragwort as a significant plant in the food chain, supporting very large numbers of insects including the beautiful and none too common cinnabar moth, with its wonderful orange and black football sock caterpillars that are so distinctive and characteristic. The answer to the problem lies in good pasture management and a careful scrutiny of forage by suppliers and by horse owners who buy it in, because ragwort in forages is even more poisonous than ragwort on the ground. Suppliers of forage should guarantee that their product is ragwort free. It is certainly incumbent on those who sell forage to horse owners to take this provision very seriously indeed.
Prevention of the problem is better than any kind of possible cure. There are three possible cures—through culture, chemicals or biological control. Of those, biological control is much the most desirable from the ecological point of view. In any case, the objective must be, as my amendment tries to make clear, to reduce the risk of horses dying from eating ragwort, rather than to reduce substantially the amount of ragwort, which plays such an important part in sustaining biodiversity. We should be highly selective in any method of control, concentrating on pasture, preferably by alternating grazing by horses with grazing by sheep. The National Trust, which cares a great deal about good pasture management and encourages its tenant farmers to practise it, has not been aware of a ragwort problem.
An important point needs to be made about amenity land and highway and railway verges, because those are places where ragwort is frequently found and is alleged to be increasing in quantity. There is a real risk of overkill control by spraying with an indiscriminate broad-leaved herbicide, which could seriously damage and diminish the range of broad-leaved plants, not only ragwort. Unfortunately, there is no specific herbicide which tackles just ragwort.
My fear is that the Bill, as it stands and simple as it is, conceivably might encourage cowboy sprayers to consider that they have carte blanche to go out and kill ragwort, and a great deal of other valuable material at the same time. It is in those places—that is, amenity land, roadside and railway verges, cuttings, and so

1509
forth—that ragwort should be left alone as a valuable food source. In the code of practice, apropos railway land, there is a reference to,
"danger to the travelling public"
in passing trains, which is quite preposterous.
I also must admit that the revised code of practice has many virtues; not least, its emphasis on the need to prevent the problem rather than to treat and control it and its acknowledgement of the very great care that is needed for sites of special scientific interest, in particular. There is also the need to consult widely, especially with English Nature, before any control of ragwort is attempted on such sites, although, of course, such sites—SSSIs—make up a very small proportion of the total landscape that we are considering.
There are safe, good and careful safeguards written into the code about any use of chemicals. A well made point in the regulatory impact assessment in paragraph 27 states that,
"a code with statutory backing should also reduce pressure on the Government to take a tougher regulatory stance in relation to the control of ragwort. Increasing enforcement activity under the Weeds Act to deal with the proliferation of ragwort would be more burdensome and costly to Government and to other statutory bodies than the introduction of this legislation".
I accept that the Bill may be the lesser evil in the sense that it is a small step in the direction of meeting a problem that exists for horse owners but also, particularly in the code of practice, recognises the ecological importance of ragwort and the nature conservancy need to be very careful in any control measures that are undertaken.
I probably should say that the British Horse Society, which has made the running in producing the Bill, may not be entirely aware of the considerable importance of ragwort in terms of nature conservancy and biodiversity. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says in response. Meanwhile, I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I believe that I am right in thinking that the right reverend Prelate will be retiring in a few weeks' time. If I am right, perhaps I may take this opportunity to wish him a very long, happy and ragwort-free retirement.
Last weekend, I stayed in a friend's house near Newmarket. She has about 15 horses, mostly eventers. She is assiduous in getting rid of any ragwort growing on her land. Yet, every year, back it comes. Of course, there is ragwort growing on neighbouring land on set aside, and on the sides of roads. In due course, when seeds land on my friend's land, the merry-go-round will start again.
I am really conscious of an increase of ragwort on the sides of roads. I would submit to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, that gypsy horses and ponies do graze in such places. I have read the eloquent speech made by my noble friend Lord Brooke at Second Reading very carefully. Of course, I see his point of view and I understand some
1510
of his worries. However, I have learnt that the cinnabar moth also loves to eat and lay its eggs on groundsel. Therefore, I cannot help feeling that, like the cinnabar moth, the 86 different creatures which eat ragwort already have alternatives up their sleeves, or wherever.
Curiously, hardly any mention was made at Second Reading about the very real danger to humans who, unless they wear gloves when touching ragwort, can develop liver sickness resulting in death. I hope that my noble friend Lord Rotherwick's pal by the name of Cookie wore gloves and is in the pink of good health at present.
I could not help but think that perhaps there is a parallel between ragwort and stinging nettles. Both are beloved by butterflies, but while a few are tolerated, who would want stinging nettles all over their garden? It may be that a code of practice will be able to prevent the spread of ragwort while at the same time recognising that this beastly plant, to some degree, is here to stay.
I have to say that, with the best will in the world, I believe it is impossible to get rid of ragwort. I applaud the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on bringing forward this timely Bill. Clause 1 is reasonable and realistic, and I hope that the Bill is passed without alteration. If any changes are made, the measure will fall because there is no time left to change it.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, ragwort is already classified as a noxious weed and Clause 1 introduces only one new element; namely, that there should be a code of practice to provide guidance on how to prevent the spread of ragwort. Of course the code does not exist because the Bill has not yet been passed.
I want to stress the words, "prevent the spread of" ragwort. That is a fairly modest aim. However useful the code of practice may be, it is hardly conceivable that either ragwort or the cinnabar moth will vanish from the countryside. I have to say, since we are dealing with the amendment of the right reverend Prelate, that I am not attracted to his proposed wording. It might imply that the code of practice should go beyond the control of ragwort itself to, for example, guidance on the inspection of horses' feed or even veterinary advice. It would widen the entire field which might be covered by the code of practice. That could give rise to many difficulties.
I hope that the Bill will go forward in the form in which it has been presented to the House.
Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, I declare an interest in that we have a small number of Welsh black cattle. While with great regret I must oppose the amendment of the right reverend Prelate, I do so because of its over-concentration on the interests of horses. In our view, and in the view of our vet who has attended the corpses of some of our cattle, ragwort is a killer for cattle.

1511
If noble Lords visit the Library of your Lordships' House, they can consult that inestimable work, Black's Veterinary Dictionary, now in its 20th edition. On page 432 it states that ragwort poisoning,
"causes losses among cattle and sheep in Great Britain, Canada and New Zealand"—
and goes on to refer to South Africa. Ragwort poisoning causes,
"cirrhosis of the liver, inflammation of the fourth stomach, and other lesions".
I hope that, at this hour, noble Lords will not ask me to go further into the damage done to various parts of the anatomy of cattle. However, it is clear that ragwort is a serious cause of disease, mainly via the liver, for many other forms of livestock.
Because the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate is limited to horses, I would urge noble Lords not to accept it.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have not intervened in the debates on this Bill because I had considered it to be a relatively minor piece of legislation which would go through the House without amendment. All noble Lords understand that any amendment agreed today would ensure that the measure would not reach the statute book.
The right reverend Prelate is correct to identify ragwort as one of the major hazards of the horse world. Ragwort, in particular when it is mixed in with hay, can be fatal in many instances. That is even more the case when the weed has wilted; it seems then to become extremely toxic to animals. I daresay that the noble Lord, Lord Neill, understands that it is probably the hay eaten by his cattle that contains ragwort in its toxic form.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, that is not strictly so. Ragwort is absolutely poisonous to horses, cattle and humans when it is green, but in that form it tastes disgusting to animals, so they do not eat it unless it is the same height as the grass on which they are cropping. Animals eat it with pleasure only when it reaches the hay stage. I hope that my noble friend will excuse me for butting in.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I think that my noble friend has reinforced what I was saying. It is when ragwort is mixed in with hay that animals seem to eat it with some pleasure, and that is when in many instances it becomes fatal. Very often sheep can graze ragwort with impunity and, over a period of time, eradicate it from various fields.
As my noble friend Lady Trumpington said, it is set aside and the recent farming practices that have seen the spread of this rather dangerous weed.
The Bill sets out that a code of practice may be introduced to stop the spread of ragwort. That is the only purpose of this small Bill. But the BHS has written to me to say that it has no intention to press for the eradication of ragwort but supports this attempt to see it controlled. So any idea that the Bill seeks to eradicate ragwort is entirely wrong.
1512
I urge the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, who has also tabled an amendment, not to press their amendments to a Division at this rather late stage in the Bill's passage through Parliament. It provides a useful measure which can go some way towards alleviating a problem that the BHS and many horse owners recognise as being fairly devastating for the horse population and will help ensure that it is not exacerbated.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate made some important points in regard to biodiversity and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply on that issue. However, I hope that the right reverend Prelate will not press his amendment. Like other noble Lords, I believe that there is some point in the Bill going through, although I wonder whether the suggestion I made in Committee about forage being certified as ragwort free might be more vigorously pursued.
The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, made a fair point—horses do indeed graze verges in some circumstances—but, as she went on to say, they do not choose to eat the ragwort when it is growing at that height.
As noble Lords have mentioned, the other key solution lies in good pasture management. Beyond publishing the code, the Government should give serious thought to that aspect when they come to consider reforming agri-environment schemes as areas become less stocked. Such approaches will make a difference.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for bringing forward the amendment but I, too, hope that he will not press it. I understand why he has introduced it. The death of horses and cattle is very unpleasant and we all wish to see the number of deaths reduced as far as possible.
As for parliamentary timing, I understand that if any amendment is pressed today the Bill will not proceed further. I believe that all noble Lords speaking to the Bill want it to get through but, to a certain extent, that will depend on the code. Having listened carefully and read in Hansard the report of the previous occasion when my noble friend Lord Rotherwick guided the Bill through on behalf of our Front Bench, I understand that the code cannot come into being until this has been agreed.
Having heard what has been said—I believe we are all on the same wavelength, if I may use that bad phraseology—perhaps I may add one further comment. Having kept horses and ponies—and scrubby ones at that—on many occasions over the years, I believe that, to a certain extent, it is up to those of us who have cattle and horses to do our best to ensure that ragwort is not found within the eating areas of our animals. I know that that is more difficult in the bigger public domain than in small paddocks.
As to the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, I tremble in my boots at the thought of the regulation involved in

1513
searching for ragwort in hay bales. There are genuine concerns but I hope that the code will overcome those expressed in the House today.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I support my noble friend's Bill. It is a very pretty little Bill and it is not very far reaching. It does not say that it will eradicate all ragwort or all cinnabar moths or any other insects. I think the ragwort fairy in the fairy book is very pretty and attractive. There will still be ragwort, but not near horses. This is a very modest little Bill, so I hope that the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will not press their amendments.
11.15p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the House knows, the Government strongly support this Bill and would not wish to see an amendment. However, it is important to stress to the right reverend Prelate and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, who will speak shortly, that the Bill does not envisage the eradication of ragwort, as the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, has just indicated. It is about the control of the spread of ragwort and about putting the responsibility on landowners and land managers to ensure that it does not spread.
The right reverend Prelate's amendment would effectively restrict the effect to where horses were involved. As the noble Lord, Lord Neill, said, this is a problem not only for horses: other livestock are involved. It would also mean that the responsibility was shifted away from the landowners on to the horse owners. Although I accept the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that horse owners have some responsibility in this area, responsibility for the limitation of ragwort must rest with the landowners or the land managers. That is what the Bill states at present and what the code of practice will turn into a real power and responsibility.
I therefore hope that the right reverend Prelate will not pursue his amendment. Along with the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, I doubt whether this is the right reverend Prelate's last intervention in this Chamber. Nevertheless, I join her in my respect for his interventions in these rural debates and offer him best wishes for his retirement.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I hope that what I am about to say will help the right reverend Prelate. Ragwort is the silent killer. Ragwort poisoning kills hundreds of horses every year, often with little or no warning, and there is no known cure. It is vital, therefore, that farmers and landowners stay vigilant and take immediate action against this lethal plant.
At least 500 horses a year die from the natural born killer. Dr Derek Knottenbelt of the equine division of the University of Liverpool thinks the figure is much higher.
1514
Cattle are about halfway between horses and sheep in terms of the effects of ragwort poisoning. They need protecting too. Humans may be affected through cows' milk and bees' honey. The World Health Organisation has reported on this.
I have been concerned that some very experienced country Members of your Lordships' House have been picking ragwort with bare hands, not wearing protective gloves. Ragwort is toxic: the toxins in ragwort are alkaloids, which cause huge liver damage by attacking the DNA. Ragwort poisoning is an end-stage liver disease. Nothing can be done to save horses and other animals once it reaches 75 per cent, and nobody knows when this level is reached.
This Bill, which needs protecting tonight, will help to educate many people throughout the country about the devastation which ragwort poisoning can cause, especially to horse owners. The Bill will not eradicate ragwort; it aims to control it.
I thank all noble Lords who have supported the Bill this evening. I hope that the right reverend Prelate, for whom I have great respect, will not insist on his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I thank those who have taken part in this brief debate. I certainly do not want to prolong matters at this late hour.
I had hoped to hear rather more robust support for the nature conservancy cause, particularly from the Minister. I tabled the amendment because there is a great deal of unease about the possible consequences of the Bill—small and modest as it seems—in tipping the balance in favour of the eradication of ragwort, although the Minister said that was not the intention, and is probably not possible. There was a good deal of unease in nature conservancy circles when the Bill was published, and a sense that the importance of ragwort as an ecological or food plant had not really been recognised.
I suspect that most noble Lords who have spoken in the debate have probably not read in full the draft code of practice, which I read this afternoon. I was personally reassured by it, and I hope that the Minister can confirm that the form in which it now exists—I know that it is only a draft—is the form in which it will be published, with proper safeguards from the point of view of nature conservancy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 2:
Leave out Clause 1.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if the attendance of some noble Lords at this hour owes anything to alarms and excursions evinced by either the British Horse Society or the ILPH because of my own actions, I can only apologise to them. I understand that my notice of seeking to leave out Clause 1 was treated as a wrecking amendment by the British Horse Society, but I must say that the society did not get in touch with me to

1515
inquire my purpose. The amendment was agreed with the Minister as a device to enable us, in the remaining stages, to carry on with him the dialogue embarked on at Second Reading about the underlying principles of the code of practice, which lie at the heart of the legislation.
We veterans of the Second Reading have been joined this evening by, among others, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, who in one of his final speeches in your Lordships' House shared a number of my concerns. I echo the words of my noble friend Lady Trumpington towards him at this moment in his career in your Lordships' House.
I believed that I had made it clear on Second Reading—not once but three times—that I wished the Bill and horses well. As other noble Lords have said, since amendments of any sort carried at this time in the Session, whether wrecking or otherwise, would kill the Bill, I suggested that we proceed by way of dialogue rather than hostility or confrontation. We are doing that on Report rather than in Committee simply because of a request to me from the Front Benches of both sides that the Committee stage should be concluded undebated. With the right reverend Prelate in the Chamber, I hesitate to embark on theology, but the lack of vocal state of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on that day implied that a silent Committee stage was an example of divine providence.
I make it clear now, beyond peradventure, so that any noble Lord who wants to leave now can do so, that I do not intend to seek to divide the House. I have three questions to ask, and one observation to make. I shall get the latter out of the way first. I attach no blame to the Minister and suppose that I am blaming Murphy's law, but two things went wrong with the support arrangements on the Bill.
First, the department wrote on 24th October, a week after Second Reading, to the outside interested parties, including the Wildlife and Countryside Link, which in particular had provided briefing on Second Reading, telling it of the revised regulatory impact assessment, to which I shall refer henceforward as the RIA. The Minister referred to it on Second Reading. The communication with outside parties implied that it was enclosed with the letter. I cannot speak for others on the departmental mailing list, but a copy of the revised RIA was not enclosed to the link and, with the current postal difficulties, a copy was secured only by a personal visit to Defra on the eve of the Committee stage.
Simultaneously, the revised RIA in the Library, which the Minister said that he had caused to be placed there on Second Reading, turned out in the event to be the original RIA. I pressed the Library on whether that was correct, and was told that it had arrived on 16th October, on the eve of Second Reading. I realise that the mistake may have occurred in the Library, but the other case suggests that the balance of probability lies elsewhere.
As I say, I do not blame anyone for that series of events, but it has made it a little more difficult to scrutinise the Bill efficiently and, most importantly, timeously.
My first question refers to the revised RIA. On Second Reading, I said that the link was anxious to see more detailed proof of the scale of the problem in terms of equine deaths through ragwort poisoning. The Minister referred in his speech on Second Reading to the RIA, or indeed the revised RIA, which increased the estimate of deaths by extrapolating them from a 4 per cent return to a survey by the British Equine Veterinary Association. I cannot help feeling that that may have been an advance in numbers from 4,000 in the original RIA to a new figure of 6,500, but on the slender basis of the 4 per cent return, that was done at the expense of credibility. I do not know whether any further essay is intended on the scale of the problem but would be interested to know. I repeat that I am not challenging the fact of poisoning itself.
Secondly, I have as a result of Second Reading become aware of the draft code of practice. I am grateful for the opportunity afforded since then, not least through the right reverend Prelate, to be able to read it. I congratulate the department on its comprehensiveness. I am, however, conscious of the continuing anxiety of the Link about the dangers to non-target species from control by a non-ragwort-specific herbicide which I will refer to, for the purposes of this debate, by the ugly word ragworticide. I have noted the cautionary paragraphs in the draft code. I am thinking of paragraphs 144, 151, 153 and 158–160, winding up with table 3 on page 22.1 am also conscious that, on Second Reading, the Minister indicated that he would revisit the draft code in the aftermath of the Second Reading debate.
I am also conscious that the British Horse Society supports in writing the principle of the Government undertaking an environment impact assessment in relation to the code. But I am not clear if the Government explicitly accept that need, or whether they feel that what they have already put into the code adequately reflects the potential impact of control through herbicides on non-target species and indeed what those non-target species affected by ragwort control would be.
Finally, but at a lower order of importance, because truth presumably lies between the two extremes that I quoted at Second Reading, which the right reverend Prelate quoted again tonight, I wonder whether the Minister has anything to say about how far ragwort seed can travel. I calibrated the extremes which the right reverend Prelate quoted on Second Reading, at col. 1240 of the Official Report, I should be entirely content if it were easier for the Minister to write to me about that than speak to it tonight. However, the one price I would exact in exchange is for him to say tonight whether, in response to what my noble friend Lord Rotherwick said indeed I said myself, he intends to expand the references to pasture management, to which the right reverend prelate also referred tonight. The principle of pasture management seem potentially the most effective methods of ragwort control of all and a rather more would seem to me to be helpful.
In conclusion, I hope that the Bill gets on the statute book. I congratulate all those whose efforts have gone into making that possible. I am delighted that the voice of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has returned.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, knows that I cannot accept his amendment. So I am very pleased that he is not going to press it. As the Bill must leave your Lordships' House intact, as we are running out of time, that is absolutely vital. However, I thank the noble Lord for giving us a chance of further debate even though it is very late. I thank everyone for staying at this late hour.
I hope that ragwort-free hay can be organised in the code of practice. We have a duty of care to try to protect horses and other animals. I hope that the code of practice will help to educate all the people concerned and give information to those who need it. Ragwort is already in the Weeds Act 1959. Therefore, it is the code of practice that is so important for this Bill. The code of practice will have to be laid before Parliament and will give all sorts of groups of people the chance openly to debate the problems. If anything was to happen to this Bill, there would be many disappointed people who are trying their best to encourage good practice.
We need more research into this dangerous weed. I congratulate Dr Knottenbelt of Liverpool University on his work and his enthusiasm in this matter, the British Horse Society on the part it has played in the Bill and the Government on their support. I also, of course, congratulate the mover of the Bill, the Member for Ryedale. I thank the Government for all their support and help on this matter and for the help that will be provided during the rest of the Bill's passage. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, before we conclude this debate I owe it to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, to make a number of points on behalf of the Government. Clearly, I support the Bill and I very much appreciate the fact that the noble Baroness has brought it forward.
There are only three issues. First, I believe there have been some communications difficulties for which I can only apologise to the noble Lord and anyone else who suffered from the non-communication of the revised RIA. I am sorry if that led to some misunderstanding about the Bill. Secondly, the code of practice is still out for consultation which is why I could not give an utterly definitive reply to the right reverend Prelate. I have explained the structure of our approach, but clearly there are other aspects, including pasture management, which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, raised, which could perhaps do with some further attention. Certainly, views on that will be taken into account before we finalise the code of practice.
1518
Thirdly, regarding the basic issue of the vulnerability of horses and other livestock to ragwort, a straight extrapolation of the survey carried out by the equine vets may reveal only the extreme end of the problem. Nevertheless, the very detailed work that Liverpool University did, and to which the noble Baroness referred, indicates a very serious problem of ragwort poisoning in the equine population. As the noble Lord, Lord Neill, said, it goes beyond the equine population. It therefore behoves the Government and landowners to do something about the problem.
There is also a biodiversity concern here. We hope that those who approached the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and others, about their concerns on this front are reassured that we do not seek the eradication of ragwort. Ragwort will continue to exist in our countryside, our fields and hedgerows. However, where it is most likely to be eaten by horses and livestock, there is an obligation on landowners to limit its spread. Therefore, the source of habitat and food for moths and other creatures that are dependent on ragwort—quite apart from the species to which the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, referred—will still exist. I believe that the biodiversity concerns have been exaggerated. Certainly, it is the intention behind the code of practice to ensure that those biodiversity concerns are met through the way in which we implement the powers in the Bill.
I hope with that assurance—the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, raised one or two other matters on which I shall write to him—that the noble Lord will not press the amendment tonight and that the Bill will complete its passage through this House to the great relief of many horse owners and other owners of livestock.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is any research being done on the extent of the spread? A reply on that point would be helpful to my noble friend. That question has been asked in another place and in this House. If there is no such research, is it likely that some work will be done on the matter as that would be a huge help in controlling the future spread of ragwort?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, some university research is being conducted on that matter but I cannot say whether there is a project directed specifically at the spread of ragwort. Therefore, I cannot reply to that point. I shall try to cover it in correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I want to press again the question of control by chemicals, and safeguards that need to be built into the code of practice about avoiding non-target species that could suffer if that form of control were ever used. Can some stronger safeguards be built into the code? Chemical control of ragwort needs to be highly specific. That is difficult, granted the nature of herbicides to be used. If there were more safeguards along those lines, we would feel reassured.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, in Yorkshire two years ago, there was an immense amount of flooding. After that there seemed to be an upsurge of ragwort, and it is thought that some of the seeds were carried down in the water in the rivers and spread around. I agree that there is a need for more research.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, normal wind conditions are clearly not the only way in which ragwort seed is spread. That is certainly true. It is also spread by animals and vehicles. We need to take account of all those factors.
The right reverend Prelate made a point about the application of herbicides. The code already talks about targeted use. If we are trying to restrict the effect on any other hedgerow and field plants, we clearly need to
1520
ensure that that is as tight as possible. Representations on that front will clearly be taken into account in drafting the final version of the code of practice.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am not sure whether it is appropriate for me to utter very much, as I have already indicated that I shall not press the amendment. I thank everyone who has spoken, and I particularly appreciate the manner in which the Minister responded to me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Fire Services Bill
Bill returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before midnight.

  Waterways Ireland
  Waterways Ireland
  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies
  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies
  Stormont Estate: Car Parking Provision
  Stormont Estate: Car Parking Provision
  East Belfast: Environmental Improvement Scheme and Road Junctions
  East Belfast: Environmental Improvement Scheme and Road Junctions
  Northern Ireland: Judicial Review Against Public Authorities
  Northern Ireland: Judicial Review Against Public Authorities
  North/South Language Body
  North/South Language Body
  Northern Ireland: Smoking
  Northern Ireland: Smoking
  Northern Ireland: Tourism
  Northern Ireland: Tourism
  North/South Ministerial Council: Budget
  North/South Ministerial Council: Budget
  Office of the Northern Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions
  Office of the Northern Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions
  Northern Ireland: East/West School Projects
  Northern Ireland: East/West School Projects
  Northern Ireland: Multiculturalism
  Northern Ireland: Multiculturalism
  Northern Ireland Departments: Complaints of Maladministration
  Northern Ireland Departments: Complaints of Maladministration
  Ministers and Officials: Media Contacts
  Ministers and Officials: Media Contacts
  Legislation: Statements of Principle
  Legislation: Statements of Principle
  Cambridge-St Ives Guided Busway
  Cambridge-St Ives Guided Busway
  HW Points Machines
  HW Points Machines
  Iraq: Oil Sector Repairs
  Iraq: Oil Sector Repairs
  Morning-after Pill
  Morning-after Pill
  Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency: Staff
  Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency: Staff
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: Annual Report and Accounts 2003
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: Annual Report and Accounts 2003
  Government Websites
  Government Websites
  Local Authorities: Charges for Discretionary Services
  Local Authorities: Charges for Discretionary Services